The issue of gay intolerance

[rinnie]

I agree I hate to be wrong. My husband and I even have a agreement. I may not always be right, but I am never wrong!

But what I think we are trying to do here is not judge, just stick up for our Church and God and say God teaches its wrong, and will only leave your soul in grave danger. Leave it at that and pray for them. If we can show we only want them to find happiness and do not believe they can really find it without Gods blessing. That all. We may not win them over, but who knows some day our prayers and Love for them can turn things around.

But the big thing is to teach God says no. Thats really the point. God Bless you all, Have a wonderful day!

 

[mardukm]

That’s incorrect.

How so (based on the examples you gave)?

Good, so we’re making some progress here, so they have the potential, just like heterosexual couples, to have children, which will only get easier as technology advances. And if you admit they have the potential to can contribute to society in the same way heterosexual couples can, they therefore should be granted the same rights in a non-religious, legal marriage.

No. I base “potential” on the Natural Law. A gay couple (male or female) has NO potential to have children. I said that if a lesbian couple is willing to pay for it (i.e., not drain national resources), “fine,” but I also said that is not very likely to happen. That is far from an admission that social policy should be changed, especially if the change is based on a circumstance that is not likely to occur.

There are a lot more gay couples that want children than you are seemingly willing to admit for your argument.

And there are a lot of pedophiles who want to do so, as well. And there are a lot of pre-teen children who want to have children, as well. The desire to have children is a very small part of the rhetoric, and should not be taken in isolation. It is not morally or socially responsible to give children to people JUST because they want them.

I think you’re mixing your words here. They have the same potential to have children. I think you mean to say that heterosexual couples have a greater “probability.” But your former argument is not about probability, it was about potential. Does a marriage have potential to contribute to society. And the answer we’ve found here is Yes, female homosexual couples have a potential to contribute to society in a way that passes your “test” of what a proper legal marriage needs to do.

Like I said, “potentiality” here refers to the Natural law. Two gay women have NO potential to have babies, without draining national resources that can be used for more worthy causes such as feeding the poor, or providing much-needed medical services to those who really need it.

 

[Lynxdk]

Like I said, “potentiality” here refers to the Natural law. Two gay women have NO potential to have babies, without draining national resources that can be used for more worthy causes such as feeding the poor, or providing much-needed medical services to those who really need it.

It is not morally or socially responsible to give children to people JUST because they want them.

Really… So all the kids in the foster care system, who very often are abused and treated like property because they’re just a source of income for the many sick and twisted sorts of people who would abuse the foster care system and be foster parents for that reason, Not even talking about anything other than so called “normal” heterosexual couples… putting kids who are already disadvantaged and at risk into a worse situation, driving them further from God, let alone any chance at a happy normal life later on…

Why not focus on problems like that instead of ones that really have no effect on your own happiness, such as whether a gay couple chooses to have kids or not… We don’t even have to go abroad to find problems like hunger and medical services that need to be addressed when chances are in your own neighbor hood there are children who are being abuse and people turn a blind eye to it because it’s too close and personal and they really don’t want to be responsible for other people problems ~that~ way, not if it could possibly touch thier own lives, and yet will still stick thier noses into other things further away that really have nothing to do with them… hmmm…

So you’re talking about resource drains as if the people who are, are people who choose to live they way they feel is right for them, who you disagree with because of thier choice of lifestyle, when they ~easily~ contribute more to society by being open, loving, caring people because they accept themselves and each other without making generalizations and judgements… Things Jesus tells us ~not~ to do… and yet here you are doing it… Me to, since now I’m doing it to you, but at least I admit it. =)

 

[mardukm]

Really… So all the kids in the foster care system, who very often are abused and treated like property because they’re just a source of income for the many sick and twisted sorts of people who would abuse the foster care system and be foster parents for that reason, Not even talking about anything other than so called “normal” heterosexual couples… putting kids who are already disadvantaged and at risk into a worse situation, driving them further from God, let alone any chance at a happy normal life later on.

I agree. So how does that have any relevance to the present discussion?

Why not focus on problems like that instead of ones that really have no effect on your own happiness, such as whether a gay couple chooses to have kids or not… We don’t even have to go abroad to find problems like hunger and medical services that need to be addressed when chances are in your own neighbor hood there are children who are being abuse and people turn a blind eye to it because it’s too close and personal and they really don’t want to be responsible for other people problems ~that~ way, not if it could possibly touch thier own lives, and yet will still stick thier noses into other things further away that really have nothing to do with them… hmmm…

I’m not willing to have my children grow up in a society which tries to normalize actions that are aborrent to God. Contrary to your liberal thinking, Christians base their worldview on the precepts of God, not whether or not something will affect an individual’s happiness in this world (which is only a secondary, even tertiary, consideration when compared to the former). So your liberal argument has no relevance to me.

