Homosexuality and The Bible

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

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.

Its not up to the State to consider the sex acts of those involved when granting marriage rights. They dont do so for hetrosexual couples. Its exactly the same - its discrimination based on someones fundamental characteristics.

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.

Fully comparable - Gay or Lesbian individuals cannot marry those who they love. Do you really want a gay man marrying your daughter or niece? So you want gay people to get married to hetrosexuals and therefore ruin their lives by living a life based on a lie? You really are a good Christian.

Civil Partnership is not marriage. <notice the full stop!

TylerIE

Quo Vadis wrote: »

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


[/INDENT]

Firstly, saying "the Gay Lifestyle" just insults some of those trying to have a civilised discussion.

For the vast majority of those who identify as Gay or Lesbian its not a lifestyle. Its part of who they are. Being a Christian is a Lifestyle Choice.... playing rugby is a lifestyle choice... smoking is a lifestyle choice.... Being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender is part of who you are.

Well some other Christian Organisations have different views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNssnfM1zFw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvYdG5_vcB8

Donatello

Keylem wrote: »

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

Some good case studies there. I'll look forward to a justification for any of those prosecutions.

Meanwhile, here is an account of the strategies that have been used to get homosexuality to be accepted in the mainstream: http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/9707137.pdf

Keylem

lst wrote: »

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.

Some of those services were christian based, yet freedom to carry out their religious beliefs were forfeited in favour of homosexuals.

(A small Christian newspaper was fined $5000 for refusing to print an ad for gay personals.) They could have put their add in any other newspaper, why use a Christian one?

wonderfulname

Donatello wrote: »

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

I didn't say that. I said you wouldn't go to jail unless you did, implying you aren't going to jail. Don't twist my words.

As for the rest of your views, they are damaging, especially those regarding teens, knowledge is power - classroom teachings are based completely in fact, and taught from a biological perspective. They do not change someone's moral position one iota. They do help them understand themselves better at a turbulent hormonal time, and factual teaching counteracts urban myths and media falsities that make impressions on young people.

The word homosexualist does not exist. Nor does the definition presented in that blog. I suggest you research some unbiased sources, or at least ones that are even slightly less biased. That blog has is an example of something with an agenda, gay people are an example of something without.

And on that note, what exactly does what's happening in the states have to do with here? The Irish are a lot more balanced when it comes to rights, we know giving to one group doesn't mean taking from another.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Some of those services were christian based, yet freedom to carry out their religious beliefs were forfeited in favour of homosexuals.

(A small Christian newspaper was fined $5000 for refusing to print an ad for gay personals.) They could have put their add in any other newspaper, why use a Christian one?

If they offer a service they cant be just offering it to whoever suits. Does that mean doctors can choose not to treat a gay man? Or a taxi driver can refuse to collect a lesbian lady travelling alone? In Ireland its considered unacceptable for businesses to refuse service to members of the travelling community. Do you not think its fair for LGBT individuals to expect the same?


I have little doubt that equality legislation in Ireland would make reasonable accomodations for Churchs and clergy.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

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.

I was merely providing you with the scriptural reference you asked for, and a balanced one at that giving a wide range of interpenetration. I was under the impression you actually were looking for them. I did not accuse you of hatred, I am respectful of your view in fact, live and let live. I really don't know why you're on the defence.

Oh, and just on a point, sexuality is not something which can be controlled either.

Keylem

lst wrote: »

If they offer a service they cant be just offering it to whoever suits. Does that mean doctors can choose not to treat a gay man? Or a taxi driver can refuse to collect a lesbian lady travelling alone? In Ireland its considered unacceptable for businesses to refuse service to members of the travelling community. Do you not think its fair for LGBT individuals to expect the same?


I have little doubt that equality legislation in Ireland would make reasonable accomodations for Churchs and clergy.

They could offer a Christian Service aimed at CHRISTIANS. Do you suppose it would be right for Gays and Lesbians to place personal adds in the "Irish Catholic" knowing it was offensive to their religion to do so!!

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

They may offer a Christian Service aimed at CHRISTIANS!! Would you go to a Vet if you had a toothache!

No because a vet provides care to animals. I am not an animal. I would go to a dentist of my choosing - and expect my sexuality to be irrelevant to his/her treatment of me.

