The issue of gay intolerance

[ladybri77]

Sort of like people saying “being gay is wrong” and assuming their religious beliefs are infallible to everything and anything

Reminds me of someone who once quoted John Adams in favor of religion…

Is God and the Bible wrong? Does God not want the best for His people? Does God want to see us destroyed by our own sin? Heck no, that is why God created goodness and good laws so that we won’t destroy ourselves by our own sinfulness!!!

Will be praying for you, brother.

 

[CWBetts]

This is something that has been on my mind. I have several homosexual and bisexual friends and acqaintances. This is my best articulation of why I feel homosexual activity is wrong. I will attempt to refrain from using doctrine. I think it is natural to think homosexuality is not normal. The greatest instinct all life forms have is that of self-preservation, both as individuals and as a species. Homosexual activity goes aginst this basic instinct of species preservation. Oftentimes, proponents of the homosexual lifestyle will argue it is natural, using examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom as their evidence. Are we not much more than animals. There are many behaviors present in the animal kingdom that humans are capable of, and even excel at, but we do not find it acceptible. Chimpanzees will kill and eat chimps from neighboring family groups. Since it is in the animal kingdom, should we then kill and eat our neighbors? No. Chimps make war. So do humans. So is it to be encouraged? No. We are not slaves of our feral instincts. To say we are invites chaos. Humans have the wherewithal to resist our instincts and behave in a mutually beneficial manner. We have the power to go beyind pleasure-seeking, and to do just “what feels good”. We have the power to resist temptation.

 

[yellowbicycle]

I just want to say that this is my favorite label to get slapped with. Naive’s a good one, too. So is ignorant and blind, but I think intolerant might just trump them all.
I am opposed to expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexuals.
This, apparently, makes me a bigot and intolerant of homosexuals.
Case closed, right?
So, why don’t any of my gay/transgender/or bi friends think I’m a bigot or intolerant? Why do they all think I’m the bees knees? They’re well aware of my stance.
:shrug:It seems that those who know me don’t think I’m intolerant, but those who don’t come to a very quick and rash conclusion that I am. Funny how open minded some people can be.

 

[kall]

No, NOTHING like that. Postmodernism is the EQUATING of all choices as being the same. But the funny thing about postmodernists (like YOU) is that postmodernists say one thing out of one side of their mouths, and then claim (out of the other side of their mouths.) that what they just said doesn’t apply to them!

What I was saying was that postmodernists are hypocrites of the highest order.

Are you against changing any defintion, period, regardless of what it is? I’m just absolutely flabbergasted that people are so readily willing to protect certain definitions and not others, seems like they’re just using the “protecting a definition” excuse to implement their own morality onto society…

This is something that has been on my mind. I have several homosexual and bisexual friends and acqaintances. This is my best articulation of why I feel homosexual activity is wrong. I will attempt to refrain from using doctrine. I think it is natural to think homosexuality is not normal. The greatest instinct all life forms have is that of self-preservation, both as individuals and as a species. Homosexual activity goes aginst this basic instinct of species preservation. Oftentimes, proponents of the homosexual lifestyle will argue it is natural, using examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom as their evidence. Are we not much more than animals. There are many behaviors present in the animal kingdom that humans are capable of, and even excel at, but we do not find it acceptible. Chimpanzees will kill and eat chimps from neighboring family groups. Since it is in the animal kingdom, should we then kill and eat our neighbors? No. Chimps make war. So do humans. So is it to be encouraged? No. We are not slaves of our feral instincts. To say we are invites chaos. Humans have the wherewithal to resist our instincts and behave in a mutually beneficial manner. We have the power to go beyind pleasure-seeking, and to do just “what feels good”. We have the power to resist temptation.

Well isn’t that just convenient?

You start off your post by arguing against homosexuality and it’s inability for species preservation but then go on to criticize the natural instincts of the animal kingdom and say “just because they need it and do it, doesn’t necessarily mean we should” Why are you so obsessed with species preservation anyway, are our orphanages not full enough?

