What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[kaz]

This was what particularly confused me, "Why do you think gays have a corner on the market when it comes to sin?" That contradicts everything I said, why would I think that?

Well, I'm confused too, because your op asked why God would make gays and then want them to be unhappy. That is a statement built upon multiple presumptions that may or may not be true. Who's to say that a gay person who accepts what God's word is and gives their lives over God would be unhappy? I assumed you were asking Christians that since they are for the most part against gay marriage, but believe in a loving God? My response is that we are all offered challenges and temptations in life, denying them doesn't necessarily lead to unhappiness. So if you are a Christian, you would see gay sex as a sin, i.e. sin outside of marriage, (same with two heterosexual people who are not married), and you wouldn't believe that God would advocate such a marriage, so you would see the gay person as someone who has challenges and temptations in life, same as everyone else, that they have to turn to God for in order to overcome. If you believe in God and what the Bible tells you, God can overcome anything, I just don't think you're looking at it from the perspective of a Christian.

I don't necessarily think it matters what the secular government/society does with regards to gay marriage, abortion has been legal for 40 years and God certainly wouldn't sanction that either. Jesus Christ is about salvation of the individual, not the society, and each individual will answer to Him for what they do or don't do, we can't control what society does.

Your question is basically the same as 'Why does God want single people to be unhappy?' Single people aren't supposed to have sex either, so if they follow God's word, will they be 'unhappy'? Is it an unreasonable expectation for humans to go without sex? And for the record, sex and love are two different things.

I think too many people think of God as being focused on being obsessed with tracking every mistake we make so he can nail us for it later, rather than God wanting us to learn and grow. Learning and growing involves making more mistakes. I'm a Red Wings fan, the Red Wings are known for continual rebuilding, we made the playoffs 24 straight seasons. Second is Pittsburgh with nine. The Wings are great obviously at developing young players.

You do that by letting them make mistakes and then learn from it, not by blasting them for mistakes and holding it against them You make mistakes and you may or may not go forward with the team depending how you learn and adapt. You play it safe and maybe you won't make any mistakes, but you will get cut for sure. I think God wants us to go for it. Just make sure you don't hurt people on purpose and you ... learn ... from them and I think you'll be fine. I don't think God thinks like us either, I think God puts it in our terms to help us. Too many people misunderstand that

Go Pens! Altho, we lost in freakin' overtime last night...

Everyone obviously has different perceptions of "God", but a Christian is using the Bible as their guide, which is supposed to contain His word. Jesus Christ preached against sin over and over, so you're either walking towards Him, or you're walking away from Him, I don't believe there is any middle ground. You're either genuinely trying to follow His word or you're not. And sure, everyone is going to mess up and make mistakes from time to time, but there is a difference between making a mistake, i.e. screwing up, and blatantly just choosing to go your own way in spite of what His word tells you. Regarding sexual activity, it's pretty clear what God intended, and if you're not following His word on that, then you're choosing to go your own way and not listen to His word. What are the consequences of that, if any? Only God knows, right? But He will be able to say to you that He told you what was sin, and you didn't listen, and there will be no denying it. If you are a Christian. And I think you're right, that you should be growing and learning in your walk with God, and that means to me that you're getting closer to Him, not further away. The Bible says many times that sin separates you from God, so I'm not sure how a person could continually decide to go against God's word, i.e. sin, and yet still insist that they're walking with Him?

The Bible is a guide, but it's not an instruction manual. You still have to think it through. Though shalt not kill. What if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family? I think that's clearly not applicable. What if someone says they are going to do it and you believe them? Wow, that's gray. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, not being gay when you are gay does harm you. I'm not saying your point's not valid, but it's not that simple

But for Christians it is that simple if they truly believe the Bible is the word of God. If you're not going to follow it and listen to what God is telling you, then why bother with it at all? You're not really a Christian then. How can you give any of it validity if you're going to just reassure yourself that God didn't really mean what He was saying when He said that particular thing, but He did in this circumstance. You might as well invalidate the entire thing then, because YOU are deciding what's valid or not, not God.

The bible is not that unambiguous. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your family and you shoot them, is that a violation of the Ten Commandments? I can't believe it is, there was no intent on your part. But you did kill. On the other extreme if you wife cheated on her, would you stone her to death?

The Bible is a guide, not an instruction manual. Things like intentionally harming other people are consistently wrong. But God wanted you to think

 

[Seawytch]

Gays would shut up about a lot of it if you bigots would just shut up and grant them their rights.

gays have every right that straight people have. marriage is not a right.

