The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by Rajk999
For which of the following do you call me an idiot :

- that gays should be left alone as long as they dont break the law or
- that gays cannot reproduce. ?

Or are you simply envious that I have the balls to stand up for what is right whereas you clearly dont have any moral conviction, but just drift with the crowd.

oh noes, you are the one voice for reason in a crowd of sheeple.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The point is that not every male gay couple engage in sodomy, as has been pointed out on this thread only 40% of gay men partake. So that means 60% of gay men are, by your own definition, not sinning. Also by your own definition 100% of lesbians cannot be sinners.

So that's 80% of gay people who are not sinners,by your own definition, yet you seem to want to lump them all together under one Biblical sinning umbrella.

Is said no such thing. The act of gay sex is not just penetration. You must be related to Bill Clinton to make such a statement.

Sex is broad term to describe any type of acts or lovemaking. Penetration is only a part of gay sex. Any gay desire acted upon cannot be morally right by Biblical guidelines. Lesbians kissing and caressing etc etc is all part of female lesbian sex.

Anyway stop trying to get Christians to support your position.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Is said no such thing. The act of gay sex is not just penetration. You must be related to Bill Clinton to make such a statement.

Sex is broad term to describe any type of acts or lovemaking. Penetration is only a part of gay sex. Any gay desire acted upon cannot be morally right by Biblical guidelines. Lesbians kissing and caressing etc etc is all part of female lesbian sex.

Anyway stop trying to get Christians to support your position.

This is from earlier in the thread -

PK - So it's only homosexuals who have sex (anal sex) who are sinners? Those who are gay who don't partake are not sinners?

Raj - That is correct.

Looks like we got our wires crossed. So your Biblical God creates gay people and then denies them any avenue of sexual expression?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Forget the Bible. Specifically let's set aside Romans Chapter 1 which deals exclusively with 'unnatural behavior'.

Instead let's focus for a moment on the observation of the fact of nature that in the lower order of food chain creation animals do indiscriminately behave homosexually. Since when, however, does irrational animal gratification behavior ...[text shortened]... human race would or could possibly continue and avoid becoming extinct?

Thoughts.

gb

Facts about homosexual activity in the animal kingdom are not used as a "yardstick"; that's not the dialectical role these facts play. Rather, they are used to rebut arguments against homosexual activity that start with the premise that it is unnatural and conclude that it is therefore immoral or, minimally, that its being unnatural is a reason against it. But this argument is stupid. To see this, just ask yourself what 'natural' is supposed to mean here. If it means 'found in nature', then the premise is false, since homosexual activity is found throughout the animal kingdom. If it means 'statistically rare in nature', then there are innumerable counterexamples to the form of inference here. Many, many statistically rare behaviors are found among humans and animals, and nothing about morality follows from this. Suppose that altruism was statistically rare in nature. Would it follow that it is unnatural and, hence, immoral? Of course not. Or perhaps 'unnatural' means 'contrary to how we should act as humans'. This is the teleological notion of natural; it is Aristotle's and Aquinas' notion. But the use of normative terminology here should tip you off. This account of 'natural' is itself a moral notion, and so ends up being question-begging. The Christian says "homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore wrong", but by 'unnatural' it is meant 'contrary to how we should act as humans' (or something similar), so what appears to be an argument is simply a reiteration of the very claim at issue.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This is from earlier in the thread -

PK - So it's only homosexuals who have sex (anal sex) who are sinners? Those who are gay who don't partake are not sinners?

Raj - That is correct.

Looks like we got our wires crossed. So your Biblical God creates gay people and then denies them any avenue of sexual expression?

I think its gays that have their wires crossed.... 😀 Let God be the judge of what is gay sex or what is not. Lesbian sex is also wrong.

God makes just about everyone with some affliction or the other. Gays are not the only ones that have to grapple with feelings that are wrong or which cannot be act upon. Thats the story of all life. Its only gays who whine and complain about their plight. Get over it, get on with your life, and grow a spine and stop begging for support.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If everytime someone says that gay sex is wrong you come down on them, then its obvious that that statement does not meet with your approval and you want them to say something different.

And I already made my position clear to you that desires which remain within you and not acted upon is not sinful. There are many people who will want to do something con ...[text shortened]... it becuase their moral conviction overrides that desire. It is not a sin until it is acted upon.

But what relationship does your notion of 'sin' bear to our notion of 'immoral'? Since homosexual sex is obviously not immoral; indeed, since it has the very same moral status as heterosexual sex, why should anybody be concerned about this weird notion of 'sin' that you employ?

