Benedict condemns gay marriages.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:
ah.. one of the first source in christian literature that suggest that homosexuality is not a choice. shouldn't the pope be preaching this instead of the anti gay-marriage message?
Isn't what the Church has taught? To be faithful to the teaching and yet tolerate and love?
It is stated in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.
Article 2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. [b]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
[/b]
and if it is not a choice.. should the society has the rights to discriminate them? to take away the most civil rights, especially that of marriage? i have demonstrated earlier that civil rights are tied in with marriage, whether you like it or not.. it is not just a church service anymore, but is a legal status in which laws are applied to you whether you are married or not.. -
It's neutral because it's neither pro-religion nor pro-gay..Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:You sure that they are really neutral? How do you know that the powerful gay and lesbian lobby groups in America did not lobby for the Society to change it's definition?
It is an association set up to address psychological issues..
http://www.apa.org/ -
furthermore, what's wrong wif lobbying against discrimination? if the discrimination is a wrongful one..Originally posted by earthlings73:It's neutral because it's neither pro-religion nor pro-gay..
It is an association set up to address psychological issues..
http://www.apa.org/ -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
ah.. one of the first source in christian literature that suggest that homosexuality is [b]not a choice. shouldn't the pope be preaching this instead of the anti gay-marriage message?
and if it is not a choice.. should the society has the rights to discriminate them? to take away the most civil rights, especially that of marriage? i have demonstrated earlier that civil rights are tied in with marriage, whether you like it or not.. it is not just a church service anymore, but is a legal status in which laws are applied to you whether you are married or not..[/b]Article 2358
Allow me to clarify...
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.
Homosexual tendencies is not the same as homosexuality (homosexual behaviour). Just because a person is predisposed to an attraction for the same sex, doesn't mean he must act on that predisposition. To put it simply, just because a guy likes guys, doesn't mean he should have sex with other guys. I'll compare it with something else.
A man may be born pre-disposed to alcoholism. Does this mean he should be alcoholic?
Yes, it is not a choice whether they like the same sex, but they can make the choice whether to have gay sex or not. The reason we do not allow gay 'marriage' is because if we do so, we are implicitly giving them the go ahead to have gay sex. -
Allowing gay marriage binds the 2 partners to faithfulness, so they don't go around screwing half the male population and spreading STDs in the process.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Yes, it is not a choice whether they like the same sex, but they can make the choice whether to have gay sex or not. The reason we do not allow gay 'marriage' is because if we do so, we are implicitly giving them the go ahead to have gay sex. -
In addition,
The term "homosexual" is not used in the same fashion in Church documents (or, at least, the CCC) as it is in mainstream media or by many English speakers. The Church uses it almost exclusively as an adjective. That is, a person is not a homosexual. That person may have homosexual tendencies, but he or she is not the sum total of those tendencies.
This latter point is critical for understanding the Church's teaching on homosexuality. The Church condemns the sins of homosexual acts. The Church does not condemn people who have homosexual tendencies simply for having those tendencies. We all have sinful tendencies to overcome, particularly in the area of sexuality. -
predisposition is a natural tendency.. which means one is borned with it..Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Allow me to clarify...
Homosexual tendencies is not the same as homosexuality (homosexual behaviour). Just because a person is predisposed to an attraction for the same sex, doesn't mean he must act on that predisposition. To put it simply, just because a guy likes guys, doesn't mean he should have sex with other guys. I'll compare it with something else.
A man may be born pre-disposed to alcoholism. Does this mean he should be alcoholic?
Yes, it is not a choice whether they like the same sex, but they can make the choice whether to have gay sex or not. The reason we do not allow gay 'marriage' is because if we do so, we are implicitly giving them the go ahead to have gay sex.
unless you can argue that "sex" serve no purpose except for "passing on genes".. but then, why shouldn't the church speaks against sex in general? but condemn "homosexual" categorically?
but is drinking alcohol a "category" sin? NO.. do christians still drink? YES..
if someone drinks so much that he becomes an alcoholic.. he has developed what is known as substance abuse disorder.. which is a psychiatric disorder.. you can check it up on DSM IV..
but homosexuality has been removed as a "disorder".. so there you go.. how can you compare the 2? and of homosexuals have too much sex, he might develop certain sexual disorders too.. being a homosexual is not "wrong" in the eyes of psychiatry..
the implication of marriage is beyond having sex.. it's having a legal status to operate as lawful partners.. but if it's sex they are worrying about, shouldnt they lobby against pre-marital sex instead?
so far, there's nothing in the bible which said "WHY" homosexuality is a sin.. nothing at all.. other than you cannot do it.. but the book of leviticus also say that you cannot eat prawn.. but did the church lobby against prawn eater? NO..
