David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Again I half agree. Christians have tolerated but objected.
Fornication has been illegal however. Specifically sex by a married person with someone outside the marriage. There are laws against adultery, prostitution, bigamy etc.

But not fornication.

ISAW wrote: »

As for unmarried people therr are laws against sex such as rape, and some of it is considered unnatural.

Rape is not considered illegal and immoral because it is unnatural or because it is a form of fornication, it is considered illegal and immoral because it is an act of violence.

You cannot rape your wife any more than you can rape your girlfriend.

ISAW wrote: »

Finally, your "laws" refer to laws in western societies probably in the last 400 years or so.

Which find no objection from the vast majority of Christians, including those who get hung up over homosexuality.

So again how is homosexuality any worse than heterosexual fornication? What is the Biblical support for such an idea?

ISAW wrote: »

Who said it was?

How many threads have we had in the last 10 years on making fornication illegal?

Zombrex

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10:8

But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now where in the bible does God condone Gay marriage??

Where in the Bible does God condemn slavery? Or say life begins at conception?

Christians have never had trouble extrapolating from the "message" of the Bible particular guidelines as to how to face modern issues, when it suits them of course.

gimmebroadband

Barrington wrote: »

And God definitely wrote the Bible, did he? God definitely told people to write that homosexuality was wrong? Or is it possible that people may have wrote that bit based on their own feelings and claimed it was from God?

Many archaelogists have found much evidence that have supported historical events which happened in the Bible. Events that happened which brought the word of God to the people!

paddyandy

New York is getting it up the derry aer right now.Gay Weddddddddins???^*$"%$^+>

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Many archaelogists have found much evidence that have supported historical events which happened in the Bible. Events that happened which brought the word of God to the people!

Actually it is the other way around, there is very little evidence for the events in the Bible (for example there is no historical record in Egyptian history of the events in Exodus), and plenty of contradictory evidence.

Though in fairness it is a bit silly to come onto the Christian forum and start challenging the notion that God inspired the Bible. Bad Barrington, bad.

gimmebroadband

Wicknight wrote: »

Where in the Bible does God condemn slavery? Or say life begins at conception?

Jeremiah 1:5

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jeremiah 1:5

That doesn't say life begins at conception. In fact it mentions "before I formed you in the womb" so it is talking about before conception, if anything.

Try again

gimmebroadband

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually it is the other way around, there is very little evidence for the events in the Bible (for example there is no historical record in Egyptian history of the events in Exodus), and plenty of contradictory evidence.

Though in fairness it is a bit silly to come onto the Christian forum and start challenging the notion that God inspired the Bible. Bad Barrington, bad.

You must have missed this link!

http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

gimmebroadband

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't say life begins at conception. In fact it mentions "before I formed you in the womb" so it is talking about before conception, if anything.

Try again

Which suggest he knew him also in the womb, when he had intentions of forrming him, he existed in God's mind,before, during and after!

MOSSAD

Cybercelesta wrote: »

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10:8

But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now where in the bible does God condone Gay marriage??

Still doesn't tke from the fact that bible is a histroy of the Jewish peoples and there is no such thing as god

Cybercelesta

MOSSAD wrote: »

Still doesn't tke from the fact that bible is a histroy of the Jewish peoples and there is no such thing as god

And Jesus was a Jew and is both God and Man, that's in the bible too! :rolleyes:

MOSSAD

Cybercelesta wrote: »

And Jesus was a Jew and is both God and Man, that's in the bible too! :rolleyes:

And my bubba always told me i was god- doesn't mean I am;)

wonderfulname

Mossad, why are you just bluntly telling people their beliefs are wrong with no reasoning or general politeness on a forum specifically designated for the discussion of said beliefs?

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You must have missed this link!

http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

Yes odd that I missed a crack pot Biblical apologetics website that likes to put things in BIG RED LETTERS :rolleyes:

Back in the real world there is no confirmation of when Wadi Sidra, confounded by the fact that the inscriptions contain Latin, a language that didn't exist at the time of Exodus.

