Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

Blackdog said:

Faith can be logical.

Click to expand...

:shock: NO. Faith and logic are mutually exclusive. You cannot use faith to logically prove anything, and you cannot use logic to disprove faith. When you make erroneous statements like you did, here, you give militant atheists plenty of fuel.

Redress said:

I never could figure out what possible reason god could have in this day and age to give a **** who any one has sex with. At one time, it would make a kind of sense, since he needed his followers to survive(he needed followers to survive himself?) and therefore needed people breeding as much as possible. In today's world however, that does not work. So why would god care?

Then I remember that bringing logic into religion is guaranteed to be painful.

Click to expand...

I would say that this is MY interpretation of God and HIS words. My religion recognizes this, also.

MistressNomad said:

Why do they have to be? Do you think everything our government does is moral, or for the good of the people? And ours is a democracy - not a theocracy, or a dictatorship like the governments of the past.

Click to expand...

Nope. But everything the government does is based on morality and social norms of the time.

Not acknowledging thine iniquity (Jere 3:13) - Power by establishing lack of value in the people

Afraid to confess Jesus to the people (Jn 12:42) - Spread of empire

Not becoming as a little child before god (Mt 18:3) - Power through establishing incompetence in the people

Wearing the clothing of the opposite sex (Deut 22:5) - Fear and bigotry, really. I suppose you could debate this one, but on what grounds other than fear and bigotry?

Turning to false counsil/fables (2 Tim 4:4) - You can only believe in OUR fairytales (power)!

Not submitting to the king (all over the place) - Blatant political power.

Debating (Ro 1:29) - Heh. Just for the lolz. Though I suspect this had to do with not allowing the people the impression of self-empowerment

Not fearing god (all over the place) Control through fear

Robbing god by not giving 10% of your income, and offerings (Mal 3:8) - Obvious greed of the Church, and by proxy the government

Being an effeminate man (Cor 6:9) - Bigotry

Not being perfect (all over the place) - Impossible goal to inspire shame in the people, look to authority for guidance

A teacher being called a rabbi (Mt23:8) - Distaining religious competition (the bad guys)

Not believing (Rec 21:8) - Fiating its own rightness into existance for no reason

Wives not submitting to their husbands (Eph 5:22) - Continuation of oppression (you can argue morals, but it's no more arguable than the morality of slavery - they did it because they could and they liked the power)

Click to expand...

And there is nothing here that I do not see that is based on morality or social norms of the time. Watch:

Not acknowledging thine iniquity (Jere 3:13) - It is bad to be judgmental and not acknowledge that. People will think less of you.

Afraid to confess Jesus to the people (Jn 12:42) - It is good to enourage others to have faith. Society is stronger if people believe (norm of the time... and a way to unite people).

Not becoming as a little child before god (Mt 18:3) - It is good to have awareness. People will respect you.

Wearing the clothing of the opposite sex (Deut 22:5) - It is bad to be a transvestite. This supports homosexuality which is bad... as it does nothing to increase the population (belief of the time).

Turning to false counsil/fables (2 Tim 4:4) - It is good and important to accept laws and rules. Society is stronger.

Not submitting to the king (all over the place) - It is good and the norm of the time to follow one's leader. Society is stronger.

Not fearing god (all over the place) It is bad and not the norm of the time to not accept God. This is an excellent example... as this has now changed.

Robbing god by not giving 10% of your income, and offerings (Mal 3:8) - It is a norm of the time to support the government. Interestingly enough, it is the norm of this time, too.

Being an effeminate man (Cor 6:9) - It is bad to be gay. Same reason as with transvestites.

Not being perfect (all over the place) - It is good to strive towards perfection. Not doing so makes you lazy.

A teacher being called a rabbi (Mt23:8) - This is nothing but the language of the time.

Not believing (Rec 21:8) - It is good to have faith. This allows one to not be weak (belief of the time).

Wives not submitting to their husbands (Eph 5:22) - Norm of the time was that women were lessers to men. Society is stronger when there is a hierarchy and a deliniation of positions.

You are abscribing some nefarious reason to each of these. All they are, are moral tenets that went along with the social norms of the time. And notice... as times have changed, so have those norms, as have laws.

