The Personal Side of the Homosexual Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I cannot comprehend this focus on homosexuality. My theory is that it is the easiest sin to despise, granting you the illusion of being holy as opposed to the gays.
Where are the threads that condemn adultery, ridiculous divorce rates (evangelicals being among the absolute worst when it comes to divorce), greed, aggression, hatred, pride and failing to care for the poor and the least of us?

That is what I see being taught in the sermon of the mount, yet no one seems to think that is worth commenting on or making threads about. Much easier to hate on the sin that does not affect us personally. Maybe, just maybe, we should focus on our own sin instead of spending such an absurd amount of time and energy focusing on the sins of others. Is homosexuality really what sticks out as the worst problem in the world today?

That is a good point, adultery is forbidden enough to be a Commandment, yet many more have committed adultery, are sorry, have repented, are free of the sin, through Christ, yet are reluctant to talk about?

Homosexuality is the sins of the other, the outsider, and is often perpetual.

Beyond that, not to suggest it is more important, homosexuality has more a personal affect. I mean having neighbours who may have committed adultery, or on the face, are divorced, they do not bother me; however, having homosexual neighbours would bother me.
It is not only a religious issue, but as well, a social issue.

It does little good to argue against homosexuality, with committed homosexuals on the bases of religion, yet does much good opposing the rights of marriage.

The reason, committed homosexuals are often irreligious, or opposed to religion, yet they have to understand many people find them distastful, or downright disgusting, not only on religious bases, but on a personal bases, and that is the topic of this thread.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
It's not OK to be gay.

I agree, on the other hand, I am not going to San Francisco with a sign stating, " It's not OK to be gay"

I agree, fully it is a sin, fully agree with that! At the same time, I know I dislike them beyond the fact their lifestyle is against my religion, or code of ethics. I find them odd, queer, and I admit this.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Yes, and on this side of the grave...our judgement is not so we can point fingers and appease ourselves with self righteousness like so many do here. It is for the purpose of calling them to repentance. Showing them their sin, so they realize that is what it is, then showing them there is freedom and forgiveness in Christ.
If all you find wrong with homosexuals is the religious violation, fine, maybe admirable. but I cannot claim the same. I do not like them outside of their behaviour being sinful, and immoral.

That is I started the thread, as I see it all the faithful may hold homosexuality as sinful, yet I feel many also find homosexuality personally undesirable.

I do not dwell on the subject; my way to deal with it is to dismiss them as perverted kooks who need to live somewhere else. On the other hand, I do not wish them harm, they are people, and I think have human rights; when it comes down to the truth, I do not like them, yet will not use my faith as the only rational. I never use my faith as a rational.
 

PureX

Well-known member
The problem with a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as sin is that real life doesn't reflect that kind of blanket righteousness. It's not always a sin to kill someone. It's not always a sin to take something away from someone else. It's not always a sin to deny someone information, or mislead them. And it's not always a sin to engage in sexual activity with someone. All of these things are sins, or not, depending on the spirit with which they are being engaged in.

Sadly, however, such absolute proclamations regarding the sinfulness of others makes for a very easy excuse to express one's own innate bigotry and need to feel morally righteous. And so this bias against homosexuals persists among those many Christians who feel the need to puff themselves up at the expense of others.
 

Buzzword

New member
The problem with a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as sin is that real life doesn't reflect that kind of blanket righteousness. It's not always a sin to kill someone. It's not always a sin to take something away from someone else. It's not always a sin to deny someone information, or mislead them. And it's not always a sin to engage in sexual activity with someone. All of these things are sins, or not, depending on the spirit with which they are being engaged in.

Small-minded extremists find this kind of nuanced position intolerable, because it forbids them from being able to use any prefabricated responses.

Sadly, however, such absolute proclamations regarding the sinfulness of others makes for a very easy excuse to express one's own innate bigotry and need to feel morally righteous. And so this bias against homosexuals persists among those many Christians who feel the need to puff themselves up at the expense of others.

