Homosexuality and The Bible

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

My comments in red. ^

They dont have sexual contact with each other. They recognise each other as life partners and part of that is that they dont have sexual contact with anybody else. I was trying to explain how it was different to what you understand to be friendship!

Your why they hadnt married etc isnt relevant. Its what would you call them - are they just friends too? You state that a gay couple who dont engage in sex are just friends - so therefore it legitimately follows that a straight couple who dont engage in sex are just friends! especially if not married!

Im not redefining marriage willy nilly! The church can do what it wants! The state however needs to treat same sex couples equally. Or else eliminate marriage from the statute books. And introduce domestic partnerships or civil partnerships for everybody! Equal treatment!

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

How exactly do they explain this? Slaves and masters have nothing to do with those references.

How do you know? Were you there?

Some church groups would say these references have nothing to do with loving same sex relationships , but instead refer to above?

Others would say they have nothing to do with loving same sex relationships, but instead refer to older men taking advantage of children or teenage boys?

Others would say they have nothing to do with loving same sex relationships, but instead refer to men hiring prostitutes?

Your church say they have nothing to do with any of the above but refer to any form of homosexual relationship?
.... which then leads to what is a homosexual relationship....
Therefore you cannot state that LGBT loving relationships are condemned by God.

philologos

Can you answer the question with reference to what is actually argued Scripturally on the basis of these passages? You must have some source if you brought it into the discussion. It will make things a lot easier for us to discuss because I haven't a clue which arguments you're even mentioning.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

They dont have sexual contact with each other. They recognise each other as life partners and part of that is that they dont have sexual contact with anybody else. [And not with each other, either, right?]I was trying to explain how it was different to what you understand to be friendship!

Im not redefining marriage willy nilly! The church can do what it wants! The state however needs to treat same sex couples equally. Or else eliminate marriage from the statute books. And introduce domestic partnerships or civil partnerships for everybody! Equal treatment!

If two men are friends (f-r-i-e-n-d-s - they don't want to have sex with one another, not now, not in the future) - that is a friendship.

If two people of the same sex are living together and have lustful thoughts with regard to each other, they ought not to live together as that is a near occasion of sin.

You are on to something though: the ultimate aim of the homosexualist movement is the disposal of marriage and morality altogether. Expect to see some unusual developments in future along similar themes.

Marriage is good for society, same-sex unions, not so.

Can you clarify the bit in red, above?

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

Can you answer the question with reference to what is actually argued Scripturally on the basis of these passages? You must have some source if you brought it into the discussion. It will make things a lot easier for us to discuss because I haven't a clue which arguments you're even mentioning.

I cant recall exactly. I do believe 1 Cor 6:9 is one of them

Leviticus's is irrelevant as so the "abdominations" are now chosen "a la carte" by most religions - as we all know the one cited to me a few moments ago has shellfish mentioned nearby...

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

If two men are friends (f-r-i-e-n-d-s - they don't want to have sex with one another, not now, not in the future) - that is a friendship.

If two people of the same sex are living together and have lustful thoughts with regard to each other, they ought not to live together as that is a near occasion of sin.

These people are not just friends. They dont engage in sexual acts with each other or anyone else. They may wish to but dont (its irrelevant whether or not they wish to). They may not wish to. Either way are you saying that their relationship is just FRIENDS.

You still didnt answer my question - what about a man and woman who live together without having sex for 15 years and support each other through lifes trials throughout that period and dont engage in a sexual or intimate relationship with anybody else. Are they just friends?

You are on to something though: the ultimate aim of the homosexualist movement is the disposal of marriage and morality altogether. Expect to see some unusual developments in future along similar themes.

When LGBT people look for equal rights its called a the "homosexual movement" or "homsexual agenda"... yet when Christians look for something its called "Christian Values".

I dont seek to dispose of Marriage. I seek equal state rights for everybody. If Straight people can get married in the eyes of the State then LGBT people should be able to. IF thats not acceptable then the State shouldnt be in the business of Marriage, they can leave that to the church, and instead the state can introduce whatever they want to call it. Thats not disposing of marriage or morality. The Church gets to keep it all to themselves, and to the decreasing number of practicing Catholics!


