For The Anti Homosexual Members

I've always found it difficult to understand how any queer person can remain a Christian. Granted we can assume Jesus accepted, embraced and loved a wide range of people just the way they were but we don't know if he'd have tolerated same sex relationships. He may well have spoken on the subject but you can be sure later writers of the gospels {especially Paul whom I suspect was a closet queen} and Rome would have removed any such content just as they fiddled with so much else for their own purposes. More than this though I cannot grasp how any queer person can accept the bloodthirsty,vindictive and unpredictable God of the Old Testament. Not even Bishop John Shelby Spong can explain that away. I need however to confess a bias here. I studied the pipe organ at a catholic cathedral from a very young age and witnessed first hand the monstrous hypocrisy and evil occurring on a daily basis behind the scenes in that establishment.
You do draw attention to an issue I suggest should have more focus in the discussions taking place between fundamentalists opposed to same sex relationships and our kind. They ignore the idea of LOVE in such relationships. For reasons best known to their psychiatrists, if they have one. these bigots (no other word for it) invariably focus on the physical aspects of sexuality to the exclusion of love. Interesting don't you think?

 

And none of that has anything to do with homosexuals- which is the group you attacked- rather than attacking all child rapists.

I have problems with the death penalty- but I am all in favor of convicted child molesters getting the harshest penalties as provided for by law- regardless of whether their victims are boys or girls.

 

Yet statistically- a child- boy or girl- is more likely to be molested by a man who is a family member- step father, brother, uncle, grandfather- than by any woman.

So given those odds- and again you are speaking of child rape here- why would you prefer a heterosexual couple to say a single woman or two lesbians?

Again- if your concern is really about protecting children from sexual predators?

 

So really- you think orphanages(which by the way are almost non-existent any more) run by strict Christians- say Catholic Priests would be safer?

Huh?

As I keep pointing out- IF your concern was protecting children from the danger of child rape then your preference for adoptive families should be something like this:
Two lesbian mother families
Single mother family
Mixed female and male family
Single father
Two gay male families

Because the single statistical factor that is clear is that the persons who are 9 times more likely to rape children- are men.

Which tells us again- that your concern is not primarily about protecting children from sexual predators.

 

Just to reiterate the point of the 'safety of an orphanage run by 'strict Christians'

Endemic' rape and abuse of Irish children in Catholic care, inquiry finds
Beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children, Ryan report states
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims

Rape and sexual molestation were "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages, a report revealed today.

The nine-year investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades terrorised thousands of boys and girls in the Irish Republic, while government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rape and humiliation.

 

Again I'm going to ask what is it about the theology of christianity, no just the Roman kind, that attracts pedophiles.
I'm fairy sure I know the answer but wonder if anyone else has come to the same conclusions I have.

 

Well are we talking about people or acts? There is a difference.

You just used two different definitions right there. An adjective describing an act or a noun meaning a person that performs such acts. But that isn't the common definition it's two different ones.

Thats a lie.

Propaganda is of little value

 

No, you are not. You are mistaken and surely statistics and science do not agree with you. It's as clear as that.

 

Interesting points.

Also, my years on this planet, have shown me that beliefs are (at least) tentative. No one believes in 'everything' they are told is "real", even when it is verifiable, beyond reasonable doubt. Human nature, is a part of that equation that leads to 'belief'. By the same token, religious beliefs are that... on steroids.

There is much we can all guess about as to whether Jesus would have accepted or rejected... but one thing I think is fairly clear, is that Jesus would not have approved of the horrible ways many think of and treat LGBT people (human beings). Any church could spend a year of Sundays... preaching about why it is bad/wrong to be an azz-hole. That (hatred) affects more than just the prejudice and oppression LGBT often suffer.

 

So true!!

 

Should straight people all be of "good moral standing" when they procreate? How do you even measure "good moral standing"?

How do you know at least one isn't the biological mother?

Oh yes, Christians are never caught molesting children. Um Catholic priests, youth ministers, clergy... there's an entire website dedicated to reporting child molestation by religious figures. It sounds to me like you're just very sexist against men. You don't think they are capable of being in a room with a child if they aren't supervised by a woman. Orphanages and foster homes are a breeding ground for abuse by the way. A child would be far better off with a gay or lesbian couple who really love them and can provide for them.

 

I think it depends on the person, their faith and their church community. I personally am very science oriented and less faith oriented. I do however think there is value in a church community. I also think LGBT rights wouldn't go anywhere without the support of the church. Evangelicals forget that many many churches are on the queer side, not theirs. We need those churches. I also think there are some queer people who are way more faithful than I am, and they deserve to be able to worship and feel welcome. I totally agree that it's bizarre that people so squeaked out by all sex, are so focused on the physical parts of a gay relationship. Seems like they are the ones obsessed with sex.

 

That is a question of morals. Traditional families are going to have more to offer their kids in that dept.

As homosexual adoptions are a relatively new occurrence here in the US, there would have to be studies and audits done by non-political groups to see the risks over many years.

So, do think it is more likely or less likely that a child growing up with openly homosexual guardians/parents will engage in homosexual activity later in life?

Do you also think a child raised by parent/guardians who practice acts of beastiality would think such behavior was proper and be more likely to engage in these acts when they are older?

 

I believe it would be best for a traditional Christian family that has been properly vetted to adopt children.

From there, the next best would be a single mother (hetero of course)

Then a single dad (hetero of course) I personally have an old friend twice divorced that has raised at least three boys over the years on his own.

Down from there, a lesbian couple.

Pack of wolves.

Gay male couple.

 

These are MY opinions, what the OP wanted.

