Homosexuality and The Bible

mcrdotcom

I have a blog, which I am trying to format as a discussion blog.

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/homosexuality-and-the-bible/

So basically I was hoping for some feedback etc... and also I would like to hear your views on the topic.

It is about homosexuality and the bible.

EDIT: This was in the LGBT section, now it is here, so I hope that people on the other side of the argument can respond. I would like to make it clear that all views will be equally respected. Also, responses will be used in the next blog, hopefully 2 from each side.

Everything is explained in the blog.

Thanks

Sir Ophiuchus

Don't say "sexual preference" right before explaining how being gay is not a choice. The correct term is "sexual orientation". Being lesbian or gay is a sexual orientation. The reverse cowgirl is a sexual preference.

mcrdotcom

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Don't say "sexual preference" right before explaining how being gay is not a choice. The correct term is "sexual orientation". Being lesbian or gay is a sexual orientation. The reverse cowgirl is a sexual preference.

Ah, point taken, shall change that. Thank you

wonderfulname

You confuse me, I'm sorry to say I couldn't follow it, probably more a reflection on my tiredness than anything though. The big thing that stuck with me was the "state in America...planning to ban any reference to homosexuality before middle schooling, in school." You should have done a post on that - very interesting (if mildly depressing) topic... might steal that one for myself...

For anyone who wants to know more on that story: link

OP, 2 things, one, you should provide more information, so as people can come to a conclusion as you ask, concrete facts and quotations as opposed to your own assumptions. Two, the username, MCR.com? Or something completely different? Words may as well be running around the screen for me today...

philologos

You should really post this on the Christianity forum. It could be good to discuss, and that's the main place you're going to get the most contribution from a Christian perspective.

There are few things that you bring up here that the LGBT forum charter doesn't permit (such as speculating on whether or not sexuality is biologically determined or talking about the Bible could be perceived as Bible-bashing) that could restrict contribution on a few points. Needless to say as someone who does believe that all sexual relations outside of marriage falls short of God's standard (or is a sin) I wouldn't agree with much of your post.

I do agree with some of it however, I believe that churches disproportionately condemn homosexual relations above other sin. I also don't believe that I am any more or any less a sinner than anyone else. I don't believe that churches should deny that sin is sin however. I recognise that sin is undesirable an aim to change my ways and to repent of my sin, to turn back on it and start afresh.

Edit: Your argument also presents a misunderstanding as to the Levitical laws, and what Jesus taught in respect to them, and indeed how Jesus' life, death and resurrection changes Christian perception of the Jewish law which is why bringing this to the Christianity forum could really help.

Links234

The bible is very homoerotic in parts, I think.

TylerIE

From the blog

To begin, I am myself a heterosexual person. I have no problem what so ever with homosexual people, and I have many friends of this orientation

Splitting hairs but I do read a lot of the pro and anti gay rants from the States.

Its generally the strong anti-gay pro Christian people who keep referring to "homosexuality".

Id probably state that "I have no problem with LGBT individuals" if I had to state anything...

However as my old English teacher used to say - when people say "no problem" it brings up the issue of a "problem".

So it might be even more desirable to say "While I am straight or hetrosexual I see all people as being equal regardless of sexual orientation." Saying you have "no problem" suggests that its normal or that its expected that you would have a problem.

I didnt take that literal interpretation for it, however for someone whos only coming to terms with their sexuality, then terminology can be REALLY important.

I dont mean to appear rude however as your probably going to alienate the Christian side regardless, Id be careful with your terminology in order to avoid alienating the LGBT community also.

Otherwise the Gay Christian Network and youtube can provide some interesting source material for discussion and research.

mcrdotcom

philologos wrote: »

You should really post this on the Christianity forum. It could be good to discuss, and that's the main place you're going to get the most contribution from a Christian perspective.

There are few things that you bring up here that the LGBT forum charter doesn't permit (such as speculating on whether or not sexuality is biologically determined or talking about the Bible could be perceived as Bible-bashing) that could restrict contribution on a few points. Needless to say as someone who does believe that all sexual relations outside of marriage falls short of God's standard (or is a sin) I wouldn't agree with much of your post.

I do agree with some of it however, I believe that churches disproportionately condemn homosexual relations above other sin. I also don't believe that I am any more or any less a sinner than anyone else. I don't believe that churches should deny that sin is sin however. I recognise that sin is undesirable an aim to change my ways and to repent of my sin, to turn back on it and start afresh.

Edit: Your argument also presents a misunderstanding as to the Levitical laws, and what Jesus taught in respect to them, and indeed how Jesus' life, death and resurrection changes Christian perception of the Jewish law which is why bringing this to the Christianity forum could really help.

Honestly, I was very unsure as to where I should post this, and I saw this section and thought that the mods would move it if they thought it was in anyway offending or against the rules.

philologos

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Honestly, I was very unsure as to where I should post this, and I saw this section and thought that the mods would move it if they thought it was in anyway offending or against the rules.

It's just I don't think you will get much input from a Christian perspective this way. There are topics which are (understandably I guess, people won't want to see critiques of homosexual activity in the LGBT forum) forbidden for discussion in the LGBT forum which could hinder a full discussion on this topic. I think it is a good catalyst for discussion.

mcrdotcom

wonderfulname wrote: »

You confuse me, I'm sorry to say I couldn't follow it, probably more a reflection on my tiredness than anything though. The big thing that stuck with me was the "state in America...planning to ban any reference to homosexuality before middle schooling, in school." You should have done a post on that - very interesting (if mildly depressing) topic... might steal that one for myself...

