Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The argument has never been that same sex relationships cause zero harm. The topic is not actually sexual activity, either.
And if you think pointing something out serves no purpose, ignore it.
The topic is LGBTQ people and their relationship with Christianity. Though you keep trying to divert from that topic by pointing around wildly to gay sex and gay health issues, it does give others some insight into what some of the problem might be. You have a different concept of gay people from what most of us do.
Sorry, MQ, I DO argue that same sex relationships in themselves cause no harm and that any harm is caused by promiscuity. The premise is that harm done is the only valid reason to classify something as "sin." Jeff seems to be under the impression that same sex relations cause the condition rather than that the condition is more common among women who are attracted to same sex. I will grant that my premise has more to do with the failure to justify civil action than with religion since there seems to exist benighted souls who think God just makes rules on whim. I suppose the application for them is that urgency to convict someone of "sin" should not be so great but imo anyone with that idea about God is going to be harder to reach.
Sorry, MQ, I DO argue that same sex relationships in themselves cause no harm and that any harm is caused by promiscuity. The premise is that harm done is the only valid reason to classify something as "sin." Jeff seems to be under the impression that same sex relations cause the condition rather than that the condition is more common among women who are attracted to same sex. I will grant that my premise has more to do with the failure to justify civil action than with religion since there seems to exist benighted souls who think God just makes rules on whim. I suppose the application for them is that urgency to convict someone of "sin" should not be so great but imo anyone with that idea about God is going to be harder to reach.
Oh well.
OK. I meant that particular argument is not the reason for the thread, which is what I thought Jeff meant. Perhaps he was responding to what you said.
Not only that, but he keeps telling us it's a good thing.
Really, BF?
Where, exactly?
Not that I think gay sex is in any way "bad." But please do point out where I praised it. I think all sex between consenting, intellectually-competent adults is fine with gusts up to dandy.
Or reveal yourself for the umpteenth time to be the hypocritical, bigoted liar you are.
It is funny how you invent claims and then ask "is this what we are supposed to believe". Classic straw man fallacy.
No one has claimed to be sinless. However, it is a problem when you choose to live in deliberate and habitual sin while making excuses for it, while demanding everyone agree your sin is not sin.
Should we continue to sin? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
Everyone stumbles, but if you live in deliberate and habitual sin, you might want to examine yourself.
I doubt He would say anything different than what He said back in His day on earth.
Yet fundamentalists allow fatties who deliberately and habitually sin and cause great harm to society with increased healthcare costs to not only sit in their churches but preach from their pulpits and serve on their church councils and board of directors or elders.
How is winking at those “sins” one bit different than winking at homosexuality?
You are nothing but a giant gray monster of a hypocrite wielding a club of privilege, power and persecution of innocents.
We can compare your acceptance of ongoing adultery in your church after you dodge this question.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 07-26-2019 at 07:58 PM..
Here's how one Christian church in Tennessee loves and accepts LGBT people. The man wanted his funeral to be held in the first church he attended and he wanted his son to sing at his funeral. Since his son is gay, the pastor at the church refused to hold the service in the church. The church is punishing a dead man because his son is gay.
Is this how you show love and compassion to a gay man?
The fundies like to talk of a “mean” gay agenda while practicing cruelty constantly.
Any fundie out there want to tackle why still another evangelical church acts so despicably toward a dead “fellow” believer because his son is gay?
How can one fail to see the comparison of evangelical religious persuasion with Third Reich policy regarding the same subject.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, agrees in principle with ducks in other political agendas, then it damn well is a duck. There, jeffie, I posted “damn” to help you find an out by considering yourself more righteous because you don’t do so! As another fundamentalist I knew used to say “Peanut brittle,” when he got angry thinking such was less offensive to the god he invented in his life as you have in yours.
Not that I think gay sex is in any way "bad." But please do point out where I praised it. I think all sex between consenting, intellectually-competent adults is fine with gusts up to dandy.
Or reveal yourself for the umpteenth time to be the hypocritical, bigoted liar you are.
And yet you act like I should be ashamed for supposely being obsessed with it.
BTW, does that include sex between a consenting grown daughter and her father? If you say no, you are a hypocrite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.