So you’re talking about resource drains as if the people who are, are people who choose to live they way they feel is right for them, who you disagree with because of thier choice of lifestyle, when they ~easily~ contribute more to society by being open, loving, caring people because they accept themselves and each other without making generalizations and judgements… Things Jesus tells us ~not~ to do… and yet here you are doing it… Me to, since now I’m doing it to you, but at least I admit it. =)

They can do that in a civil union. No need to redefine marriage to satisfy the unfounded whims of a few.

 

[brandymmiller]

There may possibly be an absolute truth, but I have yet to see any absolute way of determining what that truth is. For example, is marriage monogamy (Catholic), serial monogamy (Protestant) or polygamy (Muslim)? All three claim to have ABSOLUTE TRUTH for their interpretation of their Holy Book. Your opinion is just one among many. How do I determine, absolutely, who is correct and who is mistaken?

For the moment I am content to follow a truth that works; I have no way to tell what truths, if any, are absolute.

Thank you.

rossum

The answer, Rossum, is simple: What is true is always testable. What is a lie or a deception will always fall apart under examination.

Take your example above: the Catholic model of absolute monogamy; the Protestant model of serial monogamy; and the Muslim model of polygamy and examine the evidence to discover which one is the most loving, which one is the healthiest for the parties involved?

1. Absolute monogamy involving one man and one woman. Fruits: learning to express and live unconditional love, forgiveness, true intimacy, psychologically stronger attachment to one another (study attachment theory), lack of STD’s, self-control, faithfulness, smaller and more manageable family sizes (one man and one woman produce MUCH smaller families than one man and four women,etc.) which in turn means a smaller environmental footprint; healthier children who are not traumatized by the constant turmoil in the home and are given a more secure and loving environment in which to live.
2. Serial monogamy involving one man divorcing and remarrying many times. Fruits: Conditional love - I love you for as long as I feel like loving you; limited forgiveness; guardedness - I’m prepared to leave if you make a mistake that’s big enough; weakened ability to attach emotionally; possible STD’s, lack of emotional self-control; periodic faithfulness - again, I will be faithful as long as this relationship “works” for me; larger families with less security and less stability; children who are less secure, less stable, traumatized and uncertain of their future, fearful that maybe their parent will stop loving them just as they stopped loving their other parent, etc.
3. Polygamy involving one man and multiple women. Fruits: women competing against one another for the attentions of their spouse, favoratism, a man who is exhausted with trying to meet the needs of multiple partners, MUCH larger families and a MUCH larger environmental footprint, children who are confused about who is their real mother, (not all cases but in many cases there is also the chasing out of boys as they grow into teenagers so that they do not become competition for the older men who want younger wives); child brides; etc. etc.

There are some positives to polygamy in that more hands are available to do the work, but the trade-offs are many and not worth it. A woman wants to know that she has her man’s full attention at all times just as a man wants to know that he is priority in the eyes of his beloved - no polygamist can ever give her that.

To discover truth, look for what produces things that are truly good not just for one but for everyone.

 

[brandymmiller]

Why not focus on problems like that instead of ones that really have no effect on your own happiness, such as whether a gay couple chooses to have kids or not… We don’t even have to go abroad to find problems like hunger and medical services that need to be addressed when chances are in your own neighbor hood there are children who are being abuse and people turn a blind eye to it because it’s too close and personal and they really don’t want to be responsible for other people problems ~that~ way, not if it could possibly touch thier own lives, and yet will still stick thier noses into other things further away that really have nothing to do with them… hmmm…

You seem to be of the belief that what happens to that child has no bearing on me. Quite the contrary. Children are the future of society and how they are raised today will directly impact my quality of life tomorrow. I have EVERY reason to be concerned with who raises them and how they are being raised. Furthermore, as a Christian I cannot afford to take the approach of treating the raising of children by homosexual couples as a problem that has “nothing to do” with me. I have not just a right but a RESPONSIBILITY to protect the most innocent from things which are obviously and clearly harmful to them.

Now, having said all that I tend to feel that far too many have focused on homosexuals adopting and raising children as the only evil without any effort to combat other evils such as the rising number of divorces and cohabitating couples or single women attempting to raise children without the benefit of a father. These things are equally damaging and equally problematic. But I stand on my statement. I have EVERY RIGHT to be concerned about who raises the next generation and how it is done because whether I like it or not, whether I wish it to be so or not, this WILL impact me directly.

It will impact the laws that are made, it will impact the things that are taught in schools, it will impact the ways in which my tax dollars are spent, it will impact the number of people who end up in prison, it will impact the number of police officers which need to be hired, it will impact every facet of my life. Do not tell me I don’t have the right to be concerned or to act on that concern.

 

[Lynxdk]

I’m not willing to have my children grow up in a society which tries to normalize actions that are aborrent to God. Contrary to your liberal thinking, Christians base their worldview on the precepts of God, not whether or not something will affect an individual’s happiness in this world (which is only a secondary, even tertiary, consideration when compared to the former). So your liberal argument has no relevance to me.

