Miquel, I honestly didn't expect you to answer any other way. That's exactly why, I have so much respect for you. Because your beliefs have been costructed by you, for your benefit and you are happy to live by a code you feel is worthy of all humans.

Thanks for your answer. One day, I'll address your 'procreation theory' with regards to how it reflects on your idea of sin...but not today. Today, I'm happy to sit next to you and smile.

Miguel wrote:
"if the laws which are being enacted are against basic civil rights to homosexuals ofcourse i would not vote for them"

Does this mean that you would support the rights of Gays to marry in the eyes of the law?

Is this what you mean by basic civil rights?

gosh James why do u get technical with me.
well my friend getting married in a court of law does not mean anything in the eyes of God, so i wouldn't care.

Redy;

Before I respond to your two questions - and later to Voils, I feel the need to state what I consider to be an acceptable premise within all of my responses, that most in the religious treads do not agree with me on. The mere statement that Truth is an absolute is to me - a given fact. An action or belief is either right - or it's wrong, and the personal feelings of perception on the act have no effect on the absolute - nor does it change the fact. For instance - a lie is a lie. If I lie to gain an advantage over a situation - most would consider this wrong (or for the sake of my discussion - a sin) If a neighbor comes over to my house - having been severely beaten by her husband, and he came to the door asking if I'd seen her, and I said "No". It's a lie. Wrong. Despite the outcome I know will occur if I tell the truth, it doesn't mean the 1st is a sin, and the second is not. Here, my perception is dictating the ourcome, and for most, the choice of the second "lie" would be considered the right thing to do. But in my world - truth is absolute, and a lie is a lie. My perception is to justify it - but it does not change the absolute.

Given this premise - as to the first question. My belief of homosexuality (the act of - not the tendencies) being wrong existed when I was an athiest. It mattered not what the scriptures said about it - I developed this belief based on the observations and confessions of the Homosexuals I knew in my life. And we're not talking about a small handful of people. I've worked with hundreds over the years. As well as family members I loved, and never considered second class as individuals. I formed the same belief about abortion. I've lost count of how many of my dear female friends over the years have had their lives devistated by this decision - yet our laws say it's "okay", and we have government organizations which encourage this choice, with no thought of the after affect of this decision. Later - having become a believer, I found that the scriptures were not silent on this matter. Given my experiences - I was not surprised. I cite Leviticus 20:13 as an example for myself that God would disapprove of my choice to participate in this type of behavior. This is a personal choice - and I don't tell anyone else that they have to understand this passage as I do - it's not my concern. If my feeling that this passage deems homosexual actions sinful concerns you (not personally - the all encoumpasing you of everyone) I can only suggest researching the passage for yourself (themselves) and come to an understanding why my opinion is upsetting - for themselves. To me - God tells me his word is truth, and that through the Holy spirit I will come to understand that truth. So I seek my answers trough the Holy Spirit - not a "recognized scholor" (not meant to be derogatory). I'm capable of seeking my truth's from God, and he hasn't let me down yet.

As to the second question - I am a revolutionary. I detest what government has become, and my only concern over a law bringing equality to a minority - in this case Homosexual's, is how the law can be twisted and used against people's freedom of choice. I strongly disagree with any expression of prejudice against a person for who they are. Period. But I will defend my right to not have to be subjected to dealing with anyone who's "actions" effect my life in any way. Nor do I wish to have my life effected by anyone with a personal agenda. And I'm not claiming that all Homosexuals have personal agenda's here, but anyone - despite their cause - that has laws passed to support their personal agenda infuriates me. If I felt that a law had that attatched to it - I'd stand in line to vote against it. Otherwise, I wouldn't object.

I hope I understood your question and explained my position.

