The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

L.Jenkins

SoulandForm wrote: »

I posted links showing that homosexuals have greater amounts of drug abuse and mental health issues. They reply has been is that hetrosexuals are mean to them and they have higher rates of homelessness. Maybe they have higher rates of homelessness because they are more mentally unstable? Maybe we could actually help people by treating homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder so that people could live productive lives who probably otherwise wouldnt?

How do you figure that LGBT persons are mentally unstable? And how does engaging in same sex relations heighten these supposed symptoms. I know a lot of Psychiatrists who would disagree with you and your arguments.

SoulandForm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Jesus wept!
Are you trying to be offensive or is it accidental?

Traditional Christianity has a much harsher view- that goes for its Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox forms. Did you really think that you would find all Christians in agreement with the current liberal orthodoxy on homosexuality???

tommy2bad

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are seriously comparing a person's race to sexual perversion?

Im not a Calvinist at all but Voddie Baucham is 100 per cent correct here- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/

Seriously yes! though I conceder it an orientation not a perversion, thats your prejudice.

SoulandForm

Itzy wrote: »

How do you figure that LGBT persons are mentally unstable? And how does engaging in same sex relations heighten these supposed symptoms. I know a lot of Psychiatrists who would disagree with you and your arguments.

The very fact of going so radically against nature is itself a symptom that something has gone radically wrong in the psyche.

Sierra 117

How can something created by nature be going against nature?

L.Jenkins

How do you deduce that? The idea that homosexuality is a Psychiatric defect is almost blasphamus, it's just about laughable. Just consider the idea that homosexuality is existant in everyother species on this planet, but homophobia in this one only.

Mental health has nothing to do with sexuality.

tommy2bad

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im not a Calvinist at all but Voddie Baucham is 100 per cent correct here- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/

He's 100% wrong in so many ways, il informed hate mongering masquerading as christianity...... It's like a toned down Fred Phelps.

SoulandForm

philologos wrote: »

Challenging them and rebuking them.

I see where you are coming from but I think that you are being to utopian. There are cases where speech or writing does actually incite violence and therefore should be banned or censored in the public interests. I would approve also of banning incitement to violence against homosexuals.

SoulandForm

tommy2bad wrote: »

He's 100% wrong in so many ways, il informed hate mongering masquerading as christianity...... It's like a toned down Fred Phelps.

WOW!

Do you consider St Paul's letter to Romans hate mongering masquerading as Christianity?

tommy2bad

Itzy wrote: »

How do you deduce that? The idea that homosexuality is a Psychiatric defect is almost blasphamus, it's just about laughable. Just consider the idea that homosexuality is existant in everyother species on this planet, but homophobia in this one only.

Mental health has nothing to do with sexuality.

Not only that but he keeps saying that it a mental illness they have by choice

SoulandForm

tommy2bad wrote: »

He's 100% wrong in so many ways, il informed hate mongering masquerading as christianity...... It's like a toned down Fred Phelps.

There is no hate mongering that article.

philologos

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are seriously comparing a person's race to sexual perversion?

Im not a Calvinist at all but Voddie Baucham is 100 per cent correct here- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/

I agree with Voddie Bauckham on this issue. Race and sexuality are completely different fish. I'd also recommend the article. It's a good clarification on this oft-trotted out misconception.

I don't feel that the approach that you are taking on other aspects is particularly helpful though.

SoulandForm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not only that but he keeps saying that it a mental illness they have by choice

I dont think that people actually sit down and choose to be gay. Its much more complicated than that.

L.Jenkins

SoulandForm wrote: »

There is no hate mongering that article.

That opinion is subjective.

SoulandForm

philologos wrote: »

I don't feel that the approach that you are taking on other aspects is particularly helpful though.

Why do you think that the Bible is so strongly opposed to homosexuality?

L.Jenkins

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why do you think that the Bible is so strongly opposed to homosexuality?

I don't wish to attack the bible, but it's rife with contradictions.

tommy2bad

SoulandForm wrote: »

WOW!

Do you consider St Paul's letter to Romans hate mongering masquerading as Christianity?

Yep, Paul was given to some hyperbole and often crossed the line into what would now get him prosecuted for incitement to hatred. Of course Paul was talking to a specific audience and he and they knew over egging it was all part of the performance.

philologos

Itzy wrote: »

I don't wish to attack the bible, but it's rife with contradictions.

We have a megathread for your alleged contradictions.

This is the Christianity forum obviously the Bible will be discussed on this issue.

SoulandForm: It's mentioned six times. It is a sin, as are other things we can do. It's important to regard marriage as the place for sexual expression from a Christian context, but it isn't the only important thing to reflect on as a Christian. Certainly not if it is only mentioned in 6 verses.

Links234

SoulandForm wrote: »

I posted links showing that homosexuals have greater amounts of drug abuse and mental health issues. They reply has been is that hetrosexuals are mean to them and they have higher rates of homelessness. Maybe they have higher rates of homelessness because they are more mentally unstable? Maybe we could actually help people by treating homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder so that people could live productive lives who probably otherwise wouldnt?

You posted a link to an article that quite firmly suggested a link between discrimination and mental health issues, this does not explain your position whatsoever. You then went on to link to NARTH, a group that is universally regarded as junk science, and whose members have falsified research and abused children, as such has zero credibility.

