Australia bans same sex marriage.

[Selene]

It still remains a sexual behavior, which is not sexual orientation. Heterosexuals enage in a extremely wide range olf sexual acts, and those are sexual choices they make, it does not mean all heterosexuals make the same choices. Its no different for individual homosexuals, they don't all acts the same. Its like saying all Asians have sex exactly the same away because they are Asian.

As I pointed out in my previous post, focusing on "sexual orientation" is only a distraction to the REAL problem. We both know that gay men do NOT have the same wide range of sexual choices as heterosexual men. Sodomy is frowned upon for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why? Because the end result of sodomy (anal sex) is disease and an early death.

 

[JackSafari]

You are linking homosexuality to sexual diseases as if heterosexuality does not have those problems. You're suggesting homosexuals have sexual diseases because of their sexual orientation (homosexuality), and heterosexuality don't have those same problems. Both are sexual orientations, and both have exact same sexual diseases. There are no homosexual only sexual diseases.

Homosexual do have the same variety of sexual behavior as heterosexual men. You're suggesting that homosexual men don't have vaginal intercourse, which is only one of 1000s of things couples do sexually, including Christians, in the privacy of their bedroom.

 

[Selene]

You are linking homosexuality to sexual diseases as if heterosexuality does not have those problems. Your suggesting homosexuals has sexual diseases because of their sexual orienation (homosexuality), and heterosexuality don't have those same problems. Both are sexual orientations, and both have exact same sexual diseases. There is no homosexual only sexual diseases.

And you are ignoring the research study by the Center of Disease Control, which shows that gay men have a much higher rate of STDs than heterosexual men. You also wish to ignore the REASON why gay men have a higher rate of STDs.

 

[JackSafari]

And you are ignoring the research study by the Center of Disease Control, which shows that gay men have a much higher rate of STDs than heterosexual men. You also wish to ignore the REASON why gay men have a higher rate of STDs.

Yes, from a health point of view, its important to understand. Which means homosexuals need to be careful in how they have sex with each other. This is no different than heterosexuals.

Your suggesting they are bad people, immoral people, because of it, and I don't agree that STDs defines each person.

Your argument is like taking a minority group\race who has a high rate of some problem, and defining every individual in that minority group as having that problem. Its likes someone saying all blacks are criminals because blacks have a higher rate of criminal convictions than whites. That is the heart of your justification.

 

[Foreigner]

Yes, from a health point of view, its important to understand. Which means homosexuals need to be careful in how they have sex with each other. This is no different than heterosexuals.

Your suggesting they are bad people, immoral people, because of it, and I don't agree that STDs defines each person. Your argument is like taking a minority group\race who has a high rate of some problem, and defining every individual in that minority group as having that problem. Its likes someone saying all blacks are criminals because blacks have a higher rate of criminal convictions than whites. That is the heart of your justification.

-- The lifespan of homosexuals is a full 20 years less than that of heterosexuals.

That is not because "a few" in the homosexual community practice unsafe sexual practices.

And if those same 'unsafe practices' were being done by heterosexuals, then the lifespan of heterosexuals would be on part with homosexuals, no?

 

[JackSafari]

20 years less is not an actuate statement\conclusion. it only reflects those who get AIDs. Those who do not get AIDs have a normal life span.

Either way, its not a reflection on them as a group or individual, on their acceptance to God. Like everyone, they are judge on the their individual merits.

 

[KCKID]

Looks like we are about to become the 13th country to ratify SSM....such a sad day in our countries history ever!. That will mean we will be swept away with the rest of those nations who advocate what is abominable before the Lord God Most High....

Angelina ...what we're talking about here involves separation of Church and State. While YOU might believe the ratifying of same-sex marriage 'to be abominable before the Lord God Most High', the state does not. And, nor should it.

I really DO need to raise this issue once again ...even though most prefer to ignore it. You mention SSM to be abominable to God and claim that the ratifing of SSM by the New Zealand Government to be 'such a sad day in our country's history ever'. I can't help but wonder, however, if the same display of emotion and concern for human-kind occurred when no-fault divorce was legalized in NZ? No-fault divorce is forbidden by the Lord God Most High and yet I don't seem to recall the ratifying of no-fault divorce (in the 1970s?) having created so much as a ripple on the Christian Richter Scale. Did it? If not, why not? Again, no-fault divorce is CLEARLY anti-God. Since that time the number of divorces has skyrocketed to the extent that close to 50% of marriages end in divorce. Why no outcry from the Church? Why such an outcry from the Church with regard to SSM?

Is it only me or can others also see the inconsistencies, the double standards, the hypocrisy that permeates Christianity?

