God Loves Homosexuals

[Elric]

All the same in what way? Are they all sins? Yes, most assuredly. Are all individuals expected to be chaste in their sexual lives and live according to the laws of God? Yes.

You are the one who made the statement, so its really no good asking me “All the same in what way?”.

I dont really see how if we accept one then we have to accept the others. They seem like different things to me.

What do you mean by “treatment”? Should adulterers be treated the same as those acting on same-sex inclinations? Yes, in that we should expect them to repent and live chaste lives.

I am going by your idea of “treatment”.

I never said the *acts *were the same, although the *desires *are all intrinsically disordered, and are sinful when acted upon.

Actually you did, starting with your comments about if we accept one then we have to accept the others. That is why I was asking why do we have to, why treat things the same way when htey are not the same thing?

Christ commands us to love our neighbor. That includes pedophiles. By the logic being presented in this thread, we must accept sinful behavior (homosexuality) in order to love homosexuals. By that same logic, then, we must also accept sinful behavior (pedophilia) in order to love pedophiles. It’s the same concept, two different sins.

Sorry but I dont get the comparison.

Also by the logic presented in this thread, in order to love my mother I must approve of and accept her adulterous affair, otherwise I’m not loving my mother.

Well if you say so.

 

[Elric]

How so?

By using very braod blanket statements.

No, because we’re all sinners. But the fact that we all sin does not mean that people are then able to justify sin. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more,” and “Be perfect, like your Father in Heaven is perfect,” not "Go ahead and sin because everybody else does it, anyway.

Well there you go, not every hetrosexual marriage is a healthy and positive enviroment for children.

And why would that be? What is your proof that NARTH is not reliable?

Because their methods and ideals are frowned upon/ rejected/ disaproved by every psychological and psychiatric organisation in the west (not just the APA). They practice treatments that have no evidence to suggest that they “work” (although there is no conclusive proof to suggest that they dont work) but have evidence to suggest that they can be extremly dangerous to the patient (to the point of being fatal), they also use “questionable” statistics.

NARTH is a very unreliable group and not one that I would suggest using to base an opinion on.

Any need for what? I don’t understand.

The aggression/frustration and condescending manner.

Society would disagree with you, as would some of the posters in this thread. Actually, I would bet that most pro-gay activists would think he was being a terrific parent, teaching his daughter “acceptance” of the homosexual lifestyle from such a young age.

Society would disagree with me that he was not fit to be a parent and that he put his own needs before his child?

Well I guess the first question is:

Do you disagree with me?

Do you think that he was fit to be a parent?

 

[wanner47]

You are the one who made the statement, so its really no good asking me “All the same in what way?”.

I’m asking you to clarify what YOU mean. Do you mean we should treat the people the same, the sin the same, or both?

I dont really see how if we accept one then we have to accept the others. They seem like different things to me.

So what is your justification for not accepting pedophilia, if you’re just fine and dandy with accepting homosexuality?

I am going by your idea of “treatment”.

Do you mean treatment medically? Or treatment as to how they’re treated by others? That’s what I was asking.

Actually you did, starting with your comments about if we accept one then we have to accept the others. That is why I was asking why do we have to, why treat things the same way when htey are not the same thing?

While the acts are different, they’re the same in that they’re disordered inclinations and sexual sins.

Sorry but I dont get the comparison.

Let me ask a question that’s even more basic and work from there.

Do you hate pedophilia?

 

[wanner47]

By using very braod blanket statements.

Just as broad as the ones you made?

Well there you go, not every hetrosexual marriage is a healthy and positive enviroment for children.

It doesn’t justify sin, though. By your logic, I could go out and commit murder, because hey, other people do it too.

Because their methods and ideals are frowned upon/ rejected/ disaproved by every psychological and psychiatric organisation in the west (not just the APA). They practice treatments that have no evidence to suggest that they “work” (although there is no conclusive proof to suggest that they dont work) but have evidence to suggest that they can be extremly dangerous to the patient (to the point of being fatal), they also use “questionable” statistics.

Proof, please.

NARTH is a very unreliable group and not one that I would suggest using to base an opinion on.

Again, proof, please.

The aggression/frustration and condescending manner.

You must be misreading my posts, because I’m certainly not intending to come across in such a way.

Society would disagree with me that he was not fit to be a parent and that he put his own needs before his child?

Well I guess the first question is:

Do you disagree with me?

Do you think that he was fit to be a parent?

I think all people have the *capability *to be fit parents. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to do what it takes to fulfill that capability. If Dawn’s father had chosen to live a chaste life, I think he would have been a fine parent.

However, I am not representative of society, as evidenced by the fact that I am a faithful Catholic (we’re in the minority these days).

 

[Elric]

Just as broad as the ones you made?

Like what?

It doesn’t justify sin, though. By your logic, I could go out and commit murder, because hey, other people do it too.

