ok, lets be grown up about this.. but...

[MairMair]

What's wrong with being republican? I'm republican, so does that mean I have no credibility?
What kills me is that people expect EVERYONE in the public eye to be perfect. I LOVE Dr. Dobson. His books have helped me in the past. So, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

[Multimom]

we'll leave aside my biblical-based arguments that homosexuality is not in and of itself a sin

This is one I've got to see. With the scriptures I have declaring homosexuality an abomination and the one that states homosexuals won't enter heaven (right along with liars I might add), I'm curious as to how one would "prove" scripturally that homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin.

Maybe it's the theory that we are "born" homosexual and that is not the sin, but to practice homosexual sexual activity is the sin. If that is the case I would agree. We are all born with a propensity toward sin be it lying, stealing, murdering, or homosexual activity. But these sins are the result of Adam's fall and not a genetic birthing disposition as many homosexuals would have you believe.

I have often wondered about the number of men who end up as homosexuals who have poor male relationships growing up, probably no real connection, just pondering outloud.

Could you clarify??

[Ann]

we'll leave aside my biblical-based arguments that homosexuality is not in and of itself a sin

This is one I've got to see.

Due to ilj Terms Of Service you will probably have to see it in another venue. If Ian can present his arguments without violating TOS great but it would appear that that may be both challanging and so restricting as to hamper his presentation.


Further note this is election year and we will no doubt see political disagreements and a tendency to class all adherents of either or both parties as identical. Just stay within bounds of courtesy, Christian love, and board guidelines please. We CAN do it.

[Ian]

Originally posted by MairMair
What's wrong with being republican? I'm republican, so does that mean I have no credibility?

I don't think anyone has said that "Republicans have no credibility". I certainly haven't. Even I, as a somewhat left-wing goon (fiscally moderate/conservative, socially liberal), have an immense amount of respect for some Republicans, including John McCain and Colin Powell, both of whom I'd vote into the White House ahead of Kerry (who is who I will mostly likely vote for).

However, some Republicans I feel have abandoned the American ways of liberty and personal responsbility, and I feel that they have no credibility. However, some Democrats have also done this (hello Al Sharpton), so neither party can really claim that the other has a monopoly on idiocy.

[Ian]

Originally posted by Multimom
Could you clarify??

As Ann says, I cannot really do so without violating the TOS, but please check out the following verses:

John 8:3-7
John 15:10-12
Matthew 7:1-2

I think that this is TOS-compliant. If you want further detail, feel free to email me.

Also, I'll point out that I live with two homosexuals, and none of them had any heavy childhood trauma in their lives, not any worse than your regular kid anyway. And at my church, there are a couple of people who were beaten and raped by their Baptist fathers ("in the name of God", of course. Hearing stories like that make me ) who are the very paragons of heterosexuality.

[trixiepup]

I think same sex unions should be protected by law. I personally feel that the whole marriage process should be updated.

There should be a non-religious state or federal document that 2 people sign if they want the protection fo the law for their relationship. Religous people could choose to have an additional certificate authorizing their marriage before God.

People desiring same sex unions could just have the legal contract. Elderly people wanting to marry someone without losing retirement or pension benefits could just do a church service.

I've had several friends who have been in long term same sex relationships, and it's really sad that they can be together 40 years, but if there is an accident with one, the other won't be allowed to visit the hospital room because he isn't immediate family.

I don't personally agree with homosexuality, but I believe everyone in the US should be protected by the constitution. IMO, right now, homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexuals, and I think that should be corrected legally.

[Neko]

Well you all know my opinion.

[Ian]

Originally posted by trixiepup
I don't personally agree with homosexuality, but I believe everyone in the US should be protected by the constitution. IMO, right now, homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexuals, and I think that should be corrected legally.

I don't think this argument can be argued against, trixie. My only addition would be that heterosexuals should be able to get these non-religious civil unions as well. And also that after divorce, you can't get another religious marriage (although you can get the non-religious civil union) (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)

[Flannel Avenger]

Originally posted by trixiepup
I don't personally agree with homosexuality, but I believe everyone in the US should be protected by the constitution. IMO, right now, homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexuals, and I think that should be corrected legally.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. They are free to marry a member of the opposite sex if they so choose.

[RoseAudine]

lol i love you flannel!!!

[Multimom]

Just an FYI for anyone who reads this reply. These are the "scripture references" that were given that were given to indicate that homosexuality was acceptable in scripture.

John 8:3-7

Then the scribes and Pharasees brought to Him a woman caught in adultry. Anhd when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was caught in adultry in the very act. Now moses in the law commands us that such should be stoned, but what do you say? This they said testing Him that they might have something of which to accuse him. But jesus stooped down and wrote on the gournd with His finger as though he did not hear. So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them. Let he who is without sin among you let him throw a stone at her first.

This simply doesn't apply to homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't the sin in question in this passage, adultry is. He DOESN'T imply that what she did WASN'T sin.

It was sin and Jesus knew it. Which he made quite clear when he said later in this same passage. "Go and SIN NO MORE". So basically he said, don't do this again. which was a condition of his comment "neither do I condemn you."


JOHN 15:10-12

If you keep my commandments you will abide in my love just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you that my joy may be full. This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you.

Again, this doesn't apply to whether or not homosexuality is a sin. For some unknown reason, the idea must be that if we condemn the sin we hate the sinner. That is not the case. I don't hate homosexuals, but their lifestyle is still sinful according to the scriptures.

Matthew 7:1-2

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged and with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.

Again this reference in no way indicates that homosexual relationships are acceptable according to scripture so I fail to see how these references defend homosexuality as acceptable in the Bible.


However, this scripture is present, and it addresses homosexuality clearly and makes it quite clear where the Bible stands.

1Corinthians 6:9-10

Do you not k now that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh well, I'm sure I've just fueled the inferno.





hi

[RoseAudine]

Yes, i thought the same about the verses. One thing i think about the verses.. if we use them to try and argue homosexuality, then we miss the points that they are trying to make, dont we?
They talk about loving people... and not judging people... Ok, so in the context of homosexuality and our response to it as Christians, we are to love the sinners and not the sin... and not to judge them... and at the same time, we are not to have anything to do with the sin or the sinners.. if they can lead us into their sin
It's a delicate balance isn't it?

[Flannel Avenger]

I think it's important that you do not consider yourself more righteous. The Bible does make it very clear that homosexuality is something that God is not ok with. But it's also clear that adultery, incest, rape, murder, thievery, conning people, lying, usury, idolatry, etc, are not ok with Him either.

That being said, I don’t see any good argument to allow homosexual marriages. So what if they love each other? If a pedophile loves a 9 year old girl does that make it ok for them to marry? If not, why should the way one feels about another determine the right to marry? It’s not about feelings.

As for the rights that come with marriage, most of them could be granted via a short trip to the Lawyers office.

Marriage is not a government institution; it is a Judeo-Christian institution. It is not up to the government of any state to redefine it. It is not up to any man to redefine it.

I have no interest in hunting down homosexuals and persecuting them. At the same time, I simply am not willing to concede that homosexuality is a normal behavior, a desirable behavior, nor that it is co-equal with heterosexual relationships. And no matter what the homosexual lobby says, and no matter what any judge says, they cannot change my mind about it, because my opinion is informed by God’s Holy Scripture, which I believe to be infallible.

I also find it regrettable that adultery is not a crime in this country anymore. God designed mankind to follow in the pattern of Adam and Eve, one man, and one woman. This is God’s natural law; this is also what Jesus explicitly told us in Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:5-9.

Women are not respected as they should be in our world anymore. The respect of a woman is not in considering her co-equal to a man, nor is it ensuring that she has the same employment opportunities as a man. Respect of a woman is to treat her as a Gift from God to all men. To love, honor, and cherish her. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. We are to die for them if necessary. And we are to keep them from harms way even if they don’t like it.

The homosexual movement we see today is not the cause of our problems, but merely a symptom of them. The cause is that we have turned from God’s law. How easy is it to get a divorce in the United States? I guarantee that everybody reading this has had some experience with somebody who has suffered through the pain of their family breaking up over adultery. The rules that God gave us for the familial unit are not something that are to be toyed with. They are not merely God’s opinions of how things should be done; they are God’s commands about how things should be done.

The ultimate question is: what is more important? Obedience to God; or testing your theories on social engineering? For all too many people, moral relativism has replaced obedience to God.

For the Christian, there can be no answer other than God First.

[trixiepup]

I agree that there are a lot of problems with society as a whole, but I don't think anything has really changed that significantly. It's really easy to look at the past and think things were so much better/kinder/more moral than it is today. It may seem that morality is decaying before our eyes, but I think a lot of it is the abundance of information via television, newspapers, radio, and the internet.

I agree with you in the idea that the state shouldn't decide what marriage is or isn't. The state should only give out contracts between 2 people that would allow joint tax returns, shared health insurance, and rights of inheritance. The church would do marriages before God, and that would be their sphere of authority. It could be at the church's discretion to decide who could be married in their church.

I know that homosexuality goes against the Christian religion, but I don't see how Christians can expect non-Christians to act like Christians. It's not fair to hold them to a moral standard that they haven't personally chosen. (I'm not trying to turn this into a relative morality argument). I think denying homosexual citizens rights that heterosexuals have automatically is not appropriate. I don't think telling a homosexual that they can just marry someone of the opposite sex, just like any heterosexualwould, is very helpful. Stripping away citizen rights isn't really a way to promote equality in modern societies, and I fail to see how doing this with homosexuals will really accomplish anything in the long run.

I'd rather have people become Christians because they see that their life is lacking something spiritual that is desperately needed. I don't want to see people converting to Christianity because it's the only way they can actually be treated like a human equal in society. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think conversion under duress is the way to go about transforming society for the better.

[Susan]

Logically, then, we should lift laws against stealing, murder, and exceeding the speed limit, right?

I agree that morality cannot be legislated. But God gave the law to the Israelites to draw their attention to the fact that they were sinners in need of salvation. Even with laws in place, the moral decay of this country is appalling. If we remove even the standards of righteousness from the law, where will we end up?

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Man is not basically good. If he were, he would not need to have God's standard of righteousness in front of him.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?