I just want to say that this is my favorite label to get slapped with. Naive’s a good one, too. So is ignorant and blind, but I think intolerant might just trump them all.
I am opposed to expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexuals.
This, apparently, makes me a bigot and intolerant of homosexuals.
Case closed, right?
So, why don’t any of my gay/transgender/or bi friends think I’m a bigot or intolerant? Why do they all think I’m the bees knees? They’re well aware of my stance.
:shrug:It seems that those who know me don’t think I’m intolerant, but those who don’t come to a very quick and rash conclusion that I am. Funny how open minded some people can be.

Were you against expanding the definition of voter in america to include ‘women’ and ‘african-americans’, or would such a person not really be intolerant or bigoted, just simply having an opinion?

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Welcome to the postmodern world where every choice is relative, and only MY choice is correct.

kall:

Sort of like people saying “being gay is wrong” and assuming their religious beliefs are infallible to everything and anything.

PEPCIS:

No, NOTHING like that. Postmodernism is the EQUATING of all choices as being the same. But the funny thing about postmodernists (like YOU) is that postmodernists say one thing out of one side of their mouths, and then claim (out of the other side of their mouths.) that what they just said doesn’t apply to them!

What I was saying was that postmodernists are hypocrites of the highest order.

Are you against changing any defintion, period, regardless of what it is?

You’re making absolutely no sense at all. For one thing, the only thing being defined is your lack of morals, Catholic, or Christian, and your equating of evil with good. Isaiah warned us to be careful of the likes of you. He said:

[SIGN]“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”[/SIGN]

For another thing, Liberals LOOOOOOVE to change definitions. That way, arguments and debates are NEVER settled, and they can live in a world of subjective equating. The amoral Liberal hates definitions because it is by definitions that we can discern between evil and good. It is by definitions that we can rid ourselves of those “gray areas” of immorality - For example: “Is it ok to abort a baby because the mother was raped?”

kall:

I’m just absolutely flabbergasted that people are so readily willing to protect certain definitions and not others, seems like they’re just using the “protecting a definition” excuse to implement their own morality onto society…

Yes, that’s right. It is all about WHO’s morality will be implemented onto society - Yours or MINE. As the Angel Michael said in the movie of the same name: [SIGN]“BATTLE!!!”[/SIGN]

 

[CWBetts]

You start off your post by arguing against homosexuality and it’s inability for species preservation but then go on to criticize the natural instincts of the animal kingdom and say “just because they need it and do it, doesn’t necessarily mean we should” Why are you so obsessed with species preservation anyway, are our orphanages not full enough?

I tend to believe we should obey God. You know the “be fruitful and multiply part?” Sexuality is both unitive and procreative. It was not meant simply for pleasure. I did not criticize the instinct of the animal kingdom as much as lift hiimans abive the status of mere animals. Unless, of course, that is waht you feel, that humans are little more than hairless apes.

 

[yellowbicycle]

A

Were you against expanding the definition of voter in america to include ‘women’ and ‘african-americans’, or would such a person not really be intolerant or bigoted, just simply having an opinion?

I hadn’t been born yet when women or african-americans got the right to vote, so, no I can’t say I was against it. I wasn’t around when it happened.
Were we talking about voting or marriage?
I haven’t had coffee yet, I’m sorry - am I missing something here?

 

[rinnie]

You know me and my Mom talked about this yesterday. And I told her I hate to tell people if they ask me if this Lifestyle is wrong according to the eyes of God. Because when I tell the truth they turn it back on me. Alot of times I think is it worth the fight. But then I think if I didn’t tell them the truth what the Bible says what would God think of me. Maybe he wouldn’t think I was worth the time either.

My point is they are worth the time. everyone is. I want everyone to get into heaven. I would sure want to know myself, I may not WANT to hear it. But I am sure that hearing it could save my Soul. It may not sink in right away, but I pray that it will someday. I would rather try and fail then never try at all! But I would never say it in a mean or demeaning way. It would be out of Love, and compassion, and then I would let it go.

 

[Disciple96]

There is no doubt about it; homosexual sex is just a sin and this will never change - it goes against the moral law and is a church teaching that is infallible.

I think we should treat them the same way we treated the other religions when they first appeared in Christiandom … we must have felt threatened and we probably didn’t want their influence in our midst. I mean, I think we’ll lose more Catholics to the Protestants and Muslims than to gays! If we can get along with the Protestants and the Muslims in our midst… hey …

Is homosexual sex a religion now?