We were not talking about sin, we were talking about a statement that you made which was untrue, you even admit that.

Proof, please.

Again, proof, please.

Well I guess that you could read this:

religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

You must be misreading my posts, because I’m certainly not intending to come across in such a way.

It does come across that way at times.

I think all people have the *capability *to be fit parents. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to do what it takes to fulfill that capability. If Dawn’s father had chosen to live a chaste life, I think he would have been a fine parent.

I disagree with that, his promiscurity was only part of the problem. There were other concerns as well as that.

However, I am not representative of society, as evidenced by the fact that I am a faithful Catholic (we’re in the minority these days).

Well that still makes you a representive of society, even if it is a member of a small part of society.

 

[Elric]

I’m asking you to clarify what YOU mean. Do you mean we should treat the people the same, the sin the same, or both?

I think that you already know what I mean, stop evading the question.

So what is your justification for not accepting pedophilia, if you’re just fine and dandy with accepting homosexuality?

My justification?

Paedophillia is immoral and wrong, I dont believe that adults should have sex with children. If someone feels those kind of urges, then they should seek professional help in controlling those urges.

Do you mean treatment medically? Or treatment as to how they’re treated by others? That’s what I was asking.

Like I said, I was going by your meaning.

While the acts are different, they’re the same in that they’re disordered inclinations and sexual sins.

So they are different. So why do we have to accept all of them if we accept one of them?

Let me ask a question that’s even more basic and work from there.

Do you hate pedophilia?

Yes I do.

 

[wanner47]

Like what?

My apologies; it wasn’t you – it was Publisher.

I’m sure if you try hard enough, you can find evidence to the contrary as we can find that having two parents of opposite sex can also cause severe harm and be detrimental to the child.

We were not talking about sin, we were talking about a statement that you made which was untrue, you even admit that.

No, I don’t admit that.

Well I guess that you could read this:

religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

Oh, and that’s *not *biased?

Take this section of the linked article:

NARTH offered to join with the American Psychological Association (APA) in conducting a detailed study of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. **The APA refused to cooperate. **A debate over reparative therapy and the changeability of sexual orientation was scheduled for the APA’s year 2000 convention. However, it was cancelled at the last moment.

Bolding mine.

Furthermore, the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder back in the 1970s purely due to social pressure, not due to any objective scientific evidence.

It does come across that way at times.

My apologies; but perhaps you’re being a tad oversensitive.

I disagree with that, his promiscurity was only part of the problem. There were other concerns as well as that.

Such as?

Well that still makes you a representive of society, even if it is a member of a small part of society.

I am not in any way representative of society’s majority opinion.

 

[wanner47]

My justification?

Paedophillia is immoral and wrong, I dont believe that adults should have sex with children. If someone feels those kind of urges, then they should seek professional help in controlling those urges.

So what’s wrong with this statement:

“Homosexual behavior is immoral and wrong, I dont believe that adults should have sex with those of the same gender. If someone feels those kind of urges, then they should seek professional help in controlling those urges.”

Why is your statement right if my statement is wrong?

So they are different. So why do we have to accept all of them if we accept one of them?

Because it boils down to the basis of what compels this behavior. If we accept one sexual sin on the basis of, “Well, it makes me happy and who are you to tell someone who they can love?” then the exact same argument can be made for adultery, beastiality, etc.

Yes I do.

And what would you say to a pedophile who said, “Because you hate pedophilia, you hate me as well. You’re being judgemental and unChristian.”

 

[Booklover]

So what’s wrong with this statement:

“Homosexual behavior is immoral and wrong, I dont believe that adults should have sex with those of the same gender. If someone feels those kind of urges, then they should seek professional help in controlling those urges.”

Why is your statement right if my statement is wrong?

Because it boils down to the basis of what compels this behavior. If we accept one sexual sin on the basis of, “Well, it makes me happy and who are you to tell someone who they can love?” then the exact same argument can be made for adultery, beastiality, etc.

And what would you say to a pedophile who said, “Because you hate pedophilia, you hate me as well. You’re being judgemental and unChristian.”

Vickie

 

[Valke2]

In adultry and beastility, an act is being perfromed either without one’s consent or in violation of an obligation/responsiblity to one’s spouse.

Objectively, what is immoral about a homosexual act? Is it more or less immoral than an act of sodomy between married heterosexuals?

 

[psyche23]

In adultry and beastility, an act is being perfromed either without one’s consent or in violation of an obligation/responsiblity to one’s spouse.

Objectively, what is immoral about a homosexual act? Is it more or less immoral than an act of sodomy between married heterosexuals?

So you’re saying if the animal a person has sex with is able to give consent, then it’s ok???

 

[Valke2]

So you’re saying if the animal a person has sex with is able to give consent, then it’s ok???

I am saying that one of the underlying prohibitions against beasiality is that the action is against an animal that has no power to object (other than with a hindkick). As well as the fact/possiblity that this was practiced in some pagan temples?