But again that wasn't the point, I've no doubt that eventually the ancient Israelites came up with this story of Exodus from Egypt, so it is not surprising if we find it in their ancient writings.

The point is that there is nothing in the Egyptian writings about it. It would be like going to France and reading about how they conquered Ireland for 500 years, but finding nothing in Irish or English history that even mentions this.

Penn

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Many archaelogists have found much evidence that have supported historical events which happened in the Bible. Events that happened which brought the word of God to the people!

I'm not talking about the whole Bible, that's a much bigger conversation. I'm talking about things like saying homosexuality is a sin, things which are in the Bible where the author was inspired by God or something. How do we know those are actually Gods words, and not the words of the author under the guise of being the word of God?

gimmebroadband

Barrington wrote: »

I'm not talking about the whole Bible, that's a much bigger conversation. I'm talking about things like saying homosexuality is a sin, things which are in the Bible where the author was inspired by God or something. How do we know those are actually Gods words, and not the words of the author under the guise of being the word of God?

Jesus who is God's Son confirms it, and he did many miracles to prove that he is who he said he is, even to raising himself from the dead, and witnessed by his followers the Apostles which is written in the NT.

Zombrex

This is going some what off topic.

Anyone support making fornication illegal? Anyone support the State refusing to recognize the rights of unmarried couples who partake in fornication?

Again can someone explain why homosexuality deserves special place in terms of harmless sexual sins that the State should involve itself in?

Penn

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus who is God's Son confirms it, and he did many miracles to prove that he is who he said he is, even to raising himself from the dead, and witnessed by his followers the Apostles which is written in the NT.

So what did Jesus say about homosexuality? When did he say it was wrong?

gimmebroadband

Wicknight wrote: »

This is going some what off topic.

Anyone support making fornication illegal? Anyone support the State refusing to recognize the rights of unmarried couples who partake in fornication?

Again can someone explain why homosexuality deserves special place in terms of harmless sexual sins that the State should involve itself in?

Legal doesn't mean it's morally right!

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Legal doesn't mean it's morally right!

No but homosexuality is one of the few harmless sexual sins that Christians call for legal restrictions around.

Why when there are plenty of other sexual sins that society does not view as harmful to the individual and thus do not regulate legal. It is not illegal to have pre-marital sex, even though fornication is mentioned in the same context as homosexual sex throughout the New Testament.

Why the fixation with legally regulating homosexual relationships?

Keylem

Why are Catholics against gay marriage? The following link will provide some answers, from a person who is gay!


"The same sex issue is incredibly complex. I know this from my own experience. I spent two years "out" in the queer community. If you are gay, God loves you, just as much as he loves anyone else. He loved me so much that he set me on a new path many years ago. It's been a great journey. I pray that you are given the freedom to make that same journey.

I was silent on gay issues for 18 years after I became a Christian. I left the entertainment world and stopped speaking out for the queer community. I never thought I would speak against it. But now I can no longer in good conscience stay quiet because the oppression is now turned against Christians and against free speech. Human Rights have been twisted."


http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_against_gay_marriage.htm

gimmebroadband

wonderfulname wrote: »

Mossad, why are you just bluntly telling people their beliefs are wrong with no reasoning or general politeness on a forum specifically designated for the discussion of said beliefs?

Thanks wonderfulname. I guess I should stop feeding the trolls. They are not interested in what Christians are about, and find it peversely gratifying to ridicule what they post !

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

Why are Catholics against gay marriage? The following link will provide some answers, from a person who is gay!

If it should it doesn't.

It says why Catholics don't like homosexual relationships, and presents vaious statistics about homosexual relationships (some of which seem some what implausible but I don't have time to verify them)

But again that doesn't answer the question why Catholics want it to be illegal. Christianity thinks lots of things are a bad idea, they don't call on them to be illegal.

So (again) why homosexuality and homosexual marriage? Why not fornication, or lying? Heck why not idolatry, a sin so bad it was the first commandment?

