The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[TexRex]

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

 

[Scaff]

The difference is a person versus an act, and that is huge.

The person is the one doing the act, as long as it's consensual then it makes no difference at all. I note that you also ignored this point:

If you deny a person something you freely permit others to have and attempt to use 'sin' as a reason, you are, quite frankly, an asshole.

According to the bible, we are all sinners. Using your logic, merely being human is a sin.

Bold of you to assume that I believe sin to exist and the bible to be true.

I don't, hence the argument "hate the sin, love the sinner" is nonsense.

However you do highlight the hypocrisy of the church's position because it very much believes that being human is a sin, it's the basic point behind the concept of original sin (which is nonsense, but that's not my position, it's the church's).

 

[McLaren]

LMAO at the hard copium that being gay is perfectly fine with Christians, it's when they start stick fighting is when there's an issue.

 

[TexRex]

Broken beyond repair.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I note that you also ignored this point:

If you deny a person something you freely permit others to have and attempt to use 'sin' as a reason, you are, quite frankly, an asshole.

Premarital straight sex is also a sin. They are not freely permitting anything.

Bold of you to assume that I believe sin to exist and the bible to be true.

I don't, hence the argument "hate the sin, love the sinner" is nonsense.

We are not talking about your views here. We are talking about the church.

Now where is the Straight Discussion Thread. I'm going to go post some church views on sex outside of marriage. See if I can't rile me up some straight guys.

 

[McLaren]

The difference is Christians are perfectly fine with a man & a woman being in a relationship until they are married when sex is "permitted".

Gays don't get that courtesy.

 

[TexRex]

Premarital straight sex is also a sin.

Take fornication out of wedlock. There is no moral or ethical wrong here. It really just seems like some nobleman was tired of his dirty (figurative and literal, hygiene being what it was in antiquity), little slut of a daughter coming home late at night, smelling of mead and men, and so he appealed to a local priest to declare her acts sinful. Word spread as quickly as her legs and it soon became doctrine.

Of course the Church doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, which certainly doesn't cause the inane assertion by Chrunch to break down...because reasons.

One who takes exception to my pointing out the stupid **** they say ought to consider not saying stupid ****.

 

[Scaff]

Premarital straight sex is also a sin. They are not freely permitting anything.

They will not bless same-sex marriages, they do heterosexual ones
They will not ordain anyone in a same-sex marriage, they will those in heterosexual ones
They consider sex within a same-sex marriage to be a sin, they don't within a heterosexual marriage.

It's almost as if you've given this zero thought, I mean I literally addressed this with the point "If you deny a person something you freely permit others to have"

They are denying 'services' and 'positions' to people based on sexuality, that they do not deny straight people, for them to try and claim that's not discrimination against the person is laughably absurd.

We are not talking about your views here. We are talking about the church.

You literally said "Using your logic, merely being human is a sin", if you were not referring to my views why did you use 'your' and not refer to the church's logic (and I've edited my post to point out the double-standard in that as well).

If you had been talking about the church you should have worded it "using the church's logic, merely being human is a sin', which you seem to be unaware is 100% the church's position.

Now where is the Straight Discussion Thread. I'm going to go post some church views on sex outside of marriage. See if I can't rile me up some straight guys.

Feel free, but I hope it's going to contain better critical reasoning that you're using right now.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@Scaff You incorrectly stated the the church said being gay was a sin.

I pointed that out. But instead of just correcting your original mistake, all of this happens.

I applied the church's logic to what you falsely attributed to it, to demonstrate the absurdity. There is a difference between a person and an act.

I don't give a **** what the church has to say anyway. I'm an athiest.

 

[TexRex]

I'm an athiest.

"Nobody's more athy than me."

 

[Famine]

You know the guy that wrote that is talking about gay sex being a sin, not being gay as being a sin.

Actually, he isn't.

Archbishop Justin Welby confirmed that the I.10 declaration of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of the Church of England was still valid:

I write therefore to affirm that the validity of the resolution passed at the Lambeth Conference 1998, 1.10, is not in doubt and that whole resolution is still in existence.

