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

philologos wrote: »

I agree that if he was claiming that therapies work that's wrong.

But to note there are a number of Christians who have same-sex attraction who are living celibate or indeed are now happily married. I think that your comments are disparaging to people like this.

I also disagree that because someone else has failed in this respect that it gives you the opportunity to gloat. We've all mucked up in one way or another you and I included.

Any chance of getting those definitions? I forgive you for mucking up if you've forgotten, now you've a chance to redeem yourself.

philologos wrote: »

I agree that if he was claiming that therapies work that's wrong.

But to note there are a number of Christians who have same-sex attraction who are living celibate or indeed are now happily married. I think that your comments are disparaging to people like this.

I also disagree that because someone else has failed in this respect that it gives you the opportunity to gloat. We've all mucked up in one way or another you and I included.

Really? You don't see anything a bit off about a man who regularly wrote such things as

"although I have same sex thoughts on a daily basis, I do not, in any way, feel compelled to ever return to a lifestyle of homosexuality."

while at the exact same time opening an account on a gay dating site?

Despite your earlier post where you said 'Can we not leave the ad-hominems off this thread? They are really pointless.' your response is to accuse me of gloating...

Tell me Phil - do you actually ever practice what you preach or are you like Matt Moore and go through life channeling Jean Brodie?

philologos wrote: »

I've given you a clear example. I've been very clear. Biased advocacy of one point of view on the redefinition of marriage in the classroom is wrong. I've been clear as to the boundaries also.

Once again you are choosing to ignore the question. I asked you for your definition of 'glorifying' and 'propaganda'. You haven't read the book you're using as an example, by the by. What's biased about telling children the legal forms of marriage?

philologos wrote: »

You are gloating. I've seen you do this before as well. That's just observation and isn't an ad hominem.

I see that he has clearly made a mistake and has done wrong. He also has clearly repented of it. I.E he acknowledged that he did wrong and he's turning away from this.

I respect that. I believe in a merciful God who loved and indeed loves sinners.

No he did not see he made a mistake and repent. He was caught - then did he admitted he made a 'mistake' and did the repent thing.

Care to provide examples of where I 'gloated'?

I can provide many examples of where you have used attack as a form of defense if you like.

I feel pity for this man who has been told his sexuality is a sin and is desperately trying to repress who he is.
I feel pity for this man who so at conflict with himself what he lives two different lives.
I feel pity for this man who has to live a lie because of what it says in a book.

philologos wrote: »

I've answered your post.

I've even told you that my primary issue is advocating a one-sided view of this in the classroom. I.E saying that same-sex marriage is praiseworthy instead of teaching merely that it exists.

I've been very clear about that. Please stop goading me over a point I've already dealt with.

I'm not goading. You claim a book you haven't read is 'glorifying' something and is 'propaganda', I'm asking you to define what you mean. What do you mean by 'praiseworthy', is straight marriage 'praiseworthy'?

philologos wrote: »

saying that same-sex marriage is praiseworthy

Where does the book say that?

philologos wrote: »

I've been very clear about that. Please stop goading me over a point I've already dealt with.

Clear as mud. you haven't dealt with it even slightly. Here's the opposing viewpoint expressed in the manner that you've adopted since you brought up the book:

1. The book doesn't say that
2. It doesn't
3. No really, it doesn't
4. Look at the book
5. It doesn't say that
6. See point 1

That's not a discussion.

This is for you Phil



This is where you accuse me of doing something or other for pointing out that it's ironic that The Church of England owes it's very existence to a monarch who wanted to 'redefine' marriage...

Links234 wrote: »

So you're informed that the word is a pejorative and routinely a term of abuse towards an entire group of people, and your response to that is drag up things from last year that happened in another forum? I'd that's petty, but you'd probably just take that as an excuse to act aggreived and bemoan that I'm calling you petty and ignore any discussion we might be having.

It's like saying "I'll stop calling you ******s and dykes (or insert slur of choice here) as long as you don't say I'm a bigot"
sometimes I wonder how you don't collapse under the weight of your own hubris

You should look again. I never gave you an ultimatum, that would indeed be stupid and rather tasteless. I informed you that I didn't coin the term, and was referencing something coined by an LGBT group. Then I asking you to look at what you were requesting, and to keep it in mind going forward, paying others the same respect.

The worrying thing, is that many then thanked your post, which indicates that there are many that seem to have deficiency in the literacy department, or are blinded by their desire to put dissenting voices into a box of their own invention.

But just for some context here, this was in reference to a discussion about a proposed California law that would ban the practice of "reparative therapy" for anyone under 18. I had the radical notion that subjecting children to abusive and harmful "treatments" from quacks and witch doctors was a bad thing, and should be banned. Jimi on the other hand thought it was a great idea for parents to be able to put their kids in the hands of the likes of this guy or this charming fellow.