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Thanks wonderfulname. I guess I should stop feeding the trolls. They are not interested in what Christians are about, and find it peversely gratifying to ridicule what they post !

When you're reduced to grasping at pollutants playing some kind of role in the homosexual activities of animals, you're not worthy of much else.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Rape is not considered illegal and immoral because it is unnatural or because it is a form of fornication, it is considered illegal and immoral because it is an act of violence.

So you are saying that violence = consent i.e. the same sexual act with no other physical violence is violent when there is no consent and not violent when there is consent?

You cannot rape your wife any more than you can rape your girlfriend.

Legally one can rape ones wife. If you have sex without consent it can be illegal.

So again how is homosexuality any worse than heterosexual fornication? What is the Biblical support for such an idea?

the question isn't whether it is worse or better but whgether it is wrong. The media get hung up on the "gay marriage" issue. Similarly we have media saying the Pope is silly to say condoms shold not be given out to everyone as a solution to AIDS. But the Church position would be people should stop having sex with multiple partners many of which they don't even know and should confine sex to single partners in committed relationships. the point is miss in that the media focus on one issue such as AIDS reduction or homosexual sex but miss the fact that the church would be against heterosexuals fornicating and they dont think it is better to fornicate with condoms no more then it is better to commit murder of homosexuals rather then hetrosexuals.

How many threads have we had in the last 10 years on making fornication illegal?

I give up . How many? homosexuality isnt illegal and never was by the way. Homosexual acts were but these were reformed and repealed in the 1980s and 1990s.

Zombrex

Barrington wrote: »

So what did Jesus say about homosexuality? When did he say it was wrong?

It was Paul who listed homosexuality, rather than Jesus.

Doesn't help that he effectively made up his own word for it, "arsenokoitēs", which is different to the standard Greek for homosexual, "androkoitēs".

"Arsenokoitēs" literally means men in bed, in a sexual context.

Scholars have been wondering why he did that for as long as they have been reading his letters.

One theory, which sounds plausible, is that he wished to strip androkoitēs of any notions of social acceptability, a bit like instead of saying abortion saying baby killer.

Another problematic word is "malakos", which Paul also uses. Literally meaning "soft" depending on context that can mean male prostitute to simply weak, submissive or effeminacy in the context of a male (ie a pansy).

Apparently Paul liked men to be real men, oh er

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So you are saying that violence = consent i.e. the same sexual act with no other physical violence is violent when there is no consent and not violent when there is consent?

I assume you mean no consent = violence. If that is what you mean, yes. Though the only context of the same physical act happening in a rape where consent is given is in a rape fantasy (ie where someone consents and then pretends to resist and be raped).

Some what of an edge case, I'm sure you will agree.

ISAW wrote: »

Legally one can rape ones wife. If you have sex without consent it can be illegal.

Rape is defined as sex without consent. You cannot rape someone with their consent. You can pretend to rape them with their consent, such as in a rape fantasy.

It is illegal to rape anyone.

ISAW wrote: »

the question isn't whether it is worse or better but whgether it is wrong.

No, the question is what is the preoccupation with homosexuality when it is simply one sin listed out of a large number, some of which no one bats and eye lid at.

Why do we not have continuous campaigns against, for example, the legalization of idolatry?

ISAW wrote: »

But the Church position would be people should stop having sex with multiple partners many of which they don't even know and should confine sex to single partners in committed relationships.

The Church's position is also that you shouldn't worship anything before God. So why do you think no one is calling on that to be illegal, for people's own good?

That is the first commandment after all, surely it deserves as much if not more focus than all the protests against homosexuality?

ISAW wrote: »

I give up . How many? homosexuality isnt illegal and never was by the way. Homosexual acts were but these were reformed and repealed in the 1980s and 1990s.

So surely it is as damaging to society to allow gay marriage as it is to allow idolatry?

So, lets try and get idolatry made illegal? No? No takers?