Voil;

I can't help but sense that you are commenting on my explination of choice based on the quality, and quantity of my examples. You are comparing the severity of Homosexuality against that of murder, and telling me that I have somehow insulted Redy by comparing the two. My example was not one of severity - but one of process and thought. First comes the predisposed feeling. Of that we seem to agree that this is inherant. Then comes the thought to act on that feeling. THAT was my example to her of where CHOICE comes into play. You are getting hung up on the examples I've sited, and ignoring the process. Unfortunately - the thread has vanished, and we have no point of reference as to the original question and explination.

As I explained to Redy - I formulated my opinion on Homosexuality being a "distructive" (for lack of a better word) behavior based on the consequesnces of the actions exhibited by the numerous people I have know who participated in the behavior, long before I became a believer. So your percetion of my having come to this conclusion because of what I've read in a book - is a false premise. I just found that the scriptures supported my observation - rather than my observation being established by the scriptures. Also too - my premise of absolute truth allows for no gray area's when I determine the right or wrong of behavioral actions. But I do this for myself, and know that others do not see life's actions through the same filters that I do - but I do not judge other's for their opinions, only myself. If you still find my observations confusing after this explination, I will try to explain further.

Eljay, I want to extend my gratitude that you have tried so hard to answer my questions. I don’t want to diminish what mutual respect we might have for each other, so please understand that the following responses to your post, are not meant in any way to be manipulative. At the end of your reply to Abra you say:

“”Also too - my premise of absolute truth allows for no gray area's when I determine the right or wrong of behavioral actions. But I do this for myself, and know that others do not see life's actions through the same filters that I do - but I do not judge other's for their opinions, only myself. If you still find my observations confusing after this explination, I will try to explain further””

I do find a great deal of disharmony between your thought processes and your religious values. Either they require further explanation, or perhaps they require further self evaluation on your part. Either way, my pointing them out to you, at this point, in meant as constructive criticism, I hope you take it that way.

You began the following analogy with the premise that right and wrong can only be black and white, and that shades of gray are only self-serving at best, and do not conceal a lie. (I have paraphrased this based on all your text)

“”If a neighbor comes over to my house - having been severely beaten by her husband, and he came to the door asking if I'd seen her, and I said "No". It's a lie. Wrong. Despite the outcome I know will occur if I tell the truth, it doesn't mean the 1st is a sin, and the second is not.””

Let me take the situation you describe a bit further. You have, potentially, saved the life of this woman. Through her tears of gratitude she praises God for taking her to your home to be saved by your actions. Let me ask you a few rhetorical questions here. Do you believe God did guide this woman to your door, knowing that you would lie and thus save her life? Or do you think her life was not in that great a danger and that this was test to see how your would react, and you lied? Or do you think that God knew you could save her life, but perhaps hoped that you would do so more honorably?
Your point- that a lie is what it is and it is a sin, means you knowingly committed the act which therefore, requires that you repent for having knowingly done so.
How do you do that? Do you thank God for allowing you to take the burden of sin for the sake of another’s life? Seems a bit sadistic on Gods’ part to me. Or perhaps you are supposed to be sorry for the sin and promise never to do it again, even if it means putting the woman in more danger. Of couse there’s always the possibility that your sin has lead to something worse than your truth could have. But then that would be too much like a test devised by God to see if you would lie or not. I can’t determine from God’s nature is that would be narcissistic or masochistic on His part. But surely on your part, your thoughts of compassion were in the right place. And your actions were the best course to be followed given the situation that you were put in. So with all the human attributes that one endows on God, how could anyone imagine that God does not see shades of gray?????

