Let us have a forum and really work this out. I am a fundamentalist. Meaning I have to have fundamental notions that I can always fall back on. Like a universal truth. I am Christian. I am not affiliated or aligned with any denomination or sect or church.
I find there are many consistencies and inconsistencies in the Bible. That just is fact. So I go to a baseline, the lowest common truth/denominator in determining truth when faced with apparent conflict.
For me it always returns to the highest law for man as given us by Jesus. I am a Christian. Love thy God with all you got and do likewise to your neighbor. That is just it. No caveats and no conditions and no suggestions on how to avoid this rule.
While I must use discernment and judgement I feel that in the case of love these are not qualifiers or requirements.
Therefore I believe that gayness is not any sort of prohibiter for Love.
What I would hope for here is to amass -- biblical positions against or in support of this decision. And then we can look at those through the greatest commandment of all and see how it squares.
I agree with the two opinions expressed so far, I think sexual orientation is irrelevant. A couple of quotes spring to mind.."love thy neighbour as you would yourself" and,"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Fundamentalist = someone that is brainwashed and/or gullible enough to believe that the bible is 100% fact by some other poorly educated so-called "christian".
The examples given here by Emile and Jodah are right on, IMO. Who are any of us to ever judge anyone? I have gay friends that I love and adore and I do so because they are terrific people, flat out, plain and simple. I've seen and witnessed people trying to shame them, I've witnessed them being harassed, disrespected, and discriminated against and it just sinks and breaks my heart to see people be so cruel. What's really terrible and sad is, the people inflicting this hurt do not even know anything about those they persecute other than they are gay, and for them, that's all the excuse they need to insight intolerance and hate! If they only took the time to get to know them personally, I doubt they could ever be hateful or cruel to them, they are people just like you and me. They want the same things in life as we all do, they just love differently than some. So what.
Well done, Eric.
I've always found it disturbing that homosexuality automatically places man's conditions on what is ultimately supposed to be God's unconditional love. As if you can commit any other transgression under the sun, repent, and be forgiven because God has that agape, unconditional love....except if you're gay. It's nuts. The scriptures of love thy neighbor and judge not definitely apply here because we all make mistakes. We cannot judge others because their decisions are different than ours and go beyond what we may do.
Thanks Deepes Mind, it sure is a strange world. I just heard a Catholic Priest go on for ten minutes about chastity. How strange a man sworn to celibacy would tell thousands of people what was appropriate sexually.
Deepes, I am not weighing in on what is or isn't sin, discernment or judgement. I simply want to point out the premise which differentiates the transgressions you found befuddling. It is not any specific transgression, (all save one of which can be forgiven), that is at issue, but rather a defiant attitude and unrepentant perpetuation of any transgression, that is. Seeking forgiveness means acknowledging the transgression, and repenting of it, not proudly establishing it as a way of life. Which particular transgression is irrelevant.
Well put. More the idea of what a transgression is, is at stake.
I was hoping here to get some hard references that really address gayness.
Of course. My point was that some people are quick to judge homosexuality as if their own sins aren't being looked at. I actually had a friend tell me that whatever he did was OK because it was not as bad as being gay.
bBerean, are you trying to hang onto control of the Guilt Trip?
im all for most everything you said. thats why i refuse to give the pretense that homosexuality is completely harmless. because i do care for people, i think they should know there are risk factors. most of which i have discussed in the Q&A. i not trying to prevent people from loving one another or from happiness. isn't possible after all to show your love and affection to people without sex?
Ah yes, the risk factors.
I find most of those are avoided with a snorkel. In really extreme cases goggles are also recommended.
risk factors? Such as what? Sexually transmitted diseases? Lesbians contract many STDs including HIV on a much lower percentage than straight counterparts - and many of the STDs that are found in lesbian women can be traced back to previous heterosexual sexual experiences.
If you're not referring to STDs, what risk factors are you referring to? As a lesbian, I have never been with a man sexually and have no desire to. I am in a monogamous, committed relationship - and have been for several years now - have had under 10 sexual partners in total in my 35 years of life and have never had a sexually transmitted disease. I am married to my wife, and we have a normal relationship - except we rarely fight. What risk factors do you think we face?
you're right. lesbians have a much lower risk than gay men. there has also been a lot less studies done with lesbians, because in the past no one thought it possible to transmit disease. studies are coming out that may suggest increase in bacterial infections and possibly leading to cervical and ovarian cancer. however there really isnt much concrete information on it. gay men do however have a lot more risk factors and complications. dont you think they should at least be aware or educated on the matter?
http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/Cer … 47735.html
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/server-error.h … 4-0467.htm
What exactly makes you think they aren't educated in it - especially after the aids crisis in the early 80s? Now days, I hear horror stories of heterosexuals who know they are infected who go out and willfully infect as many other people as possible. There are a lot of stereotypes about gay people that may have been based on truth originally, but they're hardly the norm now.
I mean, honestly shouldn't everyone be educated on the risks prior to engaging in sexual activity? I'm not seeing the distinction here.
what makes me say they aren't educated is whenever i bring up the risks, im accused of being intolerant and ignorant. so i don't know if they are uneducated or in denial. however they still reject the notion of any complications even after giving evidence. i don't get the correlation with some crazy gay hating hetero's. how does that make anything i said invalid?
