The ethics of homosexuality.

[jayleew]

There are very few such quotes, and even fewer in which they profess any specific adherence to faith as opposed to a general idea of a benevolent creator and an obligation of men to do good by one another.

Few? Here's a good one:
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Patrick Henry says that this nation was founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Thomas Jefferson:
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.

Did you know Christianity was taught in schools back then?

Jedediah Morse:
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."
So true, it is happening as you said Mr. Morse.

Thomas Paine:
He definitely was a Deist.

Benjamin Rush:
"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”

George Washington has an entire journal of daily prayers from dusk to dawn, but here is a good quote from him:
“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
Yup.

James Wilson:
"Christianity is part of the common law"

That is where i'll stop. That is what I am trying to say here. If you doubt the faith of these men who sound just like Christians today, you are a fool. There is mountain more evidence. The founders were indeed Christians, there is no denying the mountain of evidence. The founders didn't want Christianity running the government, but that it be run by Christian people.

Did you know it was a requirement to be a Christian to hold offices in nearly all of the states.

Here's some of the state's constitutions:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/constitution.html

Now that I have uncovered the mountain of evidence that I was told was there, it cannot be denied that America was founded on Christianity.

No I'm certain of the distinction. Any profession of a Christian Identity on the founding fathers part would have been much like the bulk of America's "Christians". Few have read the bible, fewer still actually go to church regularly, they believe in God in a general sense but don't exactly adhere to any specific dogma or doctrine, and associate with a Christian identity mostly because of the fact that it's a societal defacto.

It is a sad fact. My church is full of them. We hold standards of who can run our church, but not who can attend.

Well yes it can be, but that's another topic all together. In this situation, however, I would contest that your evidence of the founding fathers as pious religious men is not only false, but it also contradicts every authoritative historical record and perspective that we have.

This statement is just silly with how much historical record there is.

If you want proof then I'd encourage you to crack open any American history text book, head back to the index look up "rationalism" and then read up a bit. This is a pretty basic part of American history and there's not much dispute about it. I really had no idea that there was such a religious smoke-screen about the issue, but the historical record is quite clear about the time and people.

American history textbooks have been watered down and neutralized because of the Church and State problem.

Also give these wikipedia links a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

There was a lot of information on Thomas Paine and quotes from him. The other founding fathers had no quotes listed. Their biographies were interesting and it claims that some of the founders were Deist like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, but had zero evidence of their belief. That encylopedia needs a little work. It is a good basic source, but is just a summary, just like any encylopedia.

I hate to break it to you but both of these things are relatively new developments. "In God We Trust" was added to the dollar bill by FDR's treasury department in the 1930s, and "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s, both to appease the radical religious movements of their day. Part of an ongoing effort toward revisionist history, I'd say, but that does sound slightly paranoid.

The term "In God We Trust" was first printed on coins in 1861. James Polluck ran a mint and started that. In 1908 it was required on selected denominations. It is true congress passed a law to make it appear on all currency in 1955.
http://www.coinlibrary.com/info/ingodwetrust.html
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

Trust me, with the way so many Christians shout their beliefs out to the hills and march in the streets with it, it's not hard to figure out what your thoughts are. Also, do you truly believe that you're the only one qualified to understand the writings of long dead people who's time and place in the world it seems you know very little of? Most did have a belief in a God, it's true, but they were not Christians as you seem to think of them, and weren't particularly ardent in their faith.

I'm not the only one, but most "Christians" are not qualified to understand the writings.

So it is the spirit of the law, not the letter, which truly matters? Should the condemnation of homosexuality in ancient Jewish writings meant for conduct among members of their priesthood in religious ceremonies, which is oddly juxtaposed next to a condemnation of shrimp which is three times as harsh, really a valid ground upon which to oppose extending the legal rights and considerations of marriage to loving monogamous married same-sex couples? For that matter, if specific blessings from god are needed for a marriage, then should members of other religions be allowed to marry? Should atheists?

This is kind of murky water we're getting into here, isn't it?

The problem is that Atheists and members of other religions are not threatening the sanctity of marriage. The current set of ethics say that homosexuality is wrong and a threat to what a marriage is defined as. Allowing homosexuals to marry would be the same thing as the government saying homosexuality is okay. The problem with that is the current set of morals, which influence the government say it's not okay.

Religious morals, you mean? Other people's morals as they apply to your religion to be more specific. Is it your inherent right to impose your religious views on others simply because you believe that it is in accordance with your own morality? Shouldn't others be allowed at least some small control of their life, a little wiggle room when you speak out on an issue? You do realize how amazingly authoritarian making decisions like this for other people is, don't you?