[quote[
Marriage is good for society, same-sex unions, not so.

[/QUOTE]

Sweeping statement in bold - Prove it - back it up? Thats what ye keep asking me to do!

Donatello

lst wrote: »

These people are not just friends. They dont engage in sexual acts with each other or anyone else. They may wish to but dont (its irrelevant whether or not they wish to). They may not wish to. Either way are you saying that their relationship is just FRIENDS.

You still didnt answer my question - what about a man and woman who live together without having sex for 15 years and support each other through lifes trials throughout that period and dont engage in a sexual or intimate relationship with anybody else. Are they just friends?




When LGBT people look for equal rights its called a the "homosexual movement" or "homsexual agenda"... yet when Christians look for something its called "Christian Values".

I dont seek to dispose of Marriage. I seek equal state rights for everybody. If Straight people can get married in the eyes of the State then LGBT people should be able to. IF thats not acceptable then the State shouldnt be in the business of Marriage, they can leave that to the church, and instead the state can introduce whatever they want to call it. Thats not disposing of marriage or morality. The Church gets to keep it all to themselves, and to the decreasing number of practicing Catholics!


[quote[
Marriage is good for society, same-sex unions, not so.

Sweeping statement in bold - Prove it - back it up? Thats what ye keep asking me to do!

Marriage is the building block of society. Marriage has benefits for society: it produces new people to populate society, and marriage provides the best environment for the up-bringing of happy children. Marriage is fruitful and life-giving.

Gay unions, on the other hand, are inherently selfish and inward looking. These unions have pleasure and satisfaction as their ultimate end. Gay unions are not fruitful - they cannot produce children. Gay unions are not life-giving.

What benefits do gay unions bring to society and the common good?

How can the two be considered equal?

yawha

How utilitarian.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Marriage is the building block of society. Marriage has benefits for society: it produces new people to populate society, and marriage provides the best environment for the up-bringing of happy children. Marriage is fruitful and life-giving.

Gay unions, on the other hand, are inherently selfish and inward looking. These unions have pleasure and satisfaction as their ultimate end. Gay unions are not fruitful - they cannot produce children. Gay unions are not life-giving.

What benefits do gay unions bring to society and the common good?

How can the two be considered equal?

If that is the sole purpose of marriage - to bring in new people - then it should strictly exclude those who are too old to give birth or those who cannot have children for medical reasons. If these people know this prior to getting married then the state shouldnt be giving them the right to marry.* You cant say that its unfortunate if people cant have children - as its equally unfortunate for gay and lesbian individuals that they cant.
*(Based on your assertions that is - I think everybody should be allowed marry equally)

How are gay unions selfish?

They benefit society in that the two parties look after each other.
They have responsibilities towards each other and ensure each others health. This reduces the burden to the state of caring for the ill health of one of the parties if they were single, and also reduces the amount of care the state will have to provide to them when they are older (vs. if they were single individuals). All proven and held in Perry v Schwarzenegger.

Both parties live happier more fulfilled lives, meaning that they can contribute more to society.

It gives young LGBT individuals something to aspire to when growing up. It would reduce the discrimination against them by their peers.

Furthermore your expectations of marriage dont allow for love, affection and compassion. They only allow for animalistic reproduction, ie reproductive sex without love, kindness, caring and mutual exclusivity. I assume that you are not married if thats the case!


You still didnt answer my question:

You still didnt answer my question - what about a man and woman who live together without having sex for 15 years and support each other through lifes trials throughout that period and dont engage in a sexual or intimate relationship with anybody else. Are they just friends?

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Both parties live happier more fulfilled lives, meaning that they can contribute more to society.

It gives young LGBT individuals something to aspire to when growing up. It would reduce the discrimination against them by their peers.

Furthermore your expectations of marriage dont allow for love, affection and compassion. They only allow for animalistic reproduction. I assume that you are not married if thats the case!

You still didnt answer my question:

I disagree.

Meanwhile, a young person in a gay union household will be subject to more bullying, not less, as a result of his irregular living arrangement. It's also a form of abuse in itself to subject a little child to a gay union as it will interfere with their normal psycho-sexual development.