That's because the "risks" are/have been used to "prove" that it is unnatural, or somehow immoral.
I've never met a gay man EVER who wasn't aware of the dangers of unprotected sex.
Now, I'm met lots of people who weren't educated on the risks of childbirth and pregnancy... Yet no one ever brings that up in a discussion about the morality of heterosexuality.
no matter what the risks are, some people are going to ignore them - and it doesn't matter if they're straight, gay or anything else. This doesn't prove anything other than some people just don't care what the risks are. That doesn't mean that they're ignorant of the risks or uneducated.
i think me asking the question of shouldn't they be educated is taking a wrong turn from my original point. maybe i shouldn't have put it that way. so let me put it this way. when asked or on a forum like this, why should i pretend like its all ok and harmless with 0 risks when i know and have information as the the contrary?
Everything we do has risks. Does that mean that we shouldn't leave our homes? Or drive our cars? The risk argument when it come to homosexuality just doesn't make sense to me. There are equal number of risks with heterosexual sex. Anyone can get an pass on a sexually transmitted disease - even if they follow precautions.
Women face a risk of dying in childbirth - does that mean that no one should have sex so they can't get pregnant? What if you practice all necessary precautions and get pregnant anyway?
You ignore risks every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Should you not drive? The majority of people I know practice safe sex in one form or another. That doesn't mean that they're immune - but no one is. You can also contract an STD from many other activities - drug use, blood contact, etc. It's not solely confined to gay people. How are they at any greater risk than anyone else? I'm not talking about those who know and accept the risks and ignore them. I'm talking generalities.
Since lesbians are at the least risk of all, should every woman become a lesbian? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
Then why aren't you speaking against the risk in ALL sex? Why just point out homosexual men?
he didn't specify gay MEN until I pointed out that lesbian risks were notoriously low. THEN he clarified. At first it was just gay = risk. Like no other kind of sex carries any risk whatsoever.
Lesbians are wholesome entertainment for most men Jules. The same men that seek pleasure from lesbian porn are the ones screaming about how wrong being gay is. I've found that MOST men who have a problem with homosexuality really mean gay men.
That's most. Lesbians still catch it from the ones that are ashamed of what watching two women kiss does to them... and women who have giant pine trees up their arses.
i guess i don't know of any risks in monogamous sex between a man and a women. what are they?
On average, one woman dies every minute from complications of giving birth. In addition, they have the exact same risks as anybody who enters into a relationship with someone who isn't a virgin. Monogamous doesn't mean disease free.
In addition... vaginal trauma, toxic shock syndrome, urinary tract infections, vaginosis, yeast infections, cervical hemorrhage, staph infections, strep infections, herpes from oral sex (do you know someone who's never had a cold sore) physical injuries, sudden coronary event
I could go on.
these things come from a man and a women during consensual natural means (not oral not anal) of sex? other than the death during pregnancy, which you make a good point, i would have to see some evidence to believe it.
Let's start with penile fracture, since you seem to be a bit more concerned about men. Search it on Google. I can't link any articles I found because they all have pictures.
In addition, "approximately 4% of aneurysmal bleeds occur after sexual intercourse"
It can also cause strokes:
http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article … eid=786101
Heart attacks and urinary issues: Also, allergic reactions to semen.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article … 3-0015.pdf
That took 3 minutes on Google. Would you like me to search deeper?
Monogamous being the point!
If you have been with ONE other person in your life prior to the person you are currently about to enter into a sexual relationship with - you are risking them, as that ONE person you slept with - you slept with all that they have slept with.
Not to mention the person you are about to enter into a sexual connection with - how many have they been with.
If everyone was virginal when they met the one person they will remain in a monogamous relationship with for life - then it wouldn't matter what sexuality they were. Being gay does not equal risk. Being sexually active equals risk
thats actually not true , and you and i have been over this, so i wont say much on it. youre right in that monogamy and 1 partner are the key points. although unlikely in this world, doesnt make it any less the ideal thing to do.
What bit isn't true?
Being gay does not in itself equal risk. Because a celibate gay person isn't at risk of anything sexually. But then, neither is a celibate straight person.
Being sexually active equals risk - condoms are not 100%, monogamy isn't 100% guaranteed as people can be born with HPV and can contract this through touch (It's the wart virus...ALL of the wart virus...hands, genitals, cervix etc).
Physical injuries - rough sex can injure anyone. Anal tears/fissures - happen to straight couples who partake in anal sex, and lesbians who partake in anal penetrative play. Tears to ones cervix/vagina - rough sex again - neither a gay or straight only risk. Penile fractures - rough sex again, or ...a not well used position change though I have heard of it happening in missionary also. Hmm...that rough sex seems risky...
It is true - you are sleeping with those your partner has ever slept with if they have not always been safe - they MAY not know they have something like HPV, Herpes, Chlamydia, Gonnorhoea, Sphyillis. And be unwittingly passing it on. Many people carry these without symptoms - there have been numerous times I've had people unwittingly find out they have something through a STI check pre a new relationship.....and most of the time the people I deal with daily are straight.
Your ideal is a wonderful thing to aim for - for yourself. But, as you said - it's not likely for everyone in the world. So, it's really time to stop hoping for the ideal, and work on the reality - protect everyone from the risks through education - particularly that we are ALL at risk REGARDLESS of sexual orientation.