 

[JackSafari]

My loose understanding is that all forms of divorce is a sin, once married a couple is expected to stay married until death. Maybe there was some exceptions made if the wife sinned in certain ways (adultery), then the husband could kill his wife and remarry. My memory fails me as to the specifics.

Back in the late 70s, Anita Bryant divorced her husband of 20 years, but her husband, a life long Christian, said that God did not recognize their legal divorce, and he considered them still married in the eyes of The Lord, just not living together. Mrs Bryant campaigned to make it illegal to be a homosexual, but she never managed to get such laws passed.

 

[KCKID]

My loose understanding is that all forms of divorce is a sin, once married a couple is expected to stay married until death. Maybe there was some exceptions made if the wife sinned in certain ways (adultery), then the husband could kill his wife and remarry. My memory fails me as to the specifics.

Remarrying after divorce is considered a sin because the relationship is then considered to be 'adultrous'. And, adultery is, of course, a sin that at one time - and still IS in some areas - punishable by death as commanded by God. I'm not sure about the 'husband killing his wife and remarrying' part, however. That seems rather extreme . . .

Back in the late 70s, Anita Bryant divorced her husband of 20 years, but her husband, a life long Christian, said that God did not recognize their legal divorce, and he considered them still married in the eyes of The Lord, just not living together. Mrs Bryant campaigned to make it illegal to be a homosexual, but she never managed to get such laws passed.

While Anita Bryant DID cite some form of mental abuse as being grounds for divorcing her husband, infidelity doesn't appear to have occurred in her marriage. She later married her second husband. Once again, we see some glaring inconsistencies going on here. Bryant, as most of us know, was very much at the forefront of a major anti-gay campaign back in the 60s/70s and professed to be a very staunch Christian. She made it very clear that homosexuality was against 'God's will' as well against 'the family unit' and, as you say, lobbied to make homosexuality illegal. I don't doubt that Miss Bryant was sincere in her concerns for the family and also with regard to her religious convictions; however, she herself fell into disrepute with some of the religious fraternity when she divorced and remarried. Divorce, 1. adversely affects the family unit, and 2. is against God's will. These are the very same reasons given by the anti-gay campaigners. One cannot reasonably - even though many DO - campaign against one specific 'sin' while accepting or ignoring another specific 'sin'. Christianity itself can be its own worst enemy when it displays such inconsistencies, double standards and - yes - blatant hypocrisy - to the many people who already dismiss Christianity as being little more than a fairy tale. My even mentioning this on the thread will likely have some throwing brickbats at me or mocking me in the most unChristian-like manner. As previously mentioned, while once a practicing, on-fire, Bible-believing Christian for more than 20 years, I cannot stand by any longer watching people destroy the ministry of Jesus without adding my own form of outrage.

 

[Foreigner]

20 years less is not an actuate statement\conclusion. it only reflects those who get AIDs. Those who do not get AIDs have a normal life span.

Either way, its not a reflection on them as a group or individual, on their acceptance to God. Like everyone, they are judge on the their individual merits.

-- Jack you continue to speak hoping it sounds like you are speaking the truth when in fact you are not.
AIDS is only one reason as to why homosexuals have a shorter lifespan. I have already provided information that shows the other reasons.
Sorry, but ignoring doesn't mean they don't exist.

You skipped over my earlier post completely, I noticed, when you tried to pass off that "10% of the population is gay" turkey.

As I said:

-- The actual percentage is less than half that.

http://www.autostrad...a-number-84389/

And please don't waste anyone's time by trying to refute that by using Kinsey. A simple check shows the glowing flaws of his work.


As far as why people are gay, if you believe they were "born that way" then you have to acknowedge that for that to be the outcome, someting somewhere had to have gone wrong. It isn't like someone being born left handed. (I don't know any scripture condemning left handers as an abomination to God, although the nuns I had in school had a major issue with them.)

As with someone who is born deaf or blind or prone to seizures or with a cleft palate, someone 'born gay' would be because something somewhere went wrong along the way. To say otherwise would be to say that God intended for the homosexuality that He abhors to actually be His desire.

One of the indicators to that truth is the health issues that are ravaging those that live that lifestyle. Gay men have a life expectancy of 20 years less than heterosexuals.
And HIV is only one reason for that:
http://www.wpaag.org...ex Marriage.htm
http://www.narth.com...us/medical.html <------ especially telling.

As far as 'discovering' you are gay later in life, I think of a person in my church. He was abused when young and had difficulties well into college. He said he never felt so welcomed and 'unjudged' as when he was with the gay community. He said, "It was the first place that he ever felt accepted for who I was, without judgment or restriction.
"I felt then that I MUST be gay."

