As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

This is the place for mature and civil discussions. Not for the faint of heart or weak in faith.
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ChickenSoup » Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:16 pm

It isn't just "getting laid," dude. Maybe you're simplifying for brevity's sake, but seriously. it is an intense and beautiful connection between two people. Well, at least, that's what it should be. If you think it isn't that big of a deal, I'm not sure we can find much to agree on here. It's a pretty significant part of the human experience... saying "he'd rather be celibate and holy than never get LAID," as though people who can't enjoy or desire sex are some kind of lustful cavemen of something, is pretty silly
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3356
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:18 pm

Maybe you're simplifying for brevity's sake
Prettymuch that.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

storm
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:41 am

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby storm » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:08 am

in my church we are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin So we are to be nice and even allow them or anyone in our church (as long as they are not disruptive ) so they can hear the word of God and interact with Christians and maybe learn they are in sin and be shown love and help in getting out of it Where as we do have one or two in our church they are not allowed to be members or teachers This was explained to them and how our faith and belief does not allow them to be members in their present state They still come and hear God's word so they must see something they want
As a Christian we must be open to all people willing to listen and to hopefully teach Christ didn't sit only with believers but with sinners too BUT He did not tell them they were not in sin or that they were ok nor did He change his teachings to be politically correct as so many churches do today so following His example is what we try to do
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (NKJV)
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Greg King

User avatar
selderane
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby selderane » Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:40 am

It isn't just "getting laid," dude. Maybe you're simplifying for brevity's sake, but seriously. it is an intense and beautiful connection between two people. Well, at least, that's what it should be. If you think it isn't that big of a deal, I'm not sure we can find much to agree on here. It's a pretty significant part of the human experience... saying "he'd rather be celibate and holy than never get LAID," as though people who can't enjoy or desire sex are some kind of lustful cavemen of something, is pretty silly
Intense? Sure. Beautiful? Not so much.

Though I'm sure pedophiles make similar arguments to defend their particular proclivities. I mean, let's be honest here, pedophilia is far more defensible from an evolutionary biology position than homosexuality. In fact, by definition, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.

Boys and girls are biologically capable of reproduction in the early teens, if not pre-teens in some cases (for example, girls raised by a step-father develop sexually a year or so earlier than girls raised by their biological father). So, nature seems to think it's fine.

What's your objection to sex with biologically capable minors?

EDIT:

This just occurs to me: It's an incredibly self-serving, yet savvy, position for a straight man to take in defending homosexuality. Again, from a evolutionary biology position, you're promoting the removal of potential sexual rivals from the gene pool. In fact, the more homosexual men there are the more your chances of passing your genes on increase.

I wonder if this has been studied to any serious degree.
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.

If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3356
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:27 pm

Intense? Sure. Beautiful? Not so much.
When I was a kid I went to a Catholic school from K-8 and every week we attended Mass during school. I remember a sermon one week where the pastor was talking about fornication. He said that he often heard fornication defended by people saying "but it's okay, we're in love!" He said the problem was that if people were expressing that kind of love by disobeying God's word, and therefore sinning, then it did not respect God. If it's sinful and disrespectful to God, then it isn't love. It's lust.

The same thing applies here. People can't always control who they're attracted to, but they can control their actions. Isn't God supposed to be our highest priority? It's like my celibate friend... He wants to have a good relationship with Heavenly Father more than anything, so it would be stupid to throw that away in order to have the sort of relationship he's attracted to. I have deep respect for him, because it must be incredibly difficult not just because he's certainly lonely, but also because we live in a culture that loves nothing more than people "coming out" and celebrates it as the highest cultural enlightenment. The pressure on him is immense, and thus far he has weathered it.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
selderane
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby selderane » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:03 pm

Keep your friend in your prayers, ArcticFox.

I've heard something similar to what your pastor said. "You're in lust, not love," a preacher I know once said. He went on to say you're not really in love until after about seven years.

And you're right, people can't always control who they're attracted to, but the choice to act on those impulses are within their power. A man may be sexually predisposed to another man but it's his will that allows him to act. And for as much as some members here may cheer on the pairing, they do so in contradiction to what evolutionary biology clearly shows to be incompatible.

You can't say you're a man of science and say you support homosexuality as a viable choice. You simply cannot. It is no more supportable than saying mating with a tree is viable.

It may feed emotional and sexual needs, but it's unnatural. So, unless unnatural became a synonym for healthy when I wasn't looking, this embracing of homosexuality is purely emotional.

