Do conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality cause hatred and violence against the LGBT community?

[Lion_IRC]

**

I believe it’s possible to use the term “gay person” or “the homosexual person” without conceding anything more than that some people claim to be born that way.

In other words, even if I really thought that there is no such thing as a supposedly “gay person” (because they are myth) I could nonetheless still correctly use that term that describe people who (mistakenly) called themselves “gay”.

Whatever language the magisterium uses to express dogma in this regard is beside the point.

This is not about vocabulary the Magisterium claims the mythical “homosexual person” real.

I’m sorry I can’t follow your syntax here.

…Is truth not important for you?

Yes it certainly is!

…Truth is important for me.

Great.

…People will give emotional argument and rationalization and believe that is sufficient to resolve the issue. It is not…

Emotional arguments can be pretty persuasive. And if someone has certain rationalization(s) for their position it might be enough for them even if you don’t find their reasoning persuasive.

…no one has presented tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Perhaps it would it be better to say that, (in your opinion,) nobody has presented tangible ‘proof’ of exclusive same-sex attraction such as would convince you.
But does anyone have to meet your standard of proof? Perhaps they could just assert it as a fact and then switch the burden of proof back on you to ‘prove’ that they aren’t exclusively SSA.

…Do you have either of these?

No, I’m not that invested in the controversy. As I said above, I can happily agree to disagree about semantics and if a person wants to call themself ‘gay’ I’m just going to accept that’s what they honestly believe - even if they ARE mistaken.

It’s kind of like if a person claims to be a witch. I don’t believe they really are so of course I’m not reaching for my Old Testament.

And I don’t think the Sacred Deposit of Faith is going to help me persuade someone who is sincerely convinced that ‘gay people’ exist.

…God bless

Same to you.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Teachings? No.

Attitudes? Yes.

Aren’t so-called ‘conservative’ Christian teachings on homosexuality nothing more than a stronger version (interpretation) of teachings that, even in a weaker, diluted form, are still found objectionable to some degree by many LGBTQI folks

It seems to me that the only “Christian teaching” on homosexuality which would be agreeable to the entire LGBTQI lobby would be the one where Christianity (and the bible) said NOTHING about the subject.

 

[Bradski]

Aren’t so-called ‘conservative’ Christian teachings on homosexuality nothing more than a stronger version (interpretation) of teachings that, even in a weaker, diluted form, are still found objectionable to some degree by many LGBTQI folks

It seems to me that the only “Christian teaching” on homosexuality which would be agreeable to the entire LGBTQI lobby would be the one where Christianity (and the bible) said NOTHING about the subject.

I am strongly supportive of ‘gay rights’ for what it’s worth. And I put ‘gay rights’ in inverted commas because I find it odd that I find I have to support something that shouldn’t need any support in the first instance. It’s beginning to sound like saying that I support the right of people to play soccer or go line dancing.

I could care less what various religious groups teach about what people can and can’t do in regard to sexual matters. It doesn’t affect me or the people I know. Straight or gay. It’s inconsequential. I literally don’t care. I don’t know anyone who does care.

But attitudes do affect me. And I do care about how people that I care about are affected by certain attidues.

If you think that people who have this same viewpoint and who express it, are part of a ‘lobby’, then more fool you.

 

[jjr9]

I’m sorry I can’t follow your syntax here.

Yes it certainly is!

Great.

Emotional arguments can be pretty persuasive. And if someone has certain rationalization(s) for their position it might be enough for them even if you don’t find their reasoning persuasive.

Perhaps it would it be better to say that, (in your opinion,) nobody has presented tangible ‘proof’ of exclusive same-sex attraction such as would convince you.
But does anyone have to meet your standard of proof? Perhaps they could just assert it as a fact and then switch the burden of proof back on you to ‘prove’ that they aren’t exclusively SSA.

No, I’m not that invested in the controversy. As I said above, I can happily agree to disagree about semantics and if a person wants to call themself ‘gay’ I’m just going to accept that’s what they honestly believe - even if they ARE mistaken.

It’s kind of like if a person claims to be a witch. I don’t believe they really are so of course I’m not reaching for my Old Testament.

And I don’t think the Sacred Deposit of Faith is going to help me persuade someone who is sincerely convinced that ‘gay people’ exist.

Same to you.

This is not complicated the Magisterium makes the claim that a group of people “experience an exclusive … sexual
attraction toward persons of the same sex” I believe this claim is false I believe the Magisterium should not present
what is false as true.

What is your view?

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

This is not complicated the Magisterium makes the claim that a group of people “experience an exclusive … sexual
attraction toward persons of the same sex” I believe this claim is false I believe the Magisterium should not present
what is false as true.

What is your view?

God bless

Welcome back.

Still on the same note, ad nauseum?

 

[kozlosap]

Welcome back.

Still on the same note, ad nauseum?

Wish I could figure out his rationale and continued obsession with wanting to believe that there is no such thing as a gay person who only desires a physical relationship with another person of the same sex. My one conclusion is very ordinary, as most can guess.

 

[Ender]

Wish I could figure out his rationale and continued obsession with wanting to believe that there is no such thing as a gay person who only desires a physical relationship with another person of the same sex

What are we to make of the direction the law is taking in determining who is or is not a man or woman? It seems clear that, if it’s not the law everywhere it looks like it soon will be, that a person is whatever (s)he claims to be. A man suddenly becomes a woman solely by asserting he is one. Are we required to believe this?