You still didnt answer my question - what about a man and woman who live together without having sex for 15 years and support each other through lifes trials throughout that period and dont engage in a sexual or intimate relationship with anybody else. Are they just friends?

If the man and woman are living together, they ought to marry, otherwise, at the very least, they give scandal to others looking on. What you describe sounds like an intimate friendship. If there is no romantic attraction and no sexual intimacy, then they are just soul-mates, close friends, call them what you will. But is not really appropriate that they should live together as that gives scandal, and I'm not sure your scenario is really very realistic. Two people of the same sex could live such an arrangement without sin. The problem arises when there is sexual attraction. In the case of hetero pair, they should separate or marry. In the case of gays, they ought to live apart so as not to tempt one another.

You cannot deny reality - sex has as its primary purpose what you call 'animalistic reproduction' - it's written into our very bodies. I dunno if you ever studied biology, but the whole set-up with the male and female, the different parts and structures, - the whole idea of the design, is to enable reproduction. Same sex actions are really just a mockery of the divine plan for humanity. I'm sorry if this truth offends you, but that's just the way it is. It's the reality of our creation.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

I disagree.

Meanwhile, a young person in a gay union household will be subject to more bullying, not less, as a result of his irregular living arrangement. It's also a form of abuse in itself to subject a little child to a gay union as it will interfere with their normal psycho-sexual development.

Prove it - Voices of Children didnt find that to be a major issue.

Anyway I wasnt talking about LGBT individuals adopting - you brought it up. But I have great news for you LGBT individuals can already adopt or foster - just they are given the injustice that the adopters partner is not legally recognised. Indeed LGBT couples can foster! I know, its great!

Furthermore initially children growing up with one parent were initially subject to more bullying. Society grew up and that stopped. At worst children in LGBT households would experience the same. However to be honest none of the children of LGBT individuals who I have spoken to have had that problem!!!

If the man and woman are living together, they ought to marry,

At what point should they marry? And until then are they "just friends"???

otherwise, at the very least, they give scandal to others looking on.

After ignoring my question for ages the best answer is that it "gives rise to scandal so they should get married"! So because people will gossip they should get married!!! hilarious! Lots of things give rise to scandal - new cars, houses, clothing, jobs, choice of school or university! You can choose to live in a place where people dont participate in scandal gossip!!!

What you describe sounds like an intimate friendship. If there is no romantic attraction and no sexual intimacy, then they are just soul-mates, close friends, call them what you will.

There is romantic attraction but no sexual intimacy. According to you terminology is important - after all you wont let me say that they are in a loving committed gay relationship if they dont have sex. And your fussy about keeping marriage to hetrosexual individuals.

What if the hetrosexual couple dont live together? No temptation to sin. But they love each other deeply, feel affection, share emotions, help each other, attend functions together, etc. And dont have sex with anybody. Are they "just friends" or would you call them "soul mates".

You cannot deny reality - sex has as its primary purpose what you call 'animalistic reproduction' - it's written into our very bodies. I dunno if you ever studied biology, but the whole set-up with the male and female, the different parts and structures, - the whole idea of the design, is to enable reproduction. Same sex actions are really just a mockery of the divine plan for humanity. I'm sorry if this truth offends you, but that's just the way it is. It's the reality of our creation.

Iv studied biology a lot more than you I'd say. So what about those who cannot reproduce? Ie those who cannot have children, are too old, or are engaged in same sex relationships? The actions of hetrosexual people who are not procreating are similarly a mockery by your standards!

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Prove it - Voices of Children didnt find that to be a major issue.

Anyway I wasnt talking about LGBT individuals adopting - you brought it up. But I have great news for you LGBT individuals can already adopt or foster - just they are given the injustice that the adopters partner is not legally recognised. Indeed LGBT couples can foster! I know, its great!

Furthermore initially children growing up with one parent were initially subject to more bullying. Society grew up and that stopped. At worst children in LGBT households would experience the same. However to be honest none of the children of LGBT individuals who I have spoken to have had that problem!!!




At what point should they marry? And until then are they "just friends"???



After ignoring my question for ages the best answer is that it "gives rise to scandal so they should get married"! So because people will gossip they should get married!!! hilarious! Lots of things give rise to scandal - new cars, houses, clothing, jobs, choice of school or university! You can choose to live in a place where people dont participate in scandal gossip!!!