See the double standards here? -
ah.. no you are slapping yourself to say that it's an adjective and hence not a predisposition.. can you make up your mind already?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:In addition,
The term "homosexual" is not used in the same fashion in Church documents (or, at least, the CCC) as it is in mainstream media or by many English speakers. The Church uses it almost exclusively as an adjective. That is, a person is not a homosexual. That person may have homosexual tendencies, but he or she is not the sum total of those tendencies.
This latter point is critical for understanding the Church's teaching on homosexuality. The Church condemns the sins of homosexual acts. The Church does not condemn people who have homosexual tendencies simply for having those tendencies. We all have sinful tendencies to overcome, particularly in the area of sexuality.
the question is "who have homosexual tendencies?"
it's homosexuals isn't it?
okay.. bring in another subject matter.. Alfred Kinsey..
He was the one who proposed that human sexuality can be described as a continuum.. from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexual..
for those who are in middle, there are bi-sexuality..
the problem is for those exclusive homosexuals.. unless they can abstain from sex for their entire life, there's no way can they convert themselves to heterosexuals..
just like there's no way for heterosexuals to become homosexuals.. -
We love sinners because sinners are human beings, not because they are sinners. BUT, if they do not repent and continue sinning, then, continuing loving them would be condoning the sinful act, nicely put by LL "tactic silent approval". You have to accept the fact that no religion or civilized society will agree to that.Originally posted by earthlings73:u were arguing for "Love the sinner but hate the sin."
is that right?
but i had argued against earlier that such stance do not stand because in the case of homosexuality.. the sin = the sinner..
Religions like catholitism, christainity, islam (not sure what buddism and taoism's view on this) regards homosexuality a sin because it is told by their God and is clearly written in their holy books. Many religious belief and doctrines are absolute and do not change with time and place; rape, murder, homosexual are sins, are examples of these. I can't see how the Pope, or churches taking a moderate stance or compromise on such issues. If you don't accept these religions, you don't acknowledge their God as yr God, then you don't have to adopt the same moral standard. But the believers are free to believe what they believe. Catholics believes in God, not Benedict and they listen to what God says, through benedict. Benedict would have to entertainment business or politics if he only wants to speak what the people want to hear. If you question if God is speaking throught benedict, then you should ask God.
Of course not all who embrace a religion carry out everything that was taught and that is why jails and prisons are not only keeping those with no religions. Twisted interpretation of religious teachings as well as overzealous believers are other reasons why crimes are still committed by religious people. But if a crime is committed, like that done to Matthew Shepard and Dwan Price, then there is law to deal with such offenders.
You can't tell schools teachers not to teach against stealing for fear that the students might go out bashing all petty thieves stealing handphones.
Gays need to recognise how conservative or how religious is the societies they live in. Freedom and democracy do not guarantee your acceptance. Even a neighbourhood full of atheists may not welcome you. If you go around thinking that you have the right to proclaim your likings, then you are stretching your luck.
You should do what you like with your partner in the privacy of your bedroom then you will only have to account for your act in the final judgement day, that is if you believe in one. To claim for legal rights in gay marriages in the name of equality, you must not forget that the world is never equal, especially when it comes to things that are morally wrong, as defined by the majority in the society. Thank God for the majority know what is right and what is wrong, at least on this issue. -
denying rights will also have another impact..Originally posted by iveco:Allowing gay marriage binds the 2 partners to faithfulness, so they don't go around screwing half the male population and spreading STDs in the process.
look at those "maladjusted" gays around.. those gays who are homophobic themselves.. and have to resort to underhand means to get their sexual needs..
locally, we have people like chan cheng who molested boys..
and of course, all those church scandals.. of priests turning into paedophiles.. and of course, we have a case study of MJ (not 100% sure he's gay though)..
well-adjusted gays who had accepted their sexuality, on the other hand, can proceed to build a productive life..
even though marriage might be out of question at this moment.. there's still a chance to meet a devoted partner and share the life with him/her forever..