That argument isn't playing so well in the courts. You are free to have any opinion you wish concerning marriage being a right or not but the courts have stated that marriage is in fact a right. Your opinion vs. the opinion of the Supreme Court? Yeah, I am going to have to side with the courts on this one instead of some random person on the internet.

Wrong, the SCOTUS determined that it was wrong to ban gay marriage, they did not say it was a right. It is not.

Actually the Supreme Court is considering that issue- it has not ruled on the constitutionality of 'gay marriage bans'

However the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that marriage is a right.

If it was a right then people could just demand to get married when they wanted to.

All rights are unrestricted?

 

[PredFan]

There is nothing wrong with being gay. If you are gay, be gay and shut the fuck up about it.

Gays would shut up about a lot of it if you bigots would just shut up and grant them their rights.

gays have every right that straight people have. marriage is not a right.

Marriage is indeed a right in the United States. You may disagree- you may pretend that it isn't but the Supreme Court says otherwise- and the Supreme Court actually has authority- and you do not.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Due Process, Liberty, not a right. If it was a right no one would have to be single, they could demand their right.

Single people aren't denied civil marriage. Your argument falls apart on its face.

I'm not "denied" the private airplane tax break.

If it was a "right", you could get it when you wanted it. The Private Airplane Tax Break isn't a right idiot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

State your opinion on the issue you insist on dodging.

Jesus was celibate. Was he abnormal? Was he perverted?

Celibacy is what? It's a BEHAVIOR isn't it? Does that behavior conflict with the human physiological Standard? (No.. it doesn't.)

So.. while the BEHAVIOR is distinct from what is typical, OKA: Normality, it does not deviate from the human physiological norm; thus such is not a perversion of human sexuality.

But hey... in fairness to you, as a imbecile, there was NO WAY you could have known that.

Celibacy by your very own standards, which you're now trying to run away from, is abnormal.

No... it's not. It is only abnormal by the ludicrous machinations common to your reasoning, which as is always the case, rests entirely within populism.

Universal celibacy would put an end to the human race.

Thank you... it's never easier to refute a Leftist than where they do all the work.

(The Reader should realize that Celibacy is a CHOICE... manifested as a decision demonstrated through one's BEHAVIOR.)

 

[Seawytch]

Gays would shut up about a lot of it if you bigots would just shut up and grant them their rights.

gays have every right that straight people have. marriage is not a right.

Marriage is indeed a right in the United States. You may disagree- you may pretend that it isn't but the Supreme Court says otherwise- and the Supreme Court actually has authority- and you do not.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Due Process, Liberty, not a right. If it was a right no one would have to be single, they could demand their right.

Single people aren't denied civil marriage. Your argument falls apart on its face.

I'm not "denied" the private airplane tax break.

If it was a "right", you could get it when you wanted it. The Private Airplane Tax Break isn't a right idiot.

Are rights unrestricted?

 

[PredFan]

gays have every right that straight people have. marriage is not a right.

That argument isn't playing so well in the courts. You are free to have any opinion you wish concerning marriage being a right or not but the courts have stated that marriage is in fact a right. Your opinion vs. the opinion of the Supreme Court? Yeah, I am going to have to side with the courts on this one instead of some random person on the internet.

Wrong, the SCOTUS determined that it was wrong to ban gay marriage, they did not say it was a right. It is not.

Actually the Supreme Court is considering that issue- it has not ruled on the constitutionality of 'gay marriage bans'

However the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that marriage is a right.

If it was a right then people could just demand to get married when they wanted to.

All rights are unrestricted?

Yes, can you name one that isn't?

 

[dilloduck]

[ Wherein nature requires that Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Says who?

Where does Nature (whatever you are referring to) reject polygamy amongst humans?

Nature as nothing to do with marriage. Why gays want to be s unnatural

How the hell are you defining natural? Your own biased, christian perspective?

Do you see anything in nature other than humans that are married? It's a concept totally fabricated by humans

 

[Newby]

you want to alter the NUCLEUS of CIVILIZATION to accommodate those presenting mental disorder

Strawman. How do 2% of the population having sex alter the nucleus of civilization exactly?

I think the main argument here is what accepting what that 2% does as 'normal' will do to a society in the long run. What's next? It's buying into the leftest premise that everything is 'relative', there are no set truths or standards for a society, no right or wrong, no good or bad, etc.. .once that happens societies will decay and implode on themselves. Leftists like to talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk, they have no compunction about telling when you're 'wrong' about something, they aren't willing to enter 'relativity' into the discussion then and say there are no 'truths' and that your point of view had merit, they only use it whenever they need to win the 'unwashed' masses over to their way of thinking.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[ Wherein nature requires that Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Says who?

Where does Nature (whatever you are referring to) reject polygamy amongst humans?

Nature as nothing to do with marriage. Why gays want to be s unnatural

How the hell are you defining natural? Your own biased, christian perspective?

Do you see anything in nature other than humans that are married? It's a concept totally fabricated by humans

Penguins... wholly monogamous. There are also a number of other type of foul that are monogamous for life.

Feel better?

 

[kaz]

What more do ya need? The HIV?

Then there's on the straight side the syphilis

LOL! Good idea! Hetero-Sexual deviants suffer syphilis, therefore AIDS is less a problem for Homosexuals

Strawman. My point was that a disease isn't proof of anything, there are serious diseases with heterosexual sex too. No idea where you got what you said

The Higher Rates of Depression and Suicide?

Never heard this...

Ok. It remains a fact.

So is that you cut out my point

The Child Molestation Charges

Irrelevant to the discussion

Oh! So you want to strip from the discussion of the harm done by homosexuals, harmful behavior by homosexuals

No, because it doesn't address the OP's (i.e., my) question what the harm of CONSENTING ADULT gay sex is

 

[kaz]

Adorable!

Those who consider themselves conservative should feel worried about this nut ^

Keys is a good guy, he doesn't worry me at all. He's just wrong on this one. He's right most of the time

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are rights unrestricted?

No right is unrestricted. As there is no potential for a right, where the exercise of such is unrestricted. This is due to the fact that a right must be recognized in every human being and cannot be exercised, where such would infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own right.

 

[Marxist]

Adorable!

Those who consider themselves conservative should feel worried about this nut ^

Keys is a good guy, he doesn't worry me at all. He's just wrong on this one. He's right most of the time

No, he's not a good guy, he's established himself as a nut. I'm sorry, it's true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Strawman. My point was that a disease isn't proof of anything...

Actually, disease which comes as a consequence of behavior, is proof certain of the HARMFUL nature of that behavior.

The OP asks how homosexuality is harmful... the consequential disease of the behavior, answers that query.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Adorable!

Those who consider themselves conservative should feel worried about this nut ^

Keys is a good guy, he doesn't worry me at all. He's just wrong on this one. He's right most of the time

Ditto.

 

[kaz]

you want to alter the NUCLEUS of CIVILIZATION to accommodate those presenting mental disorder

Strawman. How do 2% of the population having sex alter the nucleus of civilization exactly?

So you feel that noting the IRREFUTABLE FACT: That the Human Family is the NUCLEUS OF CIVILIZATION... is a fabrication being represented as fact? And in so doing you offer straw reasoning as the construct of your contest?

LOL!

Kaz... go home. You're drunk.

Strawman, I feel that 2% of the population having sex don't affect the nucleus of civilization. Particularly people who don't want to have sex with the opposite sex anyway.

My sister is 50, never been married, has no kids. I don't consider her to threaten the nucleus of civilization either. A lot more than 2% of the population don't procreate

 

[kaz]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

Muslims ask the same question about screwing goats.

Ah, Syria, where the men are men and the goats are scared...

A goat isn't a consenting adult. I oppose dog fighting too

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Strawman, I feel that 2% of the population having sex don't affect the nucleus of civilization.

Kaz... come on. Are you truly willing to separate the demand by the Homosexual advocacy, that marriage be redefined, from the potential harm that is intrinsic to homosexuality?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Strawman, I feel that 2% of the population having sex don't affect the nucleus of civilization.

Kaz... come on. Are you truly willing to separate the demand by the Homosexual advocacy, that marriage be redefined, from the potential harm that is intrinsic to homosexuality?

Marriage can be redefined. We redefined government when the founders created a democracy to replace the divine right of the King.

 

[kaz]

you want to alter the NUCLEUS of CIVILIZATION to accommodate those presenting mental disorder

Strawman. How do 2% of the population having sex alter the nucleus of civilization exactly?

I think the main argument here is what accepting what that 2% does as 'normal' will do to a society in the long run. What's next? It's buying into the leftest premise that everything is 'relative', there are no set truths or standards for a society, no right or wrong, no good or bad, etc.. .once that happens societies will decay and implode on themselves. Leftists like to talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk, they have no compunction about telling when you're 'wrong' about something, they aren't willing to enter 'relativity' into the discussion then and say there are no 'truths' and that your point of view had merit, they only use it whenever they need to win the 'unwashed' masses over to their way of thinking.

Valid point, but I see government as forcing people to do it's bidding then they aren't harming anyone to be a far more dangerous precedent.

I'm not saying you said you advocate that, I don't remember you doing so. The question didn't involve the legality of gay. Just addressing the point you raised