Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

[Goshin]

Ooooh. Someone got a little huffy.

He was asking if the laws regarding homosexuality have become outdated. Paul said that faith should be guided by reason and so if clearly a reasonable case can be made that the laws regarding homosexual behavior have no place in modern society, it would be a Christian's duty to take that into account just as they have with many other outdated laws in the Bible.

Why take it so personally? It's a perfectly respectable view to take even if you aren't Christian.

First of all, you shouldn't assume. You know what happens when you assume.

I was hardly huffy, or taking anything personally. If anything, I find it amusing when someone who professes to be a neo-pagan starts saying "we" in a discussion about Christian beliefs, just as I find it amusing when atheists and agnostics start trying to tell me what my religion believes.

As for your other arguments, I demonstrated their flaws and fallacy at great length in another thread over a year ago. I see no need to do it all over again every few months.

 

[CriticalThought]

First of all, you shouldn't assume. You know what happens when you assume.

I was hardly huffy, or taking anything personally. If anything, I find it amusing when someone who professes to be a neo-pagan starts saying "we" in a discussion about Christian beliefs, just as I find it amusing when atheists and agnostics start trying to tell me what my religion believes.

As for your other arguments, I demonstrated their flaws and fallacy at great length in another thread over a year ago. I see no need to do it all over again every few months.

Oooookay. It's obviously very important to you to believe that your interpretation of the Bible's stance on homosexuality is reasonable. You haven't really indicated anything in this thread that gives me that impression aside from being really defensive about your beliefs but it's whatever you want to believe I guess.

A little note, the average atheist and agnostic has been found to know more about Christianity than the average believer. Just a thought to keep in mind.

 

[Jerry]

Are these specific to gay sex or just irresponsible sex?

Each of the sexual prohibitions in scripture are against irresponsible sex, be it particular acts or simply whom a person is having sex with.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

just as I find it amusing when atheists and agnostics start trying to tell me what my religion believes.

Many atheists and agnostics were once pastors. You know they say that seminary can kill your faith. That's because the more you know, the more you know where the holes are. YOU shouldn't ASSUME that agnostics and atheists don't know anything simply because they are no longer believers. I would say that many atheists and agnostics have done (in many cases) more soul-searching and investigation than the average believer. Your assumption that they haven't is...ironic in light of your comments on this thread.

 

[OscarB63]

so if the bible's prohibition against two men laying together is BS, does that mean that the prohibition about a man doing his sister is also BS?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

so if the bible's prohibition against two men laying together is BS, does that mean that the prohibition about a man doing his sister is also BS?

Not in Mississippi, it's not.

 

[ptif219]

That is one way of interpreting it. But given that Jesus was answering a question regarding divorce and not talking about homosexuality, it is not the only way to interpret it.

Jesus showed what marriage is meant to be and left no room for gay marriage.

 

[OscarB63]

I just always find it odd that many of the pro gay crowd are very anti-incest. I fail to see how a guy doing his consenting sister (taking precautions not to reproduce) is any more "disgusting" than a guy doing another guy (taking precautions not to get/give HIV).

If you have to throw out the "reproduction" arguement against homosexuality, it is disingenuous to use it to argue against incest.

and before anyone asks...No, I don't have any sisters. :lamo

 

[Bodi]

Jesus showed what marriage is meant to be and left no room for gay marriage.

What was the amount of room available to Jesus?

 

[Bodi]

I just always find it odd that many of the pro gay crowd are very anti-incest. I fail to see how a guy doing his consenting sister (taking precautions not to reproduce) is any more "disgusting" than a guy doing another guy (taking precautions not to get/give HIV).

If you have to throw out the "reproduction" arguement against homosexuality, it is disingenuous to use it to argue against incest.

and before anyone asks...No, I don't have any sisters. :lamo

I thought that just about everybody was anti-incest.
Is there a "pro-gay" crowd, or just a "we are gay" crowd?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Jesus showed what marriage is meant to be and left no room for gay marriage.

Jesus GOT MARRIED? Why wasn't I invited?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

What was the amount of room available to Jesus?

I understand he requires a large personal space.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

and before anyone asks...No, I don't have any sisters. :lamo

YOu live in Alabama, you know y'all are into cousin-lovin.

 

[CriticalThought]

Jesus showed what marriage is meant to be and left no room for gay marriage.

I don't believe in soundbites either on FOX or in the Bible.

 

[roguenuke]

Jesus showed what marriage is meant to be and left no room for gay marriage.

Gays can get married in some Christian churches and many other religious ceremonies, as well as their own personal ceremonies. The marriage license is just a civil contract that was called marriage because that was the normal way for such unions to be recognized. Honestly, the legal marriage is just a word for a legal union/contract between two people making them legal family. It has nothing to do with the marriage set forth in the Bible or any other religious texts, since legal marriages or documentation proving a couple actually is married didn't even come about until around the 14th Century, which means they were not around in Jesus's time. So the question becomes, would Jesus have a problem with two men or two women entering into a legal contract that makes them family and gives them each certain legal rights and responsibilities that are called the same thing as a man and a woman in such a contract? Do you honestly think that Jesus would care what such a contract was called?