So again - what part is not true? I don't care if we've been over it - I'd like to know what you mean - because you can't just state "It's not true" and not provide reasons as to why, or even WHAT isn't true.
I find it strangely interesting that you're well versed in in the risks of gay sex but not the risks between men and women? Why would you bother devoting your time to that if you're not gay?
Story in the local paper - a gay man indicted for having sex while knowing he has aids. Apparently the law thinks that everyone should know better, should know the risks.
he should know better in my opinion. i don't think his sexual orientation has anything to do with it though.
We had one of those here in New Zealand - unfortunately he committed suicide before serving much of his sentence. He was infecting both men and women though as well.
To knowingly have sex with someone unprotected (and having not told them either) with the HIV virus is akin to GBH in the least, if not murder depending on your laws etc.
To inform the person you carry the virus, and to use protection, safe methods (condoms aren't indestructible) etc is to lessen the risk.
To unknowingly infect someone is both unfortunate, and the risk we ALL take in having unprotected sex. If the same rules were applied to those who 'unknowingly' infect others as those who knowingly do it - do you think we'd all be a little more careful? Bears thinking on, doesn't it?
I'm for education for ALL sexualities on how to be safe - both sexually and non-sexually.
However, people in charge or in influence of education, often equate teaching about safe sexual practices of homosexuality as 'promoting the homosexual lifestyle" and therefore rule it out COMPLETELY. So, it is no wonder you feel that gays may be uneducated - it's bee protested against being taught for a long time.
If you want to promote sexual, and non-sexual, relationship safety - teach ALL of it - not cherry picked.
Risks exist in ALL sexualities in sexual contact - and they aren't increased for any community - as long as all are taught how to be safe. STDs are EQUAL Opportunity bugs - if you aren't careful, they don't care who you love, just that you do so unprotected.
hi jpark. did you read the articles i posted? they do state that homosexuals are at a higher percentage and more at risk. im only relaying the information.
Some of them I did. CDC doesn't want me to look at the last one for some reason!
However, I need to point out the fact that science etc makes huge strides EVERY year. 2009 for a source is almost pushing it. Why? Because even in undergraduate study, one's sources must be published in the last 5 years.
An example - The HPV vaccine - marketed currently to females for the last 5-7 years has been tested on males, and Australia is about to start vaccinating males aged 12 and over - why? They noticed a 40% decrease in HPV in males who were in heterosexual relationships with women who had been vaccinated - but not in the MSM community - so are taking strides to prevent it there too. (Vaccine called Gardasil).
BUT, in 2009 - this was a new vaccine, and still being trialled etc. See what I mean?
The CDC site - yep, HIV is still over-represented in the gay community - never said it wasn't. BUT it is NOT just a gay disease. To think that this is the case is putting yourself and others at risk. It is an unprotected, non-monogamous sex risk for ANYONE regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Again - EDUCATION in prevention and safety is better than just pointing fingers. Fence at the top of the cliff type stuff instead of ambulance at the bottom etc.
The Cervical Cancer article - says nothing about lesbians being at HIGHER risk. Just that they are at risk - never said we weren't - heck, I've had an abnormal smear and I've NEVER been sexual with a man. But I have been educated in why it is necessary to have smears. Lesbians need smears as much as the next lady because HPV is so common and so EASILY spread.
You think you don't have it? Have you had more than one sexual partner?? Even if you've only had one sexual partner all your life, have they had others? 90% of the population have come into contact with HPV at some point in their life - it's as common as a cold. 25 % of those are usually from their first sexual partner. Approx 40% of men don't get rid of it, but don't know they are carrying the strains that cause Cervical Ca because they don't have a cervix.
HPV is the warts virus - HPV 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancers, HPV 6 and 11 cause genital warts. There are 100s of strains of HPV out there affecting different areas. But NOT ONE of them is solely for lesbians. That article is merely saying gay woman need smears - and yes, they do.
I've never, nor WOULD I ever say that gay women don't need smears.
The percentages in your article re: HPV and lesbians aren't high, nor are they higher than those of straight women. If you are solely basing your statements on the HIV - generalising is likely to make you look less intelligent than I know you are. Don't do that.
My sources - I'm an experienced RN of 12yrs, with experience in sexual health, cervical screening, primary health care and vaccination - the stats are from countless consults with patients in the presence of consultants (eg specialists in their field) where these stats are advised as people get shocked to realise that HPV is an STD, and Cervical ca is caused by HPV.
But....the New Zealand Cervical Screening Programme has wonderful information - yes, I come from the ONLY country in the world where cervical screening is written into legislation.
I was going to post this yesterday (my time) but realised that my professional qualifications and experience may not count as sources for you (or for me!.) So if you choose to disregard all I have said - I understand. I can provide sources - it's a case of remembering where they are.
Gardasil etc http://www.gardasil.com/
But again - it only mentions HIV - and everyone is at risk for that if uneducated in self-protection.
Are you saying that even with education - we are more at risk? Or are you just stuck saying we are at risk because we are gay?
The problem is the LACK of education - if all sexualities were given equal time in sex education - then there wouldn't be a problem. But because it makes people feel icky - they fight against it being put into the curriculum as they see it as 'promotion'. What they are really doing is MAKING it unhealthy for EVERYONE by not including EVERYONE.
You agree or not?
If you were discussing a different disease, like influenza, or malaria or cholera, you would be concentrating on eradicating the source of the disease, i.e., the organism that cause it.