No, it is not my right to impose, but it is the government's right to make laws by the people that reflect what the people says is right or wrong.

You're describing theocracy, it's our major problem in the Middle east at the moment. Would you really like to make the US so much more like Saudi Arabia? Go read the bible a few more times over, trust me, you don't want that as your legal book, not unless you like a stone in the face for talking back to someone.

The church should not run the government and the government should not run the church, that is where it ends. We are talking about the laws that are birthed from the ethics of the people.

Are you implying that a Judge of a particular religion should let their faith determine their actions? That's pure madness. Do you think a Christian Judge would really give you a fairer judgement than any other? I should certainly hope that that's never the case. When on the bench a Judge has only one obligation and that is to our nation's laws, not to their personal faith.

Madness? Look at the judgements made today if you want to see madness.

I fear the judgement of an unrighteous man. I would rather have one of ethical, honorable, and loveable ethics who used the law to judge, but not biased as to preconceptions and stereotypes. Christians are not immune to these, but it helps when you are.

Would it upset you to have a judge who's opinions and views on an issue change as he's exposed to more information about it, and learns more about it, or is initial rock hard gut-instinct always the way to go? How would you feel about a judge who’s been on the bench since the 60s trying a black man? If he supported segregation at the time, would it be best that he remain unwavering?

Again, I am against changing morality for the worse. If the current laws are unethical they need to be changed, if the current laws are ethical, nothing needs to be changed.

 

[jayleew]

Well... to be honest, for the reasons I stated above. I wanted to please my family. I have a sibling that was pretty much disowned by my parents for a decision they made. My family is really big with appearance. Shallow, but that's the facts. So having a lesbian daughter, well it just really doesn't fit into the conversation on Sunday mornings at their church. I had a lot of pressure in my family- I was looked upon and treated very differently because of my sexual preference. Mystech was pretty right- the pressures are enormous, especially for a 20 year old back then. I wanted so badly to be accepted, I wanted so badly to please my family...I chose to deny who I was, and I have to tell you it was very wrong, Max. I'm not sure you could fully understand, nothing to do with you at all, I just strongly believe it's something you have to experience living day in and day out at that time in your life (youth) to understand the pressures.

Yes, you were born that way. I was born a thief and I remember the desires I had to steal. It felt unnatural to go against who I was, afterall I could get things I wanted and have everything I wanted. I had a troubled childhood because of it. I still fight the urge to steal, but I choose not to because God said I shouldn't. If I didn't believe in God, I would probably be in jail.

I still have to ask: Why does it seem so neccesary to get married? Do you, and others, feel that marriage is the only way to "affirm" your love? That just seems like a major stretch to me ....there must be millions of ways, including legal contracts and such.
I'm with Mystech on this one. I think that question should be answered to those who are afforded the luxury of marriage to the person of their choice, namely heterosexuals. You ask why it's necessary- I'm asking you why you feel it's necessary to have a say in who I (or any other homosexual/lesbian) marry?
Marriage is not what it was in the past, so in some respects I could care less. However, marriage is still revered by Christians, so you will have resistance. We have read about this behavior in the past with the Romans. We have read about this behavior countless times in scripture. So, Christians will fight you tooth and nail.

Sort of gives us a bad name, but we cannot stand by while the nation is hijacked by immorality. In this day and age, what is immoral anyway? If it can be done, it's been done.

Just remember ....kids under 18 can't get married either. You homos are just one of a group of others that's not permitted to marry. Tough shit. I can't marry my goat, either ....but we're still happy together
There is a big f'ing difference between having consensual sex with a person and that of an animal. An animal has no say, Max. God, your thinking scares me man.[/QUOTE]
If you think an animal will not have consensual sex with you, you need to observe their behavior. It is in their instinct to breed. God is not with you (but wants to be), so please do not use his name in vain.

You want so bad for your behavior to be accepted. I know. Every hetero male in his unchecked heart wants to have sex with every female so bad that the lust burns in him. Does this mean we should make that okay too? It won't be long before "The Pursuit of Happiness" will be fully realized. Everyone wants to do whatever they want. Soon. Your time will come soon, just keep at it! You will have your wish soon enough because people are confused about what is right and wrong today. Just read the news and even these forums and you will see the relative morality that is rampant. Even this forum was created because there is controversy on what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is unethical today, and I think it will be ethical tomorrow. The hearts of men are guiding morality, and that is not going to be pretty in the end.