A newspaper like the Irish Catholic could have just taken the money for the ad, and laughed at how it would be wasted in their publication (unless it was a case of they knew the service really would interest their readers!!!).

wonderfulname

Keylem wrote: »

They may offer a Christian Service aimed at CHRISTIANS!! Would you go to a Vet if you had a toothache!

Are you suggesting I am Sub-human...

I joke, I have covered this already, In the north it used to be acceptable to discriminate heavily against Catholics. Protestant services for PROTESTANTS, protestant jobs for PROTESTANTS. That's not right is it? It does not matter in the least what sector of society you apply it to its never right.

Asry

hello I come late to the fray. Did you see the long discussion on this in the LGBT forum? It started off as a question about LGBT churches and then turned into scripture-flinging about homosexuality in the bible.

But it's ongoing! (as I have just returned to the topic....)


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056235160

Apologies if this has been cited already and everything. It probably most definitely has. Call me Echo. xxx

Keylem

lst wrote: »

No because a vet provides care to animals. I am not an animal. I would go to a dentist of my choosing - and expect my sexuality to be irrelevant to his/her treatment of me.

A newspaper like the Irish Catholic could have just taken the money for the ad, and laughed at how it would be wasted in their publication (unless it was a case of they knew the service really would interest their readers!!!).

I never inferred you were an animal, and you know I didn't! I was referring to two different businesses that provided a specific service. A Christian Newspaper would print news specific to that religion, and homosexuals wanting to place personal adds would be inappropriate!

I was trying to word it better but my internet is slow, and you had already posted by the time I edited my post!!

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

I was merely providing you with the scriptural reference you asked for, and a balanced one at that giving a wide range of interpenetration. I was under the impression you actually were looking for them. I did not accuse you of hatred, I am respectful of your view in fact, live and let live. I really don't know why you're on the defence.

Oh, and just on a point, sexuality is not something which can be controlled either.

I was criticised earlier by another poster about my 'animalistic' notions about what was also referred to as 'utilitarian' human reproduction.

Now you tell me that sexuality can't be controlled? It ought to be controlled. Or do you justify the rapist who says he has urges he cannot control?

"All healthy men, ancient and modern, Eastern and Western, know there is a certain fury in sex that we cannot afford to inflame, and that a certain mystery and awe must ever surround it if we are to remain sane."
– G.K. Chesterson

Marriage is the fireplace which God has ordained for sexual activity which must be open to new life. Only in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is all the grace given by God so that sexuality can be transformed. Without, it is an activity which can't help but be lustful, lacking as it is in the blessing of God and lacking His outpouring of grace.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

I never inferred you were an animal, and you know I didn't! I was referring to two different businesses that provided a specific service. A Christian Newspaper would print news specific to that religion, and homosexuals wanting to place personal adds would be inappropriate!

I know you didnt refer to me as an animal, I was joking :P

While I understand you are concerned over being forced to print the ad I would humbly submit that the newspaper should just have been glad to get the advertising revenue!!! Knowing full well that if they took it, it meant less money for what they perceive to be the "gay agenda" :P.

I dont know the full circumstances or background to the newspaper so I cant say I would support laws to protect them.

I see no reason for a Churchs Clergy who only allow practicing members of their faith to marry in their Church Building to be forced to accept weddings from those outside the faith or who are in opposition to the faith.

This does not mean that every Tomás, Seamús and Daithí can say "no Im not allowing the gays into my hotel". The B&B in the UK is a prime example - its almost definate that if the B&B had a hetrosexual unmarried couple they would not have cared. However thats "a la carte" religion, hence why its fair to penalise them.

philologos

lst wrote: »

Its not up to the State to consider the sex acts of those involved when granting marriage rights. They dont do so for hetrosexual couples. Its exactly the same - its discrimination based on someones fundamental characteristics.

This thread is about whether or not these acts are moral in Christian thinking. In Christianity homosexual acts are immoral because they are outside of a marriage (which is a union between a man and a woman).

lst wrote: »

Fully comparable - Gay or Lesbian individuals cannot marry those who they love. Do you really want a gay man marrying your daughter or niece? So you want gay people to get married to hetrosexuals and therefore ruin their lives by living a life based on a lie? You really are a good Christian.

I haven't said anything about who I desire or don't desire to marry any of my relatives.

Political structures such as what the civil authorities define as marriage seems to be moving off-topic. For the purposes of this discussion we are talking about what the Bible has to say about homosexual acts.