 

[kall]

You’re making absolutely no sense at all. For one thing, the only thing being defined is your lack of morals, Catholic, or Christian, and your equating of evil with good. Isaiah warned us to be careful of the likes of you. He said:

[SIGN]“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”[/SIGN]

oh ok, I get it now, what you believe is presumably good and everything else is evil, I can now see why this makes no sense to you

For another thing, Liberals LOOOOOOVE to change definitions. That way, arguments and debates are NEVER settled, and they can live in a world of subjective equating. The amoral Liberal hates definitions because it is by definitions that we can discern between evil and good. It is by definitions that we can rid ourselves of those “gray areas” of immorality - For example: “Is it ok to abort a baby because the mother was raped?”

I love to change definitions too, like the definition of voter in the traditional american sense was “white male” - it now includes African-Americans and women

How dare they try to change those definitions! And I love how you go on and on and on about “LIBERALLLLLLL!” - you do realize that associating your entire thinking with one political party just makes you sound and look extraordinarily stupid, right?

Is homosexual sex a religion now?

Close

The first is innate, the latter is a choice

 

[CWBetts]

oh ok, I get it now, what you believe is presumably good and everything else is evil, I can now see why this makes no sense to you

I love to change definitions too, like the definition of voter in the traditional american sense was “white male” - it now includes African-Americans and women

How dare they try to change those definitions! And I love how you go on and on and on about “LIBERALLLLLLL!” - you do realize that associating your entire thinking with one political party just makes you sound and look extraordinarily stupid, right?

Close

The first is innate, the latter is a choice

Obviously you believe humans are slaves to their impulses, and have no power to resist evil temptations. Homosexual activity is nt innate. Same sex attraction isn’t even innate. There may be genetic markers for a predispositiojn, but genetics are not destiny. There are environmental triggers.

 

[PEPCIS]

You’re making absolutely no sense at all. For one thing, the only thing being defined is your lack of morals, Catholic, or Christian, and your equating of evil with good. Isaiah warned us to be careful of the likes of you. He said:

[SIGN]“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” [/SIGN]

oh ok, I get it now, what you believe is presumably good and everything else is evil, I can now see why this makes no sense to you.

No, you DON’T get it. If you did, you wouldn’t keep on twisting everything that everyone else is saying. You wouldn’t keep on trying to push your AMORALITY upon Christians, because you would not want to treat God’s people in such a manner.

It’s not what I believe. It’s what God’s Word states. My belief will not change the truth of God’s Word, any more than your UNBELIEF will.

For another thing, Liberals LOOOOOOVE to change definitions. That way, arguments and debates are NEVER settled, and they can live in a world of subjective equating. The amoral Liberal hates definitions because it is by definitions that we can discern between evil and good. It is by definitions that we can rid ourselves of those “gray areas” of immorality - For example: “Is it ok to abort a baby because the mother was raped?”

kall:

I love to change definitions . . .

Yes, I know you do. That’s what I said. I guess there must be an echo in here.

kall:

. . . like the definition of voter in the traditional american sense was “white male” - it now includes African-Americans and women.

Well, it doesn’t matter, 'cause we ain’t talking about that. We were discussing homosexuals and their attempt to rail against God. Kinda like what you’re doing.

kall:

And I love how you go on and on and on about “LIBERALLLLLLL!”

I call 'em like I see 'em. You’re about as liberal as they come when it comes to handling God’s Word. That USUALLY translates into a political liberal as well.

 

[Axion]

Homosexual acts are VOLUNTARY acts. People may choose to perform them for their personal pleasure. But they are not free to force other people to bless those acts or that lifestyle, or to demand that children be handed over to be raised as accessories to that lifestyle.

 

[kall]

Obviously you believe humans are slaves to their impulses, and have no power to resist evil temptations. Homosexual activity is nt innate. Same sex attraction isn’t even innate. There may be genetic markers for a predispositiojn, but genetics are not destiny. There are environmental triggers.

Source? Something non-religious too…and even if it was environmental, what makes it a choice?