CaptainCourtesy said:

No... it's because that you will not accept that promiscuity is irrelevant to the state's interest because it is not an absolute. Other than that, we agree.

Of course that is not what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Which begs the point. Did he and his wife wait until marriage. Did he never "spill his seed on the ground" ever. Never ever? And many other questions from the Bible which surely he is living by.

Are nocturnal emissions a sin?

cpwill said:

I think you meant to poll on homosexual acts. the temptation itself not being any more sinful than any temptation.

Click to expand...

Of course, in accordance with Matthew 5 and 6 (Sermon on the Mount), its not the acts that are the sin, nor the temptation but the heart.

Gay marriage: Negative social impacts on the U.S. Society?

What is population percentage of gays in the U.S.? Of that number what would be a likely percentage to marry?

How many hetero marriages occur where an agreement is made to NOT procreate? Could that number be statistically significant when comparing the total population of gays who obviously can't reproduce during the course of marriage if, of course, marriage was legalized nation-wide?

Does gay relationships mirror the same dynamics as straights - disregarding physical differences?

Removable Mind said:

Gay marriage: Negative social impacts on the U.S. Society?

What is population percentage of gays in the U.S.? Of that number what would be a likely percentage to marry?

How many hetero marriages occur where an agreement is made to NOT procreate? Could that number be statistically significant when comparing the total population of gays who obviously can't reproduce during the course of marriage if, of course, marriage was legalized nation-wide?

Does gay relationships mirror the same dynamics as straights - disregarding physical differences?

Click to expand...

I can at least give you the statistics on those couples who are childless by choice.

Is Childlessness Among American Women On the Rise
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0037/page04.gif

It seems that even those women who are childless by choice outnumber the reported number of homosexuals.

And those who are infertile.

Fertility and Age – Young Women and Fertility and Age
Infertility Statistics | Infertility Solutions Online

About the same number of couples (maybe a few percent less) are infertile.

CaptainCourtesy said:

See, I disagree with this. I can accept someone saying, "I disagree with homosexuality and SSM because of the tenets of my religion." Nothing wrong with this. I also have no problem with someone voting against SSM for this reason. It's their belief system. My problem always is when they use this belief as a starting off point to PROVE why homosexuality is wrong and/or why SSM should not be legal. These are more global issues and require logic. Faith and logic are two very different animals. As long as you keep them completely separate, there is no issue with using faith to believe in anything. Doesn't mean that faith can be used to demonstrate the logic of something being universal.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is not a logical argument, it is an emotional one.

Blackdog said:

Jesus made a statement about more than just divorce. You know this but don't want to admit it. The NT and OT both condemn homosexuality, end of story. Twist it however you like but you know the truth in your hart.

Click to expand...

I know that anything anyone says can be quoted out of context to make it mean what they want it to mean. Within the context of what Jesus said, he was talking about divorce when he defined marriage. If Jesus were alive today I have little doubt that he would support same sex marriage, because the purpose of marriage is to form a family and we are much more capable of doing that in this modern era than we would have been in his time. I can look to my own heart and mind to find that answer, I don't have to quote from the Bible in mindless rote.

Blackdog said:

Nothing to break to me. Please feel free to point out one animal that is human?

Click to expand...

Well.. You for one.. Being called human is meaningless.. We are homosapiens, a very close relative to apes.. We wouldn't be called a feline because we are not cats.. So your point is simply irrelevent.. It has no bearing on homosexuality.. We are just another species of animals.. No more and no less..

Nature and animals are not a litmus test?? Again, irrelevent.. We are a part of nature and we are animals.. So another moot point from you..

I read what I see in your post.. Your line of thinking is rather odd.. Why the need to make the distinction that humans are not animals in a conversation about homosexuality..

The issue of homosexuality has no bearing on our species.. Many species have been shown to exhibit the behavior of homosexuality.. If your claim is to say that homosexuality is natural?? They why make the claim that mankind is somehow different from the rest of nature..