There is romantic attraction but no sexual intimacy. According to you terminology is important - after all you wont let me say that they are in a loving committed gay relationship if they dont have sex. And your fussy about keeping marriage to hetrosexual individuals.

What if the hetrosexual couple dont live together? No temptation to sin. But they love each other deeply, feel affection, share emotions, help each other, attend functions together, etc. And dont have sex with anybody. Are they "just friends" or would you call them "soul mates".

Iv studied biology a lot more than you I'd say. So what about those who cannot reproduce? Ie those who cannot have children, are too old, or are engaged in same sex relationships? The actions of hetrosexual people who are not procreating are similarly a mockery by your standards!

I've got a science degree.

Anyhow, I've said that the only legitimate place for sex is within marriage. I can't come round to justifying same-sex unions, so I'm sorry I can't endorse your ideas.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

I've got a science degree.

My comment stands.

I dont expect your endorsement - its not particularly important to me.

It does stand that there is no legitimate reason to discriminate against same sex union. Every reason you give has collateral damage against straight couples, and to you this is unreasonable so you cant stand over them.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

My comment stands.

I dont expect your endorsement - its not particularly important to me.

It does stand that there is no legitimate reason to discriminate against same sex union. Every reason you give has collateral damage against straight couples, and to you this is unreasonable so you cant stand over them.

You should remember that any civilisation which embraces homosexuality is doomed to die.

The natural family is the building block of society and promotes the common good. Same-sex unions have nothing to offer society except the selfish utilitarianism of the participants.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

You should remember that any civilisation which embraces homosexuality is doomed to die.

The natural family is the building block of society and promotes the common good. Same-sex unions have nothing to offer society except the selfish utilitarianism of the participants.

Any civilization which embraces lifelong celibacy is doomed to die.

Any civilization where all men become Roman Catholic Priests is doomed to die.

Should the State grant same sex couples equality it will not affect population regeneration - You know, the whole thing about LGBT people is that they would not be having biological children anyway - you kept telling us that earlier!

Or are you suggesting that if the State recognises LGBT individuals everybody will turn gay?

Just because you would seem to homosexuality a tempting option if it was legal doesnt mean that everybody does.
Simples

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Any civilization which embraces lifelong celibacy is doomed to die.

Any civilization where all men become Roman Catholic Priests is doomed to die.

Should the State grant same sex couples equality it will not affect population regeneration - You know, the whole thing about LGBT people is that they would not be having biological children anyway - you kept telling us that earlier!

Or are you suggesting that if the State recognises LGBT individuals everybody will turn gay?

Just because you would seem to homosexuality a tempting option if it was legal doesnt mean that everybody does.
Simples

The thing is, with same-sex unions comes, part and parcel, the use of immoral reproductive technologies. It's already happening.

If the homosexualist agenda was merely about conducting their lives behind closed doors, that would be one hting, but as it is, they seek to have their way of life taught in public schools as a happy, healthy alternative. They also wish to suppress freedom of speech, and they seek to have religious groups endorse their lifestyles, and will force businesses to accept their lifestyle. Those who do not accept and embrace homosexuality will be told to 'Get out!' See here for proof of that.

Look at what a top US Army General said recently:

“Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,” Lt. Gen. Bostick said.

“But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you’re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.”

Servicemen should not be booted from the military because of their sincerely held religious convictions. It’s unseemly for a senior officer to equate those who hold traditional values with racists and bigots.

You'll see things turn really nasty in the coming years. You will see people jailed for hate crimes. You will see it promulgated as happy and normal in our schools.

The ultimate aim of the homosexualist agenda is to change the perception of ordinary people so that they affirm and accept homosexual behaviour. I think you will agree they have been tremendously successful.

This is more about some fluffy desire for 'rights' and 'equality'. Anybody that is part of the homosexualist agenda is serving, whether they realise it or not, to achieve the ultimate goal, which is societal acceptance of homosexuality. Those who do not accept it will be marginalised, ostracised, and eventually, even jailed.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

The thing is, with same-sex unions comes, part and parcel, the use of immoral reproductive technologies. It's already happening.