 

[heart]

Yes, you were born that way. I was born a thief and I remember the desires I had to steal. It felt unnatural to go against who I was, afterall I could get things I wanted and have everything I wanted. I had a troubled childhood because of it. I still fight the urge to steal, but I choose not to because God said I shouldn't. If I didn't believe in God, I would probably be in jail.
Wow, so you are comparing my sexual preference with being a thief??? Thanks, J..thanks a lot. I guess I have a better grasp on your bizarre and twisted thinking. I am surprised you didn't throw the P word out there, you know pedophilia. I guess you knowing that I'm a woman, you opted not to, being that a huge amount of pedophilia's are men. Should I equate all Catholic priests to being a pedophile? Also, I have news for you, J, there are a large amount of gays that believe in the Biblical God. Have a look at godlovesgays.com

However, marriage is still revered by Christians, so you will have resistance. We have read about this behavior in the past with the Romans. We have read about this behavior countless times in scripture. So, Christians will fight you tooth and nail.
Again, I'd like to point out that there are more than just heterosexuals that believe in the biblical God. Not all christians are heterosexual, J. I get your point though- prejudice isn't something that is innate, it is taught, J.

You want so bad for your behavior to be accepted. I know. Every hetero male in his unchecked heart wants to have sex with every female so bad that the lust burns in him. Does this mean we should make that okay too?
Now you are comparing the love I have for my female partner to lust. I LOVE her with all of my heart. Maybe that is something you have a hard time comprehending, J. It can be done though- I and other gays are proof that we can have a very loving and monogamous relationship. So no, this isn't lust, J.

You will have your wish soon enough because people are confused about what is right and wrong today. Just read the news and even these forums and you will see the relative morality that is rampant. Even this forum was created because there is controversy on what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is unethical today, and I think it will be ethical tomorrow. The hearts of men are guiding morality, and that is not going to be pretty in the end.
Well, J, that is up for interpretation really. Let me close with this though. According to your interpretation of the Bible, homosexuality is wrong/sinful. So then why are obese, drunk, greedy, etc...allow to marry? It cracks me up how the many overweight preachers get up there an point their finger at this sin and that, when they engage in gluttony! One of the 7 deadly sins. So who governs what sin is "acceptable", J? Shouldn't they be penalized like you want us to be? [sarcasm]Maybe we should put a limit on how many calories the overweight can consume in a day?[/sarcasm] You know, there is a scripture in the Bible that goes something like this,

Luke 6:41-42
"And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying, `Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

 

[jayleew]

Wow, so you are comparing my sexual preference with being a thief??? Thanks, J..thanks a lot. I guess I have a better grasp on your bizarre and twisted thinking. I am surprised you didn't throw the P word out there, you know pedophilia. I guess you knowing that I'm a woman, you opted not to, being that a huge amount of pedophilia's are men. Should I equate all Catholic priests to being a pedophile? Also, I have news for you, J, there are a large amount of gays that believe in the Biblical God. Have a look at godlovesgays.com

Biblically and Christian ethically speaking, yes sin is sin.

I am aware of the theist gays who give Christianity a bad name, yes. People have twisted scriptures to fit their lifestyle for years. Jesus called these people snakes and a brood of vipers. They claim Christianity, but do not live a Christian life. So, here we are. Where so many have misconceptions of Christianity. The letter of Paul to the Romans spoke against homosexual Christians among other things.

You want so bad for your behavior to be accepted. I know. Every hetero male in his unchecked heart wants to have sex with every female so bad that the lust burns in him. Does this mean we should make that okay too?
Now you are comparing the love I have for my female partner to lust. I LOVE her with all of my heart. Maybe that is something you have a hard time comprehending, J. It can be done though- I and other gays are proof that we can have a very loving and monogamous relationship. So no, this isn't lust, J.

Wrong, the only difference between your relationship and a regular friendship is sex. Sex has only one purpose. We do it to satisfy the lust in each other. Paul also said that we should marry to keep from sinning.

Well, J, that is up for interpretation really. Let me close with this though. According to your interpretation of the Bible, homosexuality is wrong/sinful. So then why are obese, drunk, greedy, etc...allow to marry? It cracks me up how the many overweight preachers get up there an point their finger at this sin and that, when they engage in gluttony! One of the 7 deadly sins. So who governs what sin is "acceptable", J? Shouldn't they be penalized like you want us to be? [sarcasm]Maybe we should put a limit on how many calories the overweight can consume in a day?[/sarcasm] You know, there is a scripture in the Bible that goes something like this,

Are they gluttonous today, or living with body that is scarred by their past? What about slow metabolism?