So, what of a person who claims to be a homosexual? In what scientific way is he different from his neighbor who makes no such claim? Surely we acknowledge the condition is not binary (homosexual or heterosexual) since we all admit the existence of bisexuals, so what does it mean to claim to be a homosexual (man) other than one is sexually more attracted to men than to women?

It seems the use of the term tacitly assumes that a homosexual is inherently different than a heterosexual, and not merely that his sexual preferences are ordered differently. It’s the difference between “I was made this way” and “I am inclined to act this way.” It assumes a condition - like a man claiming to be a woman - that doesn’t actually exist. “Gayness” is not part of a person’s core identity.

Ender

 

[Mulligan2]

Christian teachings on homosexuality are not supposed to cause hatred towards the LGBT community. Our mission is to treat them well so that they will know the love of God. For example, I do not hate crossdressers, but I take action against it so those who engage in crossdressing can change for the better.

I’m curious what you mean when you say you “take action against it.” What specific actions do you take?

 

[Strydersroom]

I’m curious what you mean when you say you “take action against it.” What specific actions do you take?

I’d like to know what specific actions you take as well. My teenage niece “crossdresses” almost every day.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to know what specific actions you take as well. My teenage niece “crossdresses” almost every day.

Does she do it because she feels compelled to, kind of like a person knows she doesn’t need to wash her hands again, but won’t feel right until she scours her hands?

 

[Lion_IRC]

This is not complicated the Magisterium makes the claim that a group of people “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” I believe this claim is false I believe the Magisterium should not present what is false as true.

What is your view?

I don’t think the Magisterium says anything controversial when referring to people who believe they experience an exclusive (or predominant) sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

When we read the text it’s actually pretty ambiguous. It’s not an empirical or scientifically emphatic statement, objectively defining the what the word “attraction” means. It’s merely a reference to the fact that there exists in society a very small cohort of people who claim that they personally experience a certain feeling which they (tentatively) claim is inherent and unchanging.

Bhat does an “experience” of such feelings entail apart from the subjective inner feelings of the person who makes the claim?

Even if I dispute the claim they make about their own personal “experience” - I still need a word, a taxonomy, a common language to talk about the thing in question. Because it’s pretty difficult to commence a discussion about the “H” word if someone says we can’t start talking unless and until everyone agrees on every last detail about the precise meaning of the “H” word.

*"…I’m not discussing homosexuality with you until you agree that people are born that way"

“…oh yeah? Well I’m not discussing it unless you agree they aren’t”*

God bless

Thank you. God bless you also.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Does she do it because she feels compelled to, kind of like a person knows she doesn’t need to wash her hands again, but won’t feel right until she scours her hands?

This doesn’t seem relevant.
I don’t think it’s right to talk about the poster instead of the issue itself.

 

[PRmerger]

This doesn’t seem relevant.

If cross dressing is a mental illness, then that’s one of the characteristics.

I don’t think its right to talk about the poster instead of the issue itself.

The poster is part of the issue. At least, in the hypothetical.

I don’t think it would be right to talk about her if he identified her by name…but since she’s as anonymous as anonymous can get here, it’s pretty harmless.

 

[anon67074017]

I’m curious what you mean when you say you “take action against it.” What specific actions do you take?

Specific actions include praying so that the crossdresser stops committing the sin or confronting the crossdresser about the sin.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…girls from a swim team in New York City’s Upper West Side are too scared to use the women’s locker room at a Parks Department swimming pool after bearded ‘man’ avails himself of the ‘right’ for any/all people to use the restroom or locker room of their choice consistent with their own personal, preferential ‘gender identity or gender expression."

Hmmm. Not sure. Um…

Yeah, you know what? I think would take very specific action and precautions to protect my daughter’s privacy and safety.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…I don’t think it would be right to talk about her if he identified her by name…but since she’s as anonymous as anonymous can get here, it’s pretty harmless.

Pretty sure the rules dont provide an exemption for ad hominem argument so long as the other person is anonymous. In fact Forum Admin wrote:

USERNAME RULES
“…We recommend that you use a nickname or pseudonym, and not your real name.”

 

[PRmerger]

Pretty sure the rules dont provide an exemption for ad hominem argument so long as the other person is anonymous. In fact Forum Admin wrote:

USERNAME RULES
“…We recommend that you use a nickname or pseudonym, and not your real name.”

You are correct.

Ad hominems are not allowed…

Since when is talking about a person in the hypothetical an ad hominem?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Welcome back.

Still on the same note, ad nauseum?

There wouldn’t be any nausea if you stopped bumping the topic.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to know what specific actions you take as well. My teenage niece “crossdresses” almost every day.

Does your niece look indistinguishable from a boy?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Does she do it because she feels compelled to, kind of like a person knows she doesn’t need to wash her hands again, but won’t feel right until she scours her hands?

I’ve had it described to me regarding a transgender woman being forced to conform to cisgender norms as her every day having to drown the little girl that is her on the inside until the little girl goes limp. That is how she described the psychological distress to me, that of her having to drown herself. Note, the “little” part describes how she due to having to pretend she is someone else refers to how it has stunted her growth as a person.

…girls from a swim team in New York City’s Upper West Side are too scared to use the women’s locker room at a Parks Department swimming pool after bearded ‘man’ avails himself of the ‘right’ for any/all people to use the restroom or locker room of their choice consistent with their own personal, preferential ‘gender identity or gender expression."

Hmmm. Not sure. Um…

Yeah, you know what? I think would take very specific action and precautions to protect my daughter’s privacy and safety.

The vast majority of the time it seems it is some conservative doing it as a publicity stunt or an extreme amount of spin and distortion on what actually happened.