You further explain how your compassionate nature has affected your reasons to oppose the choice of homosexuals to act on their desires, in this manner:

“”I developed this belief based on the observations and confessions of the Homosexuals I knew in my life. And we're not talking about a small handful of people. I've worked with hundreds over the years. As well as family members I loved, and never considered second class as individuals. I formed the same belief about abortion. I've lost count of how many of my dear female friends over the years have had their lives devistated by this decision - yet our laws say it's "okay", and we have government organizations which encourage this choice, with no thought of the after affect of this decision””

What I see here, is a person who wants to control the course and actions of individuals “for their own good”. For the same reason you would ‘lie’ to protect a person YOU judged as an innocent victim, you want to control the lives of other individuals. That reason is that you are a compassionate human being who cares deeply about other people. BUT Eljay, in your compassion you do not give your God credit for being able to guide the course of his people. Just as you can’t save others, just as you can’t judge others, YOU can not protect others from their own actions. According to your own religious philosophy, a persons ‘free will’ is a God Given thing – if your faith and your commitment is so strong that you can’t lie to save a person’s life – what makes you thing that attempting to control the free will of others is not a sin of the same nature?

Below you begin to show some sensibility EXCEPT when it follows the context of the rest of your post :

“”God would disapprove of my choice to participate in this type of behavior. This is a personal choice - and I don't tell anyone else that they have to understand this passage as I do – “”

You finally commit your religious beliefs to the personal level to which all religious beliefs should be related. This statement, Eljay, is in direct conflict with all your preceding comments. Because in those comments you attempt to intercede in others lives on Gods’ behalf. I can say that because you have already made it clear that God does not see in shades of gray, and therefore, the knowledge that you would attempt to control the actions of others, even for their own sakes, can only be a sin because it is your intention to override whatever course God intended for this person to take.


Perhaps you will learn through the Holy spirit, but Eljay, most humans were given the ability of rational thought, do believe that God would give that gift and then not allow you to use it?

“”To me - God tells me his word is truth, and that through the Holy spirit I will come to understand that truth. So I seek my answers trough the Holy Spirit - not a "recognized scholor" (not meant to be derogatory). I'm capable of seeking my truth's from God, and he hasn't let me down yet.””

I submit that you have been let down and here is a simple reason why. The book you read from which to take your lessons and develop your moral code, is a book directly translated and re-translated by those same scholars that you do not recognize. WHY READ it, when the Holy Spirit alone can direct you? Or is you faith so full of doubt that you require the physical presence of other peoples words?

Finally it comes down to YOU. Where is all your compassion in this statement?

“”But I will defend my right to not have to be subjected to dealing with anyone who's "actions" effect my life in any way. “”

You expect me to believe that your great compassion directs you to control ‘my life’ for ‘my sake’ by prohibiting me from following the dictates of my own beliefs, just because it hurts your feelings if I am hurt by the actions of my own free will. Excuse me, but how do you dare to claim that, that affect on you is any a greater than the oppression you would have me live under to save YOU that emotion?
Let me further say that you’re subjected to dealing with actions that affect your life every second of every day, because you believe your actions are to be controlled by the dictates of YOUR RELIGEOUS BELIEFS. YOU CHOSE THAT, DON’T CHOOSE IT FOR ME, OR FOR ANYONE ELSE.

“”Nor do I wish to have my life effected by anyone with a personal agenda. And I'm not claiming that all Homosexuals have personal agenda's here, but anyone - despite their cause - that has laws passed to support their personal agenda infuriates me.””

I am a homosexual with a personal agenda – that agenda is to benefit from , adhere to, and support all the laws as equally as any other citizen. My agenda in no way affects YOUR life, but YOUR AGENDA surely affects the quality of mine.

My opinion is still the same...I don't want to form one.


We are all human...no separation, cut us and we bleed...all the same colour.

Redy;

I do not have the time to respond to your post in length, and want to take the time to read it and absorb it. But in addition to that, I want you to know that I consider you a friend - though I know precious little about you. Nothing you would say to me would be considered an offense - because you wear your heart out on your sleeve, and it's a good heart. I look forward to your posts to me, because you do not dismiss my opinions - you challenge them, and I appreciate it. Will adress your post when I can.

lj

ELjay,

The letter of 'the law' is never it's spirit.

When in doubt, chuck the the letter, and chose the spirit!!!