Now, do you honestly think that the high rates of LGBT youth homelessness are due to pre-existing mental illness? Really? Whatever about putting the cart before the horse, or confusing causation with correllation, would you really believe that parents see their child suffering with mental health issues and decide to cut them off from the family and throw them onto the streets? Seriously, do you?

You cannot treat homosexuality as a psychological disorder, because it isn't one. Just about every mental health authority concur with this, and bogus attempts to "treat" it are harmful.

And you also suggest that LGBT people are somehow incapable of leading productive lives?

That's just bizarre and frankly nuts! Look at any number of LGBT people out there, look at Ian McKellen, Freddy Mercury, Ellen DeGeneres, Lana Wachowski, Harvey Milk, Alan Turing, Lynn Conway, Truman Capote, Oscar Wilde, Anderson Cooper, and hundreds more I could mention!

In what sense have they not lived productive lives?

But that STILL doesn't address the questions I've asked you here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82864464&postcount=1831

so please, can you try and address that post?

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yep, Paul was given to some hyperbole and often crossed the line into what would now get him prosecuted for incitement to hatred. Of course Paul was talking to a specific audience and he and they knew over egging it was all part of the performance.

???

The point of Romans 1 isn't to point out that homosexuality is the worst thing in the world, but rather as a whole it is to point out that man has fallen into sin, and as a result the very fact that we see sin manifest in the present creation is a sign that one day God will judge the world in righteousness.

Romans is a brilliant book as a whole. To have people either say it is wholly about homosexuality, or that Paul was putting on a show is cheapening what happens in the rest of chapter 1, never mind what happens from chapters 2 - 16 also.

We're studying it in our small groups at church this year.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

I agree with Voddie Bauckham on this issue. Race and sexuality are completely different fish. I'd also recommend the article. It's a good clarification on this oft-trotted out misconception.

phil I'm disappointed in you. No time to deconstruct that rubbish now but if you can't see the flaws in the argument he makes then it probably wouldn't help anyway.

SoulandForm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yep, Paul was given to some hyperbole and often crossed the line into what would now get him prosecuted for incitement to hatred. Of course Paul was talking to a specific audience and he and they knew over egging it was all part of the performance.

Under the Old Law homosexual sex carried the death penalty. St Paul as a devout Jew would have believed that this was just, so there is little doubt that he meant every word extremely seriously- St Paul was the channel through which the Holy Spirit was talking to the Church at large also remember.

The Good News is that through accepting Christ as their Saviour people can find release from homosexuality, forgiveness and joy.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

???

The point of Romans 1 isn't to point out that homosexuality is the worst thing in the world, but rather as a whole it is to point out that man has fallen into sin, and as a result the very fact that we see sin manifest in the present creation is a sign that one day God will judge the world in righteousness.

Romans is a brilliant book as a whole. To have people either say it is wholly about homosexuality, or that Paul was putting on a show is cheapening what happens in the rest of chapter 1, never mind what happens from chapters 2 - 16 also.

We're studying it in our small groups at church this year.

I wasn't the one who brought it up in the context of homosexuality, I was the one who pointed out that the language used was for a propose rather than an incitement to hatred. Just to be clear.

tommy2bad

SoulandForm wrote: »

Under the Old Law homosexual sex carried the death penalty. St Paul as a devout Jew would have believed that this was just, so there is little doubt that he meant every word extremely seriously- St Paul was the channel through which the Holy Spirit was talking to the Church at large also remember.

The Good News is that through accepting Christ as their Saviour people can find release from all sins, forgiveness and joy.

FYP

Links234

philologos wrote: »

I agree with Voddie Bauckham on this issue. Race and sexuality are completely different fish. I'd also recommend the article. It's a good clarification on this oft-trotted out misconception.

Coretta Scott King would disagree:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.

SoulandForm

tommy2bad wrote: »

I wasn't the one who brought it up in the context of homosexuality, I was the one who pointed out that the language used was for a propose rather than an incitement to hatred. Just to be clear.

St Paul makes clear that God surrenders people to homosexuality as a punishment for a deep rejection of Him and His goodness.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

phil I'm disappointed in you. No time to deconstruct that rubbish now but if you can't see the flaws in the argument he makes then it probably wouldn't help anyway.

I'm unequivocal that I don't agree with redefining marriage.

What is wrong with the article on The Gospel Coalition. Bear in mind I disagree strongly with a lot of the stuff that SoulandForm has said, but I think Voddie Bauckham is bang on the money as he is usually on Biblical issues.

philologos

SoulandForm wrote: »

St Paul makes clear that God surrenders people to homosexuality as a punishment for a deep rejection of Him and His goodness.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

Read verses 28-32. Are you guilty of any of these?

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

Coretta Scott King would disagree:

Quoting people is fine, but what argument do you have to Voddie Bauckham's article.

You're making an argument from authority.

tommy2bad

Voddie Bauckham's article is basically "It's always been this way and we don't want it to change" The underlying message is it's this way because homosexuality is a threat to the family and socity. If he had quoted scripture it would be more honest.
If he has evidence of the damage he fears, show it, just being concerned isn't enough evidence. As to claiming that all marriage is between men and women so what? Thats just its always been this way again.
I can understand how he dislikes the comparison to the civil rights movement, I think it's a week one but his claim that the definition of marriage is at stake is wrong, whats at stake is his definition (ok held by a lot of people but not a majority any more).
No one is saying that his marriage is any less a marriage because of this change exept him.