What does that have to do with laws regarding homosexuality in this country?
And if it did it would hurt you… how, exactly?
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Depends what state they’re in …
Then I don’t believe you live on the same planet that I do.
You can discriminate against someone without killing them, y’know?
What countries are those? I’d wager dollars to donuts that more people were killed because they WERE NOT Christian than because they were.
I am the user formerly known as puffington.
Adam wrote:
Are you sure you don’t want to re-think that one, Adam? Wow, and I thought I was conservative.
So, according to you, I shouldn’t have any freedom? I should be locked up for just having same-sex attraction? Heaven forbid you ever get elected President, if so!
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Maybe Adam meant special rights instead of freedom.
Oh boy: Arg for President! 
Arg, I know that as Christians, we are under Grace and not the law. But still does the 10 commandments not apply to us as well?
There is no where in the 10 commandments that God says anything about homosexuality. (Check out Exodus 20) He did not have Moses bring a specific law about it. Why? Maybe it is not that important to him.
The homosexual lifestyle is not for me (I am happily married to a wonderful woman). Maybe homosexuallity is a sin, but I have come to realize that what is a sin for me is not necessarily a sin for another. There are sins that are sins for everyone, but not all of them are in this category IMHO.
There are a lot more important areas that we Christians should spend our time worrying about than how someone lives their life.
Jeffery
Strtrkk777, A sin is a sin is a sin. I don’t think God amended the Bible.
No, we shouldn’t tell others how to live their lives; but we should tell them what sin is. And It IS a sin.
But should we legislate or discriminate against them in the United States, where church and state are supposed to be seperate? I don’t mind you telling me I’m committing sin and going to Hell until you’re blue in the face, but please treat me equally under the law, thankyouverymuch.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
What about that New Testament thingy? Oh wait, that was written by men, not God…
What “special rights” are gays asking for? Extra electoral votes? Reserved parking spaces? Free lifetime passes to Disneyland?
How the hell does equal treatment under the law constitute “special rights”?
In how many threads must this point appear? The United States operates as a secular democracy. To argue that any behavior should be punished because it does not agree with your religion is to directly argue for a theocracy.
I have never heard a rational argument from secular principles that homosexuality poses any threat whatsever to anyone’s else’s physical, psychological, or financial well-being.
I have confidence that history will judge homophobes of today as harshly as the rascists and anti-semites of yesterday.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
I cannot view any new posts in this thread. It says there are 30 posts, but I can only see 19.
Before I respond in full, let me quickly say:
Slythe: I know. I agree. I realize many have done evil in the “name of God.”
Weirddave: Just because Jesus does not mention something, does not mean we shouldn’t follow it. The Bible is to be taken as a whole. Do we ignore the Ten Commandements because the are in the OT?
The Ryan: Everyone has free will.
To all: I do not believe the government should force people to act a certain way. It is not the governments job to decide what people do in the privacy of their own homes. (Obviously, this goes to a certain extent)
What I do believe is that the government should not allow gay, or lesbian marriage. And, I do not know if there are laws against this, but I do not believe that gay, and more logically, lesbian couples, should be allowed to adopt children.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
What Adam said.
Thank you ARG. I agree 100%. 
As a Christian, my (long) take on this issue is:
- Being homosexual is not a “Heaven or Hell” proposition, nor is it a sin.
- Unwanted thoughts about sexual relations with a same sex partner are defined as “temptation”. Temptation is never a sin.
- Conscious thoughts about sexual relations with a same sex partner are defined as “lust”. Lust is a sin. (This applies to heterosexuals as well.)
- Converting thoughts about sexual relations with a same sex partner into actions I’ll define as “homosexual offense”. Homosexual offense is a sin.
I believe premise 4 on two levels based on the following New Testament verses:
Homosexuality condemned in and of itself:
The phrase “homosexual offenders” is from the NIV. Other translations use “effiminate” or “men who make themselves women”. Pretty clear, at least to me, that the author is speaking of same sex relations. There is also:
Here we see that the verses apply to both men and women. These NT verses echo the OT laws against homosexual offenses, therefore, those particular laws still apply.
Level 2- The Bible also condemns all sex outside of marriage. What is the Biblical definition of marriage? One man to one woman, as shown in Matthew 19:4-6:
These words were spoken by Jesus, echoing Genesis 2:24, and clearly indicate that spritual marriage is a one male, one female proposition. There is no Biblical allowance for same sex marriage, therfore no Biblical allowance for same gender sex.