Jesus gave all humnanity, not just Christians, 'Love your neigbor as you love yourself'.

That is simple and straightforward enough. There is nothing in there about 'loving your religious principles', or whatever might affect them! This is the world and the word upside down. The letter is getting in the way of the spirit.

You seem determined to chuck your neighbor: homosexuals and the solemn 'god given right' of being full fledge humans, in order to LOVE YOUR PRINCIPLES!!!

With all the love and respect I can muster Eljay, (I strongly do not doubt your good intentions) chuck the dogma and complicated and confusing labyrinth of questionable logic supporting your personal principles, and chose the spirit!

Less complicated. Infinitely more freeing. And in direct line with Jesus and God.

I think Miguel has a good point- I have asked this of those who feel being gay is somehow immoral- why do so many Christians care if gay people can get married in a secular ceremony?

I don't understand how it threatens their beliefs...

Isn't adultery as much of a "sin" as being gay for those who believe these things? I have not heard any conservative groups cry out to make cheating on ones lawful spouse a criminal act?

DD wrote:
"Isn't adultery as much of a "sin" as being gay for those who believe these things? I have not heard any conservative groups cry out to make cheating on ones lawful spouse a criminal act?"

You're kidding right?

That would be like shooting themseves in their own foot!

Voil;

As to the spirit of the Law vs. the letter of it - I couldn't agree with you more. My sense is that my statements concerning the original post - and my response to Redy's question about defining what part of being Homosexual is "choice" might have come across as being derived from a basis of legalism - rather than my experience with the people who's lifestyles are the topic of this thread. I have witnessed that the homosexual lifestyle of people I have known have caused them problems. Whether those problems are a direct cause of their choice or a result of a society not accepting their choice - I cannot say. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That is to say - that for some, it was a response to a desire that they were not quite sure they should have made, and in the waffling over the guilt and pressure - were just not sure how they felt. I have known many people who "experimented" with the homosexual lifestyle, and abandoned it. Were they truly Gay and denying it - or had they realized they never were. Who knows. All we know is it was the late 60's and early 70's. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here - no one knew what was happening back then. At least not like they do now. But I drift. As I stated - I made my observations back when I was not a believer - so the religious aspect - letter of the law, or "legalism" as I refer to it - was not a factor. But I have not made the mistake of lumping all homosexuals into my limited observations. Though I've known quite a number of gays & lesbians through working in theater - more so than your "average bear", and having owned my theater company in San Francisco - an extremely large sampling of the Gay life of which to observe and get to know - it doesn't cause me to form irrational generalities about the entire Gay population. I just don't think in all honesty that all of the problems besetting the gay population can be attributed to a non-accepting society. Or legalistic religious dogma for that matter. Some of it simply comes from it having been the wrong choice made by someone who was just unsure of what they felt - and responded to affection from any source. To me - this is often an incorrect decision, because the consequences are more severe than the short term satisfaction. I base this decision on having been told this by many who went through this experience. Which was all part of the "What do you think of Homosexuals" question. It's like the question of the death penalty in some ways. It would be easy to be in favor of the death penalty in many ways - if we could be assured that the courts could get it right. But there is so much corruption and self interest in the offices of the District Attorneys throughout the country, that more concern over accusing an innocent man/woman of the crime and executing them for it - in the interest of keeping up appearances on statistics in solving crimes - scares me into voting against it.
The same can be true for coming to conclusions about what is often refered to as the "homosexual agenda". Which may - or may not be representative of homosexuality at large. Redy is a homosexual with an agenda - but it is that of equality and justice in a society that makes laws to suppress it. But then there are groups who's agenda is not for equality - but for special treatment. Which does damage to the agenda that Redy puts her energy into. Not dissimilar to those who bomb abortion clinics in the name of Christianity. It bothers me when someone sights a criminal of this nature as an example of Christianity. I can't help but feel that I've been equated and judged to be the same. So too with Homosexuality. For some people - it is just their prefered love interests, not needing it to be anything more than that. Wanting to just quietly live their lives without being judged for it. For others it is a banner they wish everyone to see, and cater to, and use it as a cause celebrity to gain an advantage they feel they deserve for some reason. I have known both types. So - in conclusion, I tend not to make rash generalizations about a group of people based on what the scriptures say in a legalistic manner - but rather draw my conclusions by how specific people behave who cross my path in my daily pursuit of survival on this planet.