This is the problem. People who are against gay marriage can't seem to understand that they are actually only fighting against the legal contract (except for those who want to actually make gay religious marriage services illegal). Gays can get the religious form of marriage now. You are just denying them a civil contract, which is wrong and not even what many religious arguments, including your own, are supporting.

 

[Bodi]

I understand he requires a large personal space.

Apparently he does... and that seems quite selfish.
I always thought that Jesus preached that there was room enough for us all... silly me.

 

[Bodi]

Gays can get married in some Christian churches and many other religious ceremonies, as well as their own personal ceremonies. The marriage license is just a civil contract that was called marriage because that was the normal way for such unions to be recognized. Honestly, the legal marriage is just a word for a legal union/contract between two people making them legal family. It has nothing to do with the marriage set forth in the Bible or any other religious texts, since legal marriages or documentation proving a couple actually is married didn't even come about until around the 14th Century, which means they were not around in Jesus's time. So the question becomes, would Jesus have a problem with two men or two women entering into a legal contract that makes them family and gives them each certain legal rights and responsibilities that are called the same thing as a man and a woman in such a contract? Do you honestly think that Jesus would care what such a contract was called?

This is the problem. People who are against gay marriage can't seem to understand that they are actually only fighting against the legal contract (except for those who want to actually make gay religious marriage services illegal). Gays can get the religious form of marriage now. You are just denying them a civil contract, which is wrong and not even what many religious arguments, including your own, are supporting.

I always felt that those that argued that gay marriage would ruin the "institution" of marriage were off there rocker... and that isn't good when you live in a glass house.
See how clever I can be?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

This is the problem. People who are against gay marriage can't seem to understand that they are actually only fighting against the legal contract (except for those who want to actually make gay religious marriage services illegal). Gays can get the religious form of marriage now. You are just denying them a civil contract, which is wrong and not even what many religious arguments, including your own, are supporting.

It's sweet how you think that people like this are capable of rational thought.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Apparently he does... and that seems quite selfish.
I always thought that Jesus preached that there was room enough for us all... silly me.

Well, he is the GOD OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Pardon him for requiring a little extra room.

 

[Bodi]

Well, he is the GOD OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Pardon him for requiring a little extra room.

But it sounded like the guy was saying that Jesus's amount of room was finite, and the universe is infinite...

 

[roguenuke]

It's sweet how you think that people like this are capable of rational thought.

I think that some (probably very few) could possibly change their views if they could actually understand what they are fighting against. Most likely that little post would have very little chance of changing the minds of anyone who reads it, but it is possible. It is the truth of the situation, whether those on that side want to see it or not.

 

[Bodi]

It's sweet how you think that people like this are capable of rational thought.

You can't be rational with the irrational...
I use sayings like this when dealing with my ex-wife.
It works for just about everything.

Unreasonable.
Uncompromising.
Illogical.
Unappreciative.
Non-communicative.

 

[Bodi]

I think that some (probably very few) could possibly change their views if they could actually understand what they are fighting against. Most likely that little post would have very little chance of changing the minds of anyone who reads it, but it is possible. It is the truth of the situation, whether those on that side want to see it or not.

But since most people only see what they want to see....

 

[German guy]

I'm really not an expert on theology, but I read the NT again lately, including the according passages by Paul. A translation, that is, I have no idea about the original Greek meaning. My impression is that you can interpret that passage to mean just homosexuality in a context of debauchery, because he condemns other excesses along with it, like excessive drinking. This, and the often very strong emphasis on love in Paul's letters, makes me think a truly committed, loving homosexual partnership is not what he had in mind, but rather uncommittal sex and debauchery in general, when he condemned it. That also makes sense, because in Paul's days, committed and loving homosexual partnerships probably weren't common enough for him to be known. He probably only knew of homosexuality in context of either debauchery or heathen rituals, and that's what he had in mind.

So with this statement on one side, and the strong stance in favor of commitment, trust and love on the other, I think Christians can make a strong cause in favor of committed, loving homosexual partnerships, IMHO.

The according passages in Levitikus cannot serve as a good foundation to base a Christian condemnation of homosexuality on, in my understanding: The NT makes clear that the Old Law no longer applies to Christians. That's why we no longer apply most of the laws in Levitikus or Deuteronomium, and the according line on homosexuality is just one more. It's not coherent to pick one verse from Levitikus, but ignore most of the others. If you are Christian and want to support your condemnation of homosexuality with the scripture, you really need to refer to Paul.

At any rate, there is some leeway for interpretation in my lay perspective.

 

[OscarB63]

I thought that just about everybody was anti-incest.
Is there a "pro-gay" crowd, or just a "we are gay" crowd?

definitely a "pro-gay" crowd, you've seen em...the screaming in your face flamers.

there was a time (and it still is in many parts of the world) when just about everybody was anti-gay. so, playing devil's advocate, that shoots down that arguement against incest as well.

if you take the "making retarded babies" bit out of the discussion (which can be done using birth control) there is no arguement you can make against incest that cannot also be equally applied against homosexuality. there is no arguement you can make for homosexuality that you can't also make for incest.

just saying... it's all about social acceptability. why is one, once "disgusting", practice now acceptable and another is not?