Sexually transmitted diseases are caused similarly, by organisms. Whether anal sex is practised by hetero- or homo- sexual couples, the potential for transmission of a disease is the same, IF either person is infected with the relevant organism.
So..... drop your concerns about the sexual act. It is not harmful if there is no pathogen present.
Homosexuals are humans, people, so they probably know how to show love and affection to people without sex. So, if you really DO care for people, then you'll care for homosexuals, cause they're people who can show love and affection without sex. You won't prevent them from loving one another and their happiness, because you said you wouldn't prevent people from loving one another or from happiness.
You make a good point.
youre absolutely right. im not saying homosexuality should be illegal, or they should be prevented from doing so. i will fight for a persons right to participate in homosexual behavior if they so desire. i do not dislike gay people and am against violent behavior, unfair treatment, or hatred towards them. what i wont do though is pretend for the sake of political correctness, popularity, or for fear of being called a bigot or intolerant, that homsexual behavior is completely harmless.
Who is harmed by me being married to and intimate with my wife? How are they harmed?
You, I think, and your wife. You appear to suffer great psychological harm and even greater spiritual harm.
I think, anyway - I have a little trouble following the reasoning sometimes. Well, most of the time.
Actually, all the time if the truth were known.
who is harmed is the person participating in homosexual behavior. thats why i dont think it should be illegal or prevented on some extreme level. they are only at risk for themselves. like i said though, its primarily gay men who are at the most risk and have the most complications.
Then tell me how I'm being harmed - since you seem to know more about me than I do. It's really unfathomable to me how people can tell me that my being gay harms me, when I've only ever been attracted to girls, I was NEVER curious about boys, and I have no desire to be with them.
I'm not trying to be overly snarky here because I do respect you, and I usually find you intelligent - but are you really going to tell me as a straight man that you know more about being gay than someone who actually IS - and who has been so all of their lives?
im not saying i know more. i even admitted to there being very little information about lesbians, but that information is coming out. i provided you with a couple of those. i think the bigger risks are with gay men. i provided information for that as well, and even those dont cover all possible complications involved with gay men. im also not saying hetero couple have 0 risks, 'especially when they arent monogamous. im just saying from the articles i provided and information ive read int he past the risks are increased and more complications are involved with homosexuality especially among gay men. i dont mean any disrespect to you or your wife. i do understand though that what im saying may seem offensive. i just don't see how i can say i care about others if i pretend like its all harmless based on the information that i have read.
but all sex poses risk. While it may have been true at one point that gay men were in the highest risk category, with prevention, education and safer sexual practices, that isn't necessarily the case any more. Then you said something about them being uneducated.
What completely blew me away was when you said that gay people should just be able to express their love without sex. Why? Why shouldn't heterosexual couples express their love without sex? Why single a group of people out? There is nothing wrong or risky about me being with my wife physically. Honestly, I'm in more danger of catching a cold because she's a teacher than I am because we're gay and we have *gasp* gay sex.
When practicing anal sex, the risks are greater - FOR EVERYONE. But I don't see you out there saying that no one should have anal sex. Just not GAY PEOPLE. Because it ONLY increases risk for THEM.
I'm sorry, but your comments seem incredibly ignorant to me. I've read the research too. In this day and age almost everyone has. Guess what? There are risks associated with sex. I don't see many people jumping on the celibate bandwagon because of them though - but the only people that you think should be celibate are the gays, of course, because you're not one of them.
actually i am against anal sex for all. there are so many complications going beyond STD's. anal fissures, rectal prolapse, increase risk of anal cancer. i do not recommend it for anyone. i have actually specified that in the Q&A not too long ago. the reason i say gay men are at higher risk is because they participate in anal sex more often than strait couples do. not that i never did it, but im even against oral sex because of risks involved with that. there are risks for everyone when it comes to sex. i dont disagree. however the lowest risk comes from a monogamous man and a women through natural (meaning not anal or oral) methods of sex. the reason i aked the question cant people express their love without having sex is because i commonly hear the objection to my original comments of "why cant 2 people who love each other express it to each other?". i should have specified that. and yes hetero can also express each others love without. which i , and im sure you do with many friends. however hetero couples do have a reason behind sex besides expression love or showing passion. that being producing the next generation or having kids.
No, the lowest risk comes from two monogamous women having oral sex.
Two men having oral sex is fairly statistically safe as well.
Oral sex just rocks, risk wise.
not entirely true.
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/sex/sexual … l-sex-safe
Are you KIDDING me right now?
Wow. Just wow. I don't even know how to respond to this, so I'm not going to. If you're against any sex that isn't heterosexual, missionary sex without a condom for procreative purposes excluding oral and anal and everything in between, then I feel sorry for your partner. Why not just do what they did in the colonial period and just make a sheet with a hole cut out of it so your bodies don't even have to touch?
that's all I'm going to say before I start getting pissy.