Sure.. Man has his inventions and intelligence.. That still doesn't seperate us from being an animal and a part of nature.. We don't have the largest brain on the planet.. That honor belongs to the whales.. Which quite possibly could be much smarter than us.. Just because they aren't building cities and polluting the planet and hunting animals to the verge of extinction doesn't make them stupid.. It makes us stupid.. All of our glorious intelligence and we still can't live without killing eachother or the planet in which we live.. Not to mention descriminate or hate someone who is different.. All of our glorious intelligence and some of his are still tethered to the nipple of religion..

I'm sorry, did I miss that long list of answers to my question:

Gay marriage: Negative social impacts on the U.S. Society?

I'm simply trying to understand all of the horrible detrimental fallouts, social backlashes, drops in moral standards in non-homosexual homes or anyplace where the socialization process exists, which will result because of gay marriage in our nation (or elsewhere).

Since homosexuality has been out of the social closet for about mega bunches of years, how many heteros have come forward to tell their horrid stories of becoming homosexual because of being expose to information about homosexuality?

How many kids that have been raped by priest and ministers, who would by all knowledge, considered themselves to hetero...and turned homo because of being raped?

How many have turn homosexual from hearing about kids who have been raped by the clergy?

Surely something is going to take our nation straight to hell as a result of homosexual and gay marriage. But what is it?

Yours Truly,

A Straight White Boy

BDBoop said:

Which begs the point. Did he and his wife wait until marriage.

Click to expand...

Yes

BDBoop said:

Did he never "spill his seed on the ground" ever. Never ever?

Click to expand...

This is not a sin (OT does not apply either way) it was a sin because he was supposed to impregnate the women and he did not according to God's command. If you actually read your Bible you would know this.

BDBoop said:

And many other questions from the Bible which surely he is living by.

Click to expand...

What part of "we are all sinners" are you missing?

The difference is I try not to keep repeating the same sins over and over again.

CriticalThought said:

I know that anything anyone says can be quoted out of context to make it mean what they want it to mean.

Click to expand...

Then explain how "a man shall not lie with a man" can be twisted? The laws are very clear.

CriticalThought said:

Within the context of what Jesus said, he was talking about divorce when he defined marriage.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He defined what it was and what it is supposed to be.

CriticalThought said:

If Jesus were alive today I have little doubt that he would support same sex marriage, because the purpose of marriage is to form a family and we are much more capable of doing that in this modern era than we would have been in his time. I can look to my own heart and mind to find that answer, I don't have to quote from the Bible in mindless rote.

Click to expand...

So now you speak for God?

The statements in the Bible say different.

CaptainCourtesy said:

No... it's because that you will not accept that promiscuity is irrelevant to the state's interest because it is not an absolute. Other than that, we agree.

Of course that is not what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

It is not irrelevant when it has everything to do with the family and the states interest in it. Promiscuity is NOT something that brings a family together.

You would like it to be irrelevant but the facts say different.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Then limit your "tit-for-tat" silliness to those who are actually bashing Christians.

Click to expand...

Why? Most are guilty, I am not above calling an ass an ass.

If you don't like it, oh well.

CaptainCourtesy said:

No, she is absolutely correct. I have been debating this issue at DP, consistenly, for 5 YEARS. From a logical perspective, I have never seen an anti- position that I could not counter and demolish.
NEVER. There is none. There are only two reasons that folks are against SSM, either for religious reasons or out of ignorance. Neither have any logic behind them. I respect the former only because if someone believes something is wrong because of their religion, that is their right and belief system. The latter I have no respect for.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with my comments about background noise as a response to her about it.

You mite want to read it again.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Depends on how one interprets his commands. I happen to be one of the most religious posters at DP. Yet I interpret God very differently than others.

Click to expand...

How do you know you are one of the "Most religious" here? I mean did you do a survey? That is an awfully bold statement considering you have no idea what anyones level of religion, faith or belief is.

Your interpretation of God is irrelevant to anyone else's. This however does not mean basic tenet's of the Bible that are very clear cannot be stated or made correct. If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on.

CaptainCourtesy said:

:shock: NO. Faith and logic are mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

If you are going to quote me, at least do it in context...