That doesnt affect hetrosexual couples. Nor does it increase or decrease hetrosexual couples use of contraceptives.

If the homosexualist agenda was merely about conducting their lives behind closed doors, that would be one hting, but as it is, they seek to have their way of life taught in public schools as a happy, healthy alternative. They also wish to suppress freedom of speech, and they seek to have religious groups endorse their lifestyles, and will force businesses to accept their lifestyle. Those who do not accept and embrace homosexuality will be told to 'Get out!'.

So we have an "agenda" and you have "values"??? It should be acknowledged that many people are straight and some are gay. Its not a lifestyle. Currently children are thought "you grow up straight". But what then happens is that when these young people grow older they are confused - "Im gay - but my teacher said you only grow up straight".

The ultimate aim of the homosexualist agenda is to change the perception of ordinary people so that they affirm and accept homosexual behaviour. I think you will agree they have been tremendously successful.

This is more about some fluffy desire for 'rights' and 'equality'. Anybody that is part of the homosexualist agenda is serving, whether they realise it or not, to achieve the ultimate goal, which is societal acceptance of homosexuality. Those who do not accept it will be marginalised, ostracised, and eventually, even jailed.

Societal acceptance that some people are LGB or T, and that these people deserve to be treated equally, is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

That doesnt affect hetrosexual couples. Nor does it increase or decrease hetrosexual couples use of contraceptives.



So we have an "agenda" and you have "values"??? It should be acknowledged that many people are straight and some are gay. Its not a lifestyle. Currently children are thought "you grow up straight". But what then happens is that when these young people grow older they are confused - "Im gay - but my teacher said you only grow up straight".



Societal acceptance that some people are LGB or T, and that these people deserve to be treated equally, is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

You did not address the totalitarian aspects of the gay agenda that are currently emerging and which I referred to in my previous post.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

You did not address the totalitarian aspects of the gay agenda that are currently emerging and which I referred to in my previous post.

I dont acknowledge a "Gay agenda". Agenda is a negatively weighted word.
There are Straight people and also LGBT individuals who seek to ensure that discrimination against LGBT people stops. These people work hard to ensure same, in the exact same way as people have worked hard to ensure equality for other minority groups in the past. .

Re read my previous post - I do address what you referred to.

I did state that there is no issue with children being aware that some people grow up to like people of the same gender. At the moment they are just thought about people growing up to marry the opposite gender.

Furthermore I see societal acceptance of everybody being equal as a wonderful thing.

Finally, I am delighted that we finally see your true colours.

Initially you are touting the Bible as your reason for condemning LGBT individuals.

When that doesnt work you say its a combination of the Bible / Scriptures / Tradition etc...

Then you say its Roman Catholic Church Policy.

Then you take the "it would be awful if gays got married" approach.
Then you change it to "the poor children would be bullied".

When none of that stands up to even a superficial scrutiny we finally realise the truth - you are afraid that society will no longer play along to your little discriminatory practices.

You have shown yourself up, so my work is done. Im not going to participate in this discussion with you anymore, as you have genuinely shown yourself to just want to behave in a bigoted manner towards LGBT individuals - NOT based on your Bible or Church, but based on your own personal beliefs. This is what many people do.

Whatever respect I have for the small minority of people who genuinely feel homosexuality is at conflict with their religion, I have no time for those who use it to cover up personal prejudice.

Note to Mods: Above is not a general comment - its to the poster in question based on their post history.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

I dont acknowledge a "Gay agenda".

Because your head is in the sand. Despite being presented with clear evidence, you deny the totalitarian tendencies which are emerging, the evidence of which I have supplied.

I'm not prepared to endorse your agenda, and for that reason, I'm out. You've presented nothing but a litany of self-justification, hoping at every turn that I will validate immoral lifestyle choices.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

Can you answer the question with reference to what is actually argued Scripturally on the basis of these passages? You must have some source if you brought it into the discussion. It will make things a lot easier for us to discuss because I haven't a clue which arguments you're even mentioning.

I'm right that this is on Leviticus 18:22?