For anyone who wants to know more on that story: link

OP, 2 things, one, you should provide more information, so as people can come to a conclusion as you ask, concrete facts and quotations as opposed to your own assumptions. Two, the username, MCR.com? Or something completely different? Words may as well be running around the screen for me today...

I was planning to discuss that, and I may open it up in the next post, however, I just don't know much about the law itself. However, as I mention in the post, this is a learning curve for me to better my blogging I go along.

Also, it is mcr.com, it is the username I have used for years and years, and nobody has ever ever ever gotten it right!

Finally, I don't own a bible and I could not find the exact quotations, however, I am doing my best to have them for clarification in the next post, and in the future I hope the blogs will be much better. This one was just to test, and I didn't want to put tonnes of time into something that was going nowhere.

Thank you very much for the input

mcrdotcom

philologos wrote: »

It's just I don't think you will get much input from a Christian perspective this way. There are topics which are (understandably I guess, people won't want to see critiques of homosexual activity in the LGBT forum) forbidden for discussion in the LGBT forum which could hinder a full discussion on this topic. I think it is a good catalyst for discussion.

Is there any chance a mod could move this over?

I think I have a lot of response from the LGBT side now (because I have a few friends who are gay) and on this forum.

So, if it is possible to move the thread with these posts still remaining that would be wonderful, but if not, I will just start one up there myself.

mcrdotcom

lst wrote: »

I dont mean to appear rude however as your probably going to alienate the Christian side regardless, Id be careful with your terminology in order to avoid alienating the LGBT community also.

I don't take it as rude. All constructive criticism is accepted with open arms, thank you.

I honestly did not think that it would be seen in an offensive way by anyone, and I will change that.

Also, I have no intention of alienating anyone. Obviously, with my beliefs, my views are going to seem like that, but I hope that I can have an equal balance in my response post, from Christian people and LGBT people.

mcrdotcom

DubArk wrote: »

Yes you’re trying to get a discussion going………. Not a bad thing normally. But here I feel we’re just a little bible weary….. Those Christians are relentless really; it’s like a religion to them you see.
Fact= I’m gay.
Fiction= Christianity.

Well I like a controversial topic. I really like discussion, and if everyone can respect everyone, then it should be fine.

Also, I would ask anyone with a wordpress account, please subscribe and comment, I promise it will improve

rainbow kirby

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Is there any chance a mod could move this over?

Done.

philologos

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Finally, I don't own a bible and I could not find the exact quotations, however, I am doing my best to have them for clarification in the next post, and in the future I hope the blogs will be much better. This one was just to test, and I didn't want to put tonnes of time into something that was going nowhere.

biblia.com provides a number of translations in English and allows you to compare translations. Indeed, I think it has a few commentaries too.

For indepth study into the Bible I would suggest looking into getting a concordance such as Strongs (I think this can be found online) or looking into Biblical commentaries which can also be found online. John Wesleys and Matthew Henry's are quite good.

Commenting on stuff like this will require good referencing and good knowledge of the context in which passages are written. If one is going to write about the Bible, it is fair that one should have a general knowledge of what it is saying.

philologos

Just to bump this briefly briefly, it could be great if some of us could give the OP some of our thoughts on this topic.

Donatello

I'm Catholic which means I believe what the Church teaches about this moral issue.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states thus:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You can read more about the Catholic teaching here:

Homosexuality

With further commentary here:

I know many gays and lesbians who are very nice persons. So why should they be rejected by the Catholic Church?

Only the Church teaches the complete truth about human sexuality. The truth which liberates rather than enslaves. The world would have it that persons are slaves to their sexual urges, like animals. The Church, on the contrary, holds the dignity of man created in the image of God as a permanent value and espouses holy chastity, which brings human sexuality into the plan of redemption, which leads to wholeness of the person, in the model of the perfect man, Jesus Christ.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

I know many gays and lesbians who are very nice persons. So why should they be rejected by the Catholic Church?

Funny how if you got to the "Who writes this page" link on that site the author seeks donations as though a donation to him is doing great good for the world.

Like a lot of the Conservative Politicans, including some of our own, I find these sites seem to offer a selective interpretation, that feeds a radical right, who subsequently are delighted to pay or donate to those who support their views.

wolfsbane

mcrdotcom wrote: »

I have a blog, which I am trying to format as a discussion blog.

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/homosexuality-and-the-bible/

So basically I was hoping for some feedback etc... and also I would like to hear your views on the topic.

It is about homosexuality and the bible.

EDIT: This was in the LGBT section, now it is here, so I hope that people on the other side of the argument can respond. I would like to make it clear that all views will be equally respected. Also, responses will be used in the next blog, hopefully 2 from each side.

Everything is explained in the blog.

Thanks

Hi, mcrdotcom

From the blog:

There is, as far as I am aware, three references to this topic in the bible. It is mentioned in the old testament (I am not going over all the references in the bible because this blog ended up 1000+ words), a long side the part that says you cannot wear clothing with wool more than once or something like that. Yet, most Christian people do wear wool, when they so wish.

I chose this reference because I think it beautifully shows how the bible can be taken completely out of proportion. If some person were to suggest it sinful to wear wool at any given time of day, I am sure you would think it absurd… Just like I think it is absurd to tell a person that they cannot act of their sexual orientation.

Yes, homosexuality was condemned in the OT, as were many things. Some of them were moral in nature, some were symbolic. For example, murder in the former class, wearing mixed fabrics in the latter.

The question of where homosexual activity lies in that can be partly assessed from both the penalties attached and the level of condemnation levelled.

It was a capital offence, and it was listed as a substantial reason behind Sodom - and other people's - destruction.