Yes, overindulgence of anything is sin.
The difference between those sinners and homosexuals, is that they are not eaily detectable and can sin between God and themselves for quite some time. They are not open because they are ashamed, and still want to be greedy and drunk. They should not be a leader of the church if they are found out.

Another difference is homosexuality is connected with marriage because of sex. Drunkenness, greed, and gluttony have nothing to do with sex in marriage.

Again, your statement shows the warped view of Christians that was caused by respectable "Christians" who try to remove the speck in the eye of another with a 2X4 in their own eye. Those Christians make the whole faith seem silly. I wouldn't follow Christ if I had not found him personally. You will never find Christ by hearing a preacher speak. You may be inspired by his Christ-like actions and speech, and guided by a preacher, but true Christianity comes from a personal encounter with Christ. It is the only way to be a Christian. God does the work, we plant the seed. So many Christians think it is other way around.

 

[heart]

Biblically and Christian ethically speaking, yes sin is sin.
Well, you are entitled to believe how you choose, J. Just remember- you cannot prove your beliefs are fact. You choose to embrace them for you. So you see homosexuality as a "sin", fine. Don't be one. I don't believe nor follow "your" way. Opinion is one thing, fact is another. I choose not to believe that a true God would be so petty, as the one described in the Bible.

I am aware of the theist gays who give Christianity a bad name, yes.
According to whose measure, J? Judge not least you be judged according ot your own measure, eh. Careful there.

People have twisted scriptures to fit their lifestyle for years.
You mean like the church that goes around preaching "God hates fags"? Yeah, using it as a stepping stone to promote their hate. http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/

Jesus called these people snakes and a brood of vipers. They claim Christianity, but do not live a Christian life. So, here we are. Where so many have misconceptions of Christianity. The letter of Paul to the Romans spoke against homosexual Christians among other things.
The link I gave you discusses such, that is if you're "really" interested. I could care one way or the other, as I don't think a true God would be so petty, hence one of the many reasons I'm not a believer in the biblical god.

Wrong, the only difference between your relationship and a regular friendship is sex. Sex has only one purpose. We do it to satisfy the lust in each other. Paul also said that we should marry to keep from sinning.
Well, I don't know how you have "sex", J. When I do so with my partner, it is motivated by love. If all I wanted to do is have sex, I could do that with anyone. I CHOOSE to with my partner BECAUSE I LOVE her. There is a difference in just having sex and actually making love. Maybe lust is your only intention/motivation when you engage with whomever, but don't include me in your statement. Again, your beliefs are not mine. You choose Christianity, and that is fine for you. I don't and that is fine for me.

Are they gluttonous today, or living with body that is scarred by their past? What about slow metabolism?
I'm talking about the preachers that are shoveling ice cream sundays and banana splits down so fast it would give you a brain freeze. YES, I actually know some. I'm sure they would appreciate your automatic defense though.

Yes, overindulgence of anything is sin.
The difference between those sinners and homosexuals, is that they are not eaily detectable and can sin between God and themselves for quite some time.
I can spot an obese person really fast. All we have to do is watch their eating habits, wouldnt' be too awfully hard to monitor. After all sin is sin, and we should look at them every bit as much as we do the more "obvious" sinners such as me. Or has Christianity become too lazy to do such a thing? Or do you think having someone, other than God, up your ass telling you how you should walk, talk, eat, have sex a little too much?

Another difference is homosexuality is connected with marriage because of sex. Drunkenness, greed, and gluttony have nothing to do with sex in marriage.
Yes, yes, this is true. That's why I added the sarcasm about allowing so many calories for the obese. The point being, if others are penalized then everyone should be, according to their own sin, huh? Don't go and feed me all this God stuff and how he is our only judge...or otherwise, I'll tell you the same when it comes to legalizing marriage for homosexuals, and tell you to kindly butt out and let God deal with us.

I wouldn't follow Christ if I had not found him personally. You will never find Christ by hearing a preacher speak. You may be inspired by his Christ-like actions and speech, and guided by a preacher, but true Christianity comes from a personal encounter with Christ. It is the only way to be a Christian. God does the work, we plant the seed. So many Christians think it is other way around.
Yeah, and Santa brings the christmas presents for all to open on Christmas morn. As I said before, you have a right to believe in what you want, just as I do.

 

[jayleew]

Biblically and Christian ethically speaking, yes sin is sin.
Well, you are entitled to believe how you choose, J. Just remember- you cannot prove your beliefs are fact. You choose to embrace them for you. So you see homosexuality as a "sin", fine. Don't be one. I don't believe nor follow "your" way. Opinion is one thing, fact is another. I choose not to believe that a true God would be so petty, as the one described in the Bible.

