Christians: Would you be pro-gay if you weren't a christian?

[Audie]

In what way us homosexuality being "forced on" anyone?

[melanie]

Abel said

what I don't like about it today is the political correctness surrounding it and the way it is forced onto us against our will

For me this is getting back to the crux of what is campaigning our Christian agenda against the gay agenda, they are taking away our rights. Interestingly the same is said on the other 'side'.
This is really my main issue against the backlash and over-the-top rhetoric regarding the 'gay agenda' to takeaway the religious freedom and rights of Christians.
I have said previously but I feel I need to mention again, I do not condone homosexuality. I have never suggested nor maintained that it is within the will of God.
I have questioned our ability to see Christians struggling with homosexuality as equals and/or brothers and sisters but looking at this from the angle of what people have the right to do is in my opinion a different argument.
And perhaps in regards to the greater population a more significant argument in terms of a secular perspective.
The US and Australia are democracies.
Which gives us the freedom to govern ourselves freely within the law. Freedom of choice to choose our religion if any at all, to choose whether we stand by certain ideals, to choose the worldview we most aspire too. That freedom is firmly planted in freewill.
We cannot claim the freedom to practice religious freedom whilst inhabiting others this basic principle. I'm not saying we have to agree, or think it right, or natural or what we believe to be moral but people deserve to live according to how they see fit within the governing law.
That is freewill
There is a famous quote which I can't quite remember but it's something like 'I may not agree with you, but I'll fight tooth and nail for your right to voice it'
That is basically my premise and position on this whole argument.
Since when did we think Christianity had to be forced upon society?
the Old Testament writers and the New Testament authors were delivering instructions to the Jewish people and since Christ the believing body of Christ.
It's not our job to through policies and government to dicatate how others should live, forcing upon an unbelieving public our ideals and laws.
That's not the good news.
The good news is the message of Christ, of redemption and salvation. It's a message of relentless, unending love.

I think freedom of Religion is paramount. Our freedom to believe in Christ and hold all those tenants closely and have the right to live our lives accordingly is awesome.
But people have a freedom and right to not adhere to what we hold close. Religious freedom does not conflate to dictating to others what they must conform to, and dictating through legislation, laws that reflect a particular belief of ones persuasion on the entirety of the population.
Do I think it would be ideal?
Sure
But not on the back of millions that think otherwise.....

So it's not even about what I, or you or anyone thinks about homosexuality or whether I think it's right or wrong. What I'm not okay with is forcing my said beliefs on a population that may view this issue differently.
We cannot claim the freedom of choice, freedom of religion whilst denying others the same right. Millions choose to not believe.

Here in Australia gay marriage is not legal but that will change.
It matters not whether it's done by referendum which I think it will but regardless the writing is on the wall.
It will happen

Could that be a sign of the times?
Absolutely
Do I agree with it,
No
But the alternative of forcing others to adhere my personal ideals is not a society I want to live in, because people deserve the right to make decisions. I don't care how poorly, it's their God given right to do so.
A theocracy in the face of millions that don't agree is not democracy but sounds more like a dictatorship. Unless under the reign of Christ but what man cannot achieve God can.

[EssentialSacrifice]

The good news is the message of Christ, of redemption and salvation. It's a message of relentless, unending love.

doesn't it feel great knowing He has your back (see above) no matter how badly things get out of hand here. if love doesn't solve the problem then it's a problem that doesn't exist. 1 Peter 4:8 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13:13

It's a message of relentless, unending love. yes ma'm, that's the way i see it.

[Kurieuo]

Depriving a child of their natural parents is child abuse, even if one has the best intentions.

[melanie]

I'm not sure what you mean K, or how from my posts you have ascertained to such?
Or how allowing a rebellious society to do so through the gift of freedom of choice even negates to such?
We have very quickly and without explanation by your post flung ourselves into deprivation of natural parenting and child abuse?
The onus is on you to elaborate

[EssentialSacrifice]

Depriving a child of their natural parents is child abuse, even if one has the best intentions.

imo, this thought needs some legs ...

is this a possible definition for abortion ? they take the child from the natural parent because of the natural parent's best intentions ? the final and most sinister child abuse there is, is the child, deprived of their natural parents because of those same parent(s) best perceived intentions.... but best intentions for whom ?

also K, you should come with me on a midnight run ... i've talked with folks in the street who have children who have placed them in a home or with CWS. believe me, these parents have done the right thing, with the very best of intentions, in depriving their children of the abuse at the hands of others in the streets.

