Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

No, it’s not immoral. Or a “burden to society”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

NP: Society if far, far more damaged by the meat industry and your bigotry than by gay love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

No, it really isn't. You saying so, does not make it so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

Personally I think society is morally injured when hate is thrust out into the world.

Two consensual adults living their lives is not harming the world. Comparing gays to child rapists, now that is surely hurting people and spewing poison into society. But "tolerating" two adults loving each other? No, no I don't consider that having a negative effect on others.

Dont christians try and preach tolerance? Or is it only for when you want to shove religious beliefs down other peoples throats?

That’s the real burden on society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Except homosexuality isn’t a vice. It doesn’t need to be “restrained”.

[Anonymous]

A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

I don't think it is useful to the discussion to throw around phrases like "christians hate gays" -- it certainly is not a universal feeling in any denomination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

What's the opposite of hate? Accept? You fail to accept that other people have different morals and sexualities than you. You try and strip their rights away. You try and make their life as awful as possible.

What would you call that other than hate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know how anyone could worship a god who created a subclass of people who loved in a certain way and then told them they were not allowed to love in that way or else they would go to hell. What kind of sicko mind would come up with such torture? To create some humans a certain way and then tell them they must deny themselves a crucial part of their humanity for their entire lives? Disgusting if it were so.

Luckily the god I worship would never be so cruel.

No human is a subclass.

Have you ever lied? Stolen anything? Done anything that you knew was wrong, but did it anyway? I have. And it was sin. God didn’t create us to throw our hands up and say “oh well. Guess I will do whatever I want.” We know when we sin, we die like to admit it. It makes is human to want to sin, as we all are sinful, but with God’s grace and strength we recognize our misdeeds/sins and try to turn away from them and do better.

I don’t think denying the urge to sin is denying my humanity. If we didn’t deny ourselves, what would we be? Slaves to emotion and greed and anger.

If a married person sees someone and says they love that person and sleeps with them, yes they did wrong. They should deny themselves and be faithful ti their spouse. If they can’t do that they should not have gotten married.

You’re comparing harming someone through stealing and lying to love between two people? This is why people leave religion.

And it also sounds like you must be asexual because you seem to imply you’d be able to repress your sexuality easily if you were told to.

NP
You are talking about love? Just calling it love doesn’t make it morally right.
How about we allow and celebrate love between adults and minor children?
How about we allow and celebrate love between humans and animals.
That’s love right? Not hurting anyone.

Don’t hide behind love to justify your sins.

Animals and children can't consent. Why do you compare a consenting adult relationship with animal and child rape? How do two adult men or women in a relationship affect you at all?

Mutual adult consent is necessary but not sufficient for moral sexuality. I agree that comparing homosexuality to bestiality or CSA is not helpful. But just because it's consensual does not make it morally right. You just snuck that premise in there.

If one doesnt think it's morally right, they don't have to engage.

What I believe is morally right is different than what you believe is morally right. Some people dont believe it's morally right to eat animals. I wholeheartedly support their right to not eat animals. I don't support those people trying to push their beliefs onto me or others. Same with this.

Perhaps you could make this case if you and your gay partner live alone on an island. But none of us do. Our moral decisions have knock on effects. Sometimes those indirect effects are more serious than the direct ones. Beyond those measurable indirect effects, society is also morally injured when it is forced to tolerate immorality.

So how do two men in a relationship affect you? Is literally tolerating their existence that much of a burden to you?

Not their existence. That is not at issue.

But their open, flagrant immorality, yes. That is a burden to society.

You still havent answered how two men or two women in a consensual adult relationship affects you at all.

A major problem with open immorality (including fornication, adultery, no-fault divorce, etc.) is that it chips away at the social element of the restraint that each of us should be applying to his sexual appetites. Every time someone in your (or my) friend group commits adultery, it reduces the social stigma of such a thing, and increases our own likelihood of slipping into the same vice, which you (and I) had previously been resisting. We see this with the ongoing increase in LGBTQ identification, with a nearly 10-fold increase in population incidence from a generation ago when scientists said there was a small minority who can't help it. Turned out not to be true.

Uhh just because I have gay friends doesnt mean I'm going to turn gay. In fact, I'm glad that "social stigma" is reducing. I'm happy that people feel they can be themselves. You'd apparently rather they stay in the closet?

You are lacking some fundamental critical thinking skills.

Having LGBTQ acquaintances and friends does indeed increase the likelihood that someone will later identify as LGBTQ. "In the closet" is a term of art that I won't stipulate. But as to whether I think a person should resist immoral urges (adultery, homosexuality, whatever)--yes, obviously.

Lol!
So seeing happy gay couples is too hard for you because you may want to turn gay too?
Keep it in your pants!

I'm glad we've finally gotten to the bottom of why christians hate gays.

They are secretly gay, and seeing them be out and happy is too hard for them to "tolerate".

I don't think it is useful to the discussion to throw around phrases like "christians hate gays" -- it certainly is not a universal feeling in any denomination.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
/ˌhōməˈfōbēə/
noun
dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

What would you prefer? Is hate too strong, but dislike and prejudice is ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

So the love is fine, its the P not going into a V specifically that bothers you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

What's the opposite of hate? Accept? You fail to accept that other people have different morals and sexualities than you. You try and strip their rights away. You try and make their life as awful as possible.

What would you call that other than hate?

I think that's an important question. The opposite of hate is love. Love is the affection and (from Kant) the "will for the good of the other" that we direct to every other person. "Accept" has to do with whether we concede or tolerate or promote certain behaviors as legitimately moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

What's the opposite of hate? Accept? You fail to accept that other people have different morals and sexualities than you. You try and strip their rights away. You try and make their life as awful as possible.

What would you call that other than hate?

I think that's an important question. The opposite of hate is love. Love is the affection and (from Kant) the "will for the good of the other" that we direct to every other person. "Accept" has to do with whether we concede or tolerate or promote certain behaviors as legitimately moral.

The opposite of hate is not love. It is indifference.

You can't even be indifferent to people different than you. Thats bigotry at its peak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

What's the opposite of hate? Accept? You fail to accept that other people have different morals and sexualities than you. You try and strip their rights away. You try and make their life as awful as possible.

What would you call that other than hate?

I think that's an important question. The opposite of hate is love. Love is the affection and (from Kant) the "will for the good of the other" that we direct to every other person. "Accept" has to do with whether we concede or tolerate or promote certain behaviors as legitimately moral.

This doesnt even answer the question. Where is the christian love? Love the sinner hate the sin? Why must you keep perpetuating such hate against LGBTQ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of false equivalencies here. Homosexual sex does not equal "gay love". Christians do not "hate" gays just because they object to homosexual sex. Neither do Christians hate people who fornicate or commit adultery. And many Christians also slip into fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex.

I definitely DO object to hate, the ultimate antiChristian vice.

What's the opposite of hate? Accept? You fail to accept that other people have different morals and sexualities than you. You try and strip their rights away. You try and make their life as awful as possible.

What would you call that other than hate?

I think that's an important question. The opposite of hate is love. Love is the affection and (from Kant) the "will for the good of the other" that we direct to every other person. "Accept" has to do with whether we concede or tolerate or promote certain behaviors as legitimately moral.

The opposite of hate is not love. It is indifference.

You can't even be indifferent to people different than you. Thats bigotry at its peak.

This is not true. But you are butchering this modern platitude anyway. This is a modern marriage therapist's saw: "The opposite of love is indifference", which is closer to the truth but still wrong.

Indifference is just one of the many forms of hate.