This discussion branched off from an invalid comparison of Christian views of sexual acts to racism. One is based on behaviour, another is based on genetics. One is clearly different to the other.

Asry

Keylem wrote: »

I never inferred you were an animal, and you know I didn't! I was referring to two different businesses that provided a specific service. A Christian Newspaper would print news specific to that religion, and homosexuals wanting to place personal adds would be inappropriate!

I was trying to word it better but my internet is slow, and you had already posted by the time I edited my post!!

I agree, surprisingly. Being LGBT myself (guess the letter!! ), I do however see why a Christian newspaper wouldn't publish an advertisement to do with LGBT matters. However, I have noticed that the Irish Catholic seems to be quite sympathetic of LGBT matters of late. Irrelavent observation. The internet sometimes really ties people in knots though, Keylem, I know myself. I've been accused of being a sarcastic c*** waaaaay too many times in my virtual career It's all good.

I know where you're coming from though Ist. Christianity is a difficult topic for people of the LGBT persuasions to discuss, and I do completely get that you are probably feeling very sensitive. No worries!

Asry

philologos wrote: »

This discussion branched off from an invalid comparison of Christian views of sexual acts to racism. One is based on behaviour, another is based on genetics. One is clearly different to the other.

I can see that happening there also Phil. It's hard to separate what the bible says in black and white from things like racism or a mob mentality. It's important to keep an academic investigation into the scriptures separate from emotions and personal desires. Says Dr Asry...:rolleyes:

TylerIE

Asry wrote: »

I know where you're coming from though Ist. Christianity is a difficult topic for people of the LGBT persuasions to discuss, and I do completely get that you are probably feeling very sensitive. No worries!

As stated in another post certain cases there may be times when Christian Organisations should be protected.


I aint sensitive, Im just attempting to give a half reasonable view of the possibility that being "a Gay Christian" is possible!

Keylem

lst wrote: »

I know you didnt refer to me as an animal, I was joking :P

While I understand you are concerned over being forced to print the ad I would humbly submit that the newspaper should just have been glad to get the advertising revenue!!! Knowing full well that if they took it, it meant less money for what they perceive to be the "gay agenda" :P.

I dont know the full circumstances or background to the newspaper so I cant say I would support laws to protect them.

I see no reason for a Churchs Clergy who only allow practicing members of their faith to marry in their Church Building to be forced to accept weddings from those outside the faith or who are in opposition to the faith.

This does not mean that every Tomás, Seamús and Daithí can say "no Im not allowing the gays into my hotel". The B&B in the UK is a prime example - its almost definate that if the B&B had a hetrosexual unmarried couple they would not have cared. However thats "a la carte" religion, hence why its fair to penalise them.

Sorry, didn't know it was a joke!

You are right about the B&B, if they did didn't allow gays, they shouldn't allow unmarried couples either!! :cool:

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

This thread is about whether or not these acts are moral in Christian thinking. In Christianity homosexual acts are immoral because they are outside of a marriage (which is a union between a man and a woman)

And some of us have posted research and links to Christian organisations which believe otherwise.

I haven't said anything about who I desire or don't desire to marry any of my relatives.

Stating that LGBT individuals can marry, but knowing full well that they will have to marry outside love, gives good caues for you to examine your conscience as to whether you really think thats good for society.

Political structures such as what the civil authorities define as marriage seems to be moving off-topic. For the purposes of this discussion we are talking about what the Bible has to say about homosexual acts.

This discussion branched off from an invalid comparison of Christian views of sexual acts to racism. One is based on behaviour, another is based on genetics. One is clearly different to the other.

My understanding is that it also branched as some "Christian Groups" heavily advocate against equality for LGBT individuals.

Homosexuality is not just behaviour, its an innate characteristic. Like race, gender, hair colour. Its not choice.

As someone else stated - is it appropriate for you to be prohibited from certain state rights owing to your religious status?

Asry

lst wrote: »

I aint sensitive, Im just attempting to give a half reasonable view of the possibility that being "a Gay Christian" is possible!

Ah now, don't even get me STARTED on the whole gay Christian thing. It has me tied up every which way! Should I, shouldn't I, he says, she said, they said there, this book says that, the bible says this but when you read that translation it says that instead......Celibacy it is, so..:):confused:

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

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

Those are really good examples of the law protecting the right of homosexuals to not be discriminated against when using businesses and services made available to the public.