But the clearest condemnation of homosexuality is in the NT. Fro example, Paul lists it as a prime judgement on idolaters:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And with other grave sins:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Also, is it not true that Jesus loved sinners? He died for our sins, yet, the church will denounce homosexuality as an abomination, even though, we all sin on a daily basis, and they do not denounce the majority of these sinning people ? I believe it should be taken along side every verse in the bible, in the same proportion, which means, although you probably shouldn’t do it as a Christian, you do it anyway and God will forgive you. The church does not publicly denounce those who steal, yet, today I stole that which I was forbidden to, a biscuit belonging to my mother. Should I be held accountable before God in relation to this clear breach in the ten commandments? I do not think so.

Every unrepented sin will land you in hell. And any church calling itself Christian ought to condemn every sin. As to denouncing the sinner, we do so - warning every man that all sin brings one to hell. We denounce the thief, the adulterer, the liar, etc.

Now, if a Christian falls into any sin we call him to repent. If he refuses, we treat him as an unbeliever.

Our sexual orientation is determined by the chemical reactions in our brain, and none of us can be held accountable for this. I do not choose to be heterosexual, I just am, like a homosexual is just gay.

To what extent our behaviour is linked to our brain chemistry, I do not know. But I do know we are responsible for acting on any evil thought/desire. I will be accountable for my actions, be they overt immorality or lustful thoughts.

The excuse of 'orientation' is not accepted (by most) for the paedophile, yet he too says, 'I just am'. So orientation (real or imagined) is not the issue. The issue is this: Is the embraced desire/act sinful or not? The Bible says it is.

As an atheist I accept all religious people in society, even though their beliefs are contrary to my own, and I would hope the church would do the same.

I accept homosexuals likewise. That is, I believe them to be perverted in their practice, but that is between them and God. Just as for heterosexuals, provided it is consenting adults, they should have the civil freedom to their beliefs and practices.

I go further - I love homosexuals. I feel sad that they are estranged from God and heading for hell, and I evangelise them as I can. Same goes to for all sorts of sinners. Yes, even the paedophile and murderer. These two I would punish for their sins, unlike the homosexual and fornicator, but I still seek their salvation.

So, in general, to sum up, I have no problem with homosexuals, I think people are very selective in what they pay close attention to in the bible,

Yes, they can be. Selective excusing of our own sins, and hearty condemnation of others' sins. But an honest commentator will certainly acknowledge what the Bible condemns as grave sins, as distinct from lesser ones. Murder is not in the same level as gossip, but both are wicked actions.

So, in general, to sum up, I have no problem with homosexuals, I think people are very selective in what they pay close attention to in the bible, and in the end, we are who we are, and we cannot change that.

As above: we can change that. As Paul points out: And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.



****************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Funny how if you got to the "Who writes this page" link on that site the author seeks donations as though a donation to him is doing great good for the world.

Like a lot of the Conservative Politicans, including some of our own, I find these sites seem to offer a selective interpretation, that feeds a radical right, who subsequently are delighted to pay or donate to those who support their views.

If you don't like that link, dismiss it. I only provided it because it helps, imho, to put the Church's doctrine in everyday language and application. As I see it, his writings on homosexuality are completely in accordance with the Catholic Church doctrine on homosexuality. If you find anything on his site contrary to Catholic faith and morals, you should write to him.

You might prefer to concentrate on the official Church teaching as found in the Catechism.

mcrdotcom

I would like to thank everyone for their input.

I may not believe in what the Christian side is saying, however, I do respect your views.

I will be replying to 4 responses in a blog on Friday night, and I will post the link here.

Fanny Cradock

Unbelievable (it's a UK radio programme) ran a discussion between two gay Christians and their very differing opinions of what it means to be gay and Christian. They also did another two shows entitled Homosexuality and the Bible and Homosexuality and the Church.

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Unbelievable (it's a UK radio programme) ran a discussion between two gay Christians and their very differing opinions of what it means to be gay and Christian.

Those wolves at 'Courage' - the UK group - took the name used by a faithful Catholic group for those with homosexual attractions in the USA called Courage. The UK branch of Courage had to use the name EnCourage. Unwary persons could mistakenly think that 'Courage' UK were a faithful apostolate, having heard of the excellent work done by Courage in the USA.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Those wolves at 'Courage' - the UK group - took the name used by a faithful Catholic group for those with homosexual attractions in the USA called Courage. The UK branch of Courage had to use the name EnCourage. Unwary persons could mistakenly think that 'Courage' UK were a faithful apostolate, having heard of the excellent work done by Courage in the USA.

This is where it gets nasty - Courage US is "reorientation therapy", which at best is widely reported to be ineffective, and is likely psychological torture

Encourage UK appears at a glance to promote RC teaching? chaste lives etc?

Whats wrong with the UK group.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

This is where it gets nasty - Courage US is "reorientation therapy", which at best is widely reported to be ineffective, and is likely psychological torture

Encourage UK appears at a glance to promote RC teaching? chaste lives etc?

Whats wrong with the UK group.

No, you are thinking of NARTH. Courage USA does the same sort of work as EnCourage UK.

Many experts in the USA and those who've been helped, would not agree with your comments on therapy.

From the Courage UK website:

In accordance with main-line evangelical thinking on the issue, during the early 1990s, Courage ran a succession of discipleship programmes with a view to helping people ‘come out’ of homosexuality. However, practical experience proved this to be a counter-productive approach. Through our years of pastoral experience, it became increasingly imperative to listen to the Holy Spirit afresh and pursue further scriptural study on the issues. The result is that we have come to recognise that God supports and blesses sincere committed relationships between gay people (for whom a heterosexual relationship is inappropriate).

Wolves they are then.



"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
-- Mt. 7

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

No, you are thinking of NARTH. Courage USA does the same sort of work as EnCourage UK.

Many experts in the USA and those who've been helped, would not agree with your comments on therapy.

I thought the UK Courage group promoted homosexuality? Their intro page is a bit ambiguous. It seems they are an Evangelical group - I had thought they were a group of 'Catholic' dissenters. If I have called Courage UK wolves in error, I apologise and retract my comments. But I'm still not sure if they are promoting homosexuality or chaste living.

Apologies for the mis-understanding. Your link was to Encourage in the UK not Courage UK so I assumed you were seeing encourage as being awful.

Courage in the US is I understand often associated or works with "conversion" therapists.

However the "experts" you mention in the US are not recognised by the professional bodies in their field as being correct in their "research" and approach to reparative therapy.

Indeed when I read one of the most authoritive pieces backing reparitive therapy it stated that those who had been "converted" to hetrosexuality were those from strong Christian Backgrounds, who felt it was unacceptable to be gay and that they must become straight. Almost ALL still had regular same-sex attractions. Few admitted to acting on them but most still had them.

Assuming you have kids do you really want a "converted" gay man marrying your daughter (or niece/ young female cousin if you have no kids)

TheReverend

Its sad that in this day and age people still think being LGBT is a "sin" or "wrong".

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Apologies for the mis-understanding. Your link was to Encourage in the UK not Courage UK so I assumed you were seeing encourage as being awful.

Courage in the US is I understand often associated or works with "conversion" therapists.

However the "experts" you mention in the US are not recognised by the professional bodies in their field as being correct in their "research" and approach to reparative therapy.

Indeed when I read one of the most authoritive pieces backing reparitive therapy it stated that those who had been "converted" to hetrosexuality were those from strong Christian Backgrounds, who felt it was unacceptable to be gay and that they must become straight. Almost ALL still had regular same-sex attractions. Few admitted to acting on them but most still had them.

Assuming you have kids do you really want a "converted" gay man marrying your daughter (or niece/ young female cousin if you have no kids)

Courage USA = Good
EnCourage UK - Good
Courage UK = Bad

There's a lot of political and ideological objections to the work of the likes of NARTH among the APA. But it's an open marketplace - if people want to avail of their services, let them. In the end, the truth will prevail and vindicate those wrongly accused.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Courage USA = Good
EnCourage UK - Good
Courage UK = Bad

There's a lot of political and ideological objections to the work of the likes of NARTH among the APA. But it's an open marketplace - if people want to avail of their services, let them. In the end, the truth will prevail and vindicate those wrongly accused.

Often people are forced by friends or family into going to these services.

And equally as bad they promise cures for desperate people and instead at best rip them off, and likely cause them massive damage.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Often people are forced by friends or family into going to these services.

And equally as bad they promise cures for desperate people and instead at best rip them off, and likely cause them massive damage.

You don't know any of that. Have you been to one? If not, then all you've heard is hearsay from the very people who object so strongly, on ideological grounds, to the work of NARTH. Let people make their own choices about their mental care. Some psychologists say homosexuality is healthy and normal, others say it makes you sad and offer to help.

This is good background reading.

lst

lst wrote: »

Often people are forced by friends or family into going to these services.

And equally as bad they promise cures for desperate people and instead at best rip them off, and likely cause them massive damage.

But the root cause is still religion. I mean, if some segments of Christianity didn't condemn homosexuality people wouldn't feel forced to try and change themselves, and if people didn't feel forced to try and change themselves organisations that sold the "cure of homosexuality" wouldn't exist.

I've still never heard a compelling reason as to why homosexuality is actually condemned. I know it's mentioned in the Bible, but that's not the root of my concern (as an aside, there's plenty more condemned in the Bible that doesn't get the same disdain as homosexuality does). To get a little bit philosophical: why would God create a person gay (and he does, it's not a lifestyle choice before somebody jumps in with that), yet condemn him from acting upon his nature. You can say it's a test for him, yet it seems an unfair test when others aren't subjected to the same.

The only answer I ever get is that "we can't know the mind of God", or some such variant guised in more elaborate language.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

You don't know any of that. Have you been to one? If not, then all you've heard is hearsay from the very people who object so strongly, on ideological grounds, to the work of NARTH. Let people make their own choices about their mental care. Some psychologists say homosexuality is healthy and normal, others say it makes you sad and offer to help.

This is good background reading.

Its a pretty straightforward statement to say that people are often forced to go to these reparitive therapy sessions.

Furthermore its the vast majority of Mental Health Professionals and all the major Professional Bodies who dont see it in itself as requiring treatment.

Finally as someone who I'm quite certain would know a lot more gay people than you I can categorically state that a huge amount of the unhappiness is caused by discrimination (state sanctioned, church sanctioned and some still socially acceptable). Im sure it would be much better for Christians to at least accept LGBT individuals rather than say "you have to be fixed".

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've still never heard a compelling reason as to why homosexuality is actually condemned. I know it's mentioned in the Bible, but that's not the root of my concern (as an aside, there's plenty more condemned in the Bible that doesn't get the same disdain as homosexuality does). To get a little bit philosophical: why would God create a person gay (and he does, it's not a lifestyle choice before somebody jumps in with that), yet condemn him from acting upon his nature. You can say it's a test for him, yet it seems an unfair test when others aren't subjected to the same.

No trial has come to you but what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it. - 1 Cor. 10:13

The inclination itself is not typically consciously chosen, however, unless one is out of one's mind, the choice is made when a person decides to act on their attractions.

