xhacker: Homosexuality

[xhacker]

This post was made in the Christians Only Category, so I moved it here as a thread starter.

I'm really struggling with how to respond to homosexuals and those the believe the homosexual agenda is a legitimate fight for human rights.

Marriage is not a right. Its a privilege afforded to those that qualify by the states they live in. Those that qualify the state has a vested interest in since marriage produces children that are innocent and need to be most protected.

Gay marriage by natural law can not produce children. So what interest does the state have to recognize these unions in making them as equal as a traditional marriage? The reality is that a gay marriage would never be able to provide what a traditional marriage can.
The state cares about providing the best possible environment for a child to grow and develop in.
Every study about parenting reveals that the best environment for a child to grow in is one that involves traditional parenting in a traditional household.

Also there is no existing law saying that gays cannot marry. They just cant marry who they want...but neither can straight people.
So where is the inequality?

The existing laws are applied equally to every one whether you are gay or straight, black, white or what have you as long as you marry someone of the opposite sex.

Love has nothing to do with marriage as far as the state is concerned. There is no "love test" you are required to pass before you can get a marriage license and the state does not care about whether you love one another.

So claims about not being able to marry whoever you choose love is not an issue the state cares about. Straight people cannot marry whoever they choose to love either. Again equal laws apply regardless of sexual orientation.

So in this post I have not said anything about religion, or God in regards to homosexuality and have clearly stated a logical and thought out opposition to gay marriage. What about what I said above is bigoted or intolerant?

CTZ - could I quantify your argument; essentially you seem to be saying because gay couples cannot propagate, this is why you are against gay marriage.

My points:

1) There is nothing in marriage that says you have to have children.
2) Plenty of straight marriages do not end up having children for a number of different reasons - are you saying these are not real marriages?
3) You do not have to be married to have children anyway.
4) Gay couples can adopt, thereby completing your criteria.
5) Lesbians can propagate biologically, in fact both parents can propagate - does this mean under your criteria they are better than straight parents?

 

[clark thompson]

The bible says lying with the same sex is wrong this is why I reject it because the bible says so it has nothing to do with kids but has to do with the word. Things that the word do not say are wrong but I feel are wrong are personally convictions which I do not hold but I will stand by the word and expect Christians to do so as well.

 

[CTZonEdit]

I'm saying I see no reason to change it since nothing in the current laws discriminates against them being homosexual. You can be a homosexual and still get married under the current law.

To answer all your other points children are the main reason that only traditional marriage is protected. To protect the potential offspring and to in fact encourage it in order to maintain a proper functioning society. Society will fail without people being encouraged to generate and to bring up their children in the best environment possible.

This not possible with a gay marriage so they don't really need the protection.

Study after study shows that children grow and adjust best when raised in a traditional household as opposed to a gay one. Why would an adoption agency place a child in an environment that has a much higher potential for failure? Doesn't sound like the best interests are with the child to me.

 

[xhacker]

The bible says lying with the same sex is wrong this is why I reject it because the bible says so it has nothing to do with kids but has to do with the word. Things that the word do not say are wrong but I feel are wrong are personally convictions which I do not hold but I will stand by the word and expect Christians to do so as well.

The bible also says the following should get stoned:

For touching Mount Sinai
Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13
For taking "accursed things"
Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26
For cursing or blaspheming
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
For animals (like an ox that gores a human)
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28
For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
For worshipping other gods
If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10
For disobeying parents
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
For witches and wizards
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
For giving your children to Molech
Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2
For breaking the Sabbath
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56
For cursing the king
Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10

 

[xhacker]

I'm saying I see no reason to change it since nothing in the current laws discriminates against them being homosexual. You can be a homosexual and still get married under the current law.

To answer all your other points children are the main reason that only traditional marriage is protected. To protect the potential offspring and to in fact encourage it in order to maintain a proper functioning society. Society will fail without people being encouraged to generate and to bring up their children in the best environment possible.

This not possible with a gay marriage so they don't really need the protection.

Study after study shows that children grow and adjust best when raised in a traditional household as opposed to a gay one. Why would an adoption agency place a child in an environment that has a much higher potential for failure? Doesn't sound like the best interests are with the child to me.

Studies show that a married couple is the best environment for a child; hence another good reason why gay people should be able to get married.

Lesbian couples are able to have children, without adoption.

For evidence I recommend http://www.nllfs.org/ (National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study).

To paraphrase:

The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children “indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,”

 

[CTZonEdit]

The studies show that traditional marriage and children of those marriages are much more successful than gay unions.