Because science says it's deficient and unsuited to the task it's designed to perform: The passing on of genetic material to later generations.

Christians don't need the Bible alone to address the behavior. Science is on their side.
Everything above this sentence is opinion and worth precisely what was paid for it.
Everything below this sentence is indisputable fact as verified by scientists, philosophers, scholars, clergy, and David Bowie.

If Star Wars: Destiny is a CCG, X-Wing is an LCG.

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:22 pm

Intense? Sure. Beautiful? Not so much.
Are you talking about sex in general, or just between gays?

Though I'm sure pedophiles make similar arguments to defend their particular proclivities. I mean, let's be honest here, pedophilia is far more defensible from an evolutionary biology position than homosexuality. In fact, by definition, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.
Except, it's not, especially for homosexual men. There are many theories, including one that, for lack of a better word and because I can't remember the actual name, I'll call the "Gay uncle" theory. Child-bearing females are more important for the survival of a population than men. That is, you can have as many hot-blooded young guys as you want, but inevitably the growth and survival of your species is limited to how many fertile females you have in regards to 1) genetic diversity and 2) how many children can be produced, especially because childbirth (especially in humans, with our narrow pelvises) can be dangerous to the female. In theory, 10 males could impregnate 100 females. Anyway, a more "feminine" male could stay behind, so to speak, to take care of the females and use his greater strength to both protect and assist the females while the other, more "masculine" males went out and got food for the group. ALSO, interestingly enough, this is the actual basis of a "third gender" in, among others, the Zuni Pueblo native American tribe. If you're curious for more information, look up "two-spirit identity theory," which discusses the large number of tribes that didn't adhere to binary gender systems--but I digress. The main point is that a couple men uninterested in women (out of a larger group of primarily heterosexual women) don't hurt the long-term survival of the group.

ANYWAY.

As for pedophiles, that too is different. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's not really helpful for a species for males to desire females that aren't even of childbearing age.
Boys and girls are biologically capable of reproduction in the early teens, if not pre-teens in some cases (for example, girls raised by a step-father develop sexually a year or so earlier than girls raised by their biological father). So, nature seems to think it's fine.

What's your objection to sex with biologically capable minors?
A psychological unreadiness in most teens for the long-term emotional implications of sex. As I said before, sex is an intense act of connection between two individuals. Then again, everyone's different--I remember not even kissing until I was sure my relationship with my first girlfriend had a future, and now we're engaged. My sister, on the other hand, didn't really feel it was as special. That's not to say that she was whoring herself out, but the specific "first kiss" act was, to her, an arbitrary social construct with no more significance than one assigned to it. As such, she didn't care. She didn't sleep around, but she had a few boyfriends through high school.

For older teens/early adults who are mentally and emotionally capable of handling the significance of sexual acts, wherein there would not be psychological consequences (long-term guilt, regret, etc.), I don't really care if people have sex. That's their own business between themselves and God. Of course, there's always the potential for conceiving a child (no matter how many precautions one may take), so they should recognize that fact as well.

In fact, the whole concept of one's virginity in particular being precious and dear is, to my knowledge, a fairly recent phenomenon in historical terms. I remember reading this article that found, through record-searching, that while parents outwardly may not have voiced approval, young people often slept in the same bed. While clothed, imagine the temptation there--it was pretty much ensuring that they made it known that, at least superficially, they were trying to keep them from having sex. Some of the young people hadn't even known each other for that long, apparently. Additionally, anywhere from 30-40% of marriages in New England in the late 1700's involved a woman who was pregnant at the time of marriage. Looks like they also largely followed my thought that one should stick around and take care of the child you helped create, not leave the mother with it alone.
EDIT:

This just occurs to me: It's an incredibly self-serving, yet savvy, position for a straight man to take in defending homosexuality. Again, from a evolutionary biology position, you're promoting the removal of potential sexual rivals from the gene pool. In fact, the more homosexual men there are the more your chances of passing your genes on increase.

I wonder if this has been studied to any serious degree.
This is an excellent question! I'm not actually sure how to answer this. There's the positive effects I mentioned earlier, but as for your own particular genes getting ensured survival (vs. the population as a whole being better off), I could see that. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, though, I'm a physiologist and student physical therapist XD

I mean, even if you don't believe in macroevolution, per se, this could be a real sociological/psychological phenomenon.