Does God create people born without arms or legs? Does God make people born with half their skull missing? We are a fallen race. We suffer and are afflicted in so many ways. Redemption comes through Christ who can make all things new.

Additionally, you do not know about the inner crosses other persons carry, and there are a multitude of crosses.

lst wrote: »

Its a pretty straightforward statement to say that people are often forced to go to these reparitive therapy sessions.

Furthermore its the vast majority of Mental Health Professionals and all the major Professional Bodies who dont see it in itself as requiring treatment.

Finally as someone who I'm quite certain would know a lot more gay people than you I can categorically state that a huge amount of the unhappiness is caused by discrimination (state sanctioned, church sanctioned and some still socially acceptable). Im sure it would be much better for Christians to at least accept LGBT individuals rather than say "you have to be fixed".

If people want to freely avail of these services, they must be allowed.

The Church does not require that people 'fix themselves' through therapy. One can live as a chaste person who happens to have same-sex attraction and who can become a great saint. That is the teaching of the Church:

CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Christian perfection = sainthood.

The CDF released a document on sexual ethics in 1975. You may find the relevant extract useful:

PERSONA HUMANA

DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS
CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS

[...]

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

philologos

lst wrote: »

I'm sure it would be much better for Christians to at least accept LGBT individuals rather than say "you have to be fixed".

Churches don't refuse anyone at the door. Rather the churches have a Christian message to preach. An part of that Christian message is that sexuality is best expressed in a marriage. This teaching might be offensive to many straight people also, but ultimately it is what God calls us to do. Disagreement with how people act doesn't mean "not accepting LGBT individuals" or as some more hysterical interpretations would lead to "hatred".

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But the root cause is still religion. I mean, if some segments of Christianity didn't condemn homosexuality people wouldn't feel forced to try and change themselves, and if people didn't feel forced to try and change themselves organisations that sold the "cure of homosexuality" wouldn't exist.

A key distinction needs to be made. Christianity condemns homosexual activity, or how we deal with our inclinations. It doesn't condemn people for having inclinations themselves. For example, as a heterosexual male, I have heterosexual inclinations. This doesn't mean that I should use every possible opportunity to express these inclinations, but rather it means I should control them.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've still never heard a compelling reason as to why homosexuality is actually condemned. I know it's mentioned in the Bible, but that's not the root of my concern (as an aside, there's plenty more condemned in the Bible that doesn't get the same disdain as homosexuality does). To get a little bit philosophical: why would God create a person gay (and he does, it's not a lifestyle choice before somebody jumps in with that), yet condemn him from acting upon his nature. You can say it's a test for him, yet it seems an unfair test when others aren't subjected to the same.

Indeed, there is much more condemned in the Bible. This is why I mentioned that earlier that churches need to be far more objective in terms of what is good and evil in terms of Christianity. At the same time, this doesn't mean that we have a valid reason to ignore the Scriptural position as Christians. I personally believe that marriage as the place of sexuality has to do with the family and children having both male and female influences. It presumably also has to do with the fact that males and females in and of themselves can bear children whereas homosexual couples can't.

As for God creating people homosexual that is a subject of dispute even within the scientific field. There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined that I've come across. If I'm wrong, give it a go. I remember someone on here a few years ago tried to present the case and at that time there was nothing to say that it was biologically determined. There was however evidence to suggest that homosexuality did occur in nature, but there was also evidence to suggest that it occurred for very different reasons in some cases (to increase fertility in beetles for example).

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The only answer I ever get is that "we can't know the mind of God", or some such variant guised in more elaborate language.

Today's your lucky day . Tell me what you have issue with and I'll do my best to respond to it!

JimiTime

Just received my copy of 'A Queer Thing Happened To America'. Here's one review:

"As a former homosexual who was a "gay" activist for a decade in the 80's and early '90's I know that what Dr Michael Brown is saying is correct & well researched. In fact I could add more evidence to substantiate the TRUTH that Brown has reported."

It seems like a good read. I've got through the first 2 chapters, and its certainly been an education so far. I listen to the authors radio shows a lot, and have much respect for him. It defo seems like a good read for anyone interested in the subject matter, whatever side of the fence you're on.

wolfsbane

TheReverend wrote: »

Its sad that in this day and age people still think being LGBT is a "sin" or "wrong".

Yea, imagine, Christians believing the Bible!

****************************************************************************
Matthew 22:23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

WarnerT

I use to be a commited member of a catholic christian community comprised of both lay people and religious priests and nuns.
It was a very well recognised and respected community of the catholic church.
I loved it but knew I was gay.
Somehow by a process of denial and belief that Jesus understood my love I was able to sustain a loving relationship for four years while I was a member of the community.
It was only when the relationship ended because my partner simply couldnt take the strain anymore and opted to try to be straight that I found I had to confront fully what I was doing.
My work was suffering I was upset all the time and couldnt focus on anything so I went to my community looking for support.
Funny thing was at first everyone I went to wound up telling me about their sexual problems.
Finally it was decided that I needed to see a priest who had the gift of healing.
He put me through some weird recession therapy. I say weird because I was to imagine myself and my partner being in bed together and then Jesus was to walk in.
The scenario was suppose to end in my saying that Jesus was sad or upset or something but I had already imagined Jesus with us and felt he understood our love.
The priest nearly had a fit, he banged the table and ranted if I wasnt ready or did not want to be cured there was nothing he could do.
I submitted as I was so upset I thought there was nothing else to do.
When the priest felt happy enough with his treatment of me, which looking back on it was full of him discussing his own fantasies he decided to give me the sacrament of the sick.
He asked me if I had ever had any contact with the occult, which surprised me and then went on to say that when he works with people who have had contact with the occult he gets depressed and has to get help from a nun in the community ( weirder and weirder)
Then he anointed my hands against masturbation and gave me the oil to anoint my genitals to cure me of homosexuality.
Its ok it doesnt get any worse, but I have met guys since who have had the priest anoint their genitals for them. :mad:
This really isnt something I wanted, I was just looking for help.
I now know you do not go to the catholic church when you are vulnerable.
I was lucky and I was able to get that hatred/homophobia out of my head even though it has taken a long time.
I feel like I was taken advantage of.
I feel like that ritual was ritual abuse. I mean that. The catholic church was a church I loved. I loved ritual. Now it makes me feel sick.
And you know what they probably have me down as one of the ones they cured.