Replace "gay man" with "black man" and see if any of the examples still sound like such a good idea.

• In Louisiana black men and women were required to use a different entrance than white people when entering businesses that served food.
  
• In Oklahoma black men and women were not allowed use the same telephone booths as white men and women.
  
• In Georgia black ministers were not allowed marry a white couple.

All this was based on what people believed at the time.

But it changed, not because people stopped believing this nonsense (plenty of people still do) but because the government decided enough is enough and that if you were going to promote a business to the public you could not simply turn away people just because they were black.

Can you present a good reason why you should be able to do this just because they are homosexuals?

If you want to stop people you don't like from using your service you have to make it a private service (such as members only club). If you make it a public service you should expect that it is open to all the law abiding public, not just the ones you personally like.

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

That blog has is an example of something with an agenda, gay people are an example of something without.

And on that note, what exactly does what's happening in the states have to do with here? The Irish are a lot more balanced when it comes to rights, we know giving to one group doesn't mean taking from another.

There was a case recently in Ireland about not allowing conscientious objection. Can't think what it was about though. The Irish are no better than the Americans. Sure a lot of them are of Irish descent.

Asry wrote: »

I agree, surprisingly. Being LGBT myself (guess the letter!! ), I do however see why a Christian newspaper wouldn't publish an advertisement to do with LGBT matters. However, I have noticed that the Irish Catholic seems to be quite sympathetic of LGBT matters of late. Irrelavent observation. The internet sometimes really ties people in knots though, Keylem, I know myself. I've been accused of being a sarcastic c*** waaaaay too many times in my virtual career It's all good.

The Irish Catholic is a rag of a paper. It's not a faithful publication. I'll say no more than that.

Keylem wrote: »

Sorry, didn't know it was a joke!

You are right about the B&B, if they did didn't allow gays, they shouldn't allow unmarried couples either!! :cool:

But then if it is a small family B&B, I would support fully their right to refuse homosexuals a double bed.

TylerIE

Asry wrote: »

Ah now, don't even get me STARTED on the whole gay Christian thing. It has me tied up every which way! Should I, shouldn't I, he says, she said, they said there, this book says that, the bible says this but when you read that translation it says that instead......Celibacy it is, so..:):confused:

Enjoy :P

At least Phil and Donno will love you

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

The Irish Catholic is a rag of a paper. It's not a faithful publication. I'll say no more than that.

haha!! ooOOooooo burn!

philologos

Asry wrote: »

I can see that happening there also Phil. It's hard to separate what the bible says in black and white from things like racism or a mob mentality. It's important to keep an academic investigation into the scriptures separate from emotions and personal desires. Says Dr Asry...:rolleyes:

The Biblical text speaks against xenophobia and racism. Song of Solomon is one place where the Biblical text speaks against racism. Solomon's Egyptian wife tells the people of Jerusalem not to judge her on the complexity of her skin. The Torah reveals God's command to the Hebrew society to treat foreigners who want to be a part of their society as their own people. Paul says that Jews and Gentiles are equal and are one under Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

One can't separate ones relationship with God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are only truly understood by people who have a living relationship with Him as I would see it.

Asry

lst wrote: »

At least Phil and Donno will love you

And God. Apparently? Right? Or not? Aahhhhh confusion. I'm female. Does that change things? My brain is going at ten million miles an hour and I can't think straight.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

One can't separate ones relationship with God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are only truly understood by people who have a living relationship with Him as I would see it.

Ah so now we have a different interpretation - Yours as someone who is truly living with God. Great - we have so many different versions already why not have another different slant.

TylerIE

Asry wrote: »

And God. Apparently? Right? Or not? Aahhhhh confusion. I'm female. Does that change things? My brain is going at ten million miles an hour and I can't think straight.

Im not sure... Phil may be able to advise - depends on if you "practiced" in the past doesnt it?

Or you could just go to the MCC

Asry

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical text speaks against xenophobia and racism.

One can't separate ones relationship with God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are only truly understood by people who have a living relationship with Him as I would see it.

Oh sorry, I think you might've misunderstood me. I meant that reading God's word on the one hand, and fending off racism and mob mentalities on the other (the work of men) is something that has to be done carefully, but it always must be done when discussing something like this.

Captain Obvious [me] strikes again and all that.