[melanie]

Depriving a child of their natural parents is child abuse, even if one has the best intentions.

K this hits very close to home for me.
Children everyday are being raised outside of their natural parents.
I know how you meant it, but if that argument is taken to its full fulfilment then the principal of children being raised outside of 'natural parenting' is really exactly what I am doing.
I am not their natural mother and my husband is neither their natural dad.
You may say but that's different, even praise us for our sacrifice but i know other foster careers who have done more and taken on more kids, who aren't even related to them and poured their finances, love and parental instincts on these kids.
But who are gay.
To call that child abuse is quite the leap, when that is what these kids have been saved from.

As a survivor of child abuse I know what it looks like, I have lived it. I know the scars it leaves and the neglect and abuse that defines it. I would turn myself inside out to prevent it.

Sometimes depriving children of their natural parents is a Godsend not abuse. Even if those parents don't fit our mound of what's acceptable,. The kids don't care, they just wanna be loved and safe.

[Kurieuo]

Anyone, who doesn't care much about "marraige" laws (and I put "marriage" in quotes, because naturally such isn't really possible), then they are also advocating child abuse. I will not mix my words or opinion on that. They're advocated taking away a child's right to their natural parents. There are natural consequences for that too, including an increase deterioration of the family unit and more fractured society.

Again, it really is child abuse plain and simple to deprive a child of one of their natural parents, unless absolutely necessary. Natural aside, it's also important to conform to that structure as much as possible. For a child to have both female and male caregivers because the two offer something unique and good to child development. Studies show this, though you won't hear it in the popular media.

Natural parents are less likely to abuse their children also.
I mean not long ago in Australia an ABC documentary did a nice little send up of two gay men in Cairns who had adopted a child from overseas. Not months later, and these two men were arrested for using the child in their sexual games.
Gay "marriage" is largely about sexuality, and such is an abnormal sight in nature. It often goes much beyond sexual preference to other unnatural perversions, and the gay person struggles with both.

When I was a child, I really liked this 20-something year old Mum and Dad had allowed to board in our home.
As part of the church, he'd come out as being gay and needed a place to stay. Yes, those same hate-filled churches you think mainly hate gay people and turn them away Melanie. We're talking quite conservative churches.
Us kids never knew, it wasn't even an issue.
He'd play with us kids in the yard, spin us around and the like.
Then he did the right thing, and confessed developing sexual feelings for my brother.
Sadly, obviously, that meant he couldn't stay with us any longer.

You know, sometimes a child doesn't get both their parents. One dies. And you have a single parent.
That doesn't mean the ideal situation isn't for children to have their natural parents.
Melanie, you can't point to dysfunction in order to justify dysfunction.
Kids do care about having a Mum and Dad. You should know that.
To be loved and safe, I know at least one of those is manure if not built upon truth.

In any case, I'm not going to debate the point.
It's 100% crystal clear to me. Often I don't draw a line, but I will stand with the child every time.
Some seem confused by my statements here. Perhaps this is the first you've even considered the children (which marriage is intended as the foundation for). In which case, here are some resources:
- http://australianmarriage.org/quartet-o ... speak-out/
- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/i ... ic/6693296 (one with Tony Jones interviewing Katy Faust)

[abelcainsbrother]

In what way us homosexuality being "forced on" anyone?

I was talking about same-sex marriages which was forced on America against its will.The American people did not vote it in.The Supreme Court just wrote new law that somehow we must now accept.This is the only way liberals can ever get their way and has always been the way like abortion - same thing the Supreme Court - the same now with same-sex marriages. The US constitution was shredded by liberals along time ago.

[crochet1949]

That is So true.

[Reyen]