You don’t really have a choice in the matter. You were born on the same Earth I was, in the same society I am, and if you’re too busy wasting time caring what gay folk do when you could be stopping something far more prevalent, real, and hurtful to humanity, child abuse and neglect that happens ~everywhere~ and has ~nothing~ to do whatsoever with whether or not gays get married and have kids…

My thinking has nothing to do with being a liberal, it has everything to do with me making sure I’m not a hypocrite in God’s eyes worrying about what everyone else is doing, or not doing, and paying attention to my own actions and how God may judge those, rather than my neighbors… I’m just taking a break for the moment cuz I saw that you had something in your eye

You are, after all, the one who had the complaint regarding draining resources that can be used for more worthy causes… what about your own time as a resource? Do you really think arguing or trying to stop gays and lesbians from having legal marriages is a more worthy cause that protecting and defending the children of this country, let alone the world? Is that what conservatism cares about more? It would seem so, judging by the actions and words of many I’ve seen… but who am I to judge? =)

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister brandy,

A woman wants to know that she has her man’s full attention at all times just as a man wants to know that he is priority in the eyes of his beloved

Based on this statement from you, I would deeply appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in the following thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=338750

I could not find any other way to contact you, so please forgive me for contacting you this way.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Lynxdk]

You seem to be of the belief that what happens to that child has no bearing on me.

Quite the contrary. My argument includes that ~everything~ that happens to children bears on you. Raising them to hate and be hated is what intolerance breeds.

I have not just a right but a RESPONSIBILITY to protect the most innocent from things which are obviously and clearly harmful to them.

Exactly my point. Child abuse has nothing to do with homosexuality, it has ~everything~ to do with people abusing their positions as parents and caretakers of children, abuse furthered when you judge and make laws against things that are natural and normal, like homosexuality.

Most pedo’s are hetero. That’s the abomination, and ~not~ what consenting adults to that doesn’t involve how they treat children except that they tend to treat people with far more respect and decency than most conservative Christians I’ve lived with.

Do not tell me I don’t have the right to be concerned or to act on that concern.

Then don’t tell me I don’t have the right to practice what you preach.

 

[mardukm]

You are, after all, the one who had the complaint regarding draining resources that can be used for more worthy causes… what about your own time as a resource? Do you really think arguing or trying to stop gays and lesbians from having legal marriages is a more worthy cause that protecting and defending the children of this country, let alone the world? Is that what conservatism cares about more? It would seem so, judging by the actions and words of many I’ve seen… but who am I to judge? =)

If you spend anymore time on this thread,… Best to take your own advice and quit this thread. People involved in the thread think it is a worthy topic for it involves GOD’s laws. You’re the only one making this “what about your own time” argument. Time to fess up to your liberal hypocrisy.

 

[Lynxdk]

If you spend anymore time on this thread,… Best to take your own advice and quit this thread. People involved in the thread think it is a worthy topic for it involves GOD’s laws. You’re the only one making this “what about your own time” argument. Time to fess up to your liberal hypocrisy.

I have some time to spare today, thank you for judging me and what I do with my time though, Obviously you must have some idea about how I spend my weekdays, but luckily I love being called a hypocrite by a hypocrite. I don’t mean that in any ill sense, even if it sounds that way though ~grinz~ It’s just nice to know that I’m not alone =)

I think it’s a worthy topic and open for discussion, so… I’m just taking advantage of that and discussing how it seems to me Perhaps you could remind me, please, where God says it’s wrong to be homosexual? I don’t have a bible handy.

 

[PEPCIS]

I wasn’t talking about forcing my will on you by law. . .

How are you going to force it on me, if not by law?

Lynx:

. . . but since you brought it up… how is it any different when ~you~ do that to ~me~? Force me to behave the way ~you~ want me to by making laws about what’s right and wrong? Because I would still have to ask myself, since you’re ~not~ God… what if you’re wrong?

I think it’s fair to say that you and I agree that this is about morals - yours and mine, and who’s will prevail.

Lynx:

Because I would bet dollars to donuts that you’re no different from me, really, in this sense, and have and make plenty of immoral choices all on your own, with no help or hindrance from me.

You are very astute to make that observation. No matter what quadrant of life that people come from, they are all the same, and all subject to the same sins. However, you are quite wrong to hold to the notion that all sins are the same. Murder is surely not the same as stealing an apple for hunger.

Lynx:

Who are you to judge anyone other than yourself?

I am an American Christian who tries his best to live by the edicts of the Bible. I desire to have laws that reflect my morals, and not the morals of a homosexual or atheist.

 

[PEPCIS]

I run into a lot of problems though, when people tell me I’m doing something wrong, much like others, I get defensive and much less likely to listen to them when all I hear is criticism, and more likely to keep doing things my own way just to spite them in some cases…

That type of reaction is typically rooted in defiance. I USED to be like that. Now, I’ve trained myself to examine my heart and my actions to see if I was out of line.