Good moral standing is: no criminal record, speeding tickets okay. Being in traditional one male one female relationships (married best). No criminal lawsuits from cheating others. Being a Christian with traditional values, then being a Catholic, those with some belief in God, then down from there to the very bottom with Satanists, Muslims, and Marxists.

The Lesbians in question have brought in different kids of different races over the years---so none are their own.

Not all orphans are housed by Catholics. The way you think, all priests and nuns do is rape and molest children day to day. I'm not a fan of Catholics, but they are far, far more morally superior than any gay person that supports open homosexuality.

 

Essentially you are saying that free speech depends upon who is speaking. There is no difference between putting Bible versus on a cake, and putting gay wedding items and words on a cake - both are messages. The difference between them is that you don't like one.

There is no difference between Brendan Eich privately donating to California prop 8, and Mark Zuckerberg funding initiatives to support gay marriage. In fact, Zuckerberg does it very publicly using his company. Eich did it as a private individual, EIch went to great lengths to separate his private life from his public life - he supported diversity and gay issues at Mozilla even though in his personal life he opposed them.

So again it comes down to the same attitude - you don't like one message and want to shut it down through any means possible.

If you were truly a Christian then your number 1 concern would be whether a person is a Christian or not - that's both the Great Commandment and the Great Commission Jesus left us with.

Do you really know what is in the Bible, does your church truly follow God's Word? Just because you are in a church it does not mean anything. Christians were warned about false prophets, false teachers, false churches. Many people go to church every Sunday, give money, sing in the choir, but they just go through the motions. What do you really do to bring people to Christ? Those are rhetorical questions, I don't expect or want an answer.

People are separated into the saved and the unsaved based on whether or not they accept Jesus invitation, not on their actions. So you might be saved, might not, but a persons actions are a good indication of their status.

Its safe to assume Jesus would absolutely not celebrate the life of a person living the gay lifestyle. Its quite clear that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexual marriage is promoting and enabling sin. Gay marriage is taking a sin and enshrining it in a persons life, its taking a sin and rubbing it in God's face. Any person who encourages others to sin, who is a false teacher or false prophet, is committing an egregious sin.

 

Here you are absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong. Jesus loves all people, but He does not accept all their sinful actions. Jesus rebuked and castigated many people for their actions and lifestyle.

Read Matthew.

After he saved the adulteress from being stoned (John 8:1, its the famous incident where Jesus said "he who is without sin caste the first stone") he told her that her sins were forgiven and to "go and sin no more". Not go be who you are, Jesus told her to change her lifestyle, stop committing adultery.

Remember that Jesus drove out the people buying and selling in the outer yard of the Temple (Matthew 21:12) - those were middle class people who made a living selling animals for sacrifice and exchanging money, he did not accept those people for who they were. In Matthew 23, Jesus tears into the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them a brood of vipers for their actions.

After saving or curing, Jesus told many people to "sin no more". Not to go on about their business, but to change their lifestyle.

In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending his Disciples out for the first time on their own to spread the Word, he warns them there will be opposition, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Why? Several reasons (they are listed in Matthew 10), but one is that He is challenging peoples lifestyles, He is demanding people live according to God's Word, people are going to have to change their actions. Jesus reiterated that there is right and wrong.

 

It's all part of a deep repression of their own 'perverted' desires.

 

If you believe everything you read in the gospels about Jesus is an accurate portrayal you've fallen for the oldest con game in the book - "Gospel Truth" How about catching up with recent writings in biblical studies?
Often misquoted but in this instance I suggest 2nd Thessalonians Ch:2.V:11. applies.

 

Okay- so you want Jewish kids to be preferably raised by a 'traditional Christian family'

And you think that a pack of wolves eating a child is preferable to being raised by a gay male couple.

Each of your posts demonstrate once again that your anti-gay stance has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with bigotry.

 

What exactly? When I was growing up- in my neighborhood- traditional families including one where the step dad was raping his daughter, another where the dad beat his kids so badly that they would have to miss school the next day so no one reported the bruises, and about a 1/3 of the marriages ended up in divorce.

Tell me more about the inherent moral superiority of the traditional marriage of say Donald Trump- who is on his 4th wife- and two lesbians who have been together and committed to each other for 20 years?

 

Feel free to request such studies and audits.

What we do know is that men are the rapers of children- not woman.

Statistically- any man is more dangerous than any woman to a child.

Based upon that- men shouldn't be allowed to adopt at all.

I mean if your concern really was about protecting children from sexual molestation- and not bigotry.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither

Virtually all homosexuals were raised by heterosexuals- and chose to engage in homosexual sex regardless of the examples of their parents.

 

Exactly what kind of household did you grow up in? See in my household- we don't have sex in front of our kids. Perhaps your household is different.

Apparently I don't know about this beastiality that you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly correct- and if Zuckerberg felt his stance was hurting his company- as Eich did- then perhaps Zuckerberg would resign also.

Certainly Christians have attacked figures like Zuckerberg and others for being pro-equal rights for gays.

 

Ummm no. Jesus was very specific about telling Christians what his first and second greatest commandments were- and that is neither of them.

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Nothing about judging whether your neighbor is a Christian or not at all. Jesus commands Christians to be responsible for themselves- to love God- and their neighbors- what he doesn't do is tell bakers not to bake cakes in his name.

 

Oh it is always safe for bigots to assume that what they promote is what Jesus would do.

Yet of course Jesus never mentions homosexuality at all.

It is safe to assume that Jesus would find both Reagan and Trump to be sinners who have enshrined their sins in another's life.
It isn't safe to assume that Jesus would be telling the civil government that they should forbid what Jesus said his followers shouldn't do.