To save you lookng it up, the declaration reads:

Resolution I.10
Human Sexuality

This Conference:

• commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality;
• in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage
• recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ
• while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex
• cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions
• requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us
• notes the significance of the Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality and the concerns expressed in resolutions IV.26, V.1, V.10, V.23 and V.35 on the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality and asks the Primates and the ACC to include them in their monitoring process.

You'll note it doesn't say "gay sex" and doesn't mention sin.

It says "rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture". There's no particular notes on what qualifies as "homosexual practice", so it's not reasonable to read that only as sexual conduct. The Church of England rejects all "homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture", so whether a gay guy boinks his boyfriend or a gay girl boinks her girlfriend is immaterial; gay kissing, gay living together as a couple, gay marriage is all "incompatible with Scripture".


Which does of course require the question "which bit of Scripture, exactly, and if it's the bit I think it is why aren't you also down on prawns, tattoos, or wearing mixed fabrics (and I'm very sure those majestic dresses and hats you wear are not all cut from the same cloth), and super-keen on selling your daughters to their rapists?".

Of course they are a private, members-only club of cross-dressing, child abusing hypocrites, so they're welcome to interpret their own insane fiction anthology/rule book however they wish. Unless they're sending people into government to vote on laws based on their purported "faith".

 

[TexRex]

...down on prawns, tattoos, or wearing mixed fabrics...

Prawns are ****ing awesome, as are shrimp, langoustines and mud bugs.

Tattoos, I have a few.

Mixed fabrics? "Go straight to Hell, boy."

 

[ScottPuss20]

Premarital straight sex is also a sin.

No it's not.

 

[Danoff]

You know the guy that wrote that is talking about gay sex being a sin, not being gay as being a sin. There is a big difference.

I don't think this is really a gotcha.

The analogy that springs to mind is pedophilia - which our society demonizes but isn't actually a crime unless acted upon. Pedophilia is a tough draw when it comes to sexual proclivities. To be drawn to commit a crime against others is an awful way to live. But I'll agree that there is an important difference between being a pedophile and being someone who has acted on pedophilia.

But even in your interpretation (which @Famine points out is too favorable), it still likens homosexuality with pedophilia - a terrible thing if acted upon*. It means that for all homosexuals who do not manage to stay celibate out of respect for the abomination that their proclivities represent - which is probably nearly all of them - they are sinners. I suppose the bible says we're all tempted with sin, but not all of us are sinners if we ever enjoy sex. That's reserved for gay people.

I don't think this really sanitizes the message.


*I guess technically the church is probably fairly lenient on pedophilia actually

 

[TexRex]

*I guess technically the church is probably fairly lenient on pedophilia actually

Certainly pederasty, though perhaps at its discretion whereby those who occupy a position within the church are held to a lower standard than those who don't.

 

[Danoff]

Certainly pederasty, though perhaps at its discretion whereby those who occupy a position within the church are held to a lower standard than those who don't.

Of course. I was thinking more along the lines of marrying underage girls.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@Scaff

You quoted this

But said this

@Famine

Again, there is a difference between being gay and practicing gay behavior.

I am done with this whole stupid argument. It is a waste of time.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I am done with this whole stupid argument. It is a waste of time.

Yes it is.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff You incorrectly stated the the church said being gay was a sin.

I pointed that out. But instead of just correcting your original mistake, all of this happens.

I applied the church's logic to what you falsely attributed to it, to demonstrate the absurdity. There is a difference between a person and an act.

I don't give a **** what the church has to say anyway. I'm an athiest.

There is no difference between the person and the act from the church if the church discriminates against the individual because they may commit the act, which is exactly what they do.

That's aside from the colossal bit of quote-mining you're undertaking.

@Scaff

You quoted this
View attachment 1181016

But said this
View attachment 1181017

And when you pointed that out I quoted the actual Lambeth council wording, in detail, the differences between how they treat people and provided a link to it, @Famine then also posted it directly in thread, none of which you have taken a bit of notice of.

The exact wording means (and I repeat myself) that:

They will not bless same-sex marriages, they do heterosexual ones
They will not ordain anyone in a same-sex marriage, they will those in heterosexual ones
They consider sex within a same-sex marriage to be a sinful, they don't within a heterosexual marriage.

Would you mind explaining how the above does discriminate against the individual?