I didn't. AT ALL, and that whole thread just turned into people inventing positions I never held and attacking them. Such is the hysteria of this topic, people just fell in love with the idea that I held this position, and didn't actually care that i ACTUALLY DIDN'T. It ended soon after your ridiculous accusations, just like you have done above. It said a lot, that you needed to pretend I held positions like the above, rather than deal with positions I ACTUALLY held. You weren't humble enough to back down in the face of me correcting you then, and it seems you still aren't. I wont rub your nose in it if you decide to apologise now, but graciously accept it. How silly it is to persist in lying about me in this manner. I would imagine that you should actually be HAPPY, that I'm telling you that I don't hold the position you say I do. It seems your desire to ridicule me, outweighs your desire that I people don't hold that position though.

but you act as if I shouldn't care about the term because an LGBT group used it?

Again, how can you extrapolate that from me telling you that you should inform them that it is offensive? This is another example of you seeing things based on what you THINK of me, rather than what I ACTUALLY think. You really need to read things with a bit more discernment, and if you are unsure of something, just ask me, rather than writing your own story on what you think or want me to be saying, in order to paint me in the hateful way you try to.

in JimiWorld, should boys only ever play with trucks and GI Joes and girls only ever play with barbie and easy bake ovens and never the twain shall meet?

Again, you seem to have a stereotype that you want people to fit into, and even if they give you no indication of it, you lazily put them there, as its easier to deal with.

FYI "Gender Identity Disorder" is an obsolete term, and neither is being transgender an "ailment"

I didn't get the latest Politically Correct memo, but its ridiculous to try make out that transgenderism is anything but a disorder! A person born physically a man, but who believes that they are actually a woman, to the extent that they want to have their Penis surgically removed, is on hormones for the rest of their lives, and who'll never physically be a woman etc. If thats not a disorder, then nothing is. For goodness sake!

And I didn't say anything about what I want or do not want, I am asking you if you think the whole existence of people like me should be kept secret?

Ehh, no I don't, but the context was school. So I'm asking you, what is it that you want school kids to be taught about GID, and why should that be an exception in terms of all the disorders that man exhibits?

philologos wrote: »

I agree that if he was claiming that therapies work that's wrong.

But to note there are a number of Christians who have same-sex attraction who are living celibate or indeed are now happily married. I think that your comments are disparaging to people like this.

I also disagree that because someone else has failed in this respect that it gives you the opportunity to gloat. We've all mucked up in one way or another you and I included.

I think this public 'outing' is probably best for him, and his subsequent testimony will probably serve as a genuine lesson for similar people. I really hope honesty prevails in the end.

http://moorematt.com/

Sierra 117 wrote: »

He'd feel a lot better if he stopped lying to himself and everyone else and just accepted that he was gay. Trying to hide it can't be easy on him.

From my reading, he's always maintained that he struggles with same sex attraction. He's not hidden that. He rejects it as sinful.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really? You don't see anything a bit off about a man who regularly wrote such things as while at the exact same time opening an account on a gay dating site?

Of course there is something off about it, but I'm not sure what you expect Phil or me or anyone to say? He never claimed to be rid of his same sex attraction, so like the rest of us, he struggled with his sin. If he was dishonest in his writing about his experience, then that is indeed a serious issue. One I'm sure he will certainly realise now more than ever. Not only will it bring reproach on him, but it brings reproach on God. He still maintains his conviction though, that he chooses Christ over sin, so I'd certainly forgive and pray for him. I choose sin over Christ regularly, as I have not reached a stage in my Christian walk where I truly hate sin, and I seek forgiveness regularly. I don't need to be caught to be remorseful, but certainly the consequences are greater when a person is caught. Listening to Lance Armstrong about his cheating, I would discern that it was all about getting caught, and nothing about the damage he's done etc. Looking at Matt Moore, it seems to me, that like myself, he would have had that remorse with or without being 'outed', but for having been caught, the consequences he will face will be greater than his own personal remorse. All in all, I think this will be positive for him if he truly does want to serve Christ. I personally hope he has good support at this time.

Matt Moore wrote:

Lastly, I would like to say to all: Despite my recent hypocritical behavior and disobedience to Christ, I stand firmly in saying that the Word of God, in totality, is true in every matter it addresses: including the sin of homosexual behavior. In all of this, the Word of Christ should not be questioned. It is not at fault, I am. Jesus is a good and loving Savior. He is gracious and forgiving to all of those who repent and ask Him for forgiveness. But sin and Jesus cannot be mingled together. I have sinned, and I believe that Christ has forgiven me because I am repenting….. but if I were to continue on in sin and refuse to repent, it would be evident that I have no part with Christ. I want to be clear as ever that a true Christian cannot embrace a lifestyle of sin—specifically here a lifestyle of homosexuality. I say this so that you all know I’m not changing my theology and disregarding what the Bible clearly says to make room for my sinful desires. Rather, I’m asking God to change my heart. And no, I don’t mean I’m asking him to change my sexual desires. I’m asking Him to change my heart—-so that whatever my desires may be, I choose Him over them.

The above could relate to so many Christians and their relationship with sin tbh.