PDN

DubArk wrote: »

I think it’s a pity that the thread was moved in here because I knew it would be hijacked by the Bible junkies who have little to say, then copy and paste scripture as a defence for their own bigotry and contempt for others. Like a fix that gets them high on self-righteousness resulting in self elevation, to a misguided higher moral ground.

Moderator warning

Less of the hysteria, please!

How awful that a thread about the Bible and homosexuality should be moved to a forum where people who are interested in the Bible might post.

Christians and non-Christians alike are welcome to post in this thread, but it will facilitate better discussion if those on both sides accept that people hold different opinions from themselves. Lumping people together with pejorative terms like 'bigots' and 'Bible-junkies' makes you no different from those who use pejorative terms against gay people.

If you, or anyone else, can't maintain a modicum of politeness and courtesy towards those with whom they disagree then this is the wrong place for you to post. Any instances of homophobic language, or of generalised slurs against Christianity or religion, will be moderated robustly. I hope that is clear to everyone.

mcmoustache

I have never really understood why gay/bi people would want to partake in Christianity. The bible is quite clear on the status of gay/bi people. They can be gay but once they act on it, they have sinned against God. It's written there in black and white and you can't just go editing that stuff out of the bible.

If a gay person wants to be a Christian, they have to stop all homosexual acts in order to be a Christian. Why would they want to do that? I just don't get it.



Disclaimer: I am not Christian and I don't subscribe to their views on homosexuality. I support full equality including adoption and marriage. I was just pointing out where Christianity stands on the issue of homosexuality.

philologos

mcmoustache wrote: »

I have never really understood why gay/bi people would want to partake in Christianity. The bible is quite clear on the status of gay/bi people. They can be gay but once they act on it, they have sinned against God. It's written there in black and white and you can't just go editing that stuff out of the bible.

People are people are people as far as Christianity is concerned. Actions are actions are actions as far as Christianity is concerned. There is no need to demarcate. For example as a heterosexual single male I'm much in a similiar position until a point if (hopefully when) I find the right person to marry.

mcmoustache wrote: »

If a gay person wants to be a Christian, they have to stop all homosexual acts in order to be a Christian. Why would they want to do that? I just don't get it.

You could say that of anything though. If I enjoy getting drunk, why would I want to become a Christian?

Keylem

mcmoustache wrote: »

I have never really understood why gay/bi people would want to partake in Christianity. The bible is quite clear on the status of gay/bi people. They can be gay but once they act on it, they have sinned against God. It's written there in black and white and you can't just go editing that stuff out of the bible.

If a gay person wants to be a Christian, they have to stop all homosexual acts in order to be a Christian. Why would they want to do that? I just don't get it.



Disclaimer: I am not Christian and I don't subscribe to their views on homosexuality. I support full equality including adoption and marriage. I was just pointing out where Christianity stands on the issue of homosexuality.

Catholic christians (I'm sure it's much the same in all other christian denomiations), whether gay or straight are meant to remain celibate until marriage, but many don't!

Penn

philologos wrote: »

You could say that of anything though. If I enjoy getting drunk, why would I want to become a Christian?

Because the blood of Christ has an alcohol content of about 12%

philologos

I didn't realise this was you, Jakkass.

philologos wrote: »

A key distinction needs to be made. Christianity condemns homosexual activity, or how we deal with our inclinations. It doesn't condemn people for having inclinations themselves. For example, as a heterosexual male, I have heterosexual inclinations. This doesn't mean that I should use every possible opportunity to express these inclinations, but rather it means I should control them.

Yes, but as a heterosexual male you're not condemned for acting upon your inclinations, provided you're married. It's rather cruel to "build" a person with certain inclinations, then forbid them from acting upon their very nature. There are very few people who can completely control their natural inclinations. So, "letting somebody be made" with certain inclinations, then condemning them for acting upon those inclinations, seems tantamount to entrapment. This is one of the many, many, many things which can't, to me, be reconciled with the idea of a loving God.

Indeed, there is much more condemned in the Bible. This is why I mentioned that earlier that churches need to be far more objective in terms of what is good and evil in terms of Christianity.

Yes, it'd be nice to see some consistency in what certain religious groups and churches condemn. Nitpicking certain aspects and using the Bible as a basis for condemning them, while basically ignoring others, seems to me to be a way to voice a person's own prejudices without having to feel guilt or face reprecussions for doing so.

At the same time, this doesn't mean that we have a valid reason to ignore the Scriptural position as Christians. I personally believe that marriage as the place of sexuality has to do with the family and children having both male and female influences. It presumably also has to do with the fact that males and females in and of themselves can bear children whereas homosexual couples can't.