I’m not saying that you’re in defiance against God, because I don’t know you. I haven’t seen you post anything personal about yourself, and that is your right if you choose to remain that way. But maybe you could give me an example of someone else?

Lynx:

That’s really all you’ll end up getting, over and over, everytime you try to tell some group that they are wrong for being the way they are, even if you think you’re quite right…

Hmmmmm. I’m not so sure that I agree with that. Two things:

1. 
   *]If it’s wrong, I’m wrong not to speak out against it
   *]If it’s wrong, and I do nothing to correct a fellow-human, I am in sin.
   
   
   Lynx:
   

   Telling someone it’s wrong to get a divorce, is a good example, because you could be telling someone that’s trying to escape being raped and beaten by thier spouse that God condones those things…

   But that’s the exception to the rule. Even the Catholic Church agrees that there are divorces that can be annulled. I’m not sure what the grounds are, but I’m pretty sure that physical and mental cruelty are among them. If not, they should be.
   
   Fact is, Divorce IS wrong. Christ said it. You cannot deny what Christ said.
   
   
   Lynx:
   

   So… why punish people for being gay by not allowing them the same freedoms to make choices for themselves, and exist as themselves, using the free will God gave them when by doing so you end up judging them and chasing them ~away~ from God rather than ~to~ him? Not your intentions, I’m sure, but that’s what happens.

   You’ve got several loaded guns in that paragraph.
   
   1. 
      *]You’re confusing judging and discernment.
      *]You’re wrongly stating that Christians are forbidding others to choose the homosexual lifestyle
      *]You’re wrongly concluding that it is the good works of Christians that keep Homosexuals away from, and not the sin of the Homosexual.
      It’s not “gay”, it’s “homosexual.”
      
      
      Lynx:
      

      . . . and I’m not saying ~you~ specifically, just a general question because of the nature of this thread…

      No, you’re probably spot on when it comes to me. I’m not taking offense, because I do want to share with Homosexuals that it is a sin against humanity and God to engage in that lifestyle. I do want to encourage them to turn from their sins and to embrace what God has to offer.

 

[ladybri77]

You don’t really have a choice in the matter. You were born on the same Earth I was, in the same society I am, and if you’re too busy wasting time caring what gay folk do when you could be stopping something far more prevalent, real, and hurtful to humanity, child abuse and neglect that happens ~everywhere~ and has ~nothing~ to do whatsoever with whether or not gays get married and have kids…

My thinking has nothing to do with being a liberal, it has everything to do with me making sure I’m not a hypocrite in God’s eyes worrying about what everyone else is doing, or not doing, and paying attention to my own actions and how God may judge those, rather than my neighbors… I’m just taking a break for the moment cuz I saw that you had something in your eye

You are, after all, the one who had the complaint regarding draining resources that can be used for more worthy causes… what about your own time as a resource? Do you really think arguing or trying to stop gays and lesbians from having legal marriages is a more worthy cause that protecting and defending the children of this country, let alone the world? Is that what conservatism cares about more? It would seem so, judging by the actions and words of many I’ve seen… but who am I to judge? =)

Yes, we must take out the board in our eye. So, how did immorality become immoral and how did criminal behavior become criminal? Yes, that’s right, it was judged to be. Why were laws created to outlaw certain behaviors and criminalities? To uphold civility.

You see, we are not juding the person, but the behavior, the sin. Christians are so concerned about gay marriage because it is opening a huge Pandora’s box of immorality in our country. Is not the country affected (and destoryed) by its immorality? I would say yes, and when it starts affecting me and my children, and when it starts opening the door for further immorality; for instance, what’s to keep other groups from coming forward now with their requests for legalization and/or marriage??

If this is all based on the right of an individual’s happiness, then why wouldn’t the polygamist, incestor or pedophile not wnat his/her rights now also. (Incestors are now seeking legalization in Europe.)

And how do you know that I’m not concerned for hungry children in the world? Who are you to judge me? Though I’m not perfect (have struggled with SSA, but am a celibate believer), how do you know what causes I don’t stand up for? I’m against all forms of immorality and other ills of society that the secularists are trying to impose on us.

We are called, as Christians, to love the sinner, hate the sin. That is where homosexuals have a chance of changng their ways and accepting Christ, when Christians tell them the Truth and show love and compassion to them.

In God We Trust.

 

[zachforn]

No. I base “potential” on the Natural Law. A gay couple (male or female) has NO potential to have children. I said that if a lesbian couple is willing to pay for it (i.e., not drain national resources), “fine,” but I also said that is not very likely to happen. That is far from an admission that social policy should be changed, especially if the change is based on a circumstance that is not likely to occur.

The only reason I brought up the fact that there are a lot more gay couples who want children than you seem to be willing to admit is because some of your argument revolves around the opinion that only heterosexual couples want to have children. I was merely pointing out the fact that gay couple want children too.

