Big Blue Wave's Comments
"Unlike gay rights activists who promote intolerance of conservative Christians."
Really? I wasn't aware that gay rights activists condemned the sexual behaviour of conservative Christians. Or sought to deny them marriage. Can you point me to a link?
Gay rights activists like to paint conservative Christians as hateful. When they`re not.
That's intolerance.
Conservative Christians ARE hateful. They would deny benefits (that they have)to gay couples just because they are gay.
"God made human beings a certain way."
Exactly. Some are hetrosexual and some are homosexual.
"As far as we're concerned, Jesus rejects homosexual behaviour, as well."
"As far as we're concerned" being the operative phrase, since Jesus never condemned "homosexual behaviour".
Anyone else find it weird that a guy who dresses like this is asking gay people to repent and be changed?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tw0OiB...20/
nazirali.jpg
The Church of England resisting the tide of moral relativism amounts to a "man bites dog" news story nowadays!
As far as we're concerned, Jesus rejects homosexual behaviour, as well.
Could you please provide a cite in the New Testament wherein Jesus condemns homosexual behaviour?
"God made human beings a certain way."
Exactly. Some are hetrosexual and some are homosexual.
SQ
There are of course individual variations. That doesn't mean that God did not intend human beings to be a certain way.
I have two daughters who are on the autistic spectrum. Do you think that God made them autistic?
I don't think so.
I don't think the fact they were born autistic gives them the right to behave any old way they want.Their tantrums are just as unacceptable whether they were produced from a "normal" brain or an "autistic" brain.
I don't think the fact that they were "born that way" makes their behaviour okay.
I believe the same thing about homosexuals.
The predilection towards a certain kind of behaviour does not make that behaviour okay.
You can love people and not like their behaviour. You can love people and want them to change. It's not hateful. Otherwise you'd have to condemn parents of autistic children.
since Jesus never condemned "homosexual behaviour".
As an observer of the Jewish Law, and the product of Jewish culture, he would have condemned homosexual behaviour. To say he would have approved of it is projecting 21st century values on the 1st century. It was widely understood that homosexual behaviour was unacceptable. The fact that he *didn't* challenge those beliefs says something of his acceptance of them.
Could you please provide a cite in the New Testament wherein Jesus condemns homosexual behaviour?
Re-read the post again.
Theologically speaking, what the Church teaches and what Jesus think are identical.
"There are of course individual variations. That doesn't mean that God did not intend human beings to be a certain way."
Well which one is it? Did God make them a certain way (as you state in your post) or was God not involved in their creation and merely intends for them to be a certain way?
"I have two daughters who are on the autistic spectrum. Do you think that God made them autistic?"
I cannot believe that you would attempt to equate autism with homosexuality. The answer to your question depends on the answer to my previous one.
"I don't think the fact that they were "born that way" makes their behaviour okay."
This makes absolutely no sense. You're conflating voluntary behaviour with involuntary behaviour. To keep an apples-to-apples analogy; would you say that behaviour brought on by your daughters' autism is not okay? If homosexuals are "born that way", how can they not be attracted to people of the same sex?
Well which one is it? Did God make them a certain way (as you state in your post) or was God not involved in their creation and merely intends for them to be a certain way?
When I said that God made people a certain way, the first time around, I meant that God had a design for us. Sometimes we fall short of that design, as when people have a disease or a condition that impairs that design.
You're conflating voluntary behaviour with involuntary behaviour.
It is irrelevant whether a behaviour is voluntary or involuntary. It is unacceptable. The only difference is whether a person is responsible for that behaviour or not.
would you say that behaviour brought on by your daughters' autism is not okay?
Autism has a lot of "typical" behaviours, but there are a number of them that are not acceptable, and the fact that a person suffers from autism doesn't make it okay for them to do it.
how can they not be attracted to people of the same sex?
The feelings are not what is at stake here. Feelings are one thing.
The crux of the discussion is behaviour.
So you admit that gay people are born that way -- you just think they should be deprived of the kind of love & affection & companionship that everyone else has a right to.
And this isn't even about gay people daring to want their relationships sanctioned by society (marriage) -- it's about their "behaviour", something that's none of your business.
But you don't think that's a hateful attitude? It's oozing with hate.
A whole host of hand waving:
In the bible marriage is described as between a man and a woman, but has sub categories:
A man and his slave, a male rapist and his victim, a man and his sister in law and the classic nuclear family option.
But the bible also defines an okay marriage as:
Polygamous, a man, his wife and her female slave, a man, loads of wives and some concubines.
Paul even goes on about marriage being undesirable and should be used as a last resort to avoid being guilty of fornication. It appears that the church has a real problem with the act of coupling itself and invented the current form of marriage as a get get out of going extinct clause.
As for homosexuality being frowned on in the world at that time, the major and most successful human empires at the time, the Greeks and Romans, had very few issues with it. The Romans were a little stricter about the pitcher/catcher roles but had no real issues with it.
No Suzanne your god had very little to do with defining marriage, it is the ultimate social construct chosen by a group of old men a long time ago. They showed little regard for the words of the bible, that they themselves compiled and relied on their own shallow prejudices.
I guess that that hasn't changed much up until this day.
Harebell
Marriage was always between a man and a woman.
There is no "sub category" of marriage. Marriage is marriage is marriage. The different, opposite-sexed participants do not make it any less a marriage.
Polygamy was permitted in the Bible, but Jesus said that this was a concession, not the ideal.
It appears that the church has a real problem with the act of coupling itself and invented the current form of marriage as a get get out of going extinct clause.
What "current" form is that, harebell? A lifelong union between a man and a woman? That predates the Church.
They showed little regard for the words of the bible,
Harebell, those are the words of someone who has no regard for history.
The words of the Bible are part of a Tradition. You do not know or acknowledge it. That's why you make such anachronistic statements.
What's nice is that once you remove god from the argument, theres nothing left. You can appeal to tradition all you want, but it's a pretty blatant logical fallacy.
Without the Bible, without referring to ancient history, when the world was a very different place, there just isnt a valid argument against homosexuality.
Suzanne your holy reference book as agreed by the holy catholic church indicates that marriage is a description of all the types of union that I outlined above. If the book is not your reference, what do you hold as the word of your god.
TSBeing, you are right they hate it whe we use their own references against their bigotry
Commenting by HaloScan