but of course, with marriage, the legal discrimination would be removed.. but then, let's take one step at a time.. -
Are you sure those who are married are not screwing around? and what make gays more faithful to another man than a husband to his wife?Originally posted by iveco:Allowing gay marriage binds the 2 partners to faithfulness, so they don't go around screwing half the male population and spreading STDs in the process. -
Okay, a religious fundamentalist's reply.. I will not argue against your point cause i do respect other people's religion.. but then what about eating prawns?Originally posted by sgdiehard:We love sinners because sinners are human beings, not because they are sinners. BUT, if they do not repent and continue sinning, then, continuing loving them would be condoning the sinful act, nicely put by LL "tactic silent approval". You have to accept the fact that no religion or civilized society will agree to that.
Religions like catholitism, christainity, islam (not sure what buddism and taoism's view on this) regards homosexuality a sin because it is told by their God and is clearly written in their holy books. Many religious belief and doctrines are absolute and do not change with time and place; rape, murder, homosexual are sins, are examples of these. I can't see how the Pope, or churches taking a moderate stance or compromise on such issues. If you don't accept these religions, you don't acknowledge their God as yr God, then you don't have to adopt the same moral standard. But the believers are free to believe what they believe. Catholics believes in God, not Benedict and they listen to what God says, through benedict. Benedict would have to entertainment business or politics if he only wants to speak what the people want to hear. If you question if God is speaking throught benedict, then you should ask God.
Of course not all who embrace a religion carry out everything that was taught and that is why jails and prisons are not only keeping those with no religions. Twisted interpretation of religious teachings as well as overzealous believers are other reasons why crimes are still committed by religious people. But if a crime is committed, like that done to Matthew Shepard and Dwan Price, then there is law to deal with such offenders.
You can't tell schools teachers not to teach against stealing for fear that the students might go out bashing all petty thieves stealing handphones.
Gays need to recognise how conservative or how religious is the societies they live in. Freedom and democracy do not guarantee your acceptance. Even a neighbourhood full of atheists may not welcome you. If you go around thinking that you have the right to proclaim your likings, then you are stretching your luck.
You should do what you like with your partner in the privacy of your bedroom then you will only have to account for your act in the final judgement day, that is if you believe in one. To claim for legal rights in gay marriages in the name of equality, you must not forget that the world is never equal, especially when it comes to things that are morally wrong, as defined by the majority in the society. Thank God for the majority know what is right and what is wrong, at least on this issue.
"Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."
the book of leviticus (the same book which says "man sleeping with man is detestable") devoted an entire paragraph on how detestable it is to eat anything other than fish..
what say you? -
A married gay who goes around screwing half the male population is no better than a straying spouse and should be treated as such.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Are you sure those who are married are not screwing around? and what make gays more faithful to another man than a husband to his wife? -
the worse cases are those in which the wives unknowingly married a gay/bisexual..Originally posted by iveco:A married gay who goes around screwing half the male population is no better than a straying spouse and should be treated as such.
they are too many such cases around..
i even heard of a case in which the father molested his own son.. =( -
today I very free. Did more research based on local context. Most of these articles were written by christian gays..
1. Letter by Clarence Singham to the Straits Times:
I refer to the letter from George Lim (Govt Should Rethink Hiring of Gays) in the Straits Times dated 15 July.
I am Christian and I am gay. I have never been addicted to pornography, never been sexually abused and had a loving father and mother as well as other strong male relatives in my life. My family knows I am gay. They love and respect my partner and I because we strive to be filial, to care for them and to lead productive and decent lives. The gender of my partner is irrelevant to their esteem for us.
The argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality merely represents the view of one segment of the Christian world. There are many others, both gay and straight, who can see a full reconciliation between homosexuality and the Christian faith. The favorite scripture texts that are often used to clobber homosexuals, such as the Sodom and Gomorrah and Romans verses, have long been captive to the narrow, and some would assert, distorted interpretations of one sector of the Christian church. To make strident religious assertions without a fair consideration of alternative views, runs counter to our society's multi religous ethos and is plain prejudice.
Appealing to doomsday type arguments about the fall of empires, implying that gay individuals are like viruses to be eliminated and suggesting that accepting gays will mortally endanger our children is simplistic and frightening. Simplistic because in one fell swoop it asserts that complex phenomena are brought about by one culprit who is to be demonised and disenfrenchised. Frightening because it is arguments like these that fueled the mass extermination of a race, of homosexuals and other "undesirables" in Nazi "Christian" Germany. Such polemics merely instill fear and irrational emotionalism. They falsely suggest that the road to greater security and happiness requires excising those who are different from us.