Just as an aside, if we look at the opening chapters of Genesis, God brings all the animals to Adam so that he can choose a mate. I believe this is the first instance of God’s sense of humor in the Torah.

 

[psyche23]

I am saying that one of the underlying prohibitions against beasiality is that the action is against an animal that has no power to object (other than with a hindkick). As well as the fact/possiblity that this was practiced in some pagan temples?

Just as an aside, if we look at the opening chapters of Genesis, God brings all the animals to Adam so that he can choose a mate. I believe this is the first instance of God’s sense of humor in the Torah.

I’d say a hindkick is a pretty effective objection don’t you???

 

[Valke2]

I’d say a hindkick is a pretty effective objection don’t you???

Depends on what you are into

 

[wanner47]

In adultry and beastility, an act is being perfromed either without one’s consent or in violation of an obligation/responsiblity to one’s spouse.

Please tell me where the concept of “consent” is found in the Bible, or where Jesus says, “It’s okay to sin as long as no one gets hurt and everyone’s okay with it.”

In the case of adultery, what if one spouse permits the other to sleep with someone else? Would that make adultery A-OK in your book? Do you think that threesomes and such are okay, as long as everyone consents? What about polygamy?

Objectively, what is immoral about a homosexual act? Is it more or less immoral than an act of sodomy between married heterosexuals?

It is just as immoral as an act of sodomy between married individuals. In both instances, the gift of sexual intercourse is grossly misused and both the unitive and procreative function of sex is rendered void, which is a sin and and offense against God.

It doesn’t matter if it’s between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a man and a donkey, or a man and a 10-year-old boy. It’s not the lack of consent that causes sin (or the presence of consent that legitimizes such behavior); it’s the fact that people are grossly misusing God’s gift of sexual intercourse.

 

[Kolbe300]

no power to object (other than with a hindkick).

I know this isn’t a laughing matter, but that “hindkick” thing had me just about falling off my chair laughing. Thanks for that!

Have a great day everyone!

 

[Booklover]

Please tell me where the concept of “consent” is found in the Bible, or where Jesus says, “It’s okay to sin as long as no one gets hurt and everyone’s okay with it.”

In the case of adultery, what if one spouse permits the other to sleep with someone else? Would that make adultery A-OK in your book? Do you think that threesomes and such are okay, as long as everyone consents? What about polygamy?

It is just as immoral as an act of sodomy between married individuals. In both instances, the gift of sexual intercourse is grossly misused and both the unitive and procreative function of sex is rendered void, which is a sin and and offense against God.

It doesn’t matter if it’s between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a man and a donkey, or a man and a 10-year-old boy. It’s not the lack of consent that causes sin (or the presence of consent that legitimizes such behavior); it’s the fact that people are grossly misusing God’s gift of sexual intercourse.

Congrats! I couldn’t have said it better!

Vickie

 

[Valke2]

Please tell me where the concept of “consent” is found in the Bible, or where Jesus says, “It’s okay to sin as long as no one gets hurt and everyone’s okay with it.”

Now you are making another argument. You lumped beastiality and pedapheila (or was it adultry?) with homosexuality. So I highlighted one difference. I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about homosexuality one way or the other.

In the case of adultery, what if one spouse permits the other to sleep with someone else? Would that make adultery A-OK in your book? Do you think that threesomes and such are okay, as long as everyone consents? What about polygamy?

Polygamy is not by itself a sin or inherently immoral. If it were, it would have been immoral during biblical times as well as today. It is an excellent example, however, for the belief that what is moral can change over time, especially in the arena of sexual relations. If polygamy can go from acceptance to immoral, then why cannot homosexuality go from immoral to accepted?

It is just as immoral as an act of sodomy between married individuals. In both instances, the gift of sexual intercourse is grossly misused and both the unitive and procreative function of sex is rendered void, which is a sin and and offense against God.

Is the gift of sexual intercourse only for procreative funcitons. Should not a married couple be entitled to find sexual gratification with each other in a variety of ways? How is it a misue of the unitive function of sex?

The bible itself does not seem to focus on what goes on between two people nearly as much as people who read the bible tend to focus on these things.

 

[Valke2]

I know this isn’t a laughing matter, but that “hindkick” thing had me just about falling off my chair laughing. Thanks for that!

Have a great day everyone!

You’re so baaaaaaaaaahhhhddd

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Polygamy is not by itself a sin or inherently immoral. If it were, it would have been immoral during biblical times as well as today. It is an excellent example, however, for the belief that what is moral can change over time, especially in the arena of sexual relations. If polygamy can go from acceptance to immoral, then why cannot homosexuality go from immoral to accepted?

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It was never really ok to have a lot of wives, especially for the kings like Solomon. That was his downfall, turning him to other gods. Like divorce for other than adultery was never really ok though it was allowed.

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.