Like I said, “potentiality” here refers to the Natural law. Two gay women have NO potential to have babies, without draining national resources that can be used for more worthy causes such as feeding the poor, or providing much-needed medical services to those who really need it.

Two things I have questions with here:

1. You seem upset that female gay couples that want fertility treatments will drain national resources. Where does this assumption come from? All of the research I have done demonstrates that state based health insurance plans do not cover in vitro fertility treatments, in fact most private health care insurance plans do not either. If a couple wish to pursue IVF they’re on their own. So, no worries, there will be no draining of national resources.
2. Now it seems your only other argument is that “Natural Law” denies that a female gay couple has potential to have babies. I guess my question is what is “Natural Law”? Since we’re are speaking about legalities here, secular laws, I’m not looking for what Catholics believe Natural Law is or what Aquinas thinks Natural Law is. I want to know is how does the U.S. Legislative Body (and other various state legislative bodies) define Natural Law.

To have this discussion (you want to have it right, a discussion, a dialog, not just monologue?), to have this discussion we, more importantly, you, have to be able to keep separated the Catholic understanding of Natural Law, and the secular understanding of Natural Law. Because, we are discussing laws in the secular arena.

So, again the question, how is Natural Law understood and used in the legalities of the U.S.? The simple answer is that the legal arena has a very broad understanding of the term, which is to say many interpretations of what Natural Law is are at play within the legal understanding of it. It should also be noted that in the past few generations Natural Law Theory has faded as a basis for laws, being replaced with more social-contract-type theories.

But, let us assume that the legal arena still uses 100% a blended Natural Law theory. If one investigates all of the influences behind the secular understanding of Natural Law, then one comes to the understanding that there are so many influence that the blend is “watered down”," i.e. no one invested ideology prevails over another. Which is to say, almost out of necessity (when dealing with democratic forms of self rule) that the legal arena defines Natural Law in its most broad stance:

A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.

So, now we have to look at how “Nature” behaves. It is well established that homosexual and bisexual activity in species other than ours goes on. Now, I want to pause here, because I don’t want to get into a haggle over wording. I don’t care what it’s called, or what you want to call it, “activity” “behavior,” “homosexual intention,” instinct," however it’s termed, in nature, in some species, two animals of the same sex engage in sexual activity.

Ok, so, in a secular understanding of Natural Law we see what humans call “homosexual activity” out in nature, thus, in some instances, homosexual behavior is natural.

Next, to touch upon the “potential” of a gay female couple having children using In Vitro Fertilization. It sounds like your saying that under the Catholic understanding of Natural Law they do no have this potential. Fine. But, once more, let’s use the secular understanding of Natural Law, which is to ask: In nature are there living beings that use or incorporate third parties, or incorporate tools or technologies in the cycle of reproduction of their species? The simple answer is Yes.

I ask the question in this way because “third parties” in an In Vitro situation would be a doctor, technician, etc, and the technology would be the computers, freezers, etc. Your argument seems to be that this is going against Natural Law, that it is “unnatural” to use third parties and technologies to assist in the reproduction of a species. However, in nature third parties and technological assistance is witness all the time. Many, many, many plant varieties depend at times on the third party assistance of various insects to become fertilized. Many of these species don’t rely exclusively on insect activity, just as humans don’t rely exclusively on IVF, but the insets can and sometimes do help. Many reptilian and bird species have to use their technologies to create areas for embryonic development, i.e.nests. The list goes on and on. This is all to the point that in the natural world, just as in humans, third parties and technologies are in fact used in the reproductive cycle. Thus, it is “natural.”

So, it seems we have addressed your major concerns about two gay females marrying: they will not drain national finances and they have the potential, naturally (with a secular understanding of Natural Law), to contribute children to our society.

 

[Lynxdk]

No, you’re probably spot on when it comes to me. I’m not taking offense…

I like you =) so all the additions of my “not saying you” are not necessarily directed at you, or anyone else really, just people tend to take things that way in my experience, as do I, sometimes, but then I still can look at it the other way to ~laughs~ In this case though, I’m taking the opposite side of that argument, but I see we can agree on many other things too, so… ~grinz~ I’m not trying to win an argument though, just stating my view, and considering yours as best I can while keeping God in mind. I think we’ll still find plenty of things we see differently, and I see nothing wrong in that either

So just gonna try to answer your posts in one… rather unfortunately convoluted one, perhaps, but can’t be helped since I’m not trying to write a thesis, just express my thoughts and feelings regarding these things…

How are you going to force it on me, if not by law?

I’m not, even by law, really… I’m not one to force anything on anyone, even my words that I ~usually~ don’t even say aloud because people tend to react rather than think about what I have to say… but I’ve had many things forced on me in my time, often very brutally, so I don’t see a difference between, (just to categorize and generalize people, without the intention of saying You or I or Anyone else on this forums is within those categories, just the observable way things tend to be if you take a step back and look at the US, and just keeping it home for now, to look at the planks in the eyes of this countries people)…

I don’t see a difference between the Religious Right making laws and shoving them down every bodies throats and the Liberal Left doing it right back. Simple reactions and behaviors that are typical of school yard bullies and fights, really, just on a larger scale. ~That~ is wrong, regardless of which side does it because ~that~ is forcing their will on another and ~that~ is an abomination that displeases God. The crusades are a decent historical example, but the same thing still occurs, just now it’s an intellectual battlefield instead, mind rape instead of a physical one, but ~both~ affect people spiritually, and that sort of thing pushes people ~away~ from God when the crusaders that claim to be on God’s side, regardless of which side they’re taking, waves their banners and go out of their way to stop things like legalized marriages for homosexuals or, as I’ve also seen happen on the “opposing side” as it were… shove their lifestyle choices in the faces of people who would not have them. State legalized, I’m talking about, I would never ask, nor would most, to have those things be forced down the throats of churches who would hold to what they believe.

I don’t think it’s wrong to support allowing people the freedom to make their own choices, and even their own mistakes! if it comes to that, to say, for a good example, that to engage in homosexuality and allow them to have the freedom to express their unions, which is still, even though they don’t see it because they think it’s wrong, it’s ~still~ a loving caring act and communion between 2 beings, and loved by God for that. People that can’t even consider the possibility that they might have mis-read or mis-understood biblical rules and laws ~against~ homosexuality (I’m not talking at all about some of the ~real~ sexual deviances, such as what’s been done to children and adults, rapes and gang rapes, and things of that nature) but just that part… people who can’t consider that they might be wrong are, to my mind, simply basing their moral judgments on their own fears and prejudices.

Some people would dis-own their own children if they came forward and tried to talk about their feelings, some people would take that even further and worse in some ways and try to ~beat~ it out of their children ~none~ of these things work, and ~none~ correct behavior that is “wrong” in any sense, even just a child taking a crayon and writing “I love you daddy” on the window sill… so many would see the awfulness in ruining the window’s sill, angrily correct their child, yelling can be just as bad as hitting with the amount of fear it can cause in a child, and people would ~never~ see the love and trust that was there that the child took the risk to try to express how they felt.

~That~ is how so many things are the same, because they end up ~feeling~ the same. I feel the same way, scared and terrified, to even ~talk~ to someone about how I feel regarding things when it comes to the expression of sexuality, even in hetero ways, simply because they were ~beaten~ into people that they were all wrong before they could even give a clear voice to them, so they got driven inside and twisted to no end… until some finally wake up enraged at the wrongs done to them, and flings it all back in the faces of others… For myself, it doesn’t matter what you think about me, how you judge me, treat me, good or ill… ~all~ that matters is how God does. It should be like that for everyone.

 

[Lynxdk]

I think it’s fair to say that you and I agree that this is about morals - yours and mine, and who’s will prevail.

Yes and no… or not quite… I’m not about prevailing, I’m about understanding. People can see things differently, still understand one another, ~without~ needing to, or making sure that, one or the other prevails, and still be at peace with each other… Brothers and Sisters who bicker and fight one minute, but still love each other the next, while their parents look on, sometimes frustrated at the nonsense, but sighing gratefully when they’re done their bickering bit and get back to loving

You are very astute to make that observation. No matter what quadrant of life that people come from, they are all the same, and all subject to the same sins. However, you are quite wrong to hold to the notion that all sins are the same. Murder is surely not the same as stealing an apple for hunger.

I would take that as a given with actions, but would say is no real difference when considering thoughts and feelings… or even their own wrongness… and so criminals continue to be criminals out of their own internal fear and self doubt, expressed outwardly with angry confidence… it’s one of the thing that makes people afraid to see someone elses point of view because they’re afraid that by ~really seeing~ what someone else is trying to say and understand it, they’re afraid it’s going to change themselves… and if their already on their own high moral ground, and don’t trust God enough to catch them if they fall, they’ll never be able to look past their own fears and see where and how they might be wrong, so they get ~stuck~ and that also puts up wall between them and God, leaving them stuck in a place where they can’t bring themselves to trust Him fully either.

That works the same whether the crime is prejudice over someone elses lifestyle, or thinking their ~own~ deviant lifestyle is acceptable (including some who claim to be Christian, but make it their lifes work to make other people ~miserable~ with their own fears and doubts), or that it’s fine to be a shoplifter, murderer or drug dealer, etc… ~sometimes~ stealing can be condoned, if your family is starving and you steal a loaf of bread to feed them, but I wouldn’t say it’s right in any sense to kill someone in the process of obtaining that loaf.

I am an American Christian who tries his best to live by the edicts of the Bible. I desire to have laws that reflect my morals, and not the morals of a homosexual or atheist.

That’s the part where I’m really going to have to disagree with you. Because you want the freedom to be yourself, knowing yourself as you appear to, you know what’s right for you and yours, and yet… you share this country with people who, just as certain and comfortable in their own lives and being, feel the same way about their things for themselves. If you want the freedom to express yourself, the only way you can really have that is if everyone has those same freedoms… otherwise you’re just another robber baron forcing your will down the throats of others. It’s like saying “it’s ok for me to do what I want, but not you”… I know you have a hard time seeing how that works because you’re quite convinced you’re right… but so are they. You’re never going to be able to get through to ~anyone~ that they might be wrong if you too are not willing to see how ~you~ might be. (again, maybe not ~you~ in the specific sense, but in general)

But where i agree with you there, I would say it this way, that I would describe myself the same, although I expect some would accuse me of being a “cafeteria Catholic” for my views… I’m sorry, but I have to question ~everything~ in my own view and not just take others words at face value… survival mechanism really, given some of the things I’ve had to live through. Other people may feel safe in not questioning. I feel unsafe in that place.

So… I trust the Lord to catch me when I fall (with no intentions of ~testing~ him, as might be said about me by some). I would defend the rights of others, take the side of the downtrodden, even if that makes me one of them in the eyes of others, even when people would take that to mean that I support criminals and outcasts and people who are guilty of ~real~ vileness and sin because they’re so bigoted to lump homosexuality in with some of the worst crimes humanity is guilty of when it’s ~nothing~ of the kind. I know the difference between these from direct, personal, experiences. Sounds pretentious, said that way, and I’m sure it is. I certainly can’t live up to my own high standards, so I would consider it a goal in my mind whose finish line is ever pushed back, a little at a time, until the real end finally is simply where God is, even while knowing He’s always with me and around me, keeping my safe on my journey.

So I’ve asked people to point out to me where God says homosexuality is a Sin, and I’ll explain how you’re reading it wrong. I’m not saying ~you’re~ wrong, I’m just saying interpretations can be wrong… and until God sets them in stone, everything is open to interpretation, and too often it’s done with eyes of fear rather than with eyes of hope and love.

 

[Lynxdk]

And yes, I still haven’t stated much about me or my real self and how I am. I don’t think I need to, really, in part because I’m still exploring myself in some ways so I have no definite answers ~for myself~, except that I defiantly need the freedom to explore and define myself and can only do so in truth in an atmosphere where hate and fear do not exist, and the only place that happens is within God’s love.

and No, I can’t really give a good example of someone else without being someone else… which I can kind of do, for myself, to allow me to see others points of view, but without actually having lived my life as someone else, to have and know and understand their own unique and individual sets of experiences… I can’t truly speak for ~anyone~ but me… but I know what that’s like when they describe it to me clear enough, based on my own experiences =)

So I admit that, internally, I ~still am~ like that, “defiant to the core” you might say, but always do I struggle to keep myself open to God and the spirit of love he has for all of us, regardless, and even in spite of, our sins… ~that~ is the sort of defiance I would have, to love you in spite of how awful you might be (again, not you specifically

and Yes, I would say it’s good to speak and act out against things that you know are wrong, such as murder and rape, regardless of the age of the person against whom those acts are committed, but when 2 people love each other, care for each other, trust each other, allow them to be, regardless of gender and other circumstances. If you keep lumping all the real sins in with the things that are not, you’ll never be able to separate them truly and just see everything around you that makes you uncomfortable, afraid, or doubtful, as “just more sin” rather than the expressions of God’s love they really are

Because I don’t recall Jesus actually saying anything against 2 people of the same gender forming a union… correct me if I’m wrong, although you already know I’ll re-interpret that for myself… can’t really do otherwise, and that’s, fundamentally, no different from what everyone else does. Add to that gender is much more differently understood ~now~ as opposed to “back in the day”… just like other things, such as the world being flat vs round… and for a long time people clung to the “flat world” idea without really reasoning past their own fears and prejudices…

See? that’s one of the things I have the most problems with is that so many cling to old fears and beliefs, thinking God’s gonna toss a lightning bolts at them ~just for thinking~ about things differently, let alone considering the possibility that they ~are~ that way… rather than trusting God to help them explore the possibility that someone else might be right, and that they might be wrong. I can. I can look at things and consider that I might go to hell for choosing or judging wrongly, but with God’s help, everything I may do wrong is redeemed and made right again when I ~do~ see my wrongness and bring it before Him… but often still people fear things about which they were told differently at first…

I’d not think the God that Jesus came to prove is like the Zeus people feared in some places… there’s a ~lot~ more than most people never even hear or read about, or just throw aside if they do, even when it’s obviously true scientifically, much less even consider researching those things for themselves, so set in their ways they are… in some cases simply because they don’t have ~time~ for it… so I would say, if you don’t have the time to actually look into these things with a full and open heart and mind, ~with~ God, of course, but ~not~ with fear and pre-judgments… then keep your oar out. Find something else to busy yourself with, something closer to home and more personal for you, there no lack of love needed all around you, you needn’t be busying yourself condemning people for loving differently than you do. treat it that way until you actually have time to look into things yourself is probably best for everyone involved, sticking a nose in where you don’t have enough understanding, and refuse to take the time to, only cause more aggravation for all involved.

Which is ~exactly~ why I bow out of some arguments, but spend time on others… so unless you have more to say that I can consider well, I might be done except I’ll, of course, still read and consider what you might have to say in return =)

but again, any use of the word “you” and such doesn’t mean anyone in specific because I really don’t know you as an individual, but certainly feel free to take it that way if it helps to formulate a response, just as long as you don’t take it as a personal attack or that I mean to judge you or condemn you in any sense of the use of the word “you are this way” ~laughs~ because I can probably find something about me that just as bad, if bad is seen as such regarding words and accusations and misinterpretations

I just know that, even when I’m wrong, God loves me just the same, so I argue and wrestle with my thoughts, consider them every which way, until I can find some peace with them for myself, and my peace may come out a bit differently for me than for you, and I might still be open to the possibility that I’m wrong, but so might you be, but I also know God loves you the same way too. All I’m asking is that you give me the space to find out, so that I can give you the space you need to. ~that~ is where morality is still open to the question, ~that~ is where my discernment is still every bit as valid as yours, even if you personally feel that my ways are sinful and harmful and so avoid them for yourself. Only God can judge, Only He really knows what’s right and wrong, with or without words written in a text thousands of years old that were written by people in a different time and place when things were understood differently than they are today.

 

[Lynxdk]

Yes, we must take out the board in our eye.

Exactly what I’m saying.

Yes, that’s right, it was judged to be. Why were laws created to outlaw certain behaviors and criminalities? To uphold civility.

I know, judged by Man, and Not by God.

Christians are so concerned about gay marriage because it is opening a huge Pandora’s box of immorality in our country.

After all the **** came out of the box, what was left inside? There’s a good reason to take that stuff out of the box and not hide it and act like evil can’t be faced out of fear. God did not give you a spirit of fear, and He is always with us to help us face these things. Hide them, make rules again them, and they still happen, only in secret, twisted for it, as if ~all~ things about it were shameful and sinful rather than just the obvious ones where people enforce their own wills upon another, such as is done by denying homosexuals a legal right to have a state sanctioned marriage. ~That’s~ immoral, keeping people from what they have every right to have just because ~you~ think it’s wrong.

Rape and Pedophilia are ~NOT~ in any way about loving, they’re about power and dominating the will of another. That is ~nothing~ like what 2 consenting mature adults may do, and I find it despicable when people try to compare the two.

If things like that were left to be, simply because of how some people felt it should be, and just because they always knew it to be that way, or read a book and interpreted it that way, where would slavery have ended? When would women have had the right to wear PANTS! let alone be allowed to vote…

If this is all based on the right of an individual’s happiness, then why wouldn’t the polygamist, incestor or pedophile not wnat his/her rights now also. (Incestors are now seeking legalization in Europe.)

Again, you’re using the argument that these issues are all lumped together, because you stick them all in Pandora’s box, shove them in out of fear, and try to keep the lid closed, not even examining them separately as they should be. I might as well say you’re a rapist because you force your views on others by enacting laws against them if you’re going to limp something that can be so open and loving, With God, as a homosexual union can be, and try to say it’s just as bad as something so despicable and abhorrent as would be a child rapist. I’ll refrain from quoting Matthew, because I don’t want you to think I actually feel ill about you or your position. I understand it, I just very much don’t agree with it.

Who are you to judge me?

I’m not judging you, just your words, and only, really, for myself… and I may misread what you have to say, as you might also with me, so… I just want to point out that I hold no ill will towards you as a person, so I mean no, nor take no, offense at what we might say to each other. I expect you feel rather the same, because I know it’s often easier to say what I want to say by directing it in some specific way first

 

[PEPCIS]

Child abuse has nothing to do with homosexuality, it has ~everything~ to do with people abusing their positions as parents and caretakers of children, abuse furthered when you judge and make laws against things that are natural and normal, like homosexuality.

Christians need to be very careful when they hear someone make such claims that homosexuality is “natural” and “normal.” We already know that God has declared it to be an abomination. Homosexuality cannot produce what God has ordained for humankind to produce - children. Homosexuality can mimic heterosexual marriage, but that is nothing more than a vain attempt to shake their fist at God for ordaining marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Lynx:

Most pedo’s are hetero. That’s the abomination. . .

Wrong. It is AN abomination. There are many abominations against God’s order of Creation. Abusing others for personal sexual gratification is only one of them.

Lynx:

. . . and ~not~ what consenting adults do. . .

Liberals speak alot about “consenting adults” as if somehow people can do things in secret and somehow this makes it “ok.” But if they cannot perform them openly without shame, then it is an abomination.

But that is part of the homosexual agenda, where they force representations of “good” and “appealing” homosexual couples to the world via a complicit media. If they can continually portray homosexuals as “gay” and “non-threatening”, then they can further their propaganda that “homosexuality is just like heterosexuality.”