I'll get around to Arctic's post once I get to an outlet--my tablet's about to die :P
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:39 pm

Intense? Sure. Beautiful? Not so much.
When I was a kid I went to a Catholic school from K-8 and every week we attended Mass during school. I remember a sermon one week where the pastor was talking about fornication. He said that he often heard fornication defended by people saying "but it's okay, we're in love!" He said the problem was that if people were expressing that kind of love by disobeying God's word, and therefore sinning, then it did not respect God. If it's sinful and disrespectful to God, then it isn't love. It's lust.
I'll address this at the same time as selderane's post, as you say similar things.
The same thing applies here. People can't always control who they're attracted to, but they can control their actions. Isn't God supposed to be our highest priority? It's like my celibate friend... He wants to have a good relationship with Heavenly Father more than anything, so it would be stupid to throw that away in order to have the sort of relationship he's attracted to. I have deep respect for him, because it must be incredibly difficult not just because he's certainly lonely,
Yes, quite lonely. I wouldn't wish it on anyone :(
but also because we live in a culture that loves nothing more than people "coming out" and celebrates it as the highest cultural enlightenment. The pressure on him is immense, and thus far he has weathered it.
No, it is celebrated because people both inside and outside the church condemned them for so long that for them to publicly embrace that aspect of their identity is seen as a triumph against people who would send them to "pray the gay away" camps and the such. Now, mind you--I'm talking about gays in general, not just gay Christians. If you don't believe that it's a sin or even in God--and really, there is no good argument outside of religion against homosexuality--it's pretty easy to feel like a lot of people are actively attacking you.
Keep your friend in your prayers, ArcticFox.

I've heard something similar to what your pastor said. "You're in lust, not love," a preacher I know once said. He went on to say you're not really in love until after about seven years.
Does he actually have support for that? Like, "you're only lusting until after seven years" is absurd. "Guys I didn't pull this out of my butt I promise." What happens after seven years? Has some psychological phenomenon been documented that occurs after seven years? Is it some connection to the Biblical importance of the number 7? Is it a physiological change in your brain? No, and no. It's another well-intentioned blanket statement that doesn't work. Does your love for your spouse deepen and change over the years? Yes, certainly. Is it only lust or a very immature form of love until about 7 years into the relationship? I'd like to see the support for that. ANYWAY, I know that wasn't the main point of your post--it just bothered me.
And you're right, people can't always control who they're attracted to, but the choice to act on those impulses are within their power. A man may be sexually predisposed to another man but it's his will that allows him to act. And for as much as some members here may cheer on the pairing, they do so in contradiction to what evolutionary biology clearly shows to be incompatible.
Um... No it doesn't. There's what I said in my earlier post (the "Gay uncle" theory) but there's also the fact that evolution isn't an active-minded being or something with the best in mind for all species. Not all mutations are beneficial.
You can't say you're a man of science and say you support homosexuality as a viable choice. You simply cannot. It is no more supportable than saying mating with a tree is viable.
Except, you can, for reasons I talked about earlier. Actually, this is the first time I've seen this accusation and I find it absurd.
It may feed emotional and sexual needs, but it's unnatural. So, unless unnatural became a synonym for healthy when I wasn't looking, this embracing of homosexuality is purely emotional.
How do you define natural? There are pretty well-documented cases of same-sex intercourse even in animals. I'm not sure how much detail you want, but I can find you the evidence for that. Additionally, sex between two consenting and psychologically competent adults is not unhealthy. (actually, there are health benefits to sex, but going into that would toe the line of facetiousness)
Because science says it's deficient and unsuited to the task it's designed to perform: The passing on of genetic material to later generations.
Can you bring me any research that says this, or is this a statement in the same vein as "you're not in love until after seven years"?
Christians don't need the Bible alone to address the behavior. Science is on their side.
Your misunderstanding of the science behind the arguments is on your side.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3356
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:04 pm

Keep your friend in your prayers, ArcticFox.
I will... and to be honest, even if at some point he stumbles, I won't judge him. I can't say I'd have the strength to make it as far as he has if I had the same temptation.
I've heard something similar to what your pastor said. "You're in lust, not love," a preacher I know once said. He went on to say you're not really in love until after about seven years.
Ultimately the argument that justifies sin on the basis that it's based on love always fails on this level, not to mention the fact that it's purely an appeal to emotion. The truth is, there's no argument to support homosexuality that can't also be used to support adult incest.

"We're in love."
"We aren't hurting anyone."
"It's nobody else's business."
"We deserve marriage equality."

