Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[emilynghiem]

You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?

I call bullshit.

Of course you do. Unfortunately, for you, I can find examples on the internet.

I?m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage | Public Discourse

Gays Against Gay Marriage | Just another WordPress.com weblog

You know those people? Cool.

Hi LL:
OK so substitute "I know OF people"

I have also heard this expressed among gay people, some I know personally and
some I don't. One such man called in to my boyfriend's radio show recently.

One of my lesbian friends AGREES with me that ALL marriage should be kept in private and out of the govt. And only have civil unions and contracts under govt because that is secular. So she also says no to gay marriage and no to straight marriage equally, just civil unions for all people since it is only the secular contracts the govt can oversee.
The spiritual/personal side of marriage doesn't belong under state jurisdiction anyway.

I am open to either way: if people in a state can AGREE on marriage terms, these can be under both the church and state, but if people cannot, then it should be kept private.

(I believe marriage is still under the state because of tradition, carried over from the days when church and state authority were the same. We ALLOW the govt to cross over the "church-state" separation in authority in this area, similar to how we still ALLOW the govt to carry out the death penalty which technically invokes religious authority and beliefs. As long as we CONSENT to govt authority in these areas, we authorize laws to reflect that. But technically, if we do NOT consent, then we could revoke or void these authorities by "religious freedom" or "separation of church from state authority." So that is what we see happening now; people no longer agree on the terms by which these marriage policies are conducted through the state.)

BTW, if we restricted ourselves to knowledge just among ourselves and people we know personally, we wouldn't even be HAVING these discussions, would we? Aren't most "public policy" decisions made through govt representatives we don't know personally? Isn't a LOT of our relationship with govt all faith-based through what we receive second and third hand through the media? Through faith in our officials representing us, even if we haven't or may never meet these people in person?

Of course, we are referencing a mix of first, second and third hand knowledge.
Our perceptions is collectively what makes "public perception" and this influences public policy. Yes, a lot of it is indirect information. That is reality. Things are better with internet media, but we still face this issue of misinformation and propaganda.

Regardless of the source of information, what matters is our interpretation and perception. Where we have biases, these are typically projected from things WITHIN ourselves, and this bias is then projected EXTERNALLY onto people, events and ideas OUTSIDE ourselves.

What I have found is once people have an internal bias, that affects anything else we look at anyway. If we don't want to change our perception, no amount of correction from outside is going to matter. We will selectively "pick and choose" what we want to use or reject to justify the perception or bias we want to reinforce in our minds.

Most of it is internal anyway. If anything is going to change, the choice comes from within and is independent of the information outside. If we influence each other, it is more likely from both parties in a relationship WILLING to stretch to accommodate each other's insights; I find it is usually a MUTUAL process, where both people simultaneously influence each other. Whatever information they use or share between them is usually secondary. If people don't have this connection with each other, no difference in information is going to matter. We either connect or we don't. Just my experience on these forums and interacting online. Every person responds to someone different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems that, if it were actually genetic, I wouldn't be able to find incontrovertible evidence that it isn't.

Not to worry, you haven't.

Is that why you ignored the multiple posts where I presented the evidence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The notion that American citizens should ‘compromise’ their civil liberties to accommodate the hate and ignorance of others is repugnant to the Constitution and the fundamental tenets of this Republic:

I thought you supported public accommodation laws that force people to attend weddings. Are you aware that, using that standard, I could hire a Muslim photographer to photograph by same sex Christian wedding, even though his religions specifically forbids him from entering a church?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I quote the Bible, you quote a blog that claims the Bible doesn't actually say what it says.

Good job.

I cited an expert. A person who knows the bible inside out. He laid it out for you. Try reading what he wrote. I know you didn't.

Expert? What, other than the fact that he has an opinion that you agree with, makes him an expert? There is nothing about his education at the site, and the only John Fugelsang I can find on Google is an actor.

I, on the other hand, have an actual degree in theology.

You have a degree in theology and you think that Jesus had a problem with homosexuality? Is that a fact?

John Fugelsang is an expert when it comes to the bible. Period.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I cited an expert. A person who knows the bible inside out. He laid it out for you. Try reading what he wrote. I know you didn't.

"expert"

Tell me, I suppose Obama being a constitutional scholar makes him an "expert" on the constitution?

Such discombobulated logic.

Your reverse logic, my friends, boggles the brain.

If you disagree with him, you have to (to have any cred) is meet his arguments with those of your own based on the document and subsequent case law and SCOTUS opinions.

He is a "liberal" has no weight on his scholarly expertise than you are a "reactionary" libertarian.

We can use those terms and others (RINO, mainstream, dimocrap, repitards, liberartards) when ad homming each other.

But as acceptable opposition to a poltical or philosophical argument, never.

This is a classic red herring slash fallacy of argumentum ab auctoritate (appealing to authority). You are citing a non authority as an authority, simply because he studied the Constitution. Touting Obama's supposed superiority on the Constitution is very telling, Jake, namely of your political leanings. How can he be an expert on the Constitution when he so oftentimes disregards it completely in the fulfillment (or lack thereof) of his duties as president?

 

[emilynghiem]

Being the incredibly intelligent person that you are, I expect the sheer idiocy of your point of view here will not register.

You want the name of what they do to be called something else. As if not doing so will in some way effect anyone, anywhere.

What shall we call it? Got any suggestions? What should Bob ask Bill on one knee? Fill in the blank, please.

"Bill........will you _______________ me?

I really don't care what Bob and Bill call it. But it won't be traditional marriage even if they call it that. Those who are unwilling to compromise in the least to accommodate something that is good just so they can be considered 'no different than' somebody else, are not advocating equality. They are demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else. That is not equality. And many believe it is as wrong as the National Football League being required to change its rules and concept to accommodate women or the NBA having to change its format to allow short guys to play with the giants or requiring Christian churches or Jewish synagoguea to include Atheist beliefs in their liturgy. This would give the illusion of 'equality' but it would not be that. It would be taking something away from another group to accommodate a different group and thereby completely change what the original concept is.

This is comprehensively ignorant, and very telling about conservatives.

The notion that American citizens should ‘compromise’ their civil liberties to accommodate the hate and ignorance of others is repugnant to the Constitution and the fundamental tenets of this Republic:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 [seeking to deny homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

This a state cannot do, a state cannot make homosexuals unequal to everyone else, which is what you advocate with your inane ‘compromise,’ a ‘compromise’ that is fundamentally un-Constitutional.

Same-sex couples are not “demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else,” that’s ignorant idiocy; same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, and by doing so will in no way ‘change’ marriage, where opposite-sex couples aren’t ‘giving up’ anything.

‘Compromise’ one’s civil rights, what a telling conservative concept.

Dear CCJ:

You could also say the same of LIBERALS.
When LIBERALS push for "separation of church and state"
when it suits their agenda.

But in the case of gay marriage crossing the line and imposing a church function
of marriage on the state, suddenly LIBERALS WANT to mix church and state functions.

Why is that?

Can you tell me how "gay marriage" respects "separation of church and state"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I cited an expert. A person who knows the bible inside out. He laid it out for you. Try reading what he wrote. I know you didn't.

Expert? What, other than the fact that he has an opinion that you agree with, makes him an expert? There is nothing about his education at the site, and the only John Fugelsang I can find on Google is an actor.

I, on the other hand, have an actual degree in theology.

You have a degree in theology and you think that Jesus had a problem with homosexuality? Is that a fact?

John Fugelsang is an expert when it comes to the bible. Period.

I don't recall saying Jesus had a problem with anything, can you point out where I did?

What, other than being an actor and agreeing with you, makes him an expert in anything?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I quote the Bible, you quote a blog that claims the Bible doesn't actually say what it says.

Good job.

I cited an expert. A person who knows the bible inside out. He laid it out for you. Try reading what he wrote. I know you didn't.

Expert? What, other than the fact that he has an opinion that you agree with, makes him an expert? There is nothing about his education at the site, and the only John Fugelsang I can find on Google is an actor.

I, on the other hand, have an actual degree in theology.

Fool. I disagree with him on the most basic idea of his faith. I don't believe that a god exists. But.....I do believe that the bible exists and that it was written by humans. Flawed humans with an agenda. And...as far as it goes....homosexuality was barely mentioned.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Expert? What, other than the fact that he has an opinion that you agree with, makes him an expert? There is nothing about his education at the site, and the only John Fugelsang I can find on Google is an actor.

I, on the other hand, have an actual degree in theology.

You have a degree in theology and you think that Jesus had a problem with homosexuality? Is that a fact?

John Fugelsang is an expert when it comes to the bible. Period.

I don't recall saying Jesus had a problem with anything, can you point out where I did?

What, other than being an actor and agreeing with you, makes him an expert in anything?

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

 

[blackhawk]

I don't give homosexuality and gay rights stuff like that much thought it's not a major issue for me.

I don't either. Don't even think about it all that much. Our 'married' gay neighbors next door are just among our neighbors trading off favors, sharing recipes and favorite dishes, helping each other, would you believe it just like normal people????? Because they ARE normal people. What would be abnormal if the unmarried heterosexual couple living across the street or the married heterosexual couple on the other side of us made a point of announcing and discussing their heterosexuality and throwing it in our face more often than not. But they aren't obvious or obsessive about being heterosexual nor is the gay couple obvious or obsessive about being gay and they don't throw that in our face either.

Whether it is race or sexual orientation or cohabitation or who anybody is, it is accepting who and what we are and not flaunting it and/or demanding that others accept it and even praise it that makes something normal and acceptable. And allows it to become normal and acceptable.

Unfortunately there are a significant number of your fellow conservatives who don’t hold this view, and indeed actively seek to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

And when our fellow citizens are unjustly denied their civil liberties, it is an important issue for us all, regardless whether we “even think about it all that much.”

Thats your opinion and your welcome to it but I will decide for myself what issues I consider important.

 

[emilynghiem]

@Quantum Windbag

John Fugelsang: Why the New Testament doesn?t condemn gay people | americansforcommonsenseblog

I quote the Bible, you quote a blog that claims the Bible doesn't actually say what it says.

Good job.

I cited an expert. A person who knows the bible inside out. He laid it out for you. Try reading what he wrote. I know you didn't.

Dear LL and QW:
There is a way you can both be right.

People can still break God's laws as given in the Bible
and can also still be saved in Christ Jesus and not be condemned to hell.

These two things are not mutually exclusive as either/or.

Just because that through Christ Jesus
people can be spared condemnation to eternal suffering
does NOT mean their actions WEREN'T against God's will and laws.

NOTE: One exception or clarification I would make:
with some homosexual tendencies, relations, or oriention
I believe these are caused by PAST sins or karma passed down
from previous generations. The sins may have been in the past.
And the manifestations in future generations are a sign that the
past conflicts were not fully forgiven, resolved or healed.

It is not necessarily that the people today are "guilty of sin"
but are manifesting past sins passed down to the fourth and fifth generations.
The purpose is still the same: to heal and resolve these issues by FORGIVENESS.
So I still focus on FORGIVENESS and healing on all levels
and not on judgment, punishment or condemnation which complicates
or blocks the process of healing and recovery from past sins or karma
causing suffering to repeat in future generations. I am more interested
in breaking the vicious cycle of unforgiveness, and I trust that will do more
to heal abuses in ALL relationships, whether heterosexual, homosexual,
religious or political. The point is to forgive and quit punishing abuse with more abuse.
All these other problems will take care of themselves as we forgive whatever is wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

like GISMYS is being told by the church of LGBT to keep up the good work and divert the topic.

The so-called "church" exists in the minds of the substantially mentally impaired. Since the statement is true, no ad hom exists.

Dear Jake: My understanding of church is the body of people.
Ideally we are supposed to be united or equal under law.

If we don't agree on scriptural law as our central authority,
can we agree to be united under natural law or Constitutional law
as a unifying authority?

Whether we see the people collectively as the "church"
or the people collectively as the "government or state"
isn't the point the same -- to respect and embrace one another
as equals and put the governing "law of the land" above any of
our individual agenda, beliefs, or party interests.

Wouldn't that unity make us whole as one "body", one country,
or one "church" and collectively the same process unite all
people of all nations as "one family" "one society" one humanity?

Isn't that the goal of both church and state?
Peace and Justice for ALL?

 

[R.D.]

You have a degree in theology and you think that Jesus had a problem with homosexuality? Is that a fact?

John Fugelsang is an expert when it comes to the bible. Period.

I don't recall saying Jesus had a problem with anything, can you point out where I did?

What, other than being an actor and agreeing with you, makes him an expert in anything?

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

No, he's not. He's a pomass windbag. He declared Jesus was not an American and didn't speak English...just brilliant!

 

[PredFan]

I live how people on both sides of the issue pretend to know what God wants.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no god. He can't want anything.

 

[Vandalshandle]

According to Catholics, and many other sub cults, god is still pissed at me because of Adam and Eve. That seems a little over the top, grudgewise.

 

[GISMYS]

THIS ""IS"" THE WORD OF GOD!! Do you deny that truth?????? Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 corinthians 6:9-11==ALMIGHTY GOD has the first and last word on the sin of sick sexual perversion.=== So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:24-32

 

[Howey]

I don't recall saying Jesus had a problem with anything, can you point out where I did?

What, other than being an actor and agreeing with you, makes him an expert in anything?

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

No, he's not. He's a pomass windbag. He declared Jesus was not an American and didn't speak English...just brilliant!

Wait. Jesus is an American??????

 

[LoneLaugher]

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

No, he's not. He's a pomass windbag. He declared Jesus was not an American and didn't speak English...just brilliant!

Wait. Jesus is an American??????

Of course he was. He grew up in Alabama. Lots of white kids in Alabama were named Jesus back then.

 

[Papageorgio]

You have a degree in theology and you think that Jesus had a problem with homosexuality? Is that a fact?

John Fugelsang is an expert when it comes to the bible. Period.

I don't recall saying Jesus had a problem with anything, can you point out where I did?

What, other than being an actor and agreeing with you, makes him an expert in anything?

The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.

That is because he agrees with your bias. If he said something different you wouldn't think anything of his opinion and that is all he has, is an opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD