Why some Christians feel more threatened by homosexuality than other, more violent, sins

  • Thread starter Thread starter kbwall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how that post was incorrect or cruel. It was a bit blunt and goes straight to the Truth, perhaps, but cruel? I don’t see it. “We just want to be left alone” has come a very long way to what we have today, which is “embrace us or else.”
From the homosexualists’ logic, if we don’t enable their sins, we’re committing hate crimes worse than genocides, apartheids and ethnic massacres combined. :doh2:
And yes, I’ve seen such idiocies happen a lot whenever I debate with homosexualists about homosexuality.
 
From the homosexualists’ logic, if we don’t enable their sins, we’re committing hate crimes worse than genocides, apartheids and ethnic massacres combined. :doh2:…
Yes, I agree. The militant homosexuals say they want tolerance, but in truth, that is not enough. They demand that all embrace and endorse their choices or be labled haters and bigots.
 
Yes, I agree. The militant homosexuals say they want tolerance, but in truth, that is not enough. They demand that all embrace and endorse their choices or be labled haters and bigots.
I like the way you completely ignored where I, and others, pointed out how the post was hurtful.

Semper was making sweeping assertions about how an entire group was selfish and narcissistic. Not to mention “wanted to have sex everywhere”.

Of course, pointing out the obvious mean-spiritedness in Semper’s post is the equivalent in your mind of “demanding that all embrace and endorse their choices or be labled haters and bigots”.
 
I like the way you completely ignored where I pointed out how the post was hurtful.

Some people just hear what they wan’t to hear.
Ah, now I see. To be truthful, I didn’t know what you were doing and why you posted as you did.

Seems to me that the statement was not deliberately hurtful, but simply truth. Radical homosexuals want what they want, they want marriage redefined and new rights created for them, without care for the outcome to society, children, family, the door being opened to the next “civil” right demand being met because others will surely follow, etc.
 
…Of course, pointing out the obvious mean-spiritedness in Semper’s post is the equivalent in your mind of “demanding that all embrace and endorse their choices or be labled haters and bigots”.
Actually, I ignored your post referencing Semper’s post because I wasn’t really sure what point you were making. I did, however, go on to the next post to respond what you quoted above.

So, are you saying it isn’t true that radical homosexuals are “demanding that all embrace and endorse their choices or be labled haters and bigots?” If that is so and that is what you think, then I think you too might be overlooking some obvious facts yourself.
 
Ah, now I see. To be truthful, I didn’t know what you were doing and why you posted as you did.

Seems to me that the statement was not deliberately hurtful, but simply truth. Radical homosexuals want what they want, they want marriage redefined and new rights created for them, without care for the outcome to society, children, family, the door being opened to the next “civil” right demand being met because others will surely follow, etc.
"Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They’re Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement

During his sophomore year in high school, Cody Beck finally got fed up with hearing homophobic cracks. If his classmates thought being gay was weird (Beck was openly bisexual), he had a confession that would blow their minds. He told them he is sexually attracted to dogs and horses."…

Blue excerpt quoted from article here: browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/
 
Yes, I agree. The militant homosexuals say they want tolerance, but in truth, that is not enough. They demand that all embrace and endorse their choices or be labled haters and bigots.
How is that different from those who say “embrace our religion or else you are a hateful sinner that will burn in hell”?

Replace the language the word “homosexual” with “religious people” and the language used would be quite offensive to many-but the truth is “militant” Christians act in much the same way. They want to use civil government to force people to obey rules that are specific to their denominations. If you are committed to your faith, you should NOT need a civil law to obey the rules. Not to mention the lack of foresight involved-what if your religion is no longer the majority and one you don’t follow is? You want to give up bacon because now that religion has voted in an anti-pork law?

If you believe that your religious teachings lead to salvation, then work to convert people to be committed to your faith and the rest will take care of itself. Changed hearts lead to changed lives-I’m living proof.
 

I stand by my opinion that for many Christians-gay people are a convenient group to use so that their own sins can be minimized. (at least in their own mind) People have done this since Jesus walked the earth, it’s human nature. If gay people didn’t exist, those Christians would find another group of “sinners” to use.
That is an inaccurate and unfair conclusion to reach. Gays freely associate and most Christians do not have the inclination to punish or have people jailed for engaging in gay sex. What is objected to is the homosexual movement to legalize same sex ‘marriage’ in all states that has detrimental social implications, with the claim for gay parenting right behind it, normalization of what is not normal in education of children, and already enough signs that speaking or writing about the wrongness of homosexuality will not be permitted.
!
 
How is that different from those who say “embrace our religion or else you are a hateful sinner that will burn in hell”?

Replace the language the word “homosexual” with “religious people” and the language used would be quite offensive to many-but the truth is “militant” Christians act in much the same way. They want to use civil government to force people to obey rules that are specific to their denominations. If you are committed to your faith, you should NOT need a civil law to obey the rules. Not to mention the lack of foresight involved-what if your religion is no longer the majority and one you don’t follow is? You want to give up bacon because now that religion has voted in an anti-pork law?

If you believe that your religious teachings lead to salvation, then work to convert people to be committed to your faith and the rest will take care of itself. Changed hearts lead to changed lives-I’m living proof.
If one chooses not to be a Catholic or embrace Catholicism, nobody will call that person a bigot.

Is the same true if a Catholic follows his/her Faith and the teachings of the Church on homosexuality and does not embrace or accept homosexual lifestyles?
 
That is an inaccurate and unfair conclusion to reach. Gays freely associate and most Christians do not have the inclination to punish or have people jailed for engaging in gay sex. What is objected to is the homosexual movement to legalize same sex ‘marriage’ in all states that has detrimental social implications, with the claim for gay parenting right behind it, normalization of what is not normal in education of children, and already enough signs that speaking or writing about the wrongness of homosexuality will not be permitted.
!
Agreed.
 
Sounds like a stretch to me.

There is a difference between being empathetic and constantly worried about gaining the approval of religious groups.

I doubt anyone on this thread wants something bad to happen to Anglicans, but is not losing sleep over gaining the approval from the Church of England.

That doesn’t make sense…

That’s kind of true. But the fact homosexuality was in the DSM in the first place had very little to with research at all. You might even say it was…politically correct.
Evidence for you last statement please? I knew a psychiatrist who started his practice in 1952, during the Korean War. Are you saying Psychiatrists knew basically nothing about homosexual behavior prior to the 1970s?

Peace,
Ed

Peace,
Ed
 
How is that different from those who say “embrace our religion or else you are a hateful sinner that will burn in hell”?

Replace the language the word “homosexual” with “religious people” and the language used would be quite offensive to many-but the truth is “militant” Christians act in much the same way. They want to use civil government to force people to obey rules that are specific to their denominations. If you are committed to your faith, you should NOT need a civil law to obey the rules. Not to mention the lack of foresight involved-what if your religion is no longer the majority and one you don’t follow is? You want to give up bacon because now that religion has voted in an anti-pork law?

If you believe that your religious teachings lead to salvation, then work to convert people to be committed to your faith and the rest will take care of itself. Changed hearts lead to changed lives-I’m living proof.
Point One: Nobody needs anybody else’s permission to engage in any type of sex act or living arrangement they choose. Nobody. You set up any kind of rules you want.

No One needs to see same-sex marriage at the voting booth. Nobody. As a friend of mind said: “Why do they need my permission?” It’s a fair question.

Once again, who is stopping anybody from living how they want - right now? A priest will not be pounding on your door on Monday demanding to know why you missed Mass last Sunday, or that there was 5 bucks less in the collection basket and it’s your fault.

Point Two: Starting from the time I was a boy in the late 1950s all the way up to today, Catholics understood that whatever happened behind closed doors was private. 100% private. We NEVER looked into anybody’s windows, much less bedroom windows.

As Catholics, we do not need the law telling our adoption agencies that we must allow gay couples to adopt or that our hospitals must provide abortion services or that we should pay for insurance that includes contraception. Contraception does not heal, treat or fix anything – it’s primary purpose is to interfere with the proper functioning of the average normal human body.

And everyone, Catholic or not, should not get this agenda shoved in our faces wherever we go or whenever we watch movies or TV, or on the internet or in newspapers.

Finally, You are absolutely right, the Holy Spirit of God changes hearts and causes a renewal of your mind. But Jesus tells us: If you love me, keep my commandments, and he gave authority to His Church on earth to bind and loose. The Teaching Authority of the Church is meant for our good and the good of all. The fact is, Christianity, which was once respected by most of our culture, has been under constant attack, especially over the last 40 years. We can’t ignore that.

And we can’t ignore the fact that some want us to practice our faith only in our Church buildings and nowhere else. I remember when the ACLU won a court case where a religious monument was removed from a public building. I watched on TV as a priest lay prostrate across stone steps while the object was being physically removed.

I never felt threatened by the homosexuals I worked with.

Peace,
Ed
 
As Catholics, we do not need the law telling our adoption agencies that we must allow gay couples to adopt or that our hospitals must provide abortion services or that we should pay for insurance that includes contraception. Contraception does not heal, treat or fix anything – it’s primary purpose is to interfere with the proper functioning of the average normal human body.
Ed

This is off topic for sure and I have to agree that the present Federal Administrations’ action in requiring that any organization that provides health insurance to it’s employees must provide family planning drugs to those employees was, in my opinion, a huge mistake as it applies to the Catholic church (or any other church organization that still opposes contraception for that matter). But with regard to what may be required of Adoption agencies, Hospitals, and other social service divisions of the church; doesn’t that requirement have something to do with the acceptance of Federal subsidies for those types of organizations (not to mention that religious organizations get huge indirect subsidies in that they don’t pay property taxes, income taxes etc.)? Don’t know. Just asking. May God Bless Us All.
 
I don’t understand the term “family planning.” Who plans the family? The Church? The State?

For years, there were Catholic adoption agencies, only recently have laws been put into place that force them to abandon their conscience and right reason or close. So they closed.

For years, Catholic hospitals had conscience rights, now, by law, the State is trying to take them away.

Peace,
Ed
 
Yes, I agree. The militant homosexuals say they want tolerance, but in truth, that is not enough. They demand that all embrace and endorse their choices or be labled haters and bigots.
To that end, they use people such as Matthew Shepard to prove their idiocies.
 
I thought that’s what ‘NFP’ as promoted by the Church stood for?
Negative. Just go to any Wal-Mart looking for condoms. They’re under a sign that reads Family Planning. The poster specifically said “family planning drugs.” Drugs plan families???

Peace,
Ed
 
To that end, they use people such as Matthew Shepard to prove their idiocies.
That’s right. I heard a priest on Catholic radio say that, at first, homosexuals wanted to be left alone, have their gay pride parades and so on, but it’s now clear; you must accept our sexual behavior, which we will display in open ways, and agree that we are right.

And they’ll keep getting donations from places where we buy things to pay for advertising what they want. I’m not interested in your sexual activities, or anybody’s else’s for that matter.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top