Also - I make no judgements about anyone based on the principles that I have established for myself. I make judgements of the actions of the people I come in contact with, but that's as far as I take it. If someone is communicating to me, and I know they are lying to me - my judgement is to withhold my blind trust of that individual, and to be more discerning when it comes to reliability. To me - that is what I mean by judging actions. If someone tells me that so and so is Gay, I do not formulate opinions that they are a sinner and not to be trusted. The judgement factor just doesn't come into play here. So I hope this gives a better idea of how I function based on your understanding of my intentions.

Abra-

Yes.

That's why I used that particular example...

Eljay,

Thanks for your reply. As you can probably appreciate, we probably will not share the same perspective on this topic, but I respect yours, and you explanations help me understand where you come from.

With respect to your statements about experiences with homosexuals, and the impression that you have that their 'lifestyle' have caused them problems, I for my part have been around loads of heterosexuals, and believe me, their 'lifestyles' have cuased them a lot of problems too. All looking for the perfect someone, but all been hurt by many wrong someones. And just as many factors with hetero, as there migt be with homosexuals. Humans beings trying to cope with other human beings in loving and caring relationships, wich more oftern than not turn to anything but that. Homosexuals do not have the monopoly on the failed relationships, or relationships causing serious problems to individuals.

While I can see that you are surrounded by homosexuals and might get the impression they're the only ones with dramatic issues of pain involving relationships, heterosexual 'lifestyles' beat them hand down on the nature and volume of hurtful, painful, and damaging spirit busting 'lifestyle'.

In the end, although I don't agree with the argument, even if it were a more painful or hurtful 'lifestyle', humans are free to make the choices they make. Who are we to judge. My 15 year old son has announced to us that he has fallen in love with a girl. First time for him. I know he's going to get hurt. I know this is the first string of a series of painful experiences he is going to encounter over the years. Nonetheless, I'm happy for him. He's in this 15 year old kind of fresh innocent and pure (everything is possible) love!

Keeping him from being hurt would be keeping him from love. It's not my place to do such thing with my son, and certainly less so with other consenting, and free human beings.

You wrote:

"... Redy is a homosexual with an agenda - but it is that of equality and justice in a society that makes laws to suppress it..."

It could be said 'redy' is no more a homosexual with an agenda than I am an heterosexual with exactly the same agenda of equality and justice for all law abiding human beings.

On that, in all sincerity, I ask you a question Eljay.
Are you a heterosexual with the same agenda as I and 'redy', for equal rights and justice for all human beings? Men, women, regardless of the color of their skin or whether they are heterosexuals or homosexuals? Same rights, same privileges under the law? And ready to fight for that?

Otherwise, sincerely, I wouldn't inderstand the Christian logic.

History has taught us that the biggest problem in standing tall against bigotry, is first realizing that we are dealing with bigotry. Once that first step is taken, most have it in their heart to denounce and fight bigotry out of their lives.

Voil;

You bring up the topic of heterosexuals who have distructive lifestyles as well. In my experience with life - I'd say their distructive lifestyles can often be worse. Naturally - there is a much larger example pool to draw from - but in terms of extreme behavior that is distructive - on a comparison of Hetero to Homosexual - Hetero wins hands down in my viewpoint. Heterosexuals are much more violent - are often less intelligent - and have a greater need to demand the attention of others. I suppose we could hijack this thread and introduce that as a variation on a theme.