A marriage license will never make that equal.

A gay union denies a child the right to a mother and a father.

The Distinct, Positive Impact of a Good Dad

Fathers Are Not Fungible

And I am not sure of the context of that quote you posted. What aged matched counterparts? Ones in healthy families that have a married mother and father? Are these counterpart children of single parents? Divorced parents? Co-habitating parents? The quote is really misleading.

As for lesbians and adoptions:

Is homosexuality "natural"? Do gays have a "right" to adopt children?

Is and Ought

Columnist Robert Scheer noted that, "Homosexuality in the vast majority of cases is a condition
that is given and not chosen, and must therefore be honored as part of the natural order of
things." Scheer’s comments reflect a standard misconception about homosexuality and ethics: If
we can find a connection between homosexuality and nature, then we must surrender our moral
objections to it. The error is in thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn’t.
Philosopher David Hume argued that it is impossible to produce a deductively valid argument
with factual premises and an ethical conclusion. In short, you can’t get an "ought" from an "is."
This is called the naturalistic fallacy.
In layman’s terms, just because a behavior is "natural" doesn’t make it right. This is obvious on
a moment’s reflection. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault? Does a natural
desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to homosexuals justify gay-bashing?
Animals do what comes naturally. We are not mere beasts, but human beings protected by
morality from the tyranny of our natural appetites. The difference between "just doing what
comes naturally" and principled self-restraint is called civilization.

Further, persisting in this line of reasoning annihilates the argument for adoption rights by
homosexuals. If homosexuality is right because it’s natural, then adoption must be wrong
because it’s unnatural. If nature dictates morality, and the natural consequence for homosexuals
is to be childless, then it’s unnatural, and therefore immoral, for homosexuals to raise children.
Artificial insemination of lesbians or adoptions by homosexual couples would be wrong by their
own argument. The same principle governs both issues.

 

[CoreIssue]

Xhacker, do you have a limit on what one can do? Is there any point where it becomes destructive to people to allow things?

By your thinking we should legalize polygamy, polyandry, consenting pedophilia, bestiality, public nudity, drugs, etc.

I am not going to go through all your verse references to show context. Looking at the first one, Exodus 19:13. The context is God was then on the mount and ready to descend to the people, not an everyday any time issue.

One has to be purified to come into the presence of God. That is not for us to understand or question. Non pure cannot be in contact with God or where he is present. We cannot even look upon God in his fulness as it will kill us.

On killing the ox that gores a human, even today it is law almost everywhere if an animal kills a person it is to be killed. Once they kill the first time they will almost always kill again.

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Again, read in modern English. The KJV is used far too often to spin meanings to a different context due to it archaic wording:

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

You need to study the customs of the time. It says not screaming for help, not one word about loud enough.

It is quite evident from the wording she was willing, not raped.

Yes, some of the others seem harsh and unreasonable to us. But, there was a contract between God and Israel. He would give them special blessings and protections over other nations in return for them being a beacon and teacher for God.

Israel agreed to it and bound themselves too it.

Simple reality is God sets the rules, not us. Trying to say God does not exist because one does not like what he says is like trying to get out of a traffic ticket because you don't like the law. Not going to happen.

 

[xhacker]

Xhacker, do you have a limit on what one can do? Is there any point where it becomes destructive to people to allow things?

By your thinking we should legalize polygamy, polyandry, consenting pedophilia, bestiality, public nudity, drugs, etc.

I am not going to go through all your verse references to show context. Looking at the first one, Exodus 19:13. The context is God was then on the mount and ready to descend to the people, not an everyday any time issue.

One has to be purified to come into the presence of God. That is not for us to understand or question. Non pure cannot be in contact with God or where he is present. We cannot even look upon God in his fulness as it will kill us.

On killing the ox that gores a human, even today it is law almost everywhere if an animal kills a person it is to be killed. Once they kill the first time they will almost always kill again.

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Again, read in modern English. The KJV is used far too often to spin meanings to a different context due to it archaic wording:

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

You need to study the customs of the time. It says not screaming for help, not one word about loud enough.

It is quite evident from the wording she was willing, not raped.

Yes, some of the others seem harsh and unreasonable to us. But, there was a contract between God and Israel. He would give them special blessings and protections over other nations in return for them being a beacon and teacher for God.

Israel agreed to it and bound themselves too it.

Simple reality is God sets the rules, not us. Trying to say God does not exist because one does not like what he says is like trying to get out of a traffic ticket because you don't like the law. Not going to happen.