This is the entirety of the issue, along with their need to control the private lives of others (...in order to feel superior).
 

moparguy

New member
We all know the theological/ scriptural reasons why homosexuality is sinful; it would be repetitious to start another thread on that topic from that perspective.

What about your own personal feelings?

That it's basically arrogant and breeds destruction because it's anarchistic.

To the extent that a person tries to justify it to themselves and to others, they have to proportionally squash their conscience.

Those who have been truly given over to that mindset, who seem to appear in the leadership of that movement, appear to have quite thoroughly seared their conscience. I am thankful that it seems there appear to be very few such; and annoyed that people don't seem to recognize the basic irrationality and destructiveness of these few people.

I suspect the below may mirror the way no small few of those who are on the leading edge of the leadership of this movement feel and think.

And you'll note, I'm not saying it's their agenda and I quoted the first line - as if saying this is just how you think and feel somehow lessens the monstrosity of it one iota.

Why even post it? Besides it being a part of the public domain, it's illustrative of a side of the insanely popular moral anarchist movement going on right now. It also fits quite well in the historical stream that this movement is in - this is nothing new; witness what happened under emperor hadrian, and pederasty, and all of those things, even in ancient days.

GAY REVOLUTIONARY

by Michael Swift

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0017/EN/EN_Gay_Revolutionary.htm

Explosive? Absolutely.

Do I believe it represents the way all of the sexual anarchists think? No.

Do I believe it's the "homosexual agenda" ..? No. That roadmap is elsewhere, in the book, "after the ball."

I also believe that it is possible to be redeemed out of such: that there is a message of hope for those who wish to get out.

1 Corinthians 6:7-20
7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

12“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.c

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Beyond that, not to suggest it is more important, homosexuality has more a personal affect. I mean having neighbours who may have committed adultery, or on the face, are divorced, they do not bother me; however, having homosexual neighbours would bother me.
It is not only a religious issue, but as well, a social issue.

While I agree with you here, I think this is relative. I would feel "more" comfortable with a homosexual couple as neighbors than I would with a murderer or child molester as a neighbor. Of course people like ACW think being homosexual necessarily means that person is also a child molester and murderer as well. I can't say I agree that all homosexuals are murderers and child molesters. Though I have met quite a few that could definitely be categorized as child molesters.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Small-minded extremists find this kind of nuanced position intolerable, because it forbids them from being able to use any prefabricated responses.



This is the entirety of the issue, along with their need to control the private lives of others (...in order to feel superior).

Not sure about the fist part of what you said. I will address the find others lives, in fact, I rather find it helpful some help control mine.

Feeling superior, perhaps, on some ways, but in daily life I do not try to get that message across, and it is many limited to business, not personal life.

If you apply it to the topic,. homosexuality, yes, one may argue. I think, being heterosexual is more natural, more moral and superior.

I think you have to consider, would you rather receive a lie, or the truth where you disagree? What good is communicating without truth?

I do not like controlling people either, those who insist you live their way.
 

GFR7

New member
The problem with a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as sin is that real life doesn't reflect that kind of blanket righteousness. It's not always a sin to kill someone. It's not always a sin to take something away from someone else. It's not always a sin to deny someone information, or mislead them. And it's not always a sin to engage in sexual activity with someone. All of these things are sins, or not, depending on the spirit with which they are being engaged in.

Sadly, however, such absolute proclamations regarding the sinfulness of others makes for a very easy excuse to express one's own innate bigotry and need to feel morally righteous. And so this bias against homosexuals persists among those many Christians who feel the need to puff themselves up at the expense of others.
I think Kierkegaard would agree with you.
 

Quincy

New member
I believe in covenant theology. This means that the Bible is viewed as portraying two covenants. The *covenant of works* in Adam and the *covenant of grace* in Christ. We are not bound by the Jewish laws which are found in the OT, things like the food laws, ceremonial laws, etc. it is in that sense that we are no longer under law, but under grace. The Scriptures reveal Jesus to us and tell us how we should live lives that are pleasing to God.