I'm not saying it should be outlawed, because we do live in a secular society and the strongest arguments against homosexual behavior are indeed religious, but that doesn't mean we should be forced to support it or pay it lip service for the sake of political correctness or validating other peoples' sinful choices.
And you're right, people can't always control who they're attracted to, but the choice to act on those impulses are within their power. A man may be sexually predisposed to another man but it's his will that allows him to act. And for as much as some members here may cheer on the pairing, they do so in contradiction to what evolutionary biology clearly shows to be incompatible.
As I'm a skeptic of evolution, no argument related to evolution makes any difference to me either way, but it is worth noting that all of the hypotheses that try to suggest homosexuality serves an evolutionary purpose come across quite contrived and are obviously meant to achieve that specific conclusion, rather than simply letting facts drive the conclusion.
It may feed emotional and sexual needs, but it's unnatural. So, unless unnatural became a synonym for healthy when I wasn't looking, this embracing of homosexuality is purely emotional.
I once debated some people who argued that homosexuality was perfectly natural on the grounds that such behavior has been observed in animals. (Ignoring the fact that this is largely the case for animals in captivity, not in the wild.) Even so, I found it hilarious that people were taking their moral cues from the animal kingdom. I suppose that means I can kill my neighbor, steal his house, impregnate his wife, and then eat the offspring because, hey, some animals do it.
No, it is celebrated because people both inside and outside the church condemned them for so long that for them to publicly embrace that aspect of their identity is seen as a triumph against people who would send them to "pray the gay away" camps and the such. Now, mind you--I'm talking about gays in general, not just gay Christians. If you don't believe that it's a sin or even in God--and really, there is no good argument outside of religion against homosexuality--it's pretty easy to feel like a lot of people are actively attacking you.
Every person, especially celebrities, who come out and publicly embrace the gay lifestyle is validation for those who already are. That's the feel good story the media is currently in love with. That said, yes I do get that the LGBT community feels like they've been historically persecuted, and they have indeed, but that doesn't justify turning the pressure back on those who want nothing to do with it.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:58 pm

I once debated some people who argued that homosexuality was perfectly natural on the grounds that such behavior has been observed in animals. (Ignoring the fact that this is largely the case for animals in captivity, not in the wild.) Even so, I found it hilarious that people were taking their moral cues from the animal kingdom. I suppose that means I can kill my neighbor, steal his house, impregnate his wife, and then eat the offspring because, hey, some animals do it.
I've seen this, but I've primarily seen it as a point brought up to counter the argument that homosexuality is unnatural--which, by the way, is also an appeal to emotion. I mean, pooping inside isn't "natural." Sending these messages of text across cyberspace isn't "natural."

"It's not natural!"
"Animals have been shown to demonstrate homosexual behavior, though."
"Well, I mean, if you take your morality from animals!"

Well, okay then, what do you call "natural", and if that definition isn't something that can be verified by an observation of nature anyway, stop using that argument.
As I'm a skeptic of evolution, no argument related to evolution makes any difference to me either way, but it is worth noting that all of the hypotheses that try to suggest homosexuality serves an evolutionary purpose come across quite contrived and are obviously meant to achieve that specific conclusion, rather than simply letting facts drive the conclusion.
Uh
no argument related to evolution makes any difference to me either way
contrived and are obviously meant to achieve that specific conclusion, rather than simply letting facts drive the conclusion.
The vast majority of the scientific community disagrees with many of your conclusions, and has formed its own conclusion. From their perspective, you're the one being stubborn and trying to make evidence fit your conclusion. I don't want to sound condescending, but you should at least recognize that you don't have an inherently superior position based on logic alone
Every person, especially celebrities, who come out and publicly embrace the gay lifestyle is validation for those who already are. That's the feel good story the media is currently in love with. That said, yes I do get that the LGBT community feels like they've been historically persecuted, and they have indeed, but that doesn't justify turning the pressure back on those who want nothing to do with it.
No one is putting pressure on you to do anything
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3356
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:11 pm

