Homosexuality and destroying faith

[believ3r]

I believe society's hatred of homosexuals is very wrong. Homosexuality is definitely a sin, but judging sinners is not our place. That is reserved for God, not us.

Society is also very hypocritical in this matter. If their disdain for homosexuality were truly religious in nature, then things like sexual relationships outside of a marriage would be just as shunned. Which, as anybody who's lived in modern society would know, pre-marital sex is definitely not shunned.

You get people to change through love, not through hatred. Homosexuality is a sin, and should be treated as one. Let them know that what they do is wrong, but hate the sin, not the sinner. It only gets stronger with hatred. No wonder things like gay pride parades happen. Treat them like an oppressed minority, and they will act like an oppressed minority.

[Kurieuo]

I believe society's hatred of homosexuals is very wrong. Homosexuality is definitely a sin, but judging sinners is not our place. That is reserved for God, not us.

Society is also very hypocritical in this matter. If their disdain for homosexuality were truly religious in nature, then things like sexual relationships outside of a marriage would be just as shunned. Which, as anybody who's lived in modern society would know, pre-marital sex is definitely not shunned.

You get people to change through love, not through hatred. Homosexuality is a sin, and should be treated as one. Let them know that what they do is wrong, but hate the sin, not the sinner. It only gets stronger with hatred. No wonder things like gay pride parades happen. Treat them like an oppressed minority, and they will act like an oppressed minority.

The pastor of my church recently did a sermon re: homosexuality. Was very well thought out.

You may need to install a plugin, but I'm sure you will find it an interesting listen: http://gatewaybap.com/DesktopModules/Or ... &newsid=85

[Pielover]

See here, here, and here. If we can believe these people, homosexuality (both same-sex attraction and behavior) is horrible for the homosexual. A rebuke of homosexuality can be as much out of love (of course not the erotic kind) as concern for sin. Though of course homosexual activity is clearly a sin, like many other behaviors. We have established that here.

The second and third links are broken so I can't address those arguments. The first link is fairly ridiculous, however. There are three facts that the website presents: gays have a lower life expectancy, the FDA
doesn't let gays donate blood, and gays are more likely to commit suicide and such. Fact 1 can be attributed to hate crimes and incredibly high suicide rates, so the issue isn't actually with gay people, it is with the society. Fact 2 is true, from what I've read. I've also read that the main causes of this increased risk for diseases come from lack of caution when it comes to sex-- there is no magical hormone in a gay person's body that attracts HIV. The last fact is also caused by society, not by being gay. People that are gay are often bullied, so naturally more gays will attempt suicide. That's why you ( I'm not actually sure if you do, but I do) hear about gay outreach groups, but not straight outreach groups. Thus, the arguments made in the first paragraph are null and void.

And look at other articles from some of these places (or any ex-gay ministry, for that matter). Ex-gays claim that homosexual activity only makes things worse.

I'd like to see one of these articles. You claim to have evidence. Let's see it, please.

"Gay theology" may be as unloving as homophobia, ironically.

Basically a restatement of the previous two sentences.

[SnowDrops]

i don't condone homosexuality, but i believe that it is a behavior that is attacked far out of proportion. if all sin is equal, then why is everyone attacking homosexuality so passionately? what about every other sin? what about liars, and thieves, and murderers, and rapists, and adulterers? it's one sin they are committing just like every other sin. i don't see people saying, you don't have the right to do such and such because you're a liar or an adulterer, or whatever. we should introduce them to Christ because Jesus loves them and wants them saved, not because they are homosexuals. everyone's a sinner...everyone on this forum, everyone everywhere.

to that!
Homosexuality is a sin, just like every other sin that you have done. No need to deem it worse than the rest of them.

[SnowDrops]

Actions are usually sinful not thoughts, one exception as you mentioned is adulturey. However, this is a heterosexual sin that involves at least one of the party involved being married. "If man lusts after a woman then he has comitted adulturey with her in his heart". Well he cant commit adulturey if he or/and the woman he's lusting after isnt married!

What? 1)Adultery is sex with someone you're not married to (last sentence) That's ridiculous. 2)Jesus specifically said that if you have a desire to do something, it is the same as though you would have done it (hate, lust, etc).

[SnowDrops]

I also didn't say that this was entirely genetically determined, but it is certainly influenced by genetics.

Where'd you hear this?

There is also the question of whether SSB could be banned at all, when we don't ban consensual premarital sex or adultery.

Same sex behavior has never been entirely banned. Sodomy was forbidden in some Rocky Mountain, Midwestern, and southern states, but homosexuals were permitted to engage in other forms of intimacy.

Here's why the Supreme Court's invalidation of any state prohibitions on sodomy was a bad idea...