Back to the OP. Why shouldn’t peaceful honest people be able pursue their own happiness in their own way? They absolutely should. No one should face discrimination or persecution for being homosexual. OTOH, do not expect me to condone or support any behaviour which goes against my moral code or religious beliefs. Would I vote for same sex marriage laws? No, it goes against what I believe, and I vote my concience. Would I call for the end of the world if such a law was passed? No, it is not my job to convert anyone, only to inform as many as I can.
I guess the bottom line is that the government can make me observe any law (or punish me for disobedience), but they cannot make anything right by passing a law.
Question for you, ARG: It does say in the Bible “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.
Seeing that you take the holy scriptures literally and completely, do you advocate putting me to death for my religious beliefs. You see, I am a Witch and a Pagan. Your Bible says that I should die for that.
If you disagree with that direct order, how is it different from any of the other laws laid out in the Bible? If you agree with it, how can you present yourself as good and moral person, seeing that you advocate murdering me - a person who has done you no wrong?
If you really want some kind of enlightened view on homosexuality and the Bible, may I recommend Walter Wink’s article:
http://christianity.miningco.com/culture/christianity/library/weekly/blwink.htm
Someone define “ethical” for me and let’s see if homosexuality fits.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Esprix
For this thread, I would define “ethical” (in the sense of “good ethics”) to be noncoercion, or else self-interest, and to be applied as a categorical imperative.
Arg
Judgement is one of those things that God reserves unto Himself. Do you honestly believe that, when God judges a man, He will query you for your advice?
Have you settled your debts with God already? Are you a sinless man with a handful of stones, or merely a usurper, claiming God’s annointing for your own passionate crusade against the specks in your brothers’ eyes?
Can it be that you misunderstood our Lord when He said, “By whatever measure you judge others, that is the measure by which you shall be judged.”? Do you see this and go, “Oh, wow! I’m not gay, so I can condemn homosexuality!” Did you think that God judges us by the measure of our sin? If He did, we all would perish. Not one of us is sinless. God judges us by the measure of our faith — the faith He gave to us to nurture as stewards.
Were we to look upon His holy face, we would be unbearably ashamed. But not ashamed about our neighbors, whose ways we hate, but ashamed about ourselves, the place the hatred comes from. If you think you will stand before God, beside another sinner, and glow a bit brighter than he, you are mistaken.
Turn your attention away from your own small understanding, and turn your attention back to the Savior Who prepares a place in His kingdom for those who love.
Only for those who love, and all those who do, including atheists and homosexuals. True love comes from the same place God put our faith — it comes from our hearts. You cannot love a man and hate his happiness. A love professed by the mind, and not the heart, is an empty love, as worthless as lust. Lust might propogate the species, but only love will propogate the Spirit.
Oh, my God, have mercy!
First, the theology of the situation: Ignoring Helminiak, Spong, and a handful of other theologians who can see some situations where homosexual practice can be moral (and it would be the decent thing of the religious rightists to examine what they have to say – not necessarily buy it, but at least read it), then it becomes the consensus of the scriptural quotations that homosexual practice (not “offense” – that begs the question by presupposing the answer) is a sin. Homosexual orientation is not, for the same reason as failing to lay hands on the sick and heal them is not – while it may be "contrary to God’s plan, it is a part of the human condition that is not subject to change (at least within any reasonable time frame or with other than extended concentrated effort) and hence is not sinful. Anyone who has literally moved mountains by faith recently is welcome to disagree with that, if they choose. (That also was a commandment of sorts.)
Now, Doctor Jackson, I am sorry to disagree with you on this, but extracting a proof text against homosexuality from the first chapter of Romans is something that thoroughly ticks me off (and if we were in the Pit, I’d make that a bit stronger). If you read that in context, not interpreting but just looking at Paul’s words, you will see that (a) lusting after other men (or women, for the female contingent) is a punishment for their having turned away from God to pursue worldly pleasures, and (b) Romans 2:1 follows this up with “So also were many of you.” (I.e., the Roman church included many people who had been through this worldly 1st century party scene.) In essence, what Paul says in Romans 1:24-27 is that when your appetites are jaded, you “try out” trendy homosexuality as a fresh vice-stimulant to your libido, to your perdition. Any big-city natives who noticed some of that going on the last couple of decades? “Being gay is in” ring a bell?
I Corinthians 6 defines people who are gratifying worldly appetites instead of following God. I’ve seen variant phrasings on that word which Dr. Jackson renders “homosexual offenders.” One was “effeminate”; another was interpreted as “homosexual aggressors.” I would read this as people who promiscuously use others of the same for their sexual pleasure.