Where I live, Christians are mostly Restorationists, (what some would call Cambellites) so I'm familiar with the two covenant system. While they use covenant theology to preach a doctrine of autonomy and exclusivity, they are very charitable and helpful to people regardless of their faith or even lifestyle, in some cases so I get what you're saying.

If anything, being divisive and hateful accomplishes nothing except for feeding an unhealthy ego :e4e: .
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
While I agree with you here, I think this is relative. I would feel "more" comfortable with a homosexual couple as neighbors than I would with a murderer or child molester as a neighbor. Of course people like ACW think being homosexual necessarily means that person is also a child molester and murderer as well. I can't say I agree that all homosexuals are murderers and child molesters. Though I have met quite a few that could definitely be categorized as child molesters.

The murder/ child molester is pretty extreme?

A picture helps:

Your neighbour is divorced, who lives with another family, each have a few kids, like the Brady bunch. Their children are well behaved, the couple are not married, but live the same as married, The city of Ladue, did not like them living there because they were not married. City officials told them, " get married, or get out." They did not want to marry, and the city was able to have then evicted!
You can find this online

Now same situation, but married, yet this time there is no parental discipline, the kids are making noise all night and when I complain, they speak to me in foul language and the patents do nothing.
This is a fiction.
I would rather live next to the Ladue couple, even though I think they live in sin, than the family of intolerable noisy brats.

A couple live in my neighbourhood, they are loose swingers. They have all kind of young adults in and out, coming and going all the time. I would not like them living near me.

OK, a homosexual couple have the same, the difference is all are same sex. I do not see that part, bit they wear scathingly clothes, often effeminate and act such, but what they do as far as disruption os about the same. I would dislike them more because I do not like seeing effeminate men parade around like loose women!
Two fictional accounts, but clearly illustrate my dislike of homosexuals. Why lie about it? No, I do not think they are child molesters, nor do I think they are criminals, to me they are upsetting, like the first case, and more disgusting.

One last example:
There is a home where two men live, they have few guests. A neighbour informs me, they are a couple of queers. They never bother me; I do not see then often, they keep their house nice. I am asked to sign a petition to have them evicted, as in the Ladue case, I would not like to be involved, they are not bothering me.

What do you think?
 

Quincy

New member
And because humanity in general no longer lives in a tribal society, there is no reason to constantly procreate.
Thus heterosexual married couples (like myself and my wife) are not required to have children.
And homosexual couples can form and stay together, in many cases forming a much more loving and committed relationship than their procreating heterosexual counterparts.
...and pick up the slack in providing loving homes for children created by the irresponsible coupling of heterosexuals.

Buzzword, do you believe on some subconscious level that sects of various religions still view themselves erroneously as being tribal and perhaps that accounts for some attitudes towards homosexuals?

If you are looking for converts, surely people who won't procreate will be seen as infamous individuals.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The problem with a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as sin is that real life doesn't reflect that kind of blanket righteousness. It's not always a sin to kill someone. It's not always a sin to take something away from someone else. It's not always a sin to deny someone information, or mislead them. And it's not always a sin to engage in sexual activity with someone. All of these things are sins, or not, depending on the spirit with which they are being engaged in.

Sadly, however, such absolute proclamations regarding the sinfulness of others makes for a very easy excuse to express one's own innate bigotry and need to feel morally righteous. And so this bias against homosexuals persists among those many Christians who feel the need to puff themselves up at the expense of others.
When is homosexuality not a sin?
 

The 5 solas

New member
I do not like them outside of their behaviour being sinful, and immoral.

I do not like them, yet will not use my faith as the only rational. I never use my faith as a rational.

I understand what you are saying but then I can in turn say, I do not like brunettes because I am a blonde. I don't like artsies. I don't like thieves. I don't like adulterers. I don't like gossips. I don't like Arminians. I don't like basketball players. I sure don't like dispys and especially MAD dispys.