No, you DON’T get it. If you did, you wouldn’t keep on twisting everything that everyone else is saying. You wouldn’t keep on trying to push your AMORALITY upon Christians, because you would not want to treat God’s people in such a manner.

You’re not God’s people, we are all God’s children, I treat you the same way I treat anyone else, unlike yourself I don’t have an inferiority complex

It’s not what I believe. It’s what God’s Word states. My belief will not change the truth of God’s Word, any more than your UNBELIEF will.

Hey, why not stomp your foot and cross your arms while you’re at it, this will definitely make it fact!

Well, it doesn’t matter, 'cause we ain’t talking about that. We were discussing homosexuals and their attempt to rail against God. Kinda like what you’re doing.

Oh I see, so you bring up an argument about how the “evil liberals” like to change definitions, I give you an example and then you exclaim “Oh, we’re not talking about that”

Actually, YES, we are talking about that, you’re just ignoring it…but seeing your other posts in this threads, you ignore a lot of other things too (ie: critical thinking, facts, etc etc).

I call 'em like I see 'em. You’re about as liberal as they come when it comes to handling God’s Word. That USUALLY translates into a political liberal as well.

I’m not a liberal, I’m an independent and like to think for myself, try it some time

Homosexual acts are VOLUNTARY acts. People may choose to perform them for their personal pleasure. But they are not free to force other people to bless those acts or that lifestyle, or to demand that children be handed over to be raised as accessories to that lifestyle.

I’m sorry, who is debating that? Do gay people want to have sex in your house or something?

As far as I’m concerned, God hates a lot of things, including promiscuity and infidelity, that isn’t the issue though now is it?

 

[PEPCIS]

You’re making absolutely no sense at all. For one thing, the only thing being defined is your lack of morals, Catholic, or Christian, and your equating of evil with good. Isaiah warned us to be careful of the likes of you. He said:

[SIGN]“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” [/SIGN]

"kall:

oh ok, I get it now, what you believe is presumably good and everything else is evil, I can now see why this makes no sense to you.

PEPCIS:

No, you DON’T get it. If you did, you wouldn’t keep on twisting everything that everyone else is saying. You wouldn’t keep on trying to push your AMORALITY upon Christians, because you would not want to treat God’s people in such a manner.

You’re not God’s people. . .

LOL You can’t count too well. I’m ONE of God’s people, and there are several others here that you have attempted to push your AMORALITY on.

Jesus said,

[SIGN]“that you shall know them by their fruits. . . a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.”[/SIGN]

By your advocating of evil, we can easily see which kind of tree you are.

kall:

. . . we are all God’s children. . .

You wish that were true. But if that were true, then God is sending a lot of His people to hell.

kall:

I treat you the same way I treat anyone else. . .

Not true. You treat those who disagree with you like everyone else that disagrees with you - with disdain and contempt.

kall:

. . .unlike yourself I don’t have an inferiority complex.

About sin? That’s all too obvious.

. . .what you believe is presumably good and everything else is evil. . .

PEPCIS:

It’s not what I believe. It’s what God’s Word states. My belief will not change the truth of God’s Word, any more than your UNBELIEF will.

kall:

Hey, why not stomp your foot and cross your arms while you’re at it, this will definitely make it fact!

No need to. All that God requires is that I remain steadfast to His Word, and to point out any false prophets and amoral WOLVES trying to pass themselves off as Christians.

. . . like the definition of voter in the traditional american sense was “white male” - it now includes African-Americans and women.

PEPCIS:

Well, it doesn’t matter, 'cause we ain’t talking about that. We were discussing homosexuals and their attempt to rail against God. Kinda like what you’re doing.

kall:

Oh I see, so you bring up an argument about how the “evil liberals” like to change definitions, I give you an example and then you exclaim “Oh, we’re not talking about that”

No, YOU bring up a stupid, assinine argument about how I like to change definitions. You never explain yourself or give an example of me personally doing that, so I point out the FACT that liberals (LIKE YOURSELF) change definitions all the time, and you bring up a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT then the gay marriage/toleration one that this thread is discussing.

