A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
Not at all. šŸ™‚

Do you wish to rebut, or are you just going to splutter?
Click to expand...
Nope, Iā€™ll pass on that one. Children are off limits in any discussion I have about sexual orientation. Period. Find another example and Iā€™ll discuss it with you.
 
Stephen168 said:
infallible? Are you suggesting the Catholic Church teaches the Bible was infallibly written for all things? I, for one, have found it useless as a motorcycle repair manual. It is not a very good cookbook either.

So if you are here to beat up a straw man (the Catholic Church condemns same-sex marriage based solely on the Old Testament) carry on.
Click to expand...
Stephen168, can you find me one verse in the New Testament in favour of homosexual intercourse? Also, a repair manual and a cookbook, as useful as they can be, are not the Word of God. If the things of the soul and about the meaning of life do not matter to you, fine. And then, what would you be doing here if they donā€™t matter at all to you?
Infallibility of the Bible is in matters of faith and morals, not just faith nor just morals. Not about really anything else.
 
mflorence said:
I rest with what I said. Now that you have this out of your system, you can too. Your Church was created by God and no other Church is valid because your Church told you so. Your Church is infallible because your Church told you so. You sound very angry because I think otherwise, but you have not matched fact against anything I have said. I made certain assertions, very clear points on what I say is fact. You replied to no point in substance to my post, but rather angrily lashed out at me. Are you angry because you canā€™t? I am happy because I can.
Click to expand...
Ahem! Dear mflorence, you seem to imply that believing something after someone had said so cannot be reasonable in any way. May I ask you if the things you believe, like the things someone has wrote in the Hindu Faith or in the Brahman Faith or whatever Faith, you donā€™t believe them at least in part because he (or she) said so?
As for the codes of morals in any other religion, does any one of them agree with homosexual intercourse? I meam agrees, not just tolerates?
 
Lapell said:
Ahem! Dear mflorence, you seem to imply that believing something after someone had said so cannot be reasonable in any way. May I ask you if the things you believe, like the things someone has wrote in the Hindu Faith or in the Brahman Faith or whatever Faith, you donā€™t believe them at least in part because he (or she) said so?
As for the codes of morals in any other religion, does any one of them agree with homosexual intercourse? I meam agrees, not just tolerates?
Click to expand...
What does ā€œagreeingā€ have anything to do with living in a pluralistic modern word based on individual freedom? I do not have to agree with anything you do privately in order to live next to you as a good citizen and friendly neighbor. I do not, for example, have to agree with what someone states in order to fully support his/her right to say it and even say it in my presence. We have this right, whether other persons agree with the content and even whether or not we think what is being spoken is moral. The moral agreement is virtually irrelevant.
 
larkin31 said:
What does ā€œagreeingā€ have anything to do with living in a pluralistic modern world based on individual freedom? I do not have to agree with anything you do privately in order to live next to you as a good citizen and friendly neighbor. I do not, for example, have to agree with what someone states in order to fully support his/her right to say it and even say it in my presence. We have this right, whether other persons agree with the content and even whether or not we think what is being spoken is moral. The moral agreement is virtually irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the content of each religion and their laws, larkin, not to the individuals.
mflorence seems to say she takes her attitude from a blend of religions, hence my question.
 
Lapell said:
I was referring to the content of each religion and their laws, larkin, not to the individuals.
mflorence seems to say she takes her attitude from a blend of religions, hence my question.
Click to expand...
I know.

I am stating that I donā€™t see how it is relevant to the topic of homosexuality or gay marriage. You seem to be suggesting that ā€œagreementā€ is necessary. And I outlined why I do not see how that is true, rationally, at all.
 
Gays have rejected God at some point. Possibly in the womb. God Gave them up to a deranged mind.

I hope that answers your silly question.

Editā€¦ and there is no such thing as Gay marriage. Its like being devorced and remarried and thinking that you are in the new covenant. Its an impossibliltiy. You can not be in a state of contractual sin and a covenant with God at the same time.
 