The most interesting question I have seen asked on this passage is surrounding the actual translation itself, the Hebrew "toevah" was translated as abomination, but some suggest a more accurate modern translation would be taboo, another would be ritually impure. It really takes on a whole new meaning when you take that into account.
There are a number of reputable interpretations on this site, supporting both points of view. Heres another link, its not the one I was looking for but it says much the same and I am being told its reliable, food for thought.

Donatello wrote: »

The thing is, with same-sex unions comes, part and parcel, the use of immoral reproductive technologies. It's already happening.

Could you clarify as to why these are immoral? Is their use to aid heterosexual married couples with fertility issues immoral?

Donatello wrote: »

If the homosexualist agenda was merely about conducting their lives behind closed doors, that would be one hting, but as it is, they seek to have their way of life taught in public schools as a happy, healthy alternative. They also wish to suppress freedom of speech, and they seek to have religious groups endorse their lifestyles, and will force businesses to accept their lifestyle. Those who do not accept and embrace homosexuality will be told to 'Get out!' See here for proof of that.

What's a homosexualist?
Okay, you've really been getting the wrong end of the stick here. There is no "agenda", there is however the need to be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law. In my eyes equality is a fundamental Christian value, feel free to correct me on that though.
Teenagers in school should learn about sex and sexuality in general. It empowers them. They can use that knowledge as they see fit. Its a ridiculous theory that this would take some sort of role in "converting" youths. Trust me, they're gay already at that age, be it nature or nurtures fault, they need to know how to deal with it, that they can talk to people, and that there is nothing wrong with them.
Nobody wants to suppress freedom of speech, in life we always have to be tactile in our interactions. For instance it is not generally acceptable in polite company to verbally attack someone for being divorced or an unmarried parent. You accept that your belief system does not match up with theirs and move on. In our society this simple form of politeness does not always extend to LGBT people, that's not acceptable, its discriminatory and causes a lot of hurt to a lot of people.
There is no call for religious endorsement. Your beliefs are respected, no matter how hurtful. Businesses are "forced" to view men and women as equal, black and white, rich and poor, do you see something wrong with this? Discrimination of any form should not be tolerated. Businesses can not discriminate on the basis of religion, would you prefer you could be refused service/ a job because of your beliefs? In this country that analogy cuts pretty close to the bone, do you think its right that that happen to another group within society? No matter who they are?

Donatello wrote: »

Look at what a top US Army General said recently:

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who its against. Those racist hold their traditional values, doesn't make it right that they can use those values against others.

Donatello wrote: »

You'll see things turn really nasty in the coming years. You will see people jailed for hate crimes. You will see it promulgated as happy and normal in our schools.

The ultimate aim of the homosexualist agenda is to change the perception of ordinary people so that they affirm and accept homosexual behaviour. I think you will agree they have been tremendously successful.

This is more about some fluffy desire for 'rights' and 'equality'. Anybody that is part of the homosexualist agenda is serving, whether they realise it or not, to achieve the ultimate goal, which is societal acceptance of homosexuality. Those who do not accept it will be marginalised, ostracised, and eventually, even jailed.

You wont be jailed for a hate crime for thinking as you do, you'll be jailed for it for acting on it violently. For some reason I am thinking of the good Samaritan now... perhaps you should give it a read with the modern definition of "hate crime" in mind.

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

Could you clarify as to why these are immoral? Is their use to aid heterosexual married couples with fertility issues immoral?

Why is for another thread. Meanwhile...

''The Catholic Church, as even her enemies will tell you, condemns procured abortion, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation, surrogate motherhood, cloning, research on embryos, foetal harvesting, eugenic screening, prenatal selection, ‘designer’ babies and a whole host of other abominations with “grave consequences for humanity”.'' More here. Read about the Church teaching here.

Married couples may not use reproductive technologies which have been condemned by the Church because they are immoral.

wonderfulname wrote: »

What's a homosexualist?
Okay, you've really been getting the wrong end of the stick here. There is no "agenda", there is however the need to be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law. In my eyes equality is a fundamental Christian value, feel free to correct me on that though.

A homosexualist is a campaigner for the gay agenda, to have homosexuality accepted as normal and good in society. There is an account of their methods here.

The homosexual agenda, or homosexual ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives. The ideology and goals, as explained further below, include restricting free speech, obtaining special treatment, distorting science, and interfering with freedom of association.