LOL. i had a feeling you would say you feel sorry for my partner. this will be my final say on the matter, since there isnt really much left to be said. I truly apologized if i offended you in any way. you know i respect you and enjoy our debates. dont take any of my comments here as that i hate gay people or think they should be punished or harmed in any manner. in fact i feel the opposite. my daughter is a member of the gay/strait alliance which is focused on anti bullying, especially against homosexuals. and i support her 100%. this doesnt change my views however. based on the articles i sent and other things i have read homosexual sex does have a higher percentage of issues compared to hetero. of course that doesnt mean heteros dont have issues as well. my main purpose of getting in to this forum and any time i get in the this debate is simply to state that homosexual behavior is riskier than hetero. im not condemning anyone. like i said earlier, im just not going to pretend that its completely harmless as many suggest just because i fear being called a bigot or intolerant or ignorant. im also not going to let the culture sway me into accepting this idea of as long as youre in love its all good. i dont agree with that. love has nothing to do with the issues im speaking of. it only has to do with sex and the safest possible method. i believe that to be consensual monogamous sex between a man and a women through natural method. is this practiced by our culture today? very little. but it doesnt make any less true.
Yeah, I'm sorry but this conversion has changed the way I see you. It's obviously a subject that is very personal to me, and I'm sorry, but I take ignorant comments about it personally. You can provide all the links you want, but I have never known a lesbian to get cancer because she's a lesbian. Unless you already have an std, oral sex between women carries almost zero risk. I am not harmed by being married to my wife physically, emotionally or otherwise. While we disagree on a lot, I've always respected you. I respect your right to feel the way you do, but I can't agree with your conclusions. If the sole purpose of sex is procreation, then not only should committed, monogamous married gay couples not have sex, but neither should anyone who is infertile, as well as couples who just don't want children or who practice safe sex. I'm just not going too be able to wrap my mind around that concept sufficiently enough to continue this conversation. I'm sorry.
Okay, so you are sorry if you offended anyone, and you are not homophobic, you are just concerned for everyones health. Now to be fair I feel the same way, the risk of any sex is way to great and all sex should be banned completely. Way to risky, babies can be made in a tube, but we still have the dilemma of the risk of the birth. We'll have to find a way around that. I'll have to sell my cars and stay inside as to not risk an accident. No more walking down the street for me, I might slip.
Life is all about balancing risk against desirable outcomes. We shouldn't eat red meat because of increased bowl cancer risks, but occasionally I'm hankering for a bacon sandwich. We know alcohol increases risk of liver disease and cancer, but I've got a well stocked cupboard of booze for Christmas. We risk our lives getting into our cars. To reduce life to the lowest common denominator by being risk averse is to live a miserable empty life. We are all grown ups and capable of finding out the risks of any activity, and each one of us is able to asses that risk against what brings us joy. I suspect that the reason you single out anal and oral sex as too risky, above jumping in a car to go to the shops, is because you find them distasteful. That's ok, but be honest about it instead of professing a faux risk aversion.
Unfortunate, but rather common, isn't it?
"It is risky, so should be banned"
"It is evil, so should be banned"
"It is bad for you, so should be banned"
"God doesn't like it, so should be banned"
"It is nasty, so should be banned"
"It is ugly, so should be banned"
What it actually boils down to is, of course, "I don't like it, so it should be banned".
Would it really matter if there were a slightly higher risk?
Young males are statistically more likely to be involved in serious/fatal car crashes. Do you stop all young males driving cars?
And anyone passed the point of being able to procreate should abstain for ever more! Can no one get any plain, down-to-earth fun any more?
You talk about not being able to say you care if you pretend it's harmless based on all the information you have read. Yet, you are speaking about risks for gay people, but not the HUGE risks involved in heterosexual sex also.
You talk about heterosexual sex as - heterosexual, monogamous sex - like that is the ONLY kind of sex that heteros have. If everyone were virgins when they met their life partner - we wouldn't have a problem, and you'd likely be correct - but for all sexualities.
To be completely honest - I've had one sexual partner my WHOLE (all 31yrs of it) life - my wife. Most of my straight friends (not all, most) and family have had several. Yet, here you are saying I'm the one at risk.
Based on the information I have read, compiled and use daily in my job - I would be remiss to say I cared about people if I sat back and said heterosexual sex is harmless. Because - monogamous or NOT - it isn't harmless.
See what I'm trying to say? You are saying it's the gay sex thats harmful but kind of ignoring the fact that heterosexuals are as much at risk as anyone..
Do you think we could agree to accept that all sexual practices carry risks - regardless of who they are with? Rather than split us down the middle - because...in essence we are all at risk.
I would also like to add that I am completely capable of showing compassion and affection for someone without having sex with them, but why on earth is it that you think I should not have sex with my wife? Why should gay people not be able to share sexual intimacy with their partners? Maybe, instead, you should encourage heterosexual couples to express their love for each other in any way other than sexuallt - even in marriage - since over population is an issue, and gay people aren't contributing to that.
So....sex is your problem. That is for you to deal with, before you ever get into arguments about homo-sexual matters.
Where does this sort of problem come from, I wonder. Did it come from the Puritans who tried to shed all appearances of "enjoying" it, lest they fall out with their god?
Good for you. To support your decision I offer Matthew 7:1. Judge not, least you be judged.
It isn't really anyone's place to judge what is right or wrong for anyone but themselves.
You guys have quoted my favorite biblical words, and I am a non-believer. Not judging others, especially online where we know very little about them, is important. As for gayness, it's a non-issue in my book, but I know that's not so much the case with others.
Personally, I believe that everyone on Earth is on their own path. I also believe in reincarnation so how do we know that a person who comes back gay, was meant to come back that way for some specific reason? In which case, who are we (the straight people) to judge them?
There are so many things in this life that we find confusing. But I think that when we leave it, things become very clear. We realize the truth about many things that we couldn't figure out when we were still in the body.
I'm sorry I can't give you anything biblical to prove my convictions, but let me just say that we should all respect other people and their current beliefs. It's not up to use to judge anyone. We all have free will and we all deserve to enforce that right, no matter what anyone else thinks.
What kind of love that withholds the truth?
The truth about a homosexual is that he is already under condemnation. This condemnation is not heaped upon him by another but he has heaped it on his own head.
It is because of this condemnation he is a homosexual in the first place.
If he frees himself from condemnation, then he is able to free himself from homosexuality.
While freeing himself from homosexuality does not necessarily free himself from condemnation.
It is good to not condemn him because you will add his sin on your own head.
Surely it is better for him to know the truth.
ButTruth belong to whom it belongs.
Quote me four references that clearly say homosexuality is a sin.
Please not vague suggestion that pre-presume it a sin.
If you need quotations to recognise sin, how are you going to recognise the root of sin in yourself?
So by having the ability to find quotations on love, is the reason you have the confidence to propose it?
So don't you know the only reason a man sin is because he is unable to find Truth in himself?
So tell me how do you propose to love without knowing the Truth?
What about your own obsession with sin, Kess? Is that obsession your stumbling block?
Why would you be worried about what other people do, when you have not addressed the real "truth" within yourself?
Eric, I am only a bystander in this unnecessary and over beaten subject. However, you asked: "Quote me four references that clearly say homosexuality is a sin." that no one has put forth. Other than supplying you with the following link, I have nothing further to say on this subject, for I am neutral on it -- "to each his own", "whatever paints your wagon", etc.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "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."
So you posed the question like you didn't think anyone would find the information and pretended like you love everyone and the when someone posts the hateful scripture that demands death you thank them. Sounds like you didn't want to post the scripture yourself, but wanted everyone to see it.
Funnily enough - there is Six admonishments to homosexuals in the Bible. Just SIX. There are over 300 to heterosexuals. Does God not love the heterosexual either??
All the text of the Bible that is used against Homosexuality is easily explained as irrelevant.
Gen 19 - The sin of Sodom is NOT homosexuality. "Yada" or "To know" is only once translated as "to know sexually" and only in some versions....translator bias? Jesus himself speaks of the sins of Sodom in Ezekiel - greed, haughtiness, unwillingness to help those in need. Homos? Nope.
Lev x 2 - Forging an existence in the desert is easier if you are procreating. So, ban gay sex - easy!. Also....haircuts, tattoos, touching a woman on her period - all about preventing death of the tribe through illness and disease. Makes sense at the time, as population growth and maintence is necessary - prevent all that could damage it.
Romans and Corinthians - Paul's words, not Gods. Paul was desperately trying to keep Christians in the faith, and pull people to Christianity from the Pagan faiths of the time. What better way to do so than to disparage the more....pleasurable...rituals of the Pagan faiths as 'unnatural". Heck, it's so good they are STILL trying to use it to deny rights to people! I can understand why Paul said it, in the time he said it.
Now....with historical and verse context - it makes sense for when it was written, but not now. Taking these out of context makes one look foolish. So to have them posted (not saying the poster of them is foolish) or aim to have someone post them...doesn't make one look caring and loving of the homosexual community, or of their faith either - if they cannot respect it enough to use it in context and must therefore remove it from it's context to make it work for them
JM may have a much better grasp of these verses than I do as an agnostic, but this is from years of discussing these same things, and researching the verses and their context.
So, Eric, when you started this discussion, was it with ulterior motive? Did you really open yourself to hear truth, or just to ratify your prejudice?
Phyllis, all your scriptural quotes here are address very thoroughly in Hanavee's book, which can be downloaded very easily, http://hanavee.hubpages.com/hub/The-Bib … osexuality
If you read it right through, without picking out bits which just give the answers you want to hear, you will find some very interesting education.
I am a Panthiest, a believer in all religions ... I guess that goes along the lines with reincarnation in that we keep coming back, experiencing many different lives. Do I believe in same sex orientation? Not a preference for me, at least not in this current life. The way I see it is, who am I to judge? The only problem I have is the unecessary push to make everyone accept the homosexual lifestyle, and the incessant persecution of those who do not believe it is acceptable. In a perfect world (which we'll never see and all part of God's marvelous plan) we would all leave each other to live in peace ... Homosexuals among Heterosexuals, Christians among Muslims, Democrats among Republicans, Ex wives among Ex husbands ...
I'm curious... how do we persecute those who didn't believe in homosexuality?
Oh yes, we know them because their mouth is running about it. Funny thing that, if they don't ever say "I disagree with homosexuality" then we would never know.
But, since they make their opinion known...loudly often... it's not really persecution when one disagrees is it?
That depends. Was their view solicited by an interviewer or where they just running about making an issue of their views without being asked?
For the most part, very free with their opinions. Like I said, I don't know from looking at someone whether they're homophobic... I don't know what survey they've taken. If someone is being "persecuted" then that is because they've identified themselves as a homophobic through their statements.
Considering most labeled as "homophobic" don't recognize the validity of the term, I don't think you can expect them to start a conversation with, "Hello, my name is Bob, and I'm a homophobe".
Nope, usually it has to do with Leviticus. Once I hear someone start to quote Leviticus, I start understanding their view on life. I've never once heard it while eating lobster. Or, the less unenlightened "it's wrong" "it's a sin" "it's sick" etc.
The point is THEY say something homophobic. Hence, they have revealed themselves to be a homophobe. If they never said anything, then there would be no one arguing with them.
I am in full agreement; all conflict could be avoided by silence. Do you think this concept will be embraced across the board though? Unless all perspectives are willing to participate, someone is going to be offended and feel discriminated against.
Do you see a lot of gays trying to stop heterosexual couples from getting married? Do you see them picketing strait peoples funerals? Do you see them look as a heterosexual couple and say they are going to hell for it?
Yes, I think that a general "don't share your opinion on my lifestyle" is peachy. If you can get the homophobes to go along with it, it would work just fine.
Pretending it is one sided assumes we "breeders" are oblivious. Nevertheless, that wasn't my point nor am I interested in hopping on that merry go round. Even the term "homophobic" however, is designed to perpetuate conflict: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2422570
Yes, it is. But I've never seen anyone who has been labelled a homophobic without ever saying anything anti-gay... have you?
Actually, yes...frequently. Identifying yourself as Christian automatically brings that accusation from some, even though many self described Christians would not fit the accuser's definition of their pet term. I do understand the assumption, however.
Identifying with conservative ideologies, often gets the same presumptive treatment, come to think of it.
I have never been accused of homophobia just by identifying myself a Christian. Never. I've been around a lot of gay people and gay advocates. If it's happened to you, I'm sorry. I've never, ever, seen it though.
Edit: My hubby was a conservative and I am a moderate, and he's never seen it either... I just asked.
I have not had someone bold enough to do it face to face, but online it is not an uncommon assumption. As provided by the permalink in my previous post, I take issue with the term.
Your issue is noted. I take issue with the actions, the term I'm in complete agreement with. It's a complement really. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that a homophobic is scared rather than just an asshat.
If you analyze the dialogue levied against those labeled with the term, it would appear the opposition is to anyone expressing any view unsupportive of homosexuality, even if voicing their opinions or beliefs are the limit of their action. Do you disagree with that statement?
In the context of this argument yes. Just as I would label anyone unsupportive or in opposition of being black as being a racist.
Allow me to rephrase for clarification, as I am surprised by the refreshing admition and therefore fear I may have been unclear. Do you oppose a person's right to hold and/or express a view that is unsupportive of homosexuality?
I absolutely have no problem with anybody holding any view or expressing any view. However, one that view is expressed, it is equally my right to present my counter-view. They don't get a free pass to say whatever they like without anyone disagreeing... it is not persecution.
In addition, they also have no right to expect that my counterview be expressed in a way that they are comfortable with and any counterview, by necessity, requires an original view to be countered.
In short, if one doesn't want to be called a homophobe, then don't say something homophobic. As it is, homophobe a term used to indicate a person with bigoted anti-gay ideas. Whether that word is acceptable or not is not really for the homophobe to decide. Just like I'm sure racists would prefer not to be called racist.
My issue is with the term itself, as expressed by the permalink. I find it much more telling about those who embrace it proudly when it should be embarrassing. I certainly don't begrudge someone telling us a little something extra about themselves by the terms they choose.
It is excessively indicative of my personality. I'm not going to mince words with somebody. I read your thread, I find your dislike of the word completely irrelevant to my usage of the term. I believe it is a fitting word to describe those with anti-gay bigotry. I see no reason to be PC about it.
If that is telling about my personality, then I am completely cool with that. It is saying exactly the kind of person I am. I don't like bigotry and if I offend a bigot by calling them a homophobe then I don't really see the downside.
Would you like to tell me why I should spare their feelings when they don't spare anyone else's?
1. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.
Pardon me if I am missing something here, Melissa, but how exactly does "bigoted" not describe you in your intolerance of those with differing views than yours on this issue? Seems like a direct hit to me, so please help me understand. Considering the penchant for banning folks that surrounds this issue, I would like to make abundantly clear, I am not making a personal attack but rather asking for an explanation from you of how the views you yourself have articulated do not fit the definition above.
That's me. I am 100 percent certain that my opinion on this matter is superior. I am indeed intolerant of homophobic beliefs.
I am also 100 percent sure that my opinion on equal rights for blacks is superior to a racists. I am indeed intolerant of the KKK's beliefs.
I am 100 percent sure that my opinions on equal rights for women is superior to a sexist. I am indeed intolerant of a male chauvinist's opinion.
All of those statements are completely equal. If that makes me a bigot, I shall wear the label proudly.
It seems your views conflict, but I very much appreciate your candor.
Generalising is as bad as assumption.
I take people at face value - if they treat me well, I'll treat them well. Regardless of whether they agree with my sexuality or not. Or whether I agree with their religious beliefs.
Some of the most accepting supportive people I know are Christian, Muslim or another religion usually used to say "gay is bad". Some of the most homophobic people I know aren't using religion for their basis - they just don't like it, and will take any opportunity to say so, whether it warranted it or not.
MB ... not an argument for me. I guess the problem here is that Christians preach amongst themselves and to their witnesses that homosexuality is immoral, and gays preach to everyone that Christians are immoral for believing as they do. Don't really agree, but then don't oppose either. I guess I can safely say that I don't care and wish that everyone else felt the same way. Tired of hearing about it ... especially in politics and religion ... we've got so much more to worry about in this world then ones sexual identity.