Cybercelesta

CiaranMT wrote: »

When you're reduced to grasping at pollutants playing some kind of role in the homosexual activities of animals, you're not worthy of much else.

And you're in here, a christian forum, brandishing homosexual acts as 'normal', and expecting christians to agree, how stupid is that! LOL!!!

Zombrex

Cybercelesta wrote: »

And you're in here, a christian forum, brandishing homosexual acts as 'normal', and expecting christians to agree, how stupid is that! LOL!!!

Being Christians doesn't change facts.

Christians can argue that homosexual relationships are against God's plan or his design.

But there is no denying that, for what every theological reasons (most invoke the Fall of man/nature in Eden) homosexual behavior is common place in nature and has a reasons for existing, more often than not explained in evolutionary biology through advantages not apparent (eg sisters of homosexual males being far more fertile in various species).

This shouldn't be that much of an issue for a genuine Christian, lots of things are naturally occurring in nature that Christians view as immoral, such as violence or sexual lust. It seems unnecessary to try and pretend that homosexuality is some how special in this regard.

Stick to the theology, the science does not help the Christian position.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I assume you mean no consent = violence. If that is what you mean, yes.

The point is that the only difference is conscent and nothing else.
By saying the law is there because rape = violence you are therefore saying that lack of consent = violence and any other actual physical violence might not even happen.

Th point I am making is if you claim rape= violence you are saying that a non violent rape can not happen. I would assert it could. If that is true then the rape law isn't only because of violence but because of abuse of personal rights. For example a banbk robbery may be violent or non violent but it is still a bank robbery and it is illegal not only because it is violent.

Rape is defined as sex without consent. You cannot rape someone with their consent.

But the point is you claimed it was always violent. so therefore you must conclude that the lack of consent=violence. I do not believe that is necessarily so.

It is illegal to rape anyone.

So what did you mean by ?...

You cannot rape your wife any more than you can rape your girlfriend.

No, the question is what is the preoccupation with homosexuality when it is simply one sin listed out of a large number, some of which no one bats and eye lid at.

and the question was answered. It is the media that promoted the gay issues and feminist issues. the church has always stated heterosexual fornication was wrong and homosexual fornication and rape. The church didn't say "we will single out homosexual acts and forget about all other sins"

Why do we not have continuous campaigns against, for example, the legalization of idolatry?

the feminists are not promoting idolatry. But put another way ... One of the most major problem of the World ...recent international economic problems could be traced to the worst elements of Capitalism and human greed. the Church has been preaching against this worship of the material which one could claim is a form of idolatry. the church has campaigned for prudent financial control and rejection of materialism.

The Church's position is also that you shouldn't worship anything before God. So why do you think no one is calling on that to be illegal, for people's own good?

Calling for control of markets and lending are a form of doing just that! And you seem not to have been following the Blasphemy Act debate.

That is the first commandment after all, surely it deserves as much if not more focus than all the protests against homosexuality?

Indeed. So why don't you read through all the Papal encyclicals over say the last 30 years and list

1. how many were so caught up in opposing homosexuals

2. How many addressed world poverty, worship of the material, economics, war etc.?

Here is a link:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/

So surely it is as damaging to society to allow gay marriage as it is to allow idolatry?
So, lets try and get idolatry made illegal? No? No takers?

Here is a link to church councils over 20 centuries :

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/index.htm


How many do you think were concerned with gay marriage? how many addressed idolarty, heresy, etc.?

Most of the thinking about heresy and idolatry was done in detail many centuries ago.

CiaranMT

Cybercelesta wrote: »

And you're in here, a christian forum, brandishing homosexual acts as 'normal', and expecting christians to agree, how stupid is that! LOL!!!

Believe it or not, many Christians would agree.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

But there is no denying that, ... homosexual behavior is common place in nature and has a reasons for existing, more often than not explained in evolutionary biology

Animals dont have souls
Whether animal sexuality has logical, ethical, or moral implications in human sexuality is debatable
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

but anyway...
It isn't common place. What species exist were most of them are homosexual?

Homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity
Levay, Simon (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.

through advantages not apparent (eg sisters of homosexual males being far more fertile in various species).

the Chimera hypothesis?
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/04/chimerism-theory-of-male-homosexuality.html
if the chimerism theory is true, exclusive homosexuality should be more common in populations with a higher incidence of twinning, such as sub-Saharan Africans. In southwest Nigeria, twin births are 3 to 5 times more common than in Europe.

But, http://www.ijhg.com/article.asp?issn=0971-6866;year=2008;volume=14;issue=2;spage=41;epage=47;aulast=Akinboro

This shouldn't be that much of an issue for a genuine Christian, lots of things are naturally occurring in nature that Christians view as immoral, such as violence or sexual lust. It seems unnecessary to try and pretend that homosexuality is some how special in this regard.

But they aren't. It is other that come here and post about homosexuals or clerical abuse. Very few of the anti Christian or anti Church posters post about things they see as good in christianity and very few Christians constantly post about what they hate in Christianity .

Stick to the theology, the science does not help the Christian position.

The chimera hypothesis is a hypothesis and debatable.

gimmebroadband

Many people are born with the inclination to be aloholics, but that doesn't mean the should be one! The would have to fight against the urge for the rest of their lives!

wonderfulname

Wicknight wrote: »

Apparently Paul liked men to be real men, oh er

Tehe

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

The point is that the only difference is conscent and nothing else.
By saying the law is there because rape = violence you are therefore saying that lack of consent = violence and any other actual physical violence might not even happen.

Th point I am making is if you claim rape= violence you are saying that a non violent rape can not happen. I would assert it could.

I would be interested to know how, since by definition having sex with someone without their consent is an act of violence.

I think you are confusing violence with harm. Violence does not require harm. For example it is an act of violence to drug someone, even if that causes no lasting harm to them.

From Wikipedia
Violence is the use of physical force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes

You can't non-physically rape someone, the act of sexual contact requires physical force. Manipulation of a person through physical force without consent is violence, irrespective of whether it causes physical harm to the person.

ISAW wrote: »

But the point is you claimed it was always violent. so therefore you must conclude that the lack of consent=violence. I do not believe that is necessarily so.

Then you either don't understand the nature of violence or the nature of sexual intercourse.

Can you explain the relevance to laws against homosexual marriage?

ISAW wrote: »

It is the media that promoted the gay issues and feminist issues. the church has always stated heterosexual fornication was wrong and homosexual fornication and rape. The church didn't say "we will single out homosexual acts and forget about all other sins"

That doesn't explain the wide spread campaigning against pro-homosexual laws that takes place by Christians in contrast to campaigning against any other laws that allow or tolerate sinful behavior.

ISAW wrote: »

the feminists are not promoting idolatry.

What?

Idolatry is widespread and common place in society. It is promoted universally, even by Christians who talk of tolerating different faiths.

Where is the opposition to this?

ISAW wrote: »

But put another way ... One of the most major problem of the World ...recent international economic problems could be traced to the worst elements of Capitalism and human greed. the Church has been preaching against this worship of the material which one could claim is a form of idolatry. the church has campaigned for prudent financial control and rejection of materialism.

But not the stopping of idolatry.

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
you shall have no other gods before me."

How is that less important than do not lie with another man as with a woman?

ISAW wrote: »

Calling for control of markets and lending are a form of doing just that! And you seem not to have been following the Blasphemy Act debate.

Doesn't the RCC oppose blasphemy laws?

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed. So why don't you read through all the Papal encyclicals over say the last 30 years and list

What do Papal encyclicals have to do with protest and Christian campaigns?

Are you saying Catholics complaining about homosexual marriage are being un-Catholic?

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Many people are born with the inclination to be aloholics, but that doesn't mean the should be one! The would have to fight against the urge for the rest of their lives!

Neither does it mean we making drinking illegal.

In a secular multi-religious society you need to come up with a better reason for something to be illegal than it should be based on your interpretation of your religion.