To insist that morality is black and white, even Christian morality, is to be blind to the complexities of morality and life. Only people who are able to develop a highly selective morality based on their own prejudices can say that moral issues are so clear cut. Does Mr Lim intend for the Government prohibit all divorced individuals from ever marrying again? What about banning women from holding positions of authority over men? And while we are at it let's sack every heterosexual who engages in oral sex or practices masturbation shall we? After all, these are some of the so-called black and white moral stances that people have held not too long ago.
It is high time we recognise that we live in a world whose complexity calls us to base our lives and morals on broad principles of respect, reflexivity and relationship. Respect because we need to give others due space to live their lives to their highest potential. Reflexivity because we are fallible human beings who need to regulalry interrogate our assumptions and beliefs about others who are different. Relationship because we need to harness our diversity and similarities to build a resilient nation. Let's make this nation one that is able to handle the incredible complexities we will be facing in the years to come and not hide behind the guise of religion to justify our insecurities, prejudices and unfounded fears.
source:http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2003/yax-324.htm -
My letter to the Straits Times
(source:http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2003/yax-324.htm)
I refer to the letter by George Lim Heng Chye, "Govt should rethink hiring of gays" (ST 15 July 2003).
He writes of homosexuality as a sin, and, in the example that he uses, places gay people in the company of criminals, gangsters and hooligans.
Mr Lim writes from the perspective of his religion. Each Singaporean is free to believe in whatever religion he wishes, but at the same time, we should remember that this is a secular state. No religion should expect the state to enforce its particular morality or code of conduct, least of all on those who arenÂ’t of that religion.
There is no majority religion in Singapore; in fact, many Singaporeans declare themselves as free-thinkers. Mr Lim made an appeal to "the majority of the public" to make known its disapproval. First of all, it is doubtful what majority Mr Lim has assumed, but more importantly, a state has to hold itself to higher standards of human liberty and dignity.
As an example, for many generations, even now, many Singaporeans held prejudices against interracial marriage. But it has never been the business of the state to yield to baser instincts and ban them. Instead the state remains colour-blind and respects the individualÂ’s choice of life partner.
Mr Lim says that the government has lost its moral authority by hiring gay persons. Others, on the other hand, might argue that a government would lose its moral authority if it discriminated against a section of its own citizens.
It is chilling when Mr Lim says there is no greyness between white and black, and that morality is absolute. He is free to subscribe to such absolutist ideas if he wishes, but in practical terms, managing a country necessarily means balancing various shades of grey.
Also, in practical terms, where does SingaporeÂ’s future lie? We have no choice but to be part of a wider world. As a small country, we have to compete with every resource we have. The world out there is diverse and we need to be open-minded and tolerant if we want to interact successfully with it. We also need every individual and more -- thus the need for foreign talent -- to do his best for Singapore. To exclude a significant part of the available talent pool, local and foreign, on the basis of an absolutist mindset is the surest way to diminish our future. -
Vernon Voon's letter to the Straits Times:
I am homosexual man, not married to any woman and without any children, homosexual or heterosexual. I am also a Methodist and have no problems balancing my religion with my sexuality.
I read with interest the articles which appeared in yesterday's Forum section of your newspaper, especially the one titled "Govt should rethink hiring of gays". It spells a lot of misconceptions which I would take pains to correct.
The writer says "love the sinner, hate the sin" and lumps gays with criminals, gangsters and hooligans. But the differentiating factor is that all the other 3 categories of people cause harm to other people against their consent. Gays don't do that. There are verses in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexual behaviour, but they are increasingly coming under attack among religious circles as referring to a cultural context where paganism was rife, and admonition of all sexual acts other than those solely for procreation was imperative, in order to curb idolatry and spread the Christian message of the supremacy of God.
As for the government losing moral authority by its position, it is my humble opinion that they have actually gained it. By showing that they are an equal opportunity employer where the only thing that matters in your job is your competence and your skills, they have shown the way forward to being a true cosmopolitan society, where people can live, work and play regardless of their race, sex, or sexuality.
And finally, the writer seems to be convinced that homosexuality arises from nurture and not nature. The jury is still out on this point, I'm afraid. Tests are inconclusive as to whether the root cause of homosexual behaviour is nature, or nurture, or a combination of both.