AmateurPianist said:
In another thread somebody articulated this sentence:

This I think sums up the Christian pro gay marriage argument quite well:
(1) Since science teaches that sexual orientation is an immutable human characteriestic, one therefore must conclude that oneā€™s sexual orientation comes from God
(2) Since the diverse sexual orientations come from God, as a Christian we should embrace this God given diversity.
(3) There is nothing wrong with acting on the sexual orientation that God has given. Society must not discriminate at all on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yet elsewhere in this thread I learned that science teaches there are actually seven sexual orientations:

(later on in that thread I also learned there was a sexual orientation towards animals)

My simple question is do you apply these statements to all sexual orientations that science says exist.

If not, then why should I believe these arguments at all since they are not applied to all sexual orientations science says exist.

Why canā€™t I believe that maybe sexual orientation just might be a result of living in a fallen world and there are some sexual orientations (2-7) that God says acting out on are contrary to what He has designed.
Click to expand...
Truly inspired insigt. Really. Thank you. I predict that the relativist will still find a way out of the box. Theyā€™ll just say that one of the sides of the box isnā€™t there. Itā€™s a psychological construct, and theyā€™ll crawl out the hole, that really wasnā€™t a part of the box you constructed at all.
 
edwest2 said:
What does the Church teach? An unmarried man or unmarried woman cannot have sex. Period. It has taken 40 years of people living in ā€œalternative lifestylesā€ telling everyone to ā€˜mind your own businessā€™ that has confused the issue. Cohabitation with sex but without marriage? Still wrong.

What does the Catholic Medical Association say?

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Thank you as well. Also quite solid.
 
StevenFrancis said:
Truly inspired insigt. Really. Thank you. I predict that the relativist will still find a way out of the box. Theyā€™ll just say that one of the sides of the box isnā€™t there. Itā€™s a psychological construct, and theyā€™ll crawl out the hole, that really wasnā€™t a part of the box you constructed at all.
Click to expand...
This has none of the arguments presented in the Cali case.
 
I just want to share this verses in the Bible (New International Version (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:18-20

18-Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19-Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20-you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
 
You can justify any behavior with words. But, if you accept the Bible as being the word of God, then homosexual relations are against the word of God. It is that simple.

There is no place in the entire Bible that allows for man to sleep with man, or woman to sleep with woman.

Of course, you can choose to "understandā€™ clear wording in any manner that allows you to behave in the manner that you want to behave in. Thatā€™s how one comes to the conclusion that being homosexual was designed by God, and that therefore, it is perfectly OK to disobey the prohibitions against homosexual BEHAVIOR, and do whatever feels good.

Man has an almost infinite number of excuses for why he doesnā€™t have to obey the word of God. And Satan makes certain that you will have plenty of them at your disposal, to justify why YOU can behave however you choose to behave.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
ā€¦Of course, you can choose to "understandā€™ clear wording in any manner that allows you to behave in the manner that you want to behave in. Thatā€™s how one comes to the conclusion that being homosexual was designed by God, and that therefore, it is perfectly OK to disobey the prohibitions against homosexual BEHAVIOR, and do whatever feels goodā€¦
Click to expand...
Who is arguing this here?
 
larkin31 said:
I know.

I am stating that I donā€™t see how it is relevant to the topic of homosexuality or gay marriage. You seem to be suggesting that ā€œagreementā€ is necessary. And I outlined why I do not see how that is true, rationally, at all.
Click to expand...
Maybe itā€™s my wording that may sound confusing. Maybe itā€™s not quite in good Englishā€¦ My mother language is French, O.K.!
What I meant to ask was, ā€œIn other religions, is there any rule that would be in favour of two people having homosexual intercourse? Or against it?ā€ Is it clearer?
 
Lapell said:
Maybe itā€™s my wording that may sound confusing. Maybe itā€™s not quite in good Englishā€¦ My mother language is French, O.K.!
What I meant to ask was, ā€œIn other religions, is there any rule that would be in favour of two people having homosexual intercourse? Or against it?ā€ Is it clearer?
Click to expand...
yes, thanks

I donā€™t know of any religion that states explicit support for gay sex. But how is this relevant here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top