I've seen this, but I've primarily seen it as a point brought up to counter the argument that homosexuality is unnatural--which, by the way, is also an appeal to emotion. I mean, pooping inside isn't "natural." Sending these messages of text across cyberspace isn't "natural."
I didn't say homosexual behavior was wrong because it's unnatural. I just pointed out why calling it natural doesn't justify it.
The vast majority of the scientific community disagrees with many of your conclusions, and has formed its own conclusion. From their perspective, you're the one being stubborn and trying to make evidence fit your conclusion.
What are you talking about here? Evolution?
No one is putting pressure on you to do anything
Dude, you have no idea how desperately I wish that were true. If I open up a wedding photography business or a bakery, I'd better be ready to cater to gay couples' weddings or I get sued or jailed. Even as it stands now, I've had angry homosexuals DEMAND that I pat them on the back and celebrate their choices, simply because they want me to. My refusal to say anything at all gets me labeled as a homophobe. So yes, there is pressure.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ChickenSoup » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:45 am

I've seen this, but I've primarily seen it as a point brought up to counter the argument that homosexuality is unnatural--which, by the way, is also an appeal to emotion. I mean, pooping inside isn't "natural." Sending these messages of text across cyberspace isn't "natural."
I didn't say homosexual behavior was wrong because it's unnatural. I just pointed out why calling it natural doesn't justify it.
Selderane was, so I was addressing the nature (heh) of the natural vs unnatural arguments I've seen
The vast majority of the scientific community disagrees with many of your conclusions, and has formed its own conclusion. From their perspective, you're the one being stubborn and trying to make evidence fit your conclusion.
What are you talking about here? Evolution?
Among other things. My primary point, though, was that you accused them of trying to force facts to fit a conclusion with 99% of Creationists are guilty of the exact same thing.
No one is putting pressure on you to do anything
Dude, you have no idea how desperately I wish that were true. If I open up a wedding photography business or a bakery, I'd better be ready to cater to gay couples' weddings or I get sued or jailed.
Where do you draw the line? Okay, so a photographer should be allowed to discriminate based upon his or her religious beliefs, as well as cake decorators and, presumably, florists, tailors (for suits), and so on. What about, say, me--I'm going to become a physical therapist. If I open my own, independently-owned clinic, should I be able to deny someone because they're gay? What if their injury occurred during their wedding?

At what point should people be allowed to say "I don't do business with you because of your life choices"?
Even as it stands now, I've had angry homosexuals DEMAND that I pat them on the back and celebrate their choices, simply because they want me to. My refusal to say anything at all gets me labeled as a homophobe. So yes, there is pressure.

So, what, a couple gays got mad at you? Is that supposed to be considered a major life change or hazard or something?
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Orodrist
CCGR addict
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Surrounded by blood and bathed in fire on a frozen lake

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby Orodrist » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:59 am

Intense? Sure. Beautiful? Not so much.
He went on to say you're not really in love until after about seven years.

Image

I'm not even that much a fan of rooster garglers but this just makes me reach for another drink.



I'm bout two sheets to the wind and have worked 50 hours this week and more tomorrow so I don't care enough to go back and quote every little thing. So yeah. My spellcheck is working hopefully, I know the forum censor is.



Everyone's arguments are based in such meaningless, societally programmed behavior I can't even begin to comprehend where people are trying to come from.

No. I really can't make an argument against having sex with a consenting biologically mature teenager. Why do you think they bleed at that age, because it's funny?

Crude, boring, objective part being done, the writer can now take over

There's such a narrow view of love going around. Love is complex on a level I just don't see here. It's not something that's either emotional or sexual; there's no broadly defined line between love and lust. And it's not a one and done deal. There's no soulmates, no one true love. To be honest, I can't see how someone could sit down with a woman, any woman, and talk (and I don't mean mindless, every day word spewing, I mean truly sit down and honestly speak to each other), without coming to love her on some level. There doesn't even have to be a physical attraction. They're fracking mystical man. I don't know. Maybe I'm screwed up in the head. But if that's something that only happens to you once in a lifetime I feel bad for you.

I mean heck, I feel bad for you all right now. All of you, trying to define something that's better left alone. How can you live with such empty definitions?



Someone pour me another please.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do - Robert A Heinlein

Courage ~ Discipline ~ Fidelity ~ Honor ~ Hospitality ~ Industriousness ~ Perseverance ~ Self Reliance ~

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby ChickenSoup » Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:06 am

Your bluntness is refreshing and illustrates how I've felt about some of it.

Tangentially related, I've been steeping blackberries in rum as an experiment and am currently partaking.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: As Christians, do we "accept" homosexuals?

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:27 am

Tangentially related, I've been steeping blackberries in rum as an experiment and am currently partaking.
Want.

On topic, some of you need to stop comparing homosexuality with pedophilia. Only one of these involves taking advantage of people who cannot consent. It's offensive, and it's really a red herring.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."


Return to “Debates”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron