7 reasons gay ain't OK

[Free]

Both of my points are valid. Show me two men who want to marry each other who haven't already had sex. If you can, then you are right, but you will never be able to do it because you are not right.

You are making a fallacious generalization since you have no evidence of the claim you are making. The burden of proof is on you.

When heterosexuals have premarital sex, they are committing a sin. They are supposed to wait till they get married. Just because a lot of them do it doesn't make it right.

No one is claiming that it is okay. Why do you even make such an argument?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

When heterosexuals have premarital sex, they are committing a sin. They are supposed to wait till they get married. Just because a lot of them do it doesn't make it right.

Nobody is claiming it is right. You, however, appear to be suggesting it's less of a sin than homosexual sex.

 

[Mike]

If anyone is interested in knowing how this community responds when someone tries to validate heterosexual fornication, this is one example.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41009

It's one of the few, because very few people attempt to validate heterosexual sex outside of the covenant of marriage. This one did, it got more heated than any discussion about homosexuality I can recall being involved in.

One more point. There are many adults in the United States who don't know what's in the bible outside of a few verses that have come to be in our vernacular. And many who know what the Bible says do not agree that homosexuality is a sin. If this were not true, certainly you wouldn't have openly gay pastors being ordained in some churches.

 

[Free]

One more point. There are many adults in the United States who don't know what's in the bible outside of a few verses that have come to be in our vernacular. And many who know what the Bible says do not agree that homosexuality is a sin. If this were not true, certainly you wouldn't have openly gay pastors being ordained in some churches.

Perhaps just to clarify (I hope it's a clarification, I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying or put words in your mouth), there are many who have read what the Bible says but have been convinced by liberal theologians and scholars that the words mean something else or were based on ignorance and in some way don't apply to today. Poppycock of course but a position that must be taken into consideration.

 

[Mike]

Perhaps just to clarify (I hope it's a clarification, I don't want to misrepresent what you are saying or put words in your mouth), there are many who have read what the Bible says but have been convinced by liberal theologians and scholars that the words mean something else or were based on ignorance and in some way don't apply to today. Poppycock of course but a position that must be taken into consideration.

Exactly. I'll go further in saying some individuals have come to these conclusions on their own without being led by theologians. They find affirmation by them, but they've arrived at these misinterpretations in part influenced by their bias. I believe it's impossible to interpret scripture without some degree of bias, and in this case it leads some homosexuals to believe certain scriptures nullify it as a sin.

 

[elijah23]

You are making a fallacious generalization since you have no evidence of the claim you are making. The burden of proof is on you.


No one is claiming that it is okay. Why do you even make such an argument?

I promise you that you will never find two men who want to marry each other who haven't already had sex. The Bible writers are in agreement that homosexuality is a sin. I am on firm ground.

 

[elijah23]

Nobody is claiming it is right. You, however, appear to be suggesting it's less of a sin than homosexual sex.

I believe all unchaste behavior, be it of a heterosexual or homesexual nature, is of equal consequence. Homosexual sin is no worse than heterosexual sin. My problem at the moment is with church leaders who are giving their blessing to same-sex marriage.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

I believe all unchaste behavior, be it of a heterosexual or homesexual nature, is of equal consequence. Homosexual sin is no worse than heterosexual sin. My problem at the moment is with church leaders who are giving their blessing to same-sex marriage.

And scripturally, you are on solid ground. I find a big difference between the needed approach to practitioners of homosexuality and religious leaders who condone it. I'm just baffled by your insistence on pointing out the finer details of their sexual behavior. It benefits nobody except those who would like to (explicitly or implicitly) fan the flames of hatred.

With the leaders, they are presumably well versed on scripture and can be informed in clear terms that their approval is unscriptural. Arguments about the nature of homosexual relations, when/where/why they have sex, aren't relevant in this case, because with a Church leader you have all the support you need in the Bible and that is the only argument they should need.

For those practicing the sin however, it does no good to humiliate them by pointing out how many sexual partners you think they've had, or how early in the relationship you imagine they've had sex. Even if you're 100% right (which I'm not sure how you can be), you're going to drive them away and harden their image of the church as an unsympathetic enemy.

 

[reba]

Some folks learn cause they got hit in the head with a 2 by 4

Some folks learn by example

some learn by love ( probably most)

Some learn by being shunned

Some by being cared for...

We do not all learn 'what ever ' in the same fashion...

Some might need to hear stop that behavior or your looking at hell (What ever the sin) Some hey dude Jesus came to set you free etc.

Like some druggies learn from 'tough love' some dont they need something else...
God sends us sinners the Gospel He knows who to use...

 

[elijah23]

And scripturally, you are on solid ground. I find a big difference between the needed approach to practitioners of homosexuality and religious leaders who condone it. I'm just baffled by your insistence on pointing out the finer details of their sexual behavior. It benefits nobody except those who would like to (explicitly or implicitly) fan the flames of hatred.

With the leaders, they are presumably well versed on scripture and can be informed in clear terms that their approval is unscriptural. Arguments about the nature of homosexual relations, when/where/why they have sex, aren't relevant in this case, because with a Church leader you have all the support you need in the Bible and that is the only argument they should need.

For those practicing the sin however, it does no good to humiliate them by pointing out how many sexual partners you think they've had, or how early in the relationship you imagine they've had sex. Even if you're 100% right (which I'm not sure how you can be), you're going to drive them away and harden their image of the church as an unsympathetic enemy.