It is an agenda that gay rights activists set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball, where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame:

"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior."

wonderfulname wrote: »

Teenagers in school should learn about sex and sexuality in general. It empowers them. They can use that knowledge as they see fit. Its a ridiculous theory that this would take some sort of role in "converting" youths. Trust me, they're gay already at that age, be it nature or nurtures fault, they need to know how to deal with it, that they can talk to people, and that there is nothing wrong with them.

No it doesn't. Young people ought to be educated in chastity and purity, not encouraged to indulge lust. We are called to be saints, not sinners. It's cruel to deny them the opportunity to become holy. The other thing is that many youths would be latent homosexuals, whereas if they engage in homosexual acts, that causes great damage to the individual - spiritually, emotionally, and even physically. Instead of being guided into holiness, they are led into the homosexual lifestyle, which, once in, is very difficult to leave.

wonderfulname wrote: »

There is no call for religious endorsement. Your beliefs are respected, no matter how hurtful. Businesses are "forced" to view men and women as equal, black and white, rich and poor, do you see something wrong with this? Discrimination of any form should not be tolerated. Businesses can not discriminate on the basis of religion, would you prefer you could be refused service/ a job because of your beliefs? In this country that analogy cuts pretty close to the bone, do you think its right that that happen to another group within society? No matter who they are?

But not in the US Army, where chaplains and religious soldiers are required to adopt the new moral code or get out of the army.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who its against. Those racist hold their traditional values, doesn't make it right that they can use those values against others.

Should those who do not embrace homosexuality be forced to approve it or lose their job, like what is happening in the US Army?

US Army chaplains who do not subscribe to the goodness of homosexuality will not be able to minister to members of their own religion as that will be labelled hate crimes. They have been told, along with religious soldiers, to accept it or get out of the army. So much for tolerance, eh?

wonderfulname wrote: »

You wont be jailed for a hate crime for thinking as you do, you'll be jailed for it for acting on it violently. For some reason I am thinking of the good Samaritan now... perhaps you should give it a read with the modern definition of "hate crime" in mind.

It's disingenuous to suggest that believing Christians would go about attacking homosexuals.

Quo Vadis

Donatello wrote: »

Marriage is the building block of society. Marriage has benefits for society: it produces new people to populate society, and marriage provides the best environment for the up-bringing of happy children. Marriage is fruitful and life-giving.

Gay unions, on the other hand, are inherently selfish and inward looking. These unions have pleasure and satisfaction as their ultimate end. Gay unions are not fruitful - they cannot produce children. Gay unions are not life-giving.

What benefits do gay unions bring to society and the common good?

How can the two be considered equal?

The bible is quite clear about this.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm right that this is on Leviticus 18:22?

It is on a number of passages in both the Old and New Testaments.

My only stance on this is simply a moral disagreement. I believe that Christian values in respect to sexuality are right. It doesn't follow that this constitutes hate in any form. This is merely a disagreement.

It is ones liberty in a free society to live as a homosexual. I have the right to think that this is the wrong thing to do. One can hold this view without hating anyone. Indeed, Christianity would discourage any form of hatred.

It's hysteria to compare this to racism which is the hatred of someone on the basis of a genetic trait that they cannot control. The Christian position on sexuality isn't even homophobic (hatred or fear or LGBT people). It is simply a disagreement about whether or not it is right for people to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage.

Keylem

Secular Fundamentalism

This is also a very dangerous kind of fundamentalism that turns human rights into a fundamentalist religion.It makes human rights legislation its bible. And then it proceeds to misread human rights legislation to its own ends, the same way that some fundamentalist Moslems use the Koran to justify violence, the way some fundamentalist Christians justified slavery, and the way communist fundamentalists justified killing Christians because Christians were against the "common good." I think all forms of fundamentalism are dangerous. Secular Fundamentalism claims that we should go after absolute "human rights" even if they are "human wrongs." There is no such thing as "absolute human rights." It makes for a very lousy religion.

Here are some examples of the injustices of "gay rights" legislation against the Christian Community in North America.