Texas sodomy and the marriage amendment
Armstrong Williams
July 11, 2003

Does the right to pursue one's individual morality transcend traditional social values? Is the state barred from enforcing the moral consensus? More to the point, is this a land where pornography, drugs and prostitution should be unregulated, where women should be allowed to have abortions at any time during their pregnancy, where same-sex couples can join together in marriage? If you accept that the state cannot enforce moral codes of conduct, then the answer to all of these questions is yes.

This point was not lost on Justice Antonin Scalia whose dissenting opinion accused the court of using judicial fiat to shape civil institutions - such as marriage - that have traditionally been regulated by the state. Scalia accused the majority of signing on to the homosexual agenda and effectively choosing sides in the culture war. He warned that the majority opinion could lay the legal framework for questioning all state laws that punish moral indiscretions, such as bigamy, incest and prostitution.

In short, Scalia made the profound observation that since state law creates our civil institutions, they ought to be managed by the state; excepting action that violates the Constitution. The founding fathers had very definite ideas on such matters. When they created this country, the founding fathers envisioned the state government as arbiters of much of our daily existence. The benefits of an extensive state government were straightforward: the state government would be more directly accountable to the concerns of the citizens and, therefore, better able to ensure the democratic process. This would provide a counterbalance to the federal government and help guard against the tyranny that our founding fathers so feared.

By stepping in and dictating how the state government regulates its civil institutions, the unelected, unaccountable Supreme Court justices have trampled on the democratic process. Rather than allowing the citizens of this country to carry out a debate on the morality of same-sex unions and to decide these issues for themselves, the Supreme Court has dictated the outcome.

We need not accept this rather tyrannical intrusion. There are, in fact, some very practical things our democratically-elected representatives can do to help ensure that the citizens of this country continue to have a voice in the culture war that is raging around them. For starters, they can lend public support to Rep. Musgrave's proposal to define marriage as a union between man and woman.

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has already done this, telling ABC's "This Week" program, "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what (has) traditionally in our Western values been defined as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."

For this very common sense statement Frist is being assaulted by the gay rights Cosa Nostra. They accuse Frist of gay bashing, but they miss the point. Frist's remarks were not about anger or spite. They were simply about recognizing the social and sacred function of marriage between man and woman. This is the bedrock of our society. On this point, we must maintain our resolve. Because it seems that those men - and woman - who are the most vigorous defenders of this country's Constitution, the Supreme Court justices, have no intention of defending the state's rights to manage civil institutions. The court remains hamstrung by the unwavering belief that the state cannot punish that which it deems immoral.

It is this same stance that may lead the court to revisit all state laws that punish acts such as bigamy, incest and prostitution. It would be nice if the Supreme Court could find some way to consider the democratic process they purport to defend. Instead, they have chosen a far more precarious position. They are, at once, the most visible protectors of our Constitution, and a passive destroyer of our society.


Cal Thomas
March 27, 2003
Law, liberty, and license

While the war overseas continues, so does another war at home.

The latest battle in the culture war was fought Wednesday (March 26) on Supreme Court turf. At issue is a Texas "homosexual conduct law" that forbids sodomy.

Before the Supreme Court rules that the Founders had the right to practice sodomy in mind when they wrote the Constitution, we should ask where the chipping away at law and morality is leading us.

Once sodomy is made legal, what's next? How about polygamy? As we have been reminded in the case of Utah's Elizabeth Smart and her abduction by a practicing polygamist, there are people who believe they have a right to that sexual and relational preference. If sodomy is legalized, can polygamists then ask the Supreme Court to end the prohibition against their "right" to engage in sex with and "marry" multiple partners? If not, on what legal grounds will they be refused? To listen to the attorneys for the Texas men seeking redress of their sexual grievances, a decision to strike down the Texas anti-sodomy law should be based on "changing times" and public opinion polls.

Pedophiles who wish to have sex with children assert they should not be prohibited from doing so as long as the child "consents." There is a movement within psychiatry to have pedophilia removed from the shrinking list of "deviant" behaviors, as was done with homosexual practice. What is to prohibit them from doing so if pedophiles testify their fulfillment is being denied, and they feel discriminated against for practicing what, to them, is normal? Since truth is now in the mind and genitalia of the beholder, how can anyone with a different mindset (or different genitalia) tell anyone else how and when to engage in any sexual act in which he or she might wish to indulge?

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal on March 26 in which he argued in favor of the "gay rights" position opposing the Texas law. Simpson said "the proper Republican vision of equality" is "live and let live." Simpson thinks that laws against homosexual practice "are contrary to American values protecting personal liberty .."

What Simpson argues for is not liberty but license. There is a profound difference between the traditional understanding and definition of liberty and that of license. Liberty is presumed to depend on personal responsibility. I like one of the Webster definitions of liberty: "permission to go freely within specified limits." In contrast, "license" can mean "disregard for rules of personal conduct: licentiousness."