Faith can be logical. If for example I have witnessed things that have proving God's existence to me, it is no longer faith, but fact. This is very logical for me and many others. - Blackdog

So again faith can be logical. This is not saying faith IS logic as they are polar opposites. This does not mean that one cannot be grounded in the other as I said and showed an example.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You cannot use faith to logically prove anything, and you cannot use logic to disprove faith.

Click to expand...

No one is doing this.

CaptainCourtesy said:

When you make erroneous statements like you did, here, you give militant atheists plenty of fuel.

Click to expand...

My statement was nothing of the sort. We were talking about logical reason for faith. Not proof of anything BY faith.

Again in context makes a world of difference.

Andalublue said:

Well, there was nothing very immediate about the removal of institutional racial discrimination. Also, this being the case, was this the reason for the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour? If not, what was? If it was for that, why not for SSM too?

Click to expand...

Again...it goes back to precedent. If proven to be genetic...given civil rights laws, there'd be no legal opposition to ssm.

Maybe God became imperfect when he created Adam and Eve. Things have gone to hell and a hand basket since. Homosexuality seem so small on he scale of all of the problems facing humanity.

Nobody has answers regarding.... Gay Marriage: Negative social impacts on the U.S. Society?

Instead people are engrossed in conversations with God or figuring out what God said or didn't say.

People use scriptures like playing a Quija board.

We clearly have a human issue that will take human intervention to deal with it.

Apparently divine intervention isn't working...or hasn't been implement for the sake of love for one's equal child in the eyes of God, who has been made unequal by man.

DemonMyst said:

Well.. You for one.. Being called human is meaningless.. We are homosapiens, a very close relative to apes.. We wouldn't be called a feline because we are not cats.. So your point is simply irrelevent.. It has no bearing on homosexuality.. We are just another species of animals.. No more and no less..

Nature and animals are not a litmus test?? Again, irrelevent.. We are a part of nature and we are animals.. So another moot point from you..

I read what I see in your post.. Your line of thinking is rather odd.. Why the need to make the distinction that humans are not animals in a conversation about homosexuality..

The issue of homosexuality has no bearing on our species.. Many species have been shown to exhibit the behavior of homosexuality.. If your claim is to say that homosexuality is natural?? They why make the claim that mankind is somehow different from the rest of nature..

Sure.. Man has his inventions and intelligence.. That still doesn't seperate us from being an animal and a part of nature.. We don't have the largest brain on the planet.. That honor belongs to the whales.. Which quite possibly could be much smarter than us.. Just because they aren't building cities and polluting the planet and hunting animals to the verge of extinction doesn't make them stupid.. It makes us stupid.. All of our glorious intelligence and we still can't live without killing eachother or the planet in which we live.. Not to mention descriminate or hate someone who is different.. All of our glorious intelligence and some of his are still tethered to the nipple of religion..

Click to expand...

Nice how you try to ignore what I actually said...

Nothing to break to me. Please feel free to point out one animal that is human? None are but those of the human race, period. It is true we are animals, but we are much more than animals to be called human. - Blackdog

Funny how dishonest people constantly try to misrepresent what others has said.

My point was animal behavior is not a good example for human behavior.

Blackdog said:

if you would read your bible

Click to expand...

I don't, anymore. Somebody spent too many years beating me up with hers.

BDBoop said:

I don't, anymore. Somebody spent too many years beating me up with hers.

Click to expand...

That's a shame. Gods word shouldn't be diminished by human cruelty.

mac said:

That's a shame. Gods word shouldn't be diminished by human cruelty.

Click to expand...

Thanks. "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" goes a long ways toward explaining what happened, here.

BDBoop said:

I don't, anymore. Somebody spent too many years beating me up with hers.

Click to expand...

That I can understand. I was not. I started to study it much later in life.

BDBoop said:

Thanks. "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" goes a long ways toward explaining what happened, here.

Click to expand...

I agree, I know I come off like a "holy roller" but I ain't unless debating, lol.

It is a shame.

The good lord said, a man may not lay with another man.

He did not say a woman may not lay with another woman... and a man... and record it for our watching pleasure.

Missed AB said:

The good lord said, a man may not lay with another man.

He did not say a woman may not lay with another woman... and a man... and record it for our watching pleasure.

Click to expand...

Only because there were no video cameras back then rof