• Scott Brockie owns a little printing shop. A gay organization asked him to publish some advertising. He politely refused given his Christian religious beliefs. He's currently $200,000 in debt from a court battle that he lost.
• A Christian family had a small bed-and-breakfast business. Two men showed up at their door and wanted to spend the night together in the same bed. The family politely refused, based on their religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Commission forced them to close their business for discriminating against a gay couple.
• A small Christian newspaper was fined $5000 for refusing to print an ad for gay personals.
• The Knights of Columbus have a Catholic reception hall in Vancouver. They politely refused to let their premises be used for a lesbian marriage reception, based on their mission statement that says they uphold Christian values. This Catholic organization was successfully sued by the Lesbians in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Catholic man who refused the rental was fired from his 14 year secular job at Costco.
• In Philadelphia, 11 people wee threatened with up to 47 years in prison each for quietly demonstrating at a public gay pride parade while being hounded and yelled at by the "gay angels." Yet gay activists from Soulforce Albuquerque, disrupted a peaceful meeting of "Courage" (a group of gay Catholics who meet together to follow Church teachings of sexuality) in a Catholic Church, with absolutely no consequences. These double standards are common.
• The Press gallery of the Ontario Legislature gave a 20 year veteran member of the press club, who was a Christian, a notice of dismissal because he informed his colleagues of a pro-life story.

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

TylerIE

Quo Vadis wrote: »

The bible is quite clear about this.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

God also Created Elton John and David Furnish
and Ricky Martin
and me

Equal in his eyes.

What if it was Adam and Yves After all that was a translation to English too... If its Adam and Yves your in trouble!

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

It's hysteria to compare this to racism which is the hatred of someone on the basis of a genetic trait that they cannot control. The Christian position on sexuality isn't even homophobic (hatred or fear or LGBT people). It is simply a disagreement about whether or not it is right for people to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage.

Its the exact same as racism - Sexuality is not a conscious choice.

Its far from hysteria - Imagine if you were told you couldnt get married because you were from Carlow and your wife was from Cork? or because your proposed wife was White and you were Black? These are all facts about you which you cant change. or perhaps the best example - You are told that you cannot get a state recognized marriage in Ireland because you are a Practicing Catholic/ Methodist/ Muslim / Anglican!

philologos

lst wrote: »

Its the exact same as racism - Sexuality is not a conscious choice.

Being black isn't a behaviour. Sexual acts outside of a marriage is a behaviour. One can be of a homosexual inclinations but yet not act on those inclinations. So no it isn't the same.

lst wrote: »

Its far from hysteria - Imagine if you were told you couldnt get married because you were from Carlow and your wife was from Cork? or because your proposed wife was White and you were Black? These are all facts about you which you cant change. Sexuality is something that cannot be changed.

Not comparable. You can get married. The rules limit who you can be married to and indeed what a marriage is. You can also enter into a civil partnership under Irish law.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

" Yet gay activists from Soulforce Albuquerque, disrupted a peaceful meeting of "Courage" (a group of gay Catholics who meet together to follow Church teachings of sexuality) in a Catholic Church, with absolutely no consequences.

Sometimes the minority feels the need to be a little vocal in order to be heard.

IT can hardly be argued that this was a majority group attacking a minority. Furthemore your description of Courage is far from the practice - they are a group who cause severe mental anguish for Lesbian or Gay Catholics who are there owing to either wishing to change their orientation or being forced to attend in order to change their orientation.

The first few events are acceptable - Business Providers who promote their services should provide the same service to people regardless of gender, nationality, ethnicity or skin colour, religious beliefs, sexuality or gender identity.

Quo Vadis

David MacDonald, who led a gay lifestyle, has some very comprehensive articles on his excellent website regarding the subject.

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

Meanwhile many Gay and Lesbian biblical scholars are admitting that there is no way to affirm gay sex using the Bible.

"The fact is Paul spoke against Homosexual practice." (Online Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered Encyclopedia)

“The Bible is negative toward same sex behaviour. There is no getting around it. Paul wouldn’t accept it for a minute.” (Walter Wink, Gay affirming scholar)

“The exegetical of what the Bible says is straightforward. We know what the Bible says. I think it is important that we reject the straightforward command of Scripture and appeal to another authority.” (Luke Timothy Johnson, gay affirming Scholar with lesbian daughter)