Several conservative groups filed amicus briefs supporting the law. The one by the Family Research Council sums up the major arguments in favor: "(1) The law has historically respected and protected the marital union and has distinguished it from acts outside that union, such as fornication, adultery and sodomy. To extend to homosexual sodomy the same protections given to the marital union would undermine the definition of marriage and could lead to homosexual marriage; (2) In order to recognize a non-textual constitutional right to sodomy, the Court must find sodomy to be deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. In fact, laws banning sodomy are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition; (3) Protecting marriage, upholding morality and seeking to ensure public health is more than enough for Texas to prove it has a 'rational basis' behind its law .."

The law is supposed to set parameters for a society. In the past, the law has been viewed as something that flowed from a Law-giver, outside of the reach of humankind to create or manipulate. But since humanity now sees itself as the law-maker (the breaking of that ancient Law is now celebrated in personal behavior and encouraged in film, in magazines and on TV), who is to say whose morality, if any morality, should prevail? Having made "choice" the ultimate determiner for abortion, it would not surprise me if the Supreme Court cites the so-called "right to privacy" in this case and replays its mistake in Roe vs. Wade, which struck down another Texas law.

Adoption laws in some states now give children to same-sex couples. If the Texas sodomy law falls, "marriage" will be redefined and the demise of the human family will be complete.

All this text comes down to one thing: either there is absolute right and wrong or there is absolute freedom and liberty. But absolute freedom = absolute chaos. All this confusion and these arguments come from a simple flaw in our thinking: We cannot have freedom to live our lives as we want to and everyone can\t be right, because that would result in horror. Our whole crime system violates complete liberty and freedom. In the end, the idea of laws not necessarily been consistent with morality and ''let and let live'' results in there being no such thing as right and wrong. The Supreme Court must stop leaning on the First Amendment. With their interpetation of it murder is also ''free speech'' after all.

[SnowDrops]

I find most christians total hypocrites that need someone to pick on and use the bible to do so......YET they get divorced as much as anyone that is not christian and REMARRY which is totally sinning IF you believe what the bible says...Talk about hypocrites....so essentially christians that remarry are committing adultery every yes EVERY day of their life there after...yet they constantly point to the bible to brow beat gays.....this is one of many reasons why it is hard to respect christians....they use the bible when it convenient. and they never answer you on such issues

Such Christians are rather disappointing, but not all of them are that way. The hypocrites are just the loudest ones.

[SnowDrops]

To all involved in this, let me make this as simple as possible. Marriage is a God given union for one man of God and one woman of God to be united in Holy Matrimony. Period, not some thing that we can just twist and ruin and give to who ever wants it. If there are issues with those who have some government man invented thing about rights and whatever, good for them they can have their rights, but God does not recognize such unions. You want a union like that, fine whatever, but don't call it the God established Christian Union of Marriage, because that is not what it is. Hows this sound, why not remove all the legal stuff from this, if you get married to just take away all rights that you would get as a benefit, what then? Would you be fighting so hard then? Would you care then? What if all that came with it was that you had made a contract with God to be faithful to this person and have them be your one and only? Then would you really want to have marriage for all? God made marriage and it is His, and no one has the right to take it. A true Christian Nation would only Marry a Christian man with a Christian woman. So let's do what I said above, take out all the rights, just pretend that you don't need to be married to have them, then would this be such a big deal still? Would you still push push push until the Church gave you what you wanted? I don't think you would. It is a rights issue and if you want some government contract saying that you have certain rights then so be it, but it is not by definition Marriage. Though like I said above I think we should just get rid of the rights, and if we did I am willing to bet that all the fighting over it would cease because they would have nothing to gain.
This is my faith, this is what I believe, and nothing you say can make me back down from it. I stand for God and what He put forth in His Word. You cannot tell me to accept your ideas on my faith, nor will I ever.

We, by our own bias, are making this CIVIL issue into a civil/religious issue when we should acknowledge that Church and State should stay separate

I strongly disagree with you on this, a country without God is doomed. I believe that we should have God in the government, why? Look at what happened when we took His Word out of the schools. Teen Pregnancies went up, rapes and murders, thefts, morality went way down, and things got a lot worse. We need to put God in all we do, and that includes our government.
Peace

I think what you are saying is you don't want homosexuals to claim they have a union under God. I agree. But for the most part they don't. And to imply that marriage should be only under God and some of your other claims, well = Christian Theocracy. America is not a Christian Theocracy and I'm not sure we're quite ready for that. Theocracys usually end in disaster, even if the underlying moral code is good. America should become a theocracy when Jesus Christ runs for president. No seriously. But I don't think that will happen.