Would you please stay off of any forum I start.
Every time you show up I get banned. And I do not appreciate it at all.
All the talk about tolerance and truth is kind of wasted when 6 times in a row, you show up and I get banned.
Please stay out of my life.
1: Open forum.
2. I can't help it if you say things that get you banned.
3. I don't recall ever reporting you for anything.
4. If you've been banned six time, then you should have had your one month or even life-time ban by now.
MelissaBarrett, please respect my request. You bring with you trouble. I do you no harm but you bring it to me.
It may well be that it is not you. It is just cause and effect.
There is harm to me where you follow. Please see my name and go elsewhere.
Eric, with all due respect, you're ideas of bad juju or being persecuted or whatever, have absolutely no effect on anything I say or do. I'll post wherever I like.
Understood. I will simply run a way when I see you. I hope that pleases you.
Or, conversely, you can STOP SAYING THINGS THAT GET YOU BANNED. Have a good night Eric.
You get me banned not my words. Live with that. With all your yelling caps.
Oh Eric, if I could I would. I don't have that kind of pull. No, it's you that gets yourself banned. I don't sneak into your house and type personal attacks on your computer. That's all you.
I can live happily knowing you're banned. Of course I don't really care if you post or not. You really don't hold enough place in my life that I care about anything you do.
You just aren't that important to me, one way or another.
Mellissa please plague someone else.
IFit does not matter to you. I am good with that. Please if it does not matter to you, go elsewhere. I just want you to leave me alone. I am asking nicely for you to go someplace away from me. Please.
Now that is on the record. Please go away and stop harassing me.
Please Melissa go someplace else and stop stalking me on line. You have great rights but stalking me is not one of them. Please leave me alone. I am in fear from you for my children.
I have no problem with that. Now on record, I am requesting that you never again verbal assault me, make wild accusations about me, and try to order me to do anything. Never again flat out lie about me.
Especially out of the blue, when I had not addressed you the entire thread. Now that's on record.
Get some help Eric.
Melissa you are just plain harassing me. Please stop. There are other places for you to write. Please leave me alone. You are just chasing me around to bother me.
Please leave me alone.
Your words had nothing to do with you getting banned? Did I read that right? Funny I've never been banned for something I didn't right.
That, Sir Eric, is called "passing the buck."
Passing the buck? Is this still about the Moose beer, because if so I think they call them bulls.
Unfollowing this discussion ... way too negative and honestly, I think unprofessional for HP. ... why not make better use of our time and write articles instead, expressing our thoughts and opinions there ... good luck all
Way to unprofessional for us to discuss gayness and Christianity.
Do we need to announce when and why we're leaving a thread? Is that a thing now?
She hurt me deeply when she left before I got to speak to her. I have only read the first page and the last and she was gone. Cut me deep, real deep.
I'll buy you some moose pis...er a beer. I'll buy you a beer.
I take you've never tasted moose pee. It's drunk often up here when ever someone is out of any Coors products. Same thing really.
I don't believe I've ever had a Coors. If it tastes anything like a Labatt, serve me up the moose pee.
I've heard of Moose Drool, but not the ones you mention. Who knew moose by products would be such popular names for beer? I hope it stops there.
As Monty Python once said, American beer is like making love in a canoe, f*cking close to water.
What a strange transformation for this topic... from the Title to Deer water to Making Love in a Canoe.
No one can say the topic is not gaiety in the extreme!
I wonder if Eric intended it this way.
Sometimes these threads devolve into little more than a pig routing for truffles. Then again, who doesn't find that entertaining?
Would that be a Deer Beer, Mel? (Dear?)
I had to duck out of the room for an hour or so.... Currently in Ibiza, trying to get to London just before the New Year. It's so expensive, and seats so difficult to get... but I did it!
In fact for a 72-yr old I feel quite proud of myself! Could be false pride, of course. If Santa's Beer Deer has a heart attack, he might be trying to get back to the North Pole about that time, and I will be wait-listed.
by Matthew Dawson23 months ago
Though I know that being homosexual is not accepted still in today's society why is it individual feel it is there moral and civic duty to cast hatred animosity towards those who live within that population? Does not...
by Paradise76 years ago
Something I must get off my chest, and I hope this is the appropriate forum...I recently read a hub by a gay man, who is uneasy because his homophobe radar isn't working as well as it used to...He does specifically...
by Martie Coetser7 years ago
Being a Christian, means being a follower of Jesus Christ. Not so? Does this means a Christian has to be a martyr, willing to DIE emotionally or physically in order for others to live, or to have a better life?In a...
by Castlepaloma2 years ago
Imagine seriously dating or marriage with a 100% hardcore atheist or hardcore Christian or even harder, them together, because I can’t. You hear about these mix marriages all the time. I had some long term romance...
by rshipman7 years ago
The church has to be very careful on how to witness to a person living in homosexuality are you demonstating the love of GOD first or are you judging their sin? remember it is God's love that will draw the world...
by Baileybear6 years ago
Why do I bother dialoguing with black&white/rigid-view creationists? They resort to childish name-calling & accuse me of insulting them!eg just now, I was asked what schitzo meds I was on. I...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.