But suffice to say that many homosexuals find they cannot change, and many have suffered and fallen short of their true identity in trying to do so. They deny their basic need to love and be loved, and get married to people > only to hurt them later by the inability to form a close emotional and sexual union, or worse.
PM Goh's views, be it personal, that homosexuality is genetic, is a real breath of fresh air in the current debate. It has made me that much more assured in my identity as a gay Singaporean. Here, a senior statesman, has put his foot down and said, "Hey, to me, being gay's natural. Sure, society can't accept it at first, but give them time." Nothing can be more empowering and more healing to a community long cast aside as the refuse of society.
source:http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2003/yax-324.htm -
Louis Sung's letter to the Straits Times:
I refer to the letter by Mr George Lim Heng Chy, titled 'Govt should rethink hiring of gays' dated 15 July 2003.
I find Mr Lim's argument simplistic, self-moralising and not well thought through. Let me numerate my reasons.
He quoted 'Love the sinner, hate the sin'. This is simply a thinly veiled hypocritical manner of saying 'please change your behaviour and actions to suit my moral/religious views.' Mr Lim seems to forget that this world is made up of a whole spectrum of people of diverse religious/ethical views. What makes him so sure that his is the be-all and end-all that would lead to a well-lived life?
What is even more simple-minded - no, laughable - is when he said 'there is no greyness between black and white. White is white and black is black. There is no relativity in morality.' How about a poor son who has to steal in order to feed his feeble, impoverished parents? Is that black or white? On the one hand, he is fulfilling his filial piety by stealing, which is a virtue we would extol; yet stealing is clearly wrong. Isn't this a grey area that requires subtle ethical consideration? Kant's categorical imperative - or absolute moral right - has long been debunked in philosophy. I would advise Mr Lim to read up on relevant texts before making such simplistic conclusion.
Then there is Mr Lim's claim of 'corrupting and subtle influences of such a lifestyle'. According to survey, perhaps one in ten person is born gay. Need I point out the amount of crimes and cheating on wives done by heterosexual men? All you have to do is flip open the Wanbao and Shin Min, and you see heterosexual couples cheating on one another, fighting, bickering. Why doesn't Mr Lim consider such ill-considered behaviour a 'corrupting' influence on his children's conduct? By sheer law of statistics, the chances a child being 'corrupted' by a heterosexual is nine tenth of that compared to that of a homosexual!
Scientific research has long since established that brain structure of gays and lesbians are different from that straights. Yet Mr LIm claims that they are such because of being sexually abused, from a single parent family or being 'addicted to pronography'. I would like to know where Mr Lim obtains such sterling research materials and their sources. Using his terms of argument re: porn, why then straight men don't turn sexual maniacs? And pray don't tell me straight men don't read pornography; a simple search on the internet would reveal a vast amount of straight pornography!
More importantly, would we discriminate against someone born with diabetes? colour blind-ness? dyslexia? So why discriminate against people who are born gay or lesbian? If one doesn't discriminate against the former but the latter, wherein lies the logic?
As for 'history has shown time and again that great empires fell because of failing human values and shaky moral principles', let me point out Alexander the Great, Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo etc etc were all gay. They had contributed a great deal to western civilisation, be it conquest, science and the arts whose benefits last to these days. By Mr Lim's argument, they should long have been banished to obscurity and culture would have been poorer for that.
Mr Lim quoted Christianianity and Islam; if he would only read the great Chinese classics, 'Dream of the Red Chamber', he would find that homosexuality was accepted as part of daily life. So why are we imposing foreign monotheistic values on ourselves, and not open our hearts to accepts values from our as well as other cultures?
It is such narrow-mindedness that has earned Singapore in the international community the reputation as a draconian state. PM Goh is enlightened enough to relax the rules and more power to him. We are living in the 21st century. Let us not regress because of short-sightedness. Otherwise Singapore would really become what Mr Lim predicted, one of a 'great empires [that] fell'.
source:http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2003/yax-324.htm -
My view on this..
SM Goh's speech back then opened up a can of worms.. prior to that, the gay community was rather happy to left untouched, unnoticed, unattended to..
but after this speech.. it triggered massive news coverage.. and suddenly, gays need to stand up to fight against all those anti-gays antiments that were being targeted at them..