I can prove my beliefs, Biblically speaking. But it does no good for those such as yourself for us to debate the nature of God when we are not debating that here. If you would like to debate the true Chrisianity, let's do it in private. I only brought up the beliefs of Christians to explain why Chrsitians are against homosexuality.

I am aware of the theist gays who give Christianity a bad name, yes.
According to whose measure, J? Judge not least you be judged according ot your own measure, eh. Careful there.

Those laws are concerning those who are not Christians. It says in sciptures that if we think someone is sinning in the church we go and say it to them, if that doesn't work we take a third party, then the church, then for the sake of the church, out you go if you refuse to stop sinning...you are no longer a Christian.

People have twisted scriptures to fit their lifestyle for years.
You mean like the church that goes around preaching "God hates fags"? Yeah, using it as a stepping stone to promote their hate. http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/

Yup, that's what I mean. Actually, God loves the sinners. Jesus came for the sick, not for the healthy. This website is extreme and not sound doctrine.

Jesus called these people snakes and a brood of vipers. They claim Christianity, but do not live a Christian life. So, here we are. Where so many have misconceptions of Christianity. The letter of Paul to the Romans spoke against homosexual Christians among other things.
The link I gave you discusses such, that is if you're "really" interested. I could care one way or the other, as I don't think a true God would be so petty, hence one of the many reasons I'm not a believer in the biblical god.

I'm sorry, that is God, so I guess that is why you are not a believer of God as you said.

Wrong, the only difference between your relationship and a regular friendship is sex. Sex has only one purpose. We do it to satisfy the lust in each other. Paul also said that we should marry to keep from sinning.
Well, I don't know how you have "sex", J. When I do so with my partner, it is motivated by love. If all I wanted to do is have sex, I could do that with anyone. I CHOOSE to with my partner BECAUSE I LOVE her. There is a difference in just having sex and actually making love. Maybe lust is your only intention/motivation when you engage with whomever, but don't include me in your statement. Again, your beliefs are not mine. You choose Christianity, and that is fine for you. I don't and that is fine for me.

I am madly in love with my brother. The love you speak of is different than that. It is influenced by attraction, both physical and mental.

Are they gluttonous today, or living with body that is scarred by their past? What about slow metabolism?
I'm talking about the preachers that are shoveling ice cream sundays and banana splits down so fast it would give you a brain freeze. YES, I actually know some. I'm sure they would appreciate your automatic defense though.

Yes. You see, there are few Christians who would have the nerve to stand up to those preachers. We are to do so. Not in a mean way, but to remind them of the scriptures.

Yes, overindulgence of anything is sin.
The difference between those sinners and homosexuals, is that they are not eaily detectable and can sin between God and themselves for quite some time.
I can spot an obese person really fast. All we have to do is watch their eating habits, wouldnt' be too awfully hard to monitor. After all sin is sin, and we should look at them every bit as much as we do the more "obvious" sinners such as me. Or has Christianity become too lazy to do such a thing? Or do you think having someone, other than God, up your ass telling you how you should walk, talk, eat, have sex a little too much?

We should, but many Christians are luke-warm as the scriptures say.
I only brought up Christianity to explain how Christians have ethics that are echoed in our laws.

Another difference is homosexuality is connected with marriage because of sex. Drunkenness, greed, and gluttony have nothing to do with sex in marriage.
Yes, yes, this is true. That's why I added the sarcasm about allowing so many calories for the obese. The point being, if others are penalized then everyone should be, according to their own sin, huh? Don't go and feed me all this God stuff and how he is our only judge...or otherwise, I'll tell you the same when it comes to legalizing marriage for homosexuals, and tell you to kindly butt out and let God deal with us.

Point taken there. I will not push the issue.

I wouldn't follow Christ if I had not found him personally. You will never find Christ by hearing a preacher speak. You may be inspired by his Christ-like actions and speech, and guided by a preacher, but true Christianity comes from a personal encounter with Christ. It is the only way to be a Christian. God does the work, we plant the seed. So many Christians think it is other way around.
Yeah, and Santa brings the christmas presents for all to open on Christmas morn. As I said before, you have a right to believe in what you want, just as I do.

Yes, to each his own. I will only explain the scriptures here if it is misquoted, stretched, or stereotyped as according to most "Christians" behavior.

 

[Yorda]

Everything you say is bullshit. There's not the slightest doubt about it. IT IS OUT OF THE QUESTION!

 

[SpyMoose]

Wrong, the only difference between your relationship and a regular friendship is sex. Sex has only one purpose. We do it to satisfy the lust in each other. Paul also said that we should marry to keep from sinning.

How can you expect to be taken seriously by other posters when you argue by telling them who they do or do not love? Did Jesus come in a vision to tell you that she does not love her partner, and that it is just a regular friendship plus sexual favors? I’m surprised she wasn’t harsher in her response to you.

You also imply that she should marry to keep from sinning, which is comical at best. Didn't we already cover how this sort of reasoning is tantamount to promotion of a rape culture where we homosexuals must submit our bodies to people who we do not wish to have sex with?

 

[SpyMoose]

Everything you say is bullshit. There's not the slightest doubt about it. IT IS OUT OF THE QUESTION!

Who were you saying this to? Also, the size of your font usually doesn’t win an argument, nor does simple cursing. We expend a great amount of mental effort trying to illustrate to people exactly why everything they say is bullshit. It’s much more constructive that way.

 

[jayleew]

How can you expect to be taken seriously by other posters when you argue by telling them who they do or do not love? Did Jesus come in a vision to tell you that she does not love her partner, and that it is just a regular friendship plus sexual favors? I’m surprised she wasn’t harsher in her response to you.

Here is what I meant to say, because I've obviously missed the mark. I'm not saying I know anyone's relationship:

What is the difference in relationship with your mom, friend, or any other significant other, and your wife, sexual partner, and any other name for someone whom you love (in that special way)?
The difference is between relationships, is that you are willing to share your body with them, right?

All I meant with that statement is that we have two different types of love, and one we are willing to share our all with (body, soul, secrets, etc.).

You also imply that she should marry to keep from sinning, which is comical at best. Didn't we already cover how this sort of reasoning is tantamount to promotion of a rape culture where we homosexuals must submit our bodies to people who we do not wish to have sex with?

Gooness, you don't follow.
Let's say a smart guy says, "To keep from everyone having sexual thoughts that get in the way of their personal life, or worse, cause you to rape someone, you should release those thoughts in a constructive manner. A good way to accomplish this in a civilized fashion is to find someone who you want to release those energies with, that you like on a personal level as well, and spend the rest of your life releasing your sexual energy with her, instead of going around raping people, or other immoral things."
Does that sound fair enough? That is all I meant. Paul said we should marry to keep from impure things like lust, rape, and unnatural habits (homosexuality, masturbation, other unnatural actions that the body is not designed for). This is common sense stuff. I don't know how you missed the point...

 

[SpyMoose]

Gooness, you don't follow.
Let's say a smart guy says, "To keep from everyone having sexual thoughts that get in the way of their personal life, or worse, cause you to rape someone, you should release those thoughts in a constructive manner. A good way to accomplish this in a civilized fashion is to find someone who you want to release those energies with, that you like on a personal level as well, and spend the rest of your life releasing your sexual energy with her, instead of going around raping people, or other immoral things."
Does that sound fair enough? That is all I meant. Paul said we should marry to keep from impure things like lust, rape, and unnatural habits (homosexuality, masturbation, other unnatural actions that the body is not designed for). This is common sense stuff. I don't know how you missed the point...

I still think you are the one who is confused. If I am not attracted to a woman why would I find one to have sex with? How would my "impure energies" be satisfied by her, how would being made to follow this doctrine by a sanctimonious and self righteous society not be rape? You need to loose the idea that a homosexual can just be a heterosexual if only he will try. Homosexuality is still quite a taboo in or society and most every homosexual started out their sexual life thinking they were a heterosexual, and had to overcome the mental anguish of realizing that it isn’t so. Fearing the disappointment of parents, mocking of peers, and condemnation of bigots is a horrible thing. A lot of homosexuals stay “in the closet” because of it, but we can’t change. Most all of us tried, and we all had our homosexuality assert itself over our presumed heterosexuality.

As an aside, both homosexuality and masturbation are natural in that they occur in nature and serve healthy purposes for the individuals that engage in them. You mentioned the body not being "designed" for these activities, which is demonstratably false and displays your own unwillingness to think of anything but heterosexual intercourse when you think of sex. Why is a woman stimulated most by her clitoris? Shouldn't that bundle of nerves be inside her if its ment to be prodded at by a penis? Why is a mans prostate gland located so conveniently for stimulation during anal intercourse? Don't those sound like they were "designed" for the benifit of the homosexual?

 

[heart]

I can prove my beliefs, Biblically speaking. But it does no good for those such as yourself for us to debate the nature of God when we are not debating that here. If you would like to debate the true Chrisianity, let's do it in private. I only brought up the beliefs of Christians to explain why Chrsitians are against homosexuality.
Agreed, it wouldn't be appropriate to continue to do so. I really find it a tad comical,though, how you think you have "god" all figured out, and belittling homosexual christians all in the same breath. I'm not sure if you actually looked at http://godlovesgays.com, but they have quite a few things that can be read.

I have debated this subject (christian/homosexuals) so much I could puke. Although, I appreciate your offer to debate "true christianity", I must decline.

I'm sorry, that is God,
Again, according to the godlovegays.com site, they see different. Like I said though- I could care less one way or the other.

so I guess that is why you are not a believer of God as you said.
No, that is not "the" reason I'm not a believer in the biblical god. There are many different reasons.

I'm afraid I've cut out the rest of what I've written as it pertains to christianity, and as you have pointed out (which I agree) this is not the place.

 

[heart]

Paul said we should marry to keep from impure things like lust, rape, and unnatural habits (homosexuality, masturbation, other unnatural actions that the body is not designed for).

Excuse me, but SpyMoose has brought up a BIG valid point. To us (the homosexuals) to marry someone of the opposite sex would be just like rape. I have explained this in my own personal story. YOU may see homosexuality as impure, but that is your opinion.

 

[Mystech]

The problem is that Atheists and members of other religions are not threatening the sanctity of marriage. The current set of ethics say that homosexuality is wrong and a threat to what a marriage is defined as. Allowing homosexuals to marry would be the same thing as the government saying homosexuality is okay. The problem with that is the current set of morals, which influence the government say it's not okay.

How is it that they aren't breaking the sanctity of marriage? Atheists and members of other religions are breaking one of the commandments, if you ask me that's worse than breaking a tenant laid down in a hand-book for how a priest of the Jewish faith is to conduct himself in religious rituals.

What is it about homosexuals that makes their marriages defile the sanctity of marriage vs. Atheists and peoples of other faiths? Certainly they're unions are not blessed by God, he's specifically told them not to believe what they believe, and yet they sin and continue to sin unrepentantly. I fail to see how this would constitute two separate issues. On the same note, should people who have had premarital sex be allowed to marry? Should people who have divorsed be allowed to remarry? These are all biblicaly immoral acts, aren't they?

Homosexuality is unethical today, and I think it will be ethical tomorrow.

And by what criteria other than the bible could that be determined? I don't suppose I have to ask, as you seem to feel that purely theological reasoning is somehow an acceptable way to govern a body of diverse people in a nation which made a promise to it's people to remain secular.

Is the only thing that will allow a person's life to be unmolested and truly free and equal with his peers the simple luck to be born into a society where people of his own faith happen to be the majority? You do realize that this sort of reasoning leads to a totalitarian state, don't you? Our democracy was designed with protections of minorities from the tyranny of the majority for a reason. As I see it the 14th amendment should settle this dispute.

Regardless of what you may say about the founding fathers, you'd have to be quite deranged to read the constitution and determine that the founding fathers wanted the sort of nation that you describe. Ultimate power to a theological majority is not how America is supposed to work.

Just read the news and even these forums and you will see the relative morality that is rampant.

And is this necessarily a bad thing? What ever happened to live and let live? So long as someone else's ethics aren't resulting in some direct detrimental effect on your life, then where's the problem? Would Same sex partners being able to file taxes jointly, visit one another in a hospital, or settle the estate of a diseased spouse have some adverse effect on your life? Denying them these rights based solely on the idea that your personal morality disapproves of their relationship seems awfully mean spirited and petty to me. San Francisco hasn’t outlawed churches or visible crosses in public yet, you know, but if homosexuals were to take your lead then it could very well happen.

 

[SpyMoose]

The professed favorite Philosopher of our founding fathers was John Locke, not Jesus Christ. Locke's influence on our nations constitution is all over the constitution, but you have to make some pretty obtuse arguments to say that the constitution was written to appease Jesus.

 

[Mystech]

Those laws are concerning those who are not Christians. It says in sciptures that if we think someone is sinning in the church we go and say it to them, if that doesn't work we take a third party, then the church, then for the sake of the church, out you go if you refuse to stop sinning...you are no longer a Christian.

Odd, such a narrow view of Christianity. Given what you say here, do you really feel that the slave owning/raping pot smoking (even the constitution is written on cannabis hemp) war making blasphemers we call the founding fathers were Christians? I mean I guess they're exonerated by the bible when it comes to owning slaves, but everything else is pretty questionable.

Also, I've noticed that you refer to "The Church" quite often. Are you trying to express a bias toward Catholicism, or are protestant denominations acceptable as well? What about Mormons, out of curiosity? And where does all of this leave your espoused "personal acceptance of Christ"? I'm a little confused.