A lot of Christians realize that which is why they attempt to link homosexuality to various measurable and identifiable harms.

This campaign has been largely unsuccessful in demonstrating homosexuality produces a damaging society.

This could be why they have fallen back on the claims of their religion, since by definition they cannot be disputed since they are untestable.

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Many people are born with the inclination to be aloholics, but that doesn't mean the should be one! The would have to fight against the urge for the rest of their lives!

Oh dear. Now you're equating homosexuality with a substance abuse problem.

Whenever will you pull the wool from your eyes and attempt to analyse both yours and wider society's viewpoint on the topic?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Animals dont have souls

I assume you mean spirits, since animals are souls.

ISAW wrote: »

Whether animal sexuality has logical, ethical, or moral implications in human sexuality is debatable
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

but anyway...
It isn't common place. What species exist were most of them are homosexual?

Common place in nature, in that a large number of species produce homosexual members.

ISAW wrote: »

the Chimera hypothesis?
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/04/chimerism-theory-of-male-homosexuality.html
if the chimerism theory is true, exclusive homosexuality should be more common in populations with a higher incidence of twinning, such as sub-Saharan Africans. In southwest Nigeria, twin births are 3 to 5 times more common than in Europe.

What do you mean if it is true? We know it is true, the genetic code has been identified in various species, such as mice, than when found in females increases fertility and when found in males homosexuality.

ISAW wrote: »

But they aren't. It is other that come here and post about homosexuals or clerical abuse. Very few of the anti Christian or anti Church posters post about things they see as good in christianity and very few Christians constantly post about what they hate in Christianity .

So you telling me if I started a thread on idoltary I would get the same response, saying it is immoral and should be illegal?

I doubt that.

ISAW wrote: »

The chimera hypothesis is a hypothesis and debatable.

Only in so far as humans are concerned. It is an observable fact in other species.

gimmebroadband

CiaranMT wrote: »

Oh dear. Now you're equating homosexuality with a substance abuse problem.

Whenever will you pull the wool from your eyes and attempt to analyse both yours and wider society's viewpoint on the topic?

Actually I used that example from Catholic Answers!

"I Was Born This Way"


Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

Why is homosexuality not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians?

If it is simply because it is a sin then surely all sinful acts, such as worshipping a non-Christian deity, are unacceptable lifestyles?

Or is there a reason why homosexuality is special in this regard?

CiaranMT

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Actually I used that example from Catholic Answers!

"I Was Born This Way"




http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

All this is according to your religious viewpoint.

Which is not the official stance of this country.

Which many people, and very many within your own faith, will disagree with, for obvious reasons.

Monty.

The lust for sodomy and the attempts to "normalise" and "justify" it by pretending to build marriage and child adoption around it continues, along with the demand that Christians sit back and condone it by acceptance or face the backlash. Satan and his sophistry know no bounds and Modern Sodom and Gomorrah ploughs on.

Irish Praetorian

Small aside here but its been bugging me: Monty weren't you banned from the forums for the following remark?

Monty. wrote: »

Typical Blacks

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

The lust for sodomy and the attempts to "normalise" and "justify" it by pretending to build marriage and child adoption around it continues, along with the demand that Christians sit back and condone it by acceptance or face the backlash. Satan and his sophistry know no bounds and Modern Sodom and Gomorrah ploughs on.

Given you already accept that non-Christians can do a whole host of other sins, such as worshipping false gods (breaking the 1st commandment), do you have any reason why "sodomy" shouldn't continue to be accepted by society?

Do you object to society accepting all sins, or just homosexuality? And if just homosexuality why that sin specifically?

Monty.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Small aside here but its been bugging me: Monty weren't you banned from the forums for the following remark?

After 310 posts is that all you could dig up ?
I wonder why you don't want to ask me that on the correct forum ?, but if you want to quote me out of context, from a totally different forum, regarding a totally different topic, I'll be more than happy to debate it there.