Core - as far as 'polygamy, polyandry, consenting pedophilia, bestiality, public nudity, drugs, etc', that's just a straw man. If you want to discuss those topics, then great, but our discussion here is on homosexual marriage, it has nothing to do with those other topics.

My quotes were with reference to 'clark thompson' s post, that the reason he is against gay marriage is the 'word' in the bible. Now most people quote leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Both these verses are clearly against gay unions. However for some reason, I don't hear Christians calling for Leviticus 24:16, and the stoning of blasphemers. This to me is picking and choosing. A number of churches manage to the interpret the bible as not being anti-gay.

Now cards on the table, i don't personally feel attracted to other women, however i have no problem at all with women who are, it makes no difference to me. Marriage to me is about two people celebrating their shared love. It also has the added benefit of protecting both partners if things should go wrong, and also creating a safe environment to bring up kids, if that is what they want. A number of studies show that 10% of people are gay, and i think they deserve to be able celebrate their love as much as the other 90%.

And in case people are interested, gay behavior is very common in other animals as well (ie its very natural!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

 

[CoreIssue]

It isn't a straw man in the reality that all are sexual practices some people want to practice. My point is where is the limits? So it does have a relationship to the other topics.

On the Law, of course you do not hear Christians calling for enforcement of Mosaic Law because:

• The Law pertained to a covenant for Israel alone. The covenant is no longer in force because of Israel's failure. It as been annulled.
• There were three areas of law:
  • Moral - meaning conduct in everyday life.
  • Social (Government/economy) . It never applied to Gentiles, only Israel. Since there is no Mosaic Covenant today, it does not apply to modern Israel either.
  • Ceremonial - The Feasts, Sabbaths, etc. and other religious requirements. Those were fulfilled in Christ and do not apply today.

As more knowledge from God is revealed more is required. The more that is required the greater the rewards that can be earned. There is no contradiction since there is no sin if one does not know what is sin. The expectations of those who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit is higher than for those who were not (a whole other topic).

As for those who interpret the Bible as not being anti-gay, we need to get the issue straight. The Bible is not anti-gay as a person, but the sin of the sex involved. But the Bible is most assuredly anti-gay lifestyle.

I have debated those trying to talk around the issue. They resort to trying to add the verses, interpret in ways that are illogical and unjustifiable etc. In example, saying it is again homosexuality out of wedlock. Which falls apart since the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman and says homosexuality is a despised and contemptible sin to God.

You need to understand the difference between dealing with the sin and the sinner.

Trying to bring in animals is irrelevant. Sin entered the whole world a very long time ago and affected everything. Animals were not immune, but that does not make it right.

It is also 'natural' for some animals to kill for sport, not food or self-defense etc. Does that make it right for humans?

On percentages, being a chosen lifestyle, as reports also show, the percentage is fluid with social acceptance. It is a chosen, not genetic, trait.

 

[CTZonEdit]

I think it really to comes down to people defining their entire self-worth on sexuality.

Human beings are more than the sexual choices they make. To limit one's self and identify your whole self based on a lifestyle of sexual freedoms and choice is demeaning not only to that person but to society and humanity as a whole.

Look at Greco-Roman societies. Why would we want to return to that?
Christianity made people (men women and children) look at themselves as more than sexual beings to be purchased and sold and objectified. It places limits.

Now people are being misled to believe that somehow stripping away the "shackles" of these limits that they are bettering themselves and society in turn progresses. Is it really? Really?

The Greeks and Romans were wickedly sexual and depraved societies. Look at what happened to them.
That future doesn't look to bright to me.

 

[CoreIssue]

Yep, first the Falling Away followed by the rule of the AC.

Rome for sure.

 

[Jessie]

Look at Greco-Roman societies. Why would we want to return to that?
Christianity made people (men women and children) look at themselves as more than sexual beings to be purchased and sold and objectified. It places limits.


wish folks would think about that in depth.

 

[CTZonEdit]

Today people don't like limits and don't like being told what to do.

Apparently somewhere along the way placing ANY limits on people's freedom to do whatever they choose to do in their pursuit of "happiness" became unconstitutional.

 

[clark thompson]

Xhacker, do you have a limit on what one can do? Is there any point where it becomes destructive to people to allow things?

By your thinking we should legalize polygamy, polyandry, consenting pedophilia, bestiality, public nudity, drugs, etc.

I am not going to go through all your verse references to show context. Looking at the first one, Exodus 19:13. The context is God was then on the mount and ready to descend to the people, not an everyday any time issue.