Paul does not in any place deal with the idea of two homosexual people in a committed love relationship. It is impossible to read into his texts whether these are condemned along with trendy gay-wannabes and party boys, or are classed differently. Please feel free to cite Scripture to prove your point, but do not take a verse out of context and wave it as though it is proof positive of your personal attitude simply because it happens to be a Bible verse. Paul said something to Timothy about dividing scripture rightly that might be totally appropriate to your concerns. (And I am perfectly well aware that I can be just as obnoxious about proof-texting in support of my attitudes – and am trying hard to avoid it, a practice I commend to you.)
Okay, Jesus says that in marriage, a man and a woman become one, and for that reason man should not enforce divorce on them. And this proves what about gays wishing to marry? Jesus is condemning divorce, not gay marriage, in this passage. If you feel free to interpret this passage out of context, I shall expect you to take that post in MPSIMS where somebody tells of taking their children out to watch the sun set and prove from this that this person holds a geocentric theory of astronomy.
Now, down to the rock bottom point of this whole thread. Lib. originally wanted to discuss the ethics of homosexuality. We’ve gone in several directions with it. The question of what the Christian church thinks about homosexuality, and the Biblical texts thereon, has come up. That certainly has a bearing on ethics – if you’re Christian. Then we got into laws regarding homosexual behavior, gay marriage, adoption, Matthew Shepard’s death, and whatnot.
Adam said:
Right. I couldn’t agree more. I can think of one good, strong, moral, ethical God fearing Congressman whom I believe has the right handle on how to write laws in the United States of America. But somehow I don’t think Adam was referring to Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank when he wrote that.
Adam, too freaking many people in a position of power believe that what their religious beliefs tell them is right for them is what they need to enforce on everybody else. And though I am a Christian, I am absolutely certain that enforcing the conservative Christian moral code on everybody else is precisely the road to perdition. Remember what you yourself said about the Antichrist in the Second Coming thread? Guess what? He is now, or will be, wearing a three-piece suit and standing in a pulpit preaching hatred of others in the name of Jesus. And, from the sound of your post, you are buying into his filth. In the name of our Lord, I call you to repent, to avoid the judgment of others, and remember that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that it is only through his grace, freely extended to all, that we are saved. And Adam, you and I need that grace precisely as much as Esprix and Otto. I am dead serious about this paragraph: I see only evil coming from people investing their personal beliefs with divine authority and producing laws enforcing them on those grounds.
Now, Rose: When you see sin, you have every right to shout from the rooftops that you believe that it is a sin. And you need to show the sinner wherein lies his sin. But until God makes you Queen of the Earth, you have no right to legislate against that behavior on account of your beliefs. They may back up what you feel is appropriate to enforce as a proper secular penal code, and you may write your state representatives saying so, lobby for such laws, and so on. But your beliefs are not the proper grounds for writing laws governing everyone, including those who do not share them.
As for gay marriages, we’ve done that to death. I do not see where the validity or invalidity of a civil marriage says anything about a church ceremony and its importance. And for the life of me, I cannot see where allowing two gays to marry is going to bring God’s wrath down on America. (Hmm…should we hold off and see if He blasts Canada first? :D)
As for adoption, which has been brought up and mostly never answered before, the one thoughtful post on the topic is worth repeating (apologies to whoever posted it; the content but not the poster sticks in my mind): A same-sex individual or couple with a commitment to the child’s welfare is far better than nobody or than someone with no desire to care for the child. It is very desirable that a secondary caregiver of the opposite sex than the parent(s) be a regular part of the child’s life for those things small children get from a person of that sex. But that is normally no problem in such relationships. Most two-man parenting teams have mothers who are overjoyed to be grandmothers to the adoptive children, as well as female friends, sisters, and such. I would presume the same to be true of Lesbian couples and their male friends and relatives.
Unless they happen to be pedophiles (apparently a vanishingly small proportion of gays, and something carefully screened out in any prospective adoption, regardless of whether the parent-to-be is gay, straight, bi, black, white, red, atheist, Christian, Jew, or a green polka-dotted Cthulhu devotee with kinky habits involving Nestle crunch bars and the necks of giraffes), I cannot see where the sex lives of the parents, kept clear of the children, have any bearing on their fitness to adopt.
N
Why not? Because they are sinners? Then I assume that all sinners should not be allowed to adopt children. Uh oh … I see a logical problem coming … we are all sinners. Therefore, nobody should be allowed to adopt children.
So, are you saying their is a hierarchy of sin, and that the “minor” sins you do shouldn’t prevent you from adopting, but the “el numero uno” sin of homosexuality should prevent such a person from adopting. Why do you have such a lofty opinion of yourself and the relative unimportance of your sin?
their = there