It makes no sense. It is wrong to say we do not like a group of people, as a whole. That is too much of a blanket statement. There are some homosexuals who you would not even know are homosexuals and you might enjoy their personalities very much. The same goes for any of the groups or characteristics that I put down there. I think MAD dispys are actually out to lunch, have totally erroneous doctrine but I am sure there are some out there somewhere that are very kind, nice and would make great friends, regardless of their theological errors.

When you say you do not use your faith as a rationale. That is interesting. I believe my faith, is my worldview and the lenses from which I look at everything through. My faith is what makes me rational, in fact. As a Christian, I rely on the logical and rational teachings of the Scriptures and keep my sometimes irrational emotions in check with them.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Buzzword, do you believe on some subconscious level that sects of various religions still view themselves erroneously as being tribal and perhaps that accounts for some attitudes towards homosexuals?
I think it possible, but individual subconscious, not any collective unconscious, which I see as a Jungian error.

I believe culture is three generations deep. Given this and what is to the contrary, there has to be an individual sub conscious.

This will explain why some persons in their twenties think very different than those at age 70, yet some do not think much differently.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I understand what you are saying but then I can in turn say, I do not like brunettes because I am a blonde. I don't like artsies. I don't like thieves. I don't like adulterers. I don't like gossips. I don't like Arminians. I don't like basketball players. I sure don't like dispys and especially MAD dispys.

It makes no sense. It is wrong to say we do not like a group of people, as a whole. That is too much of a blanket statement. There are some homosexuals who you would not even know are homosexuals
It seem brunets vs blonds is solely a matter of taste. same with artists.

Conversely, not many like thieves. I do not approve of adultery, but have no hard feelings towards those divorced.

It seems like a slippery slope argument, I may not like the game, basketball, but it would be silly for me to dislike basketball players?

The homosexuals where I do not know they are homosexuals, I would find more accepting.

I am not trying to argue a position, or convince. To me that is boring. What I am doing is tell anyone respond here truthfully how I feel about this topic, without claims of logic, or being right.

I do think many hide their dislikes behind religion, and I think that is wrong. Being foolish, or illogical is just being human.
 

The 5 solas

New member
If anything, being divisive and hateful accomplishes nothing except for feeding an unhealthy ego :e4e: .

I know and totally agree. How they think that hateful and divisive behaviour is going to do anything for the cause of Christ is just insanity. It is the old, catch more flies with honey than vinegar, scenario. lol

Being kind does not mean one is condoning the sin. One can be very upfront about things and how it is presented makes all the difference.

Last summer I lost two acquaintances because of my stand on homosexuality. One was a fellow business woman, who could not wrap her mind around absolute truth and how I thought that homosexuality was wrong, period. We had many conversations about this and I explained how I would not be biased in my business dealings, how they have the right to protection like every other citizen, how I would never condone violence against them, etc, etc.
She was not having any of it. She felt that I was wrong and that it was not my place to think this. We remain business acquaintances but the relationship has definitely changed. I do not feel as free with her to be myself.

The other one was someone who had a grown son who was a homosexual. The very idea that someone would think their son was sinning in his life choice, drove this person to say they could not have dealings with me. It was irrational because, there was never any reason to discuss homosexuality in our relationship. It had nothing to do with what we needed to communicate about, but since this person took it on such a personal level, that could not be overcome. They chose to ask me one day, saying the suspicion was there because of my *religious convictions* but they wanted to make sure. Isn't that prejudice against me? lol
 

PureX

Well-known member
I would dislike them more because I do not like seeing effeminate men parade around like loose women!

Why lie about it? No, I do not think they are child molesters, nor do I think they are criminals, to me they are upsetting, like the first case, and more disgusting.
In all honesty, I would want to examine my own thinking to find out why I'm feeling that way. And I would likely conclude that the reason is because they are so 'deferent' from me. Which means they're unpredictable, and therefor somewhat threatening. And because it's difficult for me to empathize with them when I can't identify with their desires or their perspective on life.

But it's not their fault that I feel that way about them. Nor is it their responsibility to accommodate my fears. And with that I would have to make myself practice some rational thinking about them, so as to perhaps become less bothered by their strangeness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top