They literally will not marry same-sex couples, but this isn't discrimination in your eyes? As while some (a minority) parts of the church have allowed same-sex marriages, the 2022 conference was quite clear this not church policy, as was stated in the opening address on human dignity in the conference...

" I think we need to acknowledge it’s the majority – continue to affirm that same-gender marriage is not permissible."

...but please, do tell me how that doesn't target the individual.

@Famine

Again, there is a difference between being gay and practicing gay behavior.

I am done with this whole stupid argument. It is a waste of time.

It's a waste of time because you (again) refuse to read sources that clearly contradict your claims.

 

[McLaren]

Again, there is a difference between being gay and practicing gay behavior.

You can tell yourself this all you want, but it won't be true to the religious folks.


I wonder if this is what you tell yourself with Republicans as well; "I'm gay, but not boinking another man, so GOP still accepts me".

I am done with this whole stupid argument. It is a waste of time.

You're the one who brought it up.

 

[PeterJB]

@Scaff

You quoted this
View attachment 1181016

But said this
View attachment 1181017
@Famine

Again, there is a difference between being gay and practicing gay behavior.

I am done with this whole stupid argument. It is a waste of time.

In practice, yes; you don't have to have be gay to have gay sex, and the Church will still view that as a sin regardless of your own thoughts, feelings, or desires. However, being gay and being a Christian are always going to rub against one another, as by accident of birth God has arbitrarily decided to deprive you of the same privileges and opportunities as straight people. You essentially have three options:

Commit to yourself to Christianity and acknowledge that the majority of churches and denominations around the world view it as a sin, as because the few times it is directly mentioned in the Bible, it is never done so in a positive light; meaning that you can't get married, have sex, or have romantic relationships, which even Anglican priests can do; unless it's with a woman, which is deceptive and dishonest to both you and your partner, not to mention incredibly psychologically harmful.

Commit yourself to a more liberal brand of Christianity and ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality and marriage, while spending your entire life being scrutinised and judged upon it by moderate and conservative Christians.

Don't be a Christian.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[TexRex]

Thou shalt not steal.

 

[Joey D]

Ted Cruz says he will vote against bill to codify same-sex marriage protections

On an episode of his podcast Tuesday, the U.S. senator said the bill would be an attack on religious liberties.

www.texastribune.org

 

[UKMikey]

Religious liberties (to do what?) are evidently the only ones he considers worth protecting (well, maybe other than the liberty to skip town when the going gets tough and that of Trump to call his wife Heidi an ugly *****).

 

[Joey D]

Religious liberties (to do what?) are evidently the only ones he considers worth protecting (well, maybe other than the liberty to skip town when the going gets tough and that of Trump to call his wife Heidi an ugly *****).

I think what Cruz is talking about is that he's afraid that churches will be required to perform same-sex marriages, which likely couldn't happen anyway and would likely be a First Amendment violation. Basically, he's taking something that won't/can't happen, saying it will happen, and using it to justify partisan politics.

Not that I would expect Cruz, who's questionably American, to understand any of this though.

 

[Liquid]

Religious liberties (to do what?)

Persecute. They want a legal statute to persecute.

 

[shadow0460]

It's a sin, but I'll start correcting everyone who commits it after I stop sinning myself. I know what I should and should not do, but I do the opposite and sometimes enjoy it! I seem to have an issue, so it could be a while.
I'm not perfect. If you're gay, this may be the only time you ever hear me tell you it's a sin. We can coexist and heck maybe even like each other.
It's no one else's decision to allow you to be gay or whatever else, that is your decision.
There's just not a lot of stuff worth getting worked up over.

 

[TexRex]

lol

"It's a sin."

Of course belief counter to religious doctrine is also supposed to be sinful. Funny how that works. It's almost like the idea of sin exists only to maintain control, especially of the gullible and deluded.

 

[Touring Mars]

Just to add to that concise but excellent post directly above this one, there's only two possibilities here.

1. Either two people who love each other is a 'transgression of divine law' (the definition of a sin)

OR

2. The "divine law" that states that two people loving each other is a God-forbidden crime is, well, utter bollocks.

Or, to put it more simply for the hard-of-thinking, you either support love or you support hate. Choose wisely.