 

[JackSafari]

Remarrying after divorce is considered a sin because the relationship is then considered to be 'adultrous'. And, adultery is, of course, a sin that at one time - and still IS in some areas - punishable by death as commanded by God. I'm not sure about the 'husband killing his wife and remarrying' part, however. That seems rather extreme . . .


While Anita Bryant DID cite some form of mental abuse as being grounds for divorcing her husband, infidelity doesn't appear to have occurred in her marriage. She later married her second husband. Once again, we see some glaring inconsistencies going on here. Bryant, as most of us know, was very much at the forefront of a major anti-gay campaign back in the 60s/70s and professed to be a very staunch Christian. She made it very clear that homosexuality was against 'God's will' as well against 'the family unit' and, as you say, lobbied to make homosexuality illegal. I don't doubt that Miss Bryant was sincere in her concerns for the family and also with regard to her religious convictions; however, she herself fell into disrepute with some of the religious fraternity when she divorced and remarried. Divorce, 1. adversely affects the family unit, and 2. is against God's will. These are the very same reasons given by the anti-gay campaigners. One cannot reasonably - even though many DO - campaign against one specific 'sin' while accepting or ignoring another specific 'sin'. Christianity itself can be its own worst enemy when it displays such inconsistencies, double standards and - yes - blatant hypocrisy - to the many people who already dismiss Christianity as being little more than a fairy tale. My even mentioning this on the thread will likely have some throwing brickbats at me or mocking me in the most unChristian-like manner. As previously mentioned, while once a practicing, on-fire, Bible-believing Christian for more than 20 years, I cannot stand by any longer watching people destroy the ministry of Jesus without adding my own form of outrage.

I was being a bit sarcastic when I commented about a husband killing his sinful wife in order remarry someone else; I did read it somewhere, and just thought the idea was ridiculous. It is the hypocrisy that has historically been a problem, but ultimately humanity and level-headed Christians drop beliefs that no longer have any value. Here in this forum, we see a lot of fundamentalists holding on to beliefs that the core of Christianity rejects. Its the nature of fundamentalism to be unforgiving, intolerance, judgmental and for some people those qualities fit well with their personality even if they aren't ignorant on the issues (hate for the sake of hating); fundamentalism in all forms makes perfect sense to them. And when they see that Christianity is moving away from them, which it always is, they often double down becoming even more critical on the issues they perceive to be most important.

 

[KCKID]

I was being a bit sarcastic when I commented about a husband killing his sinful wife in order remarry someone else; I did read it somewhere, and just thought the idea was ridiculous. It is the hypocrisy that has historically been a problem, but ultimately humanity and level-headed Christians drop beliefs that no longer have any value. Here in this forum, we see a lot of fundamentalists holding on to beliefs that the core of Christianity rejects. Its the nature of fundamentalism to be unforgiving, intolerance, judgmental and for some people those qualities fit well with their personality even if they aren't ignorant on the issues (hate for the sake of hating); fundamentalism in all forms makes perfect sense to them. And when they see that Christianity is moving away from them, which it always is, they often double down becoming even more critical on the issues they perceive to be most important.

Jack, at the risk of being accused of 'being in cahoots' with you ...I totally agree.

 

[Rex]

Progressive evolution of God and mankind LOL Homosexuality is the new normal.
Well God is progressive as well, and by the way you have high-jacked the sign of Noah's covenant Gen 9:12-16

From the gay parade collection

 

[KCKID]

That (gays are born 'that way') is a theory that the gay activists has been shoving down our throats. Science says that there is no "gay gene."

Surely you must see, Selene, that one's saying that they had gay feelings for as far back as they remember has nothing to do with any 'gay agenda' or 'gay activism' ...? I have personally had a long-term friendship with only two gay persons in my life and each KNEW that he was gay when such sexual tendencies started to kick in at whatever age that was for them. They never asked to be gay, they didn't volunteer to be gay, they didn't prefer being gay to being straight (on the contrary!) ...they just WERE gay. Your opinion (and opinions carry no weight whatsoever in a debate) that, since science has found no "gay gene", homosexuals must therefore have some kind of a 'heterosexual disorder' is based on nothing more than conjecture or, in other words, guesswork.

But anyway, let us say that all that you say about homosexuals IS true ...then what do you suggest they do to rectify their 'heterosexual disorder'? Also, if their sexual orientation IS such a disorder that they had no active part in, then why, as a Christian, do you not show more compassion for them? Why, as a Christian, do you allow other Christians to demean them in the way that they do? You just appear to sit back and let it happen. And, you profess to be a caring, Jesus-loving Christian. Would a leper be treated so badly by Christians because he/she were a leper? Back to my question ...what is a homosexual to do?