 

[SpyMoose]

He mentioned personaly knowing Christ before, and how that is the most important thing. So I would imagine he is one of the denominations who believes Catholics to be satan worshipers.

 

[jayleew]

Paul said we should marry to keep from impure things like lust, rape, and unnatural habits (homosexuality, masturbation, other unnatural actions that the body is not designed for).

Excuse me, but SpyMoose has brought up a BIG valid point. To us (the homosexuals) to marry someone of the opposite sex would be just like rape. I have explained this in my own personal story. YOU may see homosexuality as impure, but that is your opinion.

It is my opinion. All I am saying is that right now in the United States, the majority have deemed the behavior as immoral. The fact that states are (and some have been) working on ammending their marriage laws expresses the idea clearly. In effect, society says that it is immoral behavior. Right or wrong, it is immoral at this time.

 

[jayleew]

How is it that they aren't breaking the sanctity of marriage? Atheists and members of other religions are breaking one of the commandments, if you ask me that's worse than breaking a tenant laid down in a hand-book for how a priest of the Jewish faith is to conduct himself in religious rituals.

I think we both have two different definitions of "sanctity of marriage." My definition is: everything that is given as a right to two people who declare to be a couple. How are atheists and other religions threatening this one thing? Their other actions are a seperate issue. Here, we are talking about marriage.

What is it about homosexuals that makes their marriages defile the sanctity of marriage vs. Atheists and peoples of other faiths? Certainly they're unions are not blessed by God, he's specifically told them not to believe what they believe, and yet they sin and continue to sin unrepentantly. I fail to see how this would constitute two separate issues. On the same note, should people who have had premarital sex be allowed to marry? Should people who have divorsed be allowed to remarry? These are all biblicaly immoral acts, aren't they?

To answer your questions: Biblically, remarriage of divorced people is immoral. Biblically, audultery is immoral, not premarital sex. If you have sex with two different people, while the other one lives, it is immoral. I'm not here to tell you what the Bible says, only that the driving influence on our laws is Christianity. I am merely explaining why you are having a difficult time in your persuit of happiness. I am saying that society says it is immoral. If it were not, we would not be having this discussion.

Is society wrong? I say no, but I'm biased to the current set of ethics. The only barrier homosexuals have to face is Christianity.

Is the only thing that will allow a person's life to be unmolested and truly free and equal with his peers the simple luck to be born into a society where people of his own faith happen to be the majority? You do realize that this sort of reasoning leads to a totalitarian state, don't you? Our democracy was designed with protections of minorities from the tyranny of the majority for a reason. As I see it the 14th amendment should settle this dispute.

It just so happens that Christianity is just. We don't seek to force people to any behavior, as back in the Crusades. We are here as a guiding moral lighthouse.

Homosexuals are entitled to have a married life in private. Don't misunderstand me. The government body should function seperate from the church, but look to the church for its morals. Human beings are incapable of creating moral beliefs because every human is biased to their own perspective.

Regardless of what you may say about the founding fathers, you'd have to be quite deranged to read the constitution and determine that the founding fathers wanted the sort of nation that you describe. Ultimate power to a theological majority is not how America is supposed to work.

I'm sorry that I have mislead you. The founding fathers were Christian men, and they wanted a government that is governed by the people that is free from all persecutions to minority groups and religions. They modeled the government after Jesus Christ who opens his arms to everyone. Before you get your panties in a knot, I mean they inadvertantly modeled the government after Jesus Christ.

And is this necessarily a bad thing? What ever happened to live and let live? So long as someone else's ethics aren't resulting in some direct detrimental effect on your life, then where's the problem? Would Same sex partners being able to file taxes jointly, visit one another in a hospital, or settle the estate of a diseased spouse have some adverse effect on your life? Denying them these rights based solely on the idea that your personal morality disapproves of their relationship seems awfully mean spirited and petty to me. San Francisco hasn’t outlawed churches or visible crosses in public yet, you know, but if homosexuals were to take your lead then it could very well happen.

Relative morality? I think we're confused on the definitions. I define relative morality as each person with a set of ethics that is forced on the majority, by law. Does that sound like a state you wish to live? Where someone felt it was God's work to kill all the homosexuals and the law protected him because he has a right to persue his happiness? Noway!

 

[jayleew]

He mentioned personaly knowing Christ before, and how that is the most important thing. So I would imagine he is one of the denominations who believes Catholics to be satan worshipers.

Goodness no! Cathollics are trapped in traditions, no worse than Jews. In both of these religions, you can find God and heaven. As I said before, it is not what church you go to, or if you go to church at all.