As to the genda of equality - I believe that the sole aganda of everyone who walks the face of this earth should simply be the golden rule. If we all walked this earth as Jesus did - as a servant to the needs of his fellow man - "What a wonderful world this would be" as I recall the song playing in my head.

'redy' I have good news, and I have bad news.

SEXINCHRIST.COM, following 'thorough research!' of the scriptures, declare lesbianism (female to female) OK in God's eyes, under specific rules, as reported in their "Threesomes Within a Christian Marriage" essay.

Bad news: Homosexuality male to male seems out according to 'SEXINCHRIST'. Threesome OK with 2 women, NOT OK with 2 men.

GOOD NEWS: LESBIANISM gets the green light within certain conditions.

Bad news: you would need to submit to the authority of the men
in your life. If the male authority in your life objected to your having sexual relations with other women, you would of course, obey the male authority.

PRETTY GOD DARN REASONABLE, WOULDN'T YOU SAY?!?!?!?

WARNING: this is not a joke!!!

Here are the highlights from the "Threesomes Within a Christian Marriage" essay.

"... Playing by God’s Rules

Since there is no specific prohibition against lesbian sex, as long as these women remain within the boundaries of the female role prescribed by Scripture, and submit to the authority of the men in their lives, we assume it is permissible. Of course, if their husband or father objected, that would be another story.

If, on the other hand, a married couple feels their relationship would benefit from them establishing a loving involvement with another woman, out of respect for the couple’s marriage, and out of respect for any marital attachments of the other woman, they must abide by certain limits and conditions:

(1) To avoid the impropriety of male homosexuality, a heterosexual couple should not under any circumstances form a threesome with another man.

(2) Both women involved in the threesome must be willing to keep within traditional female roles (i.e., not taking on masculine appearance or behavior in or out of the bedroom) and recognize the male as the leader in the relationship.

(3) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, it may be permissible for the husband to have relations with her only with his wife’s consent.

(4) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, but the wife does not wish her to have relations with the other woman, the husband should respect this.

(5) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, her husband must not have objections to the relationship.

(6) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, the husband should refrain from having any sexual relations with her, and should make every effort to control his fantasies about her. He should concentrate his attention on his own wife. "


And there is so much more from 'sexinchrist.com' :

A Proposal for a Christian Pornography

Oral Sex and God's Will

Viagra and God's Will

Threesomes Within a Christian Marriage

Reader Questions and Answers

Masturbation - God's Great Gift to Us

A Proposal for a Christian Pornography

Bondage in Christ - BDSM in a Christian Marriage

Fisting and God's Will new!


As I said before, there is no stopping self-justification and Bible supported self-serving perversions.

With a bit of imagination, you can get this book saying anythong you want!!!

Ridicule doesn't kill.

And in spite of all THIS RIDICULE, including christian PORN,

... there is no progress on the HOMOSEXUALITY front. Loving and committed relationship between two males, WOULD STILL BE A SIN ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE SEXPERTS!

Honestly, IMO, taking the Bible at its 'God's word is a dangerous farce, causing serious prejudice to real, decent, and spiritful human beings. Enough is enough.

I hereby found the...
"Sinful Christian Fundamentalists Deprogramming Institute"

It would seek to stop all 'homosexual conversion programs', and adapt them immediately to the "sinning fundametalists deprogramming process".

It is urgent!!! WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT NOW!!!

I invite members, ... and donations!!!

Voil-

Seriously? Wow someone *really* wants to have a 3 some with their wife and another women without getting in trouble huh?

And I didn't even see the "bondage" section the first time... wait... did I wander into Sex Chat again???

Hmmm.... nope.... still in religion.

VOIL - (to coin a phrase) OMG!

Ok - it's just IMPOSSIBLE not to sterio type here so here goes.
Considering that MEN are the responsible parties in creating religions and thus their beliefs - is it ANY WONDER, that they would find some way to enjoy - the visual of two women together????