Originally posted by bbarr
But what relationship does your notion of 'sin' bear to our notion of 'immoral'? Since homosexual sex is obviously not immoral; indeed, since it has the very same moral status as heterosexual sex, why should anybody be concerned about this weird notion of 'sin' that you employ?

I made it clear that gays dont need to accept anything Christians call immoral or sinful. Christians have their own moral compass and gays have theirs.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I made it clear that gays dont need to accept anything Christians call immoral or sinful. Christians have their own moral compass and gays have theirs.

Of course. But what I'm wondering, I guess, is if you have any arguments not scripturally-based that aim to show that homosexuality is immoral. I mean, in the absence of any such arguments, why should any non-Christian take your views at all seriously?

Originally posted by bbarr
Of course. But what I'm wondering, I guess, is if you have any arguments not scripturally-based that aim to show that homosexuality is immoral. I mean, in the absence of any such arguments, why should any non-Christian take your views at all seriously?

For a Christian all morals and standards are based on the Bible and specifically the teachings of Christ and the Apostles who Christ sent to preach to the Gentiles. Nobody else need accept Christian values and morals and this is why I told PK that there is no need for gays to seek support from Christians to live their lives the way they see fit.

I have never said that anyone needs to accept Christian values. This thread is about the Bible/Christianity/Christ etc and what it says about homosexuality. Its not about you or anyone accepting Christian views.

Originally posted by bbarr
Facts about homosexual activity in the animal kingdom are not used as a "yardstick"; that's not the dialectical role these facts play. Rather, they are used to rebut arguments against homosexual activity that start with the premise that it is unnatural and conclude that it is therefore immoral or, minimally, that its being unnatural is a reason against it. B ars to be an argument is simply a reiteration of the very claim at issue.

As always, bbar, you marshall points of reference fluently; present convincing minor and major arguments with refreshing brevity; and maintain an easy common touch throughout. Let's sit for a few moments on the same side of the collegiate senior debating team table. You've been appointed team captain (or coach, if you prefer) and are conducting a dry run for our final match of the season. It's our turn to defend the Christian claims: Be it resolved that homosexuality violates divine law and treads roughshod on historic precepts of morality (or revised in any way you'd like in the interest of accuracy and fairness). How would you outline our team's strategy and how would you assign elements of our presentation? Let's assume you yourself will deliver the final arguments. Footnote: All members of our team are non-christians, except one junior student from Boston who read all of the wrong books since childhood and who should have earned honors at Harvard or MIT instead of Northeastern.

gb

Originally posted by Rajk999
For a Christian all morals and standards are based on the Bible and specifically the teachings of Christ and the Apostles who Christ sent to preach to the Gentiles. Nobody else need accept Christian values and morals and this is why I told PK that there is no need for gays to seek support from Christians to live their lives the way they see fit.

I have ne ...[text shortened]... etc and what it says about homosexuality. Its not about you or anyone accepting Christian views.

Yes, I know. But, again, I'm asking whether you or your fellow Christians have any non-scriptural arguments in support of your contention that homosexual activity is immoral.

Originally posted by bbarr
Yes, I know. But, again, I'm asking whether you or your fellow Christians have any non-scriptural arguments in support of your contention that homosexual activity is immoral.

I cant think of any.

Originally posted by bbarr
Yes, I know. But, again, I'm asking whether you or your fellow Christians have any non-scriptural arguments in support of your contention that homosexual activity is immoral.

why would a Christian need a non scriptural argument as to the morality of homosexual
acts, the basis has already been established.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why would a Christian need a non scriptural argument as to the morality of homosexual
acts, the basis has already been established.

For a few reasons: First, there are all sorts of things in scripture that are considered wrong, an abomination, a sin, or whatever. Some of these are patently absurd in the modern world, like wearing mixed-thread clothes. So if you want an account of why some scriptural prohibitions still make sense while others don't, you'll need extra-scriptural reasons. Second, since you take it as required to preach for conversion, you'll want reasons you can address to non-believers that show them that your moral system is not merely outdated nonsense. You can do this with prohibitions against killing, lying, etc., but it's much harder with homosexual activity. Third, many Christians (maybe not you and yours) want their moral system enshrined as law. But in the political domain in liberalist societies, there will be different people with different moral conceptions or ethical frameworks. The only way to persuade in such a society is to present reasons that can be countenanced by many of these different conceptions or frameworks; your arguments must aim at where our different views overlap. In the absence of such arguments, the Christian exercise of political power will seem to others as an unjustifiable imposition of an idiosyncratic view that ends up denying people the equal protection and benefit of law.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I cant think of any.

Fair enough.