Surprisingly I used to be of a similar opinion. A few months back there was a thread in A&A about a gay couple's rights to adoption. I didn't believe it was right; I didn't believe a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt. But, as I followed the discussion, I realised that I actually had no reasonable basis for that opinion, that my only basis for it was my own preconceived ideas about how a family should be, along with the influences of the culture that I (that most) grew up in. I therefore had to change my view. It's a very liberating thing to do.

I realise that you have the Bible as a basis for your opinion above. But, it'd be worth trying to figure out what basis your views have if you temporarily ignored the Bible.

As for God creating people homosexual that is a subject of dispute even within the scientific field. There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined that I've come across. If I'm wrong, give it a go. I remember someone on here a few years ago tried to present the case and at that time there was nothing to say that it was biologically determined. There was however evidence to suggest that homosexuality did occur in nature, but there was also evidence to suggest that it occurred for very different reasons in some cases (to increase fertility in beetles for example).

I don't have sources to hand at the moment. But, I believe I've read that there's plenty to suggest homosexuality has a biological basis, whether genetic or due to chemicals and hormones the embryo is "exposed" to in the early stages of development (if that sentence comes across as negative then I apologise, I didn't mean it so). I realise it's a hotly debated area. I don't know enough about the field to come to any solid conclusions, if I said otherwise I'd only be feigning it. I'm sure others reading will know a lot more about this than I do, so can step in if needs be.

But that's neither here nor there. It's enough to say that a very significant proportion of most populations are homosexual. And so, they have, as I described above, in the eyes of Christianity, an unfair burden to bare.

Today's your lucky day . Tell me what you have issue with and I'll do my best to respond to it!

Most of my issues are expressed above, I believe. I probably didn't do a very good job of making them clear, though.

Donatello wrote:

Does God create people born without arms or legs? Does God make people born with half their skull missing? We are a fallen race. We suffer and are afflicted in so many ways. Redemption comes through Christ who can make all things new.

Additionally, you do not know about the inner crosses other persons carry, and there are a multitude of crosses.

Yes, but people who are born without arms or legs or with half of their skull missing don't face condemnation and eternal torture for acting upon their natural inclinations. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, but as a heterosexual male you're not condemned for acting upon your inclinations, provided you're married. It's rather cruel to "build" a person with certain inclinations, then forbid them from acting upon their very nature.

I don't have sources to hand at the moment. But, I believe I've read that there's plenty to suggest homosexuality has a biological basis, whether genetic or due to chemicals and hormones the embryo is "exposed" to in the early stages of development (if that sentence comes across as negative then I apologise, I didn't mean it so). I realise it's a hotly debated area. I don't know enough about the field to come to any solid conclusions, if I said otherwise I'd only be feigning it. I'm sure others reading will know a lot more about this than I do, so can step in if needs be.

But that's neither here nor there. It's enough to say that a very significant proportion of most populations are homosexual. And so, they have, as I described above, in the eyes of Christianity, an unfair burden to bare.

Yes, but people who are born without arms or legs or with half of their skull missing don't face condemnation and eternal torture for acting upon their natural inclinations. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Maybe 2% of the population according to latest studies. The 10% figure has long been debunked.

Everybody must exercise chastity according to their state in life. The only place for sexual union is within marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, open to the generation of new human life. Sex is for the generation of new human life and the union of the spouses. Any other use of human sexuality is disordered.

We have 'natural' inclinations. Some people like to steal or kill - should they also be free to act on their inclinations? Of course you say, 'They harm the rights of others.' True. And those who commit homosexual acts harm themselves and those they engage with, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

This is good background reading - just click the links:

But sex is natural. How can you deny that?

What’s wrong with sex? God created me the way I am, with all my desires. Celibacy is just a medieval attempt by the Church to repress homosexuality.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Maybe 2% of the population according to latest studies. The 10% figure has long been debunked.

Its the 2% figure thats been trashed.

The 2% is the figure that is cited by some groups as thats those who admit it when questioned, ie those who are out.

Even in Ireland we cant get accurate figures - even if it was a census question well over 3/4 of the gay guys I know would be marked as hetrosexual owing to not being out at home. Even in Sports - Theres only one "out" GAA player? does that mean theres only one? Far from it - most teams I know well I can think of 2+ guys out of the twenty in the team....

Figures from some of the conservative groups in the states, taken from churchgoing young people, state about 9% of females and 13% of males. It was in print and I cant find the document and obviously cant reference online.

Ironically it was an organisation from "your side" of the fence who had done the research and came up with the 9 and 13%. The anonymous nature of the survey allowed people to be honest.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Maybe 2% of the population according to latest studies. The 10% figure has long been debunked.

It doesn't matter if it's 2% or 10%, 2% is still a very, very significant proportion of a population. Even if it existed for a tiny fraction of a percentage of a population, they should still be afforded equal rights. The rights afforded to a person or a group shouldn't be dependent on their numbers. Rights should be equal and ubiquitous.

Donatello wrote:

Everybody must exercise chastity according to their state in life. The only place for sexual union is within marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, open to the generation of new human life. Sex is for the generation of new human life and the union of the spouses. Any other use of human sexuality is disordered.

With absolutely no offence intended, we shouldn't be basing our views of sexuality on the beliefs of individuals who lived many millennia ago. It's your opinion, and the opinion of people who lived thousands of years ago, that any other use of human sexuality is disordered. You're absolutely entitled to hold this belief, of course. I have no objection to that. But, where I do have an objection, is when people with your beliefs force their beliefs onto the young via indoctrination, or the general population via governmental influence.