I am trying to show you the root of the problem. Homosexuals will not listen to you unless you can prove to them that what they are doing is wrong. If you tell them that a half dozen people in the Bible said homosexuality is wrong, they won’t listen because they will only be satisfied if God or Jesus, themselves, tell you homosexuality is wrong.

What I am saying is this: Jesus DID say homosexuality is wrong. He said ALL sex is wrong when it occurs outside of marriage.

The homosexual will argue, then, that it is okay for two men to have sex if they first get married (assuming they are allowed to marry).

My response to that is that you will never find two men who want to marry each other (or two women who want to marry each other) who haven’t already had sex.

 

[Free]

I am trying to show you the root of the problem. Homosexuals will not listen to you unless you can prove to them that what they are doing is wrong. If you tell them that a half dozen people in the Bible said homosexuality is wrong, they won’t listen because they will only be satisfied if God or Jesus, themselves, tell you homosexuality is wrong.

But yet, that is precisely what your argument does--it argues to the Bible--so they won't listen, according to you. Any who reject what certain authors in the Bible say about homosexuality certainly aren't going to listen only "if God or Jesus, themselves, tell you homosexuality is wrong." They would most likely reject all of Scripture or at least all of what Scripture says regarding homosexuality. And of course you seem to be implying that certain persons' views in the Bible are not of God, which would be wrong.

What I am saying is this: Jesus DID say homosexuality is wrong. He said ALL sex is wrong when it occurs outside of marriage.

The homosexual will argue, then, that it is okay for two men to have sex if they first get married (assuming they are allowed to marry).

This is just one problem with your argument. Homosexual acts are wrong whether before marriage or after, so arguing to only sex before marriage confuses the issue and leads you to your fallacious conclusion.

My response to that is that you will never find two men who want to marry each other (or two women who want to marry each other) who haven’t already had sex.

And this is your fallacious conclusion. You do not know this to be a fact and you have no way of proving your assertion. If heterosexual couples will get married without first having sex, then it is entirely plausible that a gay couple will get married without first having sex. The issue is that it is more likely to be religious couples who will abstain from sex before marriage then non-religious couples.

Non-religious homosexuals are just as likely to reject what the Bible says about sex outside of marriage being wrong as they are to reject what the Bible says about homosexuality, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

 

[elijah23]

But yet, that is precisely what your argument does--it argues to the Bible--so they won't listen, according to you. Any who reject what certain authors in the Bible say about homosexuality certainly aren't going to listen only "if God or Jesus, themselves, tell you homosexuality is wrong." They would most likely reject all of Scripture or at least all of what Scripture says regarding homosexuality. And of course you seem to be implying that certain persons' views in the Bible are not of God, which would be wrong.


This is just one problem with your argument. Homosexual acts are wrong whether before marriage or after, so arguing to only sex before marriage confuses the issue and leads you to your fallacious conclusion.


And this is your fallacious conclusion. You do not know this to be a fact and you have no way of proving your assertion. If heterosexual couples will get married without first having sex, then it is entirely plausible that a gay couple will get married without first having sex. The issue is that it is more likely to be religious couples who will abstain from sex before marriage then non-religious couples.

Non-religious homosexuals are just as likely to reject what the Bible says about sex outside of marriage being wrong as they are to reject what the Bible says about homosexuality, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

There is no problem with my argument. Jesus said it is a sin to have sex before we marry. No two men would want to marry unless they had already had sex.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

No two men would want to marry unless they had already had sex.

You keep saying this like a broken record, as though it's some sort of universal truth. I suspect you're secretly hoping someone calls you on it, and have a counter argument prepared. I'll bite:

You have no way of knowing this. You cannot speak for all homosexual men. You may have your assumptions, but this is only speculation. Unless you spend your evenings in the bedrooms of all homosexual men (or at least a very large number), you're just making up "facts".

 

[jasoncran]

i didnt marry my lover to be that way with him. i felt the way before the acts i did.
i wont go into details here but that is what i did. i felt for him first then did the deeds.

 

[elijah23]

You keep saying this like a broken record, as though it's some sort of universal truth. I suspect you're secretly hoping someone calls you on it, and have a counter argument prepared. I'll bite:

You have no way of knowing this. You cannot speak for all homosexual men. You may have your assumptions, but this is only speculation. Unless you spend your evenings in the bedrooms of all homosexual men (or at least a very large number), you're just making up "facts".

I promise you that no two men would want to marry each other if they hadn't already had sex.

 

[jasoncran]

I promise you that no two men would want to marry each other if they hadn't already had sex.

i dont need sex to be in love with my wife and didnt need it when i was in that sin. some gays and bi are like that.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

I promise you that no two men would want to marry each other if they hadn't already had sex.

Based on...? Any sort of logic? Any personal experience as a gay man? Anything at all besides using tautology to dodge the question? You're arguing that all gay men have sex before marriage because no gay man would get married before sex.

What leads you to this circular logic?

 

[elijah23]

i dont need sex to be in love with my wife and didnt need it when i was in that sin. some gays and bi are like that.

I disagree.

 

[elijah23]

Based on...? Any sort of logic? Any personal experience as a gay man? Anything at all besides using tautology to dodge the question? You're arguing that all gay men have sex before marriage because no gay man would get married before sex.

What leads you to this circular logic?

I don’t know that I can prove God exists. Are you, then, saying God doesn’t exist?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

I disagree.

So you're essentially calling him a liar for disputing your unsupported claim?