Fanny Cradock

Irish Praetorian, your post is off topic and has diddly-squat to do with this forum. Take it elsewhere, please.

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given you already accept that non-Christians can do a whole host of other sins, such as worshipping false gods (breaking the 1st commandment), do you have any reason why "sodomy" shouldn't continue to be accepted by society?

Do you object to society accepting all sins, or just homosexuality? And if just homosexuality why that sin specifically?

Sodomy in particular is one of the four sins that cry out to heaven.

Have you checked the thead topic, if you want to open topics on the sophistry attempts to normalise any other grave sin, I'll tell you the same thing.

Now, on topic, why should any Christian be expected to condone the grave sin of sodomy and accept that "marriage" and child adoption should be built around it ?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Why is homosexuality not an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians?

I think you may mean for "Christians" and not non Christians?

all sorts of things are not acceptable including this. Certain heterosexual behaviour is also not acceptable. Christians don't object to homosexuality just to certain behavior arising from it.

If it is simply because it is a sin then surely all sinful acts, such as worshipping a non-Christian deity, are unacceptable lifestyles?

True they are unacceptable lifestyles.

Or is there a reason why homosexuality is special in this regard?

It isn't special at all. It is just one of many other things.

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Sodomy in particular is one of the four sins that cry out to heaven.

What are the other 3 and do Christians call for them to be restricted by law?

Monty. wrote: »

Have you checked the thead topic, if you want to open topics on the sophistry attempts to normalise any other grave sin, I'll tell you the same thing.

Now, on topic, why should any Christian be expected to condone the grave sin of sodomy and accept that "marriage" and child adoption should be built around it ?

Because Christians accept (or should accept) that non-Christians will not hold themselves to the same standards Christian do and that this is ok in most regards when it comes to running things on Earth, not getting into heaven.

Christians and non-Christians have always agreed to a shared standard of law based on around common values and objection to homosexuality is not one of them, as it is very difficult to make a non-theological argument to object to homosexual couples.

For example, in Judeo-Christian religions, based on the commandments, it is a terrible sin to worship other gods. You should have none before God.

How many Christians believe it is wrong to allow non-Christians to do this, that this must discouraged or restricted through rule of law lest Christians be seen to be condoning idolatry?

Very few, because this is considered a matter between the individual and their personal faith. While it might anger God, it doesn't harm you.

On the other hand stealing both angers God and harms you, and thus Christians and non-Christians agree in the notion that, irrespective of religious faith, stealing is something to be prevented with the rule of law, any more than you harm a Hindu by being Christian.

Objections to homosexuality, like objections to idoltry, fall squarely into the former rather than the later, actions that while displeasing to God do not harm humans here on Earth.

So why the insistence from some Christians quarters to regulate this using Earthly laws. It is a matter for the individuals and God.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I think you may mean for "Christians" and not non Christians?

No, I mean for non-Christians. Laws effect everyone.

If all Christians were calling for were religious laws for themselves I don't think anyone would be objecting. It is the insistence of regulating non-Christian through the laws of the state that irks so many people.

ISAW wrote: »

all sorts of things are not acceptable including this. Certain heterosexual behaviour is also not acceptable. Christians don't object to homosexuality just to certain behavior arising from it.

Christians can object to anything they see as a sin, but as I explained to Monty they have also recognized the difference between Earthly concerns and heavenly concerns.

Christians do not (at least not for hundreds of years) attempted to enforce various objections to sins such as idoltry through rule of law.

So why are they insisting on doing that with laws related to homosexuality and marriage?

ISAW wrote: »

True they are unacceptable lifestyles.

And yet this is accepted by Christians throughout the world. When was the last time any Christian organisation called on the state to impose laws preventing the worshipping of gods other than God?

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't special at all. It is just one of many other things.

It is the only one that Christians are currently actively lobbying against.

Even objection to abortion has an Earthly rational behind it, the idea that is the killing of an innocent life.

But the objection to homosexuality is purely theological, Christians should not do this but why then does that require that non-Christians also be held to that standard.