Only if he could follow up on this issue.. Or else, it will be another of those empty talks.. -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
Urrr... i am no fundamentalist by any definition.
Okay, a religious fundamentalist's reply.. I will not argue against your point cause i do respect other people's religion.. but then what about eating prawns?
[b]"Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."
the book of leviticus (the same book which says "man sleeping with man is detestable") devoted an entire paragraph on how detestable it is to eat anything other than fish..
what say you?[/b]
The book of leviticus is a record of God's instruction to Moses for the israelites, on mt sinai where the covenant (between God and the isrealites) was made (Exodus 19:5 Israel 'will be for God a kingdom of priest and holy nation'). The detailed instructions was for the isrealites to become holy for God is holy, see 11:44,45, 19:5. Great difference was made between things that are clean and unclean. According to 11:9, only those with fins and scales are clean and can be eaten. Leviticus also detailed many laws, rules and regulations for the israelites. Today, the jews, those who follow judaism continue to follow these laws of moses.
When Jesus came, man become children of God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and his ressurection, not through obeying the laws of moses. When it comes to food, God said to Peter "do not call anything impure if God has made clean. Acts10:15). In the time of moses, only the israelites were the chosen people of God. In the time of Jesus, all those who believe in Jesus become children of God through faith, and we no longer follow all the laws as detailed in Leviticus.
But then are we free to do anything we like? Are homosexual becomes acceptable? No! Paul said in the book of Romans 1:26,27: '...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for natural ones. In the same way, men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...'
It is clear that homosexual existed in time of moses and in time of jesus. It is no new “complexities of morality and life” that only exist today; and it was a sin, in the eye of God, during the time of moses, in the time of jesus and it remains a sin now.
God made man in the image of God (Genesis 9:6), woman was made from man, to be united with man in one flesh (Genesis 2:23,24). What is an honorable man and what is a natural relation between sexes were defined at that time.
There is a difference between accepting a different opinion and compromising our moral standard in the name of respect for immoral behaviours.
I respect gays as fellow human beings, but on issues such as this, I am very clear where I stand and I stand firm. If you like any one of the same sex, and have to have sex with him/her, do it in the privacy of your bedroom, donÂ’t shout about it, as a respect for others who do not share your liking. -
1) uhuh.. certain laws as stated in the book of leviticus (which is part of bible) can be ignored.. which means the book does not make sense out of context.. aren't you slapping yourself on your face? if the bible is indeed the word of god, do u think he will leave it to chance? so whatever happens before jesus can be ignored? if it can be ignored, why passed it down as part of the bible, which u have claimed that it's the truth that will withstand the test of time..Originally posted by sgdiehard:Urrr... i am no fundamentalist by any definition.
The book of leviticus is a record of God's instruction to Moses for the israelites, on mt sinai where the covenant (between God and the isrealites) was made (Exodus 19:5 Israel 'will be for God a kingdom of priest and holy nation'). The detailed instructions was for the isrealites to become holy for God is holy, see 11:44,45, 19:5. Great difference was made between things that are clean and unclean. According to 11:9, only those with fins and scales are clean and can be eaten. Leviticus also detailed many laws, rules and regulations for the israelites. Today, the jews, those who follow judaism continue to follow these laws of moses.
When Jesus came, man become children of God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and his ressurection, not through obeying the laws of moses. When it comes to food, God said to Peter "do not call anything impure if God has made clean. Acts10:15). In the time of moses, only the israelites were the chosen people of God. In the time of Jesus, all those who believe in Jesus become children of God through faith, and we no longer follow all the laws as detailed in Leviticus.
But then are we free to do anything we like? Are homosexual becomes acceptable? No! Paul said in the book of Romans 1:26,27: '...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for natural ones. In the same way, men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...'
It is clear that homosexual existed in time of moses and in time of jesus. It is no new “complexities of morality and life” that only exist today; and it was a sin, in the eye of God, during the time of moses, in the time of jesus and it remains a sin now.
God made man in the image of God (Genesis 9:6), woman was made from man, to be united with man in one flesh (Genesis 2:23,24). What is an honorable man and what is a natural relation between sexes were defined at that time.
There is a difference between accepting a different opinion and compromising our moral standard in the name of respect for immoral behaviours.
I respect gays as fellow human beings, but on issues such as this, I am very clear where I stand and I stand firm. If you like any one of the same sex, and have to have sex with him/her, do it in the privacy of your bedroom, donÂ’t shout about it, as a respect for others who do not share your liking.