Progressive evolution of God and mankind LOL Homosexuality is the new normal.
Well God is progressive as well, and by the way you have high-jacked the sign of Noah's covenant Gen 9:12-16

From the gay parade collection

This is all pantomime, Rex. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Obviously, you have taken it seriously.

As for God being progressive ...well, God might be progressive but you and yours sure ain't ...! Stagnating in your fundamentalist traditions and preaching such a message to others is what will eventually bring your brand of Christianity down. Either that, or there could well be war raging in the not too distant future between the progressive Christians and the fundamentalist Christians ...each group claiming that the other group is not Christian. Homosexuality will not cause the sky to fall. Ignorance will!

 

[JackSafari]

And the truth shall set you free. :lol: :lol:

I agree with that statement 100%.

To know the truth, is to know and understand God. However, its not always easy or painless. And when people fear the truth, they are intolerant of the others for no other reason than they are different. Its a personality flaw\weakness.

 

[Rex]

This is all pantomime, Rex. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Obviously, you have taken it seriously.

As for God being progressive ...well, God might be progressive but you and yours sure ain't ...! Stagnating in your fundamentalist traditions and preaching such a message to others is what will eventually bring your brand of Christianity down. Either that, or there could well be war raging in the not too distant future between the progressive Christians and the fundamentalist Christians ...each group claiming that the other group is not Christian. Homosexuality will not cause the sky to fall. Ignorance will!

My bad you know alot more about it than I do I'm sure, You pick a rainbow
https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+parade+rainbow+pics&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=i1tvUbj_EeiK2gXy4IGwCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1354&bih=647

 

[JackSafari]

.This is all pantomime, Rex. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Obviously, you have taken it seriously.l!

....and part of the gay parade is to parody themselves, to make light of gay stereotypes by going way over the top.

 

[KCKID]

....and part of the gay parade is to parody themselves, to make light of gay stereotypes by going way over the top.

While I certainly don't condone 'immorality' per se, the way i see it is that the Gay Mardi Gras Parades achieve a two-fold purpose. As you say, and this is glaringly evident, the over-the-top stereotypical performances by the performers are intended to parody themselves. As I stated previously, it's pantomome and is not intended to be taken seriously. Moreover, we see here many, many people basically thumbing their noses at society - especially Christian society - that has unjustly oppressed and/or maligned them for SO long. That Christianity CONTINUES to demonize them only encourages them to be even more over-the-top than they might otherwise be. Gay Mardi Gras Parades ARE the logical result of those that have found the freedom to become fully human at last and be free to be WHO they are. Much of society these days - especially the younger generation - is accepting of this. It's mainly only mainline Christianity that still points a condemning finger at the homosexual person and seems to take delight in making them writhe in guilt and shame ...and, they do so with such sanctimonious flair. If I'm to share eternity with 'the sodomites' as some on this forum have already condemned me to, then this seems to be far more preferable for me than sharing a heaven with certain folks that I could mention but won't!

My bad you know alot more about it than I do I'm sure, You pick a rainbow
https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+parade+rainbow+pics&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=i1tvUbj_EeiK2gXy4IGwCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1354&bih=647

Sure is colorful! This is what happens when people become liberated. They celebrate. I wish that we ALL could celebrate together instead of too many of us being bogged down by the judgmental teaching of Christian Fundamentalism. One day, if it happens, you might well lose the chains of Christian Fundamentalism and truly feel what it's like to be free in Jesus! Right now, unfortunately, you have the millstone of fundamentalism around your neck and you feel it your duty to take others with you. And, you're not helped by one or two others on the forum. Obviously, I'm not the one to help you become free of this blight but I CAN say that this is not how Christianity should be! The truth shall set you free, Rex. The truth, of course, is that Jesus became the burden for your misdemeanors and freed you up to be all that you can be as a human being! THAT is the Good News! Be responsible for Rex. It's not your task to save the entire world.

The below link may annoy some Christians on this forum while others might be somewhat amused. The clip pertains to the recent decision by the NZ Government to legalize gay marriage. Hope all of you can understand the NZ accent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl8oKO7BAuU

 

[Groundzero]

How do the they teach children to become homosexual? Thx

I'd post a very apt example of a what a homosexual said, but apparently the truth is too offensive for this forum.

If you guys wish to be blind leaders of the blind, go ahead. The truth never hides, but stands in open sight for all to see. It just that no one likes the light it brings because their deeds are evil.
Joh_3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 

[KCKID]

I'd post a very apt example of a what a homosexual said, but apparently the truth is too offensive for this forum.

If you guys wish to be blind leaders of the blind, go ahead. The truth never hides, but stands in open sight for all to see. It just that no one likes the light it brings because their deeds are evil.
Joh_3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

When all else fails just grab a scripture and present it as though it has something to do with the topic at hand. We could all take turns at playing the scripture game with each other.