TYPICAL, LIBERAL BS. Equivocate, obfuscate, change definitions. You make all Liberals proud with your modus operandi.

kall:

Actually, YES, we are talking about that, you’re just ignoring it…but seeing your other posts in this threads, you ignore a lot of other things too (ie: critical thinking, facts, etc etc).

Ahhhh, a wonderful example of the wonderful ad hominem attack.

kall:

I’m not a liberal. . .

Of course you are. You just call yourself an Independent, but all that means is that you’re an Independent Liberal. Same AMORAL NONSENSE.

 

[kall]

LOL You can’t count too well. I’m ONE of God’s people, and there are several others here that you have attempted to push your AMORALITY on.

Jesus said,

[SIGN]“that you shall know them by their fruits. . . a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.”[/SIGN]

By your advocating of evil, we can easily see which kind of tree you are.

You’re an intellectual lightweight, your ad hominem attacks on my morality are comical. At the very least try attempt to argue on the points as opposed to referring to the Bible and trying to degrade my character.

You wish that were true. But if that were true, then God is sending a lot of His people to hell.

That’s God’s decision, you aren’t God, you know God just as well as I or anyone else know God.

Not true. You treat those who disagree with you like everyone else that disagrees with you - with disdain and contempt.

I never attacked your character, morality, or position in terms of God, all those lame insults came from you.

[SIGN]Luke 6:41-42
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
42How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.[/SIGN]

About sin? That’s all too obvious.

That makes zero sense whatsoever, go look up the words I say in the dictionary before responding

No need to. All that God requires is that I remain steadfast to His Word, and to point out any false prophets and amoral WOLVES trying to pass themselves off as Christians.

Insult #322 - superb rebuttal. Like I said, intellectual lightweights normally respond at this level, pathetic actually.

No, YOU bring up a stupid, assinine argument about how I like to change definitions. You never explain yourself or give an example of me personally doing that, so I point out the FACT that liberals (LIKE YOURSELF) change definitions all the time, and you bring up a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT then the gay marriage/toleration one that this thread is discussing.

Quote me on where I said you liked changing definitions…go ahead, it should be easy…

TYPICAL, LIBERAL BS. Equivocate, obfuscate, change definitions. You make all Liberals proud with your modus operandi.

Insult #452, “liberal proud of his modus operandi” - again, superb rebuttal

Ahhhh, a wonderful example of the wonderful ad hominem attack.

hahahahahhahahhahahhaha

Hello Pot, meet Kettle!

Of course you are. You just call yourself an Independent, but all that means is that you’re an Independent Liberal. Same AMORAL NONSENSE.

So I have to be an android on either side otherwise I’m an amoral independent liberal by default, gotcha! Shall I recommend some books on logical fallacies and the like?

 

[CWBetts]

Kall,
Sourcing common knowledge is unnecesary. It is a choice to engage in activity, even if the attraction is not.

 

[ladybri77]

Source? Something non-religious too…and even if it was environmental, what makes it a choice?

cathmed.org/publications/…ityarticle.htm

Narth.com

 

[CWBetts]

Kell,
it is time to leave the cafeteria, and accept everything taught by the Church.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

One way to approach the issue might be to split marriage into two parts, religious marriage and legal marriage. Say r-marriage and l-marriage for convenience…

…The laws of l-marriage are already different from those of Catholic r-marriage; l-marriage allows divorce, while Catholic r-marriage does not. I cannot see any reason why any change to l-marriage should result in a change to Catholic r-marriage…

I personally agree that there should be a split in the two institutions so as to satisfy all parties. However, I find it peculiar that you don’t see that a change in “l” marriage would bring about ramifications beyond marriage itself, especially as an Englishman/woman where the change has curbed religious freedom- like where a Catholic school couldn’t fire a principal who entered a civil union or where an Anglican bishop was forced to hire a gay youth minister. Or how about the abbey that was fined because it didn’t reveal how many homosexuals they employed?

There was a case in California where a Catholic doctor refused to inseminate a lesbian couple, but provided the names of doctors who would, and an offer to pay for an additional charges due to the inconvenience. That couple sued the doctor, and the Supreme Court of California ruled that the doctor was obligated to perform such procedures because their right as a couple (pre-Prop 8) was more important than his right to conscience and religious liberty.

It is cases like these that make me wary of changing marriage.