2) those people who quoted the paragraph you had quoted usually conveniently ignore the paragraph that precedes it..
"21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. "
just do a simple internet search and you will find many gay christians ard.. they love god as much as any of the straights.. but then, why did god still make them homosexuals? why can't they change?
3) and till now, no one had clearly articulated why is homosexuality amoral? christians have this tendency to equate homosexuality as murder or rape (which u had clearly articulated in your earlier post). But we know that murder and rape imply to infringement of another person's rights or body.. why the fear of homosexuals? most homosexuals seek out within own circle.. (less than maladjusted ones as mentioned in one of my earlier posts) so how can homosexuals be immoral when they do not infringe on other's rights?
4) the blacks suffered from discrimination for a long while.. if they do not fight for their equal rights.. do you think your statement of just stay in your bedroom ever be justified? homosexuals, like straights, need to work, need to form adaptive relationship with a partner, need entertainment, etc, etc.. unless your perception of gays is that of someone who just live to enjoy sex, your point doesn't stand.. and if that's indeed your view, I would encourage you to get to know some gay friends.. u will start to realise that they are like you, in almost any other way, except that they are attracted to the same gender.. -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
just to add on.. the religious fundamentalists are the one who are infringing on gay rights..
1) uhuh.. certain laws as stated in the book of leviticus (which is part of bible) can be ignored.. which means the book does not make sense out of context.. aren't you slapping yourself on your face? if the bible is indeed the word of god, do u think he will leave it to chance? so whatever happens before jesus can be ignored? if it can be ignored, why passed it down as part of the bible, which u have claimed that it's the truth that will withstand the test of time..
2) those people who quoted the paragraph you had quoted usually conveniently ignore the paragraph that precedes it..
[b]"21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. "
just do a simple internet search and you will find many gay christians ard.. they love god as much as any of the straights.. but then, why did god still make them homosexuals? why can't they change?
3) and till now, no one had clearly articulated why is homosexuality amoral? christians have this tendency to equate homosexuality as murder or rape (which u had clearly articulated in your earlier post). But we know that murder and rape imply to infringement of another person's rights or body.. why the fear of homosexuals? most homosexuals seek out within own circle.. (less than maladjusted ones as mentioned in one of my earlier posts) so how can homosexuals be immoral when they do not infringe on other's rights?
4) the blacks suffered from discrimination for a long while.. if they do not fight for their equal rights.. do you think your statement of just stay in your bedroom ever be justified? homosexuals, like straights, need to work, need to form adaptive relationship with a partner, need entertainment, etc, etc.. unless your perception of gays is that of someone who just live to enjoy sex, your point doesn't stand.. and if that's indeed your view, I would encourage you to get to know some gay friends.. u will start to realise that they are like you, in almost any other way, except that they are attracted to the same gender..
[/b]
the rights to lead a normal, well-adjusted life..
do read my post on the psychiatric view of homosexuality.. the most adaptive way for gays to cope with their sexuality is to accept their sexual orientation.. reparative (or conversion) therapy has not been demonstrated to be effective to "cure" gays.. -
if the bible is indeed the word of god, do u think he will leave it to chance?
.
You expose your ignorance about the bible and christianity, though that is understandable given your antagonism to both. The food laws that you alluded to are still followed strictly by orthodox Jews...that's why they eat only kosher food. Christians interprete sections of the New Testament to mean that these laws concerning food have been laid aside. If you are interested to know why, go and study theology.
I don't expect you to think that the bible makes sense to you but that's no reason to ridicule another person's holy book.just do a simple internet search and you will find many gay christians ard.. they love god as much as any of the straights..
.
Majority of christians will not agree with that...the bible says you cannot love God without obedience. Gay Christians are therefore living in sin and by no stretch of imagination can they be said to love God:
"This is love for God: to obey his commands...." (1 Jn 5:3)no one had clearly articulated why is homosexuality amoral?
.
Because the bible condemns it in the strongest possible terms:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev 20:13
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Rom 1:27)
For Christians, if God condemns it, it is condemned...period.do you think your statement of just stay in your bedroom ever be justified?
.
Just be thankful you don't live in a Muslim country. If you are convicted of homosexuality, you can be stoned to death. Isn't it better to keep it in the bedroom then? -
The old testament, as part of the Bible, tells us who God is, how he created heaven and earth, his walk with his chosen people, the israelites, and more importantly tells us clearly that the coming of jesus christ to save the world was prophesized and it is God's plan! With Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection, man, no longer need to offer burnt sacrifices (example) to atone our sins to get close to God. But immorality remains immorality, God has not changed the definition. May be you think that if God change the definition of morality and sin then man will not sin anymore. NO! God is the Holy God and will never accept what is sinful. That is why he sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross to atone the sins for all mankind so that we can be reconcilled with him.Originally posted by earthlings73:1) uhuh.. certain laws as stated in the book of leviticus (which is part of bible) can be ignored.. which means the book does not make sense out of context.. aren't you slapping yourself on your face? if the bible is indeed the word of god, do u think he will leave it to chance? so whatever happens before jesus can be ignored? if it can be ignored, why passed it down as part of the bible, which u have claimed that it's the truth that will withstand the test of time..
I accept God and the Bible in faith. If you want to have better understanding of the Bible and God, as Oxford Mushroom said, go to the theological college.
I am not qualified to explain but I do know that many things, like the Holiness of God and God's standards of morality, are not subjects for discussion. It is either you accept it or not.
Not sure what you are trying to say with these few verses. To me, these verses tell us that God's wrath is on man because man knew there is God but do not gloriy him as God. Instead, man worshipped idols made in the form of man, birds.... That is why many christian (non catholic) churches put no statues of anykind in the church, except a wooden cross as a symbol of our salvation. God is against worshipping of idols.
2) those people who quoted the paragraph you had quoted usually conveniently ignore the paragraph that precedes it..
[b]"21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. "[/b]
What have we ignored?
Why God made them homosexuals? sometimes I want to ask God why was I born so ugly? Do they really want to change? or do they think that as long as they are filial to their parents, love God, then God will ACCEPT their behaviors as not sinful???
just do a simple internet search and you will find many gay christians ard.. they love god as much as any of the straights.. but then, why did god still make them homosexuals? why can't they change?
Since they accept God and call themselves Christians, it is up to them to reconcile their behavior with God. We can only pray for them.
Homosexual is a sin against God, nothing to do with any other's rights. Oxford Mushroom is quite clear on this and I will not add.
3) and till now, no one had clearly articulated why is homosexuality amoral? christians have this tendency to equate homosexuality as murder or rape (which u had clearly articulated in your earlier post). But we know that murder and rape imply to infringement of another person's rights or body.. why the fear of homosexuals? most homosexuals seek out within own circle.. (less than maladjusted ones as mentioned in one of my earlier posts) so how can homosexuals be immoral when they do not infringe on other's rights?
I hope the blacks are not insulted by your comparing their fights for civil equality to your fight for rights to homosexuality.
4) the blacks suffered from discrimination for a long while.. if they do not fight for their equal rights.. do you think your statement of just stay in your bedroom ever be justified? homosexuals, like straights, need to work, need to form adaptive relationship with a partner, need entertainment, etc, etc.. unless your perception of gays is that of someone who just live to enjoy sex, your point doesn't stand.. and if that's indeed your view, I would encourage you to get to know some gay friends.. u will start to realise that they are like you, in almost any other way, except that they are attracted to the same gender..
I only have two friends who appear to be gays. I never ask them if they have sex with man, women, children or what. We shared happy moment, together as a group on many things. They are like anyone of us, they just did not show their tendency in front of us. They probably know that certain things is best kept to themselves. We respect their need for privacy and they respect our stand on moral standard. -
If u can't prove homosex is good,how do u know it is not wrong?Originally posted by earthlings73:can u have some thots of your own?
quoting someone elses post and say that it's wrong is err.. (i dont know what word to use to avoid flaming)
..
and this thread is about the speech made by pope..
if u r interested in the argument of whether it's right or wrong, please see this thread..
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=134150&page=6
and there's one maxim which i always force myself to operate on:
"Between black and white are the different shades of grey. Nothing is absolutely right.. or wrong.."
esp in this case when homosexuality do not harm or hurt another person.. almost gays operate within the same community.. almost all gays do not seek out innocent straight men or women to sodomise them..
if that's the case, why would someone else bother about what gays do inside their bedroom?
hence, i do not even need to demonstrate that it's good.. as long as is not wrong, why should others bother?
Homosex is not good to oneself.It is like abusing drug,so they are illegal.