If I may interject myself into this thread:
Sifting through these pages, I've seen a flaw: A person's gender is not dependent on what's between their legs. Gender is a learned behavior: the allocation of social preferences imposed on a person on the basis of their sex and the culture they reside. With that said, humans are the only creature on this planet that is capable of such a thing as "gender", at least to a cultural level.
I find it very disturbing that some people here claim that being raised by a homosexual couple is child abuse. Child abuse. How could a loving, caring couple abuse their child just by being of the same sex? An important question:
Does being raised by a gay couple harm the child directly, or does our current society create a discriminatory, hostile environment beyond the parents' control which harm their children?
There is ample evidence supporting the latter part of the question: bullying; unequal economic opportunity; current laws (I know a lesbian mother who had to adopt her partner's biological children for a whopping 3,000 dollars.); this list goes on and on.
Now, there are two ways to resolve this problem:
1.) Preventing homosexual couples from raising children (which is unconstitutional, at least in enforcement);
2.) Changing societal values (primarily, if not solely, defined by Christian/Islamic/Jewish values) such that there is no more discrimination, thereby removing the hostile environment.
As for the prior, that being raised by two men or two women harms the child insomuch that the child does not have a proper father/mother figure, is simply not true:
Counter Scenario: Two homosexual men adopt an orphan. One identifies as conforming primarily to the female gender; the other to the male gender. Now, given that gender and sex are largely independent of each other outside of social influence and conformity, the child has exposure to both genders (sex of the parents do not matter). But this scenario is only valid from the assumption that children need to have exposure to being raised by two genders. This article aids in evaluating this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000058/.
Children do not "need" to be raised a a female-gendered person and a male-gendered person.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Reyen,

I find it very disturbing that some people here claim that being raised by a homosexual couple is child abuse. Child abuse. How could a loving, caring couple abuse their child just by being of the same sex?

Like children of divorce (not a good family structure), there are a growing number of children now adults raised by homosexual parents who voice concerns. Should we then silence these people and only listen to one side?

• "When we institutionalize same-sex marriage... we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households. Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires." (‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit)

I take that you likely don't believe in any "norm". I do believe in a norm and think that nature intends things to be a certain way. And, I think this intention in nature is intuitive to us and able to be spotted by any rationally thinking person regardless of God belief.

Go against what nature intends, and you run the gauntlet of being bit by obvious and/or unseen consequences. Do what you please if it doesn't affect anyone else as then the natural consequences can fall upon your own head.

There is a reason why married couples shouldn't divorce quickly when they have children, because they're not the only ones affected right? My argument is quite simple and boils down to I do not believe it is right to force unnatural decisions upon a child which evidently are not intended by nature.

That covers a lot of bases, such as women artificially inseminating with donor sperm (possible consequences are children grow up wanting to know their father, no longer have a medical history, etc), parents who openly have other sexual partners and orgies, parents who divorce (as I think it obvious there is an intention for man and woman to come together which ought to form a stable foundation for raising children, therefore to divorce is to thwart this design in nature for humans), and then, there are homosexual couples.

That said, if a homosexual couple wants a child and includes the natural mother/father in the relationship, would you agree that it'd be much better for the child having access to both natural parents?

Therefore, to your complaint that you are "disturbed" then you ought to be disturbed too by these other categories of people I'm speaking out against. Since I can point to a foundational principle, clearly, I'm not whimsically discriminating against a person based upon who they are, but rather based upon natural principles they purposefully break, ignoring other innocents their actions involve in the process.

[Reyen]

"[E]vidently are not intended by nature..."

One of the founding premises you, Kurieuo, have in your argument is that homosexuality is unnatural. Is it? "Unnatural" is an incredibly ambiguous, and therefore very weak, word. If homosexuality was against nature, then the behavior would have been weeded out by natural selection long, long ago--but it hasn't. Why? If it is so bad, being sexually unfit to procreate, then why are there millions of LGBT people? Because there is some merit to it; some positive impact to humanity that would justify it existing in nature. Bad genes/traits/what-have-you present in humans that are not intended by nature, like genetic disorders and the like, are hundreds, or even thousands, of times rarer than being gay.

You failed to address one of my main points: Are children harmed by being raised by a same-sex couple, or is societal norms impairing the parents' ability to raise them to their fullest ability, despite their typical desire to do so?

Many children whom same-sex couples adopt are rejected by their biological parents, or neglected. Or, their biological parents could be dead. It would be far better to be raised by two fathers than in an orphanage or by foster care, yes?

[Kurieuo]

"[E]vidently are not intended by nature..." One of the founding premises you, Kurieuo, have in your argument is that homosexuality is unnatural. Is it?

Would you say a natural telos found in humanity supports two individuals of the same sex mating and bearing children?

That question isn't whether such is possible in the natural world, as many things are possible in the world that are nonetheless unnatural. Rather the question is whether the design of human beings that we find in nature fits with two same-sex individuals having children?

I think the answer to such a question should be obvious to all except someone caught in a fog.

[Kurieuo]

You failed to address one of my main points: Are children harmed by being raised by a same-sex couple, or is societal norms impairing the parents' ability to raise them to their fullest ability, despite their typical desire to do so?

I don't like dichotomies, too simplistic and prone to false dilemmas.
However, if you read my first response to you here, you should be able to deduce an answer.