One has to be purified to come into the presence of God. That is not for us to understand or question. Non pure cannot be in contact with God or where he is present. We cannot even look upon God in his fulness as it will kill us.

On killing the ox that gores a human, even today it is law almost everywhere if an animal kills a person it is to be killed. Once they kill the first time they will almost always kill again.

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Again, read in modern English. The KJV is used far too often to spin meanings to a different context due to it archaic wording:

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

You need to study the customs of the time. It says not screaming for help, not one word about loud enough.

It is quite evident from the wording she was willing, not raped.

Yes, some of the others seem harsh and unreasonable to us. But, there was a contract between God and Israel. He would give them special blessings and protections over other nations in return for them being a beacon and teacher for God.

Israel agreed to it and bound themselves too it.

Simple reality is God sets the rules, not us. Trying to say God does not exist because one does not like what he says is like trying to get out of a traffic ticket because you don't like the law. Not going to happen.

Core - as far as 'polygamy, polyandry, consenting pedophilia, bestiality, public nudity, drugs, etc', that's just a straw man. If you want to discuss those topics, then great, but our discussion here is on homosexual marriage, it has nothing to do with those other topics.

My quotes were with reference to 'clark thompson' s post, that the reason he is against gay marriage is the 'word' in the bible. Now most people quote leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Both these verses are clearly against gay unions. However for some reason, I don't hear Christians calling for Leviticus 24:16, and the stoning of blasphemers. This to me is picking and choosing. A number of churches manage to the interpret the bible as not being anti-gay.

Now cards on the table, i don't personally feel attracted to other women, however i have no problem at all with women who are, it makes no difference to me. Marriage to me is about two people celebrating their shared love. It also has the added benefit of protecting both partners if things should go wrong, and also creating a safe environment to bring up kids, if that is what they want. A number of studies show that 10% of people are gay, and i think they deserve to be able celebrate their love as much as the other 90%.

And in case people are interested, gay behavior is very common in other animals as well (ie its very natural!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Even though Blaspheming is still wrong we are not to judge the sins of others just state the truth of the word and warn them about God's judgment for their sins. Homosexually is still wrong but we are to let God send the judgment on them and just let them know to turn from there ways.

 

[Jessie]

this is a bit confusing, when one points out Gods judgement for their sin etc..
they claim they are being judged.

when one is judging the sins of others what exactly does that mean?

even the scripture tells us to avoid certain people

 

[CTZonEdit]

Meet world's first married lesbian THREESOME

The world's only 'married' lesbian threesome are expecting their first child.

Doll, Kitten and Brynn, from Massachusetts, were joined together in a marriage-style ceremony last August and are expecting a daughter in July.

Kitten, 27, is pregnant after undergoing IVF treatment using an anonymous sperm donor, and the trio eventually plan to have three children - one for each of them.

And people said this slippery slope example would not happen, well here we go.

 

[CTZonEdit]

The Home & Garden Television (aka HGTV) network announced Wednesday it has decided to pull the plug on an upcoming real estate reality show amid a firestorm of controversy from gay rights activists who accused the evangelical Christian hosts of being anti-gay and pro-life.

 

[Jessie]

things get darker by the day.

 

[CTZonEdit]

An article I read the other day explained why so many judges are overturning same sex marriage bans.

The reasoning was that being gay is no longer seen by the courts as something you do. Being gay is now seen as something you are as a human being.

So I'm trying to find scientific evidence that gayness is an inherent trait like skin color or something factual as to what logic was used by the judge that determined a redefinition of gayness. Judges are supposed to be using facts right? Not emotional pleas.

Also trying to find in the bible the exact definition of a homosexual. Is it the person itself or is it the act of that person?

Right now I'm going with God condemns the act of homosexual behavior and not the person. Therefore a person that commits homosexual behaviors is a homosexual.

 

[CoreIssue]

I have never seen anything in the Bible that says other than heterosexuality is genetic. Even when it speaks of those who can do without sex it is still in the context of hetero. It says homosexuality is abandoning what the normal.

More recent and greater scientifically backed research I have seen all say they cannot find any genetic basis for homosexuality.

The best they can find is some factors that allow for homosexual desire, but it always hinges on personal choice. That means while one is hetero they can choose homosexuality.

Strangely, have you notice, in example men who "pretend" to be straight have managed to become get women pregnant? How does a man achieve the arousal needed if he is truly homosexual? There is not amount of acting that will get around that issue when engaging in intimacy.

Sin is a propensity from sin nature. One chooses to sin. We all battle sin nature.