We have 'natural' inclinations. Some people like to steal or kill - should they also be free to act on their inclinations? Of course you say, 'They harm the rights of others.' True. And those who commit homosexual acts harm themselves and those they engage with, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

That's an absolutely absurb claim on so many levels. Firstly, as you rightly acknowledge, comparing those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill is comparing apples to oranges. I imagine it's also very insulting to a gay person.

Secondly, if two consenting adults engage in whatever activity they wish to, so long as it doesn't affect others around them, what difference if it harms them spiritually, emotionally or physically? Not that that's even the case. I don't know of any rational person who'd say that homosexuals are harming themselves and their partner in any fashion whatsoever. The counter is probably true: if they don't acknowledge and act on their inclinations they're probably more inclined to harm themselves, be that emotionally or physically.

This is good background reading - just click the links:

But sex is natural. How can you deny that?

What’s wrong with sex? God created me the way I am, with all my desires. Celibacy is just a medieval attempt by the Church to repress homosexuality.

I really wish you'd stop linking to that site. I've read articles on it before, and it couldn't be less biased.

My opinion can simply be boiled down to this: any belief system which encourages the discrimination, condemnation, segregation and hatred of any set of individuals is erroneous, and should be scrapped.

rainbow kirby

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I imagine it's also very insulting to a gay person.

Very much so.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's an absolutely absurb claim on so many levels. Firstly, as you rightly acknowledge, comparing those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill is comparing apples to oranges. I imagine it's also very insulting to a gay person.

What is about this subject that seems to make posters, on both sides of the argument, lose the ability to think and write logically?

I am so sick to the backteeth of this balderdash that always follows the lines of: "Homosexuality is natural, therefore it must be right." (or 'God made me this way')

Then someone, very logically, responds by pointing out that what feels natural isn't necessarily right. That point is most easily made by pointing out something very different from homosexuality - something that all of us agree is wrong - but that people say comes naturally to them. So, for example, some people feel stealing is natural, or paedophilia ('God made me attracted to children'). Now, try to concentrate here, the whole point of this mode of argument is that it is most definitely not equating homosexuality with the example being used (be it theft or paedophilia). The example was chosen specifically because it is something we all consider to be worse - but which demonstrates that something 'being natural', or feeling God made you that way, has no bearing at all on whether the act is right or not.

It is a good logical argument. It is not equating homosexuality with theft or paedophilia, nor is it comparing them. It simply skewers some very poor and fluffy thinking by pointing out where the same bad logic can take you.

Yet, with eye-watering predictability, someone starts bleating nonsense about "Oh, but you're comparing gays to paedophiles! How dare you! I'm so offended."

What the hell is wrong with this country's education system? Don't they treat kids to think properly any more? Are we condemned to a future of people getting offended because they can't grasp a simple logical argument?

I wouldn't mind so much if this was a one off, but it isn't. It happens every bloody time. And the crying shame is it derails threads and makes it impossible to have a proper discussion about Christianity and homosexuality.

Donatello (someone I rarely agree with on anything by the way) did not compare those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill. He pointed out, using stealing and killing as an extreme example, that it does not logically follow that it is bad to restrain a natural inclination.

wolfsbane

-JammyDodger- said:

My opinion can simply be boiled down to this: any belief system which encourages the discrimination, condemnation, segregation and hatred of any set of individuals is erroneous, and should be scrapped.

I assume you mean each of those items - discrimination; condemnation; segregation and hatred of individuals is erroneous. Christianity does not teach us to hate the sinner, but it certainly does teach us to discipline those of our church who practice sinner things.

You yourself believe some individuals should face discrimination, condemnation, segregation by the State - at least, that is what I take by your suggesting that their belief systems 'should be scrapped'. I leave 'hatred' for you to comment on.

So it's just a matter of deciding what is and is not 'erroneous', and therefore liable to such treatment.

Why do you think your moral standards are superior to those of, say, Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Why are you sure that it is not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, but it is immoral to condemn such actions?

****************************************************************************
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

What is about this subject that seems to make posters, on both sides of the argument, lose the ability to think and write logically?

I am so sick to the backteeth of this balderdash that always follows the lines of: "Homosexuality is natural, therefore it must be right." (or 'God made me this way')

Then someone, very logically, responds by pointing out that what feels natural isn't necessarily right. That point is most easily made by pointing out something very different from homosexuality - something that all of us agree is wrong - but that people say comes naturally to them. So, for example, some people feel stealing is natural, or paedophilia ('God made me attracted to children'). Now, try to concentrate here, the whole point of this mode of argument is that it is most definitely not equating homosexuality with the example being used (be it theft or paedophilia). The example was chosen specifically because it is something we all consider to be worse - but which demonstrates that something 'being natural', or feeling God made you that way, has no bearing at all on whether the act is right or not.

It is a good logical argument. It is not equating homosexuality with theft or paedophilia, nor is it comparing them. It simply skewers some very poor and fluffy thinking by pointing out where the same bad logic can take you.

Yet, with eye-watering predictability, someone starts bleating nonsense about "Oh, but you're comparing gays to paedophiles! How dare you! I'm so offended."

What the hell is wrong with this country's education system? Don't they treat kids to think properly any more? Are we condemned to a future of people getting offended because they can't grasp a simple logical argument?

I wouldn't mind so much if this was a one off, but it isn't. It happens every bloody time. And the crying shame is it derails threads and makes it impossible to have a proper discussion about Christianity and homosexuality.

Donatello (someone I rarely agree with on anything by the way) did not compare those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill. He pointed out, using stealing and killing as an extreme example, that it does not logically follow that it is bad to restrain a natural inclination.

Well said!

I'm sure for some it is more than poor logic, however - deliberate evasion of the truth, so that one can keep a flawed argument.