Where do I go from here?

[cool_name123]

Alright, So I posted this in a different sub forum before realizing there was an entire area specifically dedicated to this topic... So I'm re-posting it here (with some edits as I noticed I made some late night connections that I didn't go into enough detail on in my other post).



So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this (obviously I diverge when needed, but these four are the points I always try to flesh out the most because I think they are the most important to understanding the issue). I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed that's what people want (yet again) or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love Ethic than it does a Sexual Ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. The sexual practices accepted and looked down on are constantly evolving throughout scripture right up to today (I'm fairly sure that the majority of Conservative Christians would not be cool with the idea of Levirate Marriage). I mean it seems to enforce a Love Ethic right down to how Jesus engages with Scripture and makes a point of constantly stressing the importance of the character of ones being as opposed to the strict rules they think everyone should follow (The Pharisees anyone?). Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental to everyone involved and we need to change how we approach this issue. I'm more so just trying to garner a little sympathy with this quote because the church has historically not led the best example of a body under a being that claims to love unconditionally.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not that leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used by speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus tell us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is very likely not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely temple supported male prostitution (I mean he even used the term 'ἀκαθα�σία' not two chapters earlier hearkening back to the Septuagint/Old Testament speaking out against shrine prostitution putting the image square in the readers mind).

And in his other mentions of the topic, like those in Timothy or Corinthians, The word Paul uses here (ἀ�σενοκοίτης) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of (some people even think Paul just straight up made up his own word here, it's that uncommon guys)... The general consensus is that what Paul is referring to are acts of Pederasty or once again shrine prostitution... Again not the same sex consensual adult relationships we've seen develop more recently (in fact the term homosexual didn't even exist in the bible until I think 1949 with the RSV Translation. But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (to the point of potentially making up his own word) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed this one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know why because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then have to go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

I listed the Leviticus scriptures to KCKID, and there is no connection to ONLY pagan temple worship and gay sex. And of course in Romans, Paul's usage of women homosexuals places a wall of separation between the pagan temple worship being exclusively sexual practices tactic.

Hmmm, I was just passing by and I 'heard' my name mentioned.

Yes, the Leviticus texts have been presented and discussed many times, 99percent. And, we can only do the best we can with what we have when it comes to deciphering them.

You seem to use them as the definitive, end all statement that gay sex is appropriate for Christians. Do you not actually do that? Is that not actually the gay theological effort you are expended?

Maybe Matthew Vines can enter this debate here and show where that is not his case as well? Have any of his pals answered your call?

Now, if the the infamous Leviticus texts are 'blanket condemnation' of homosexuality, then why is female same-sex missing from these texts? The texts only refer to male/male 'lying'. Why so? Are Lesbians ALSO excluded, scripturally speaking, from intimate relationships? I really would like an answer from you, 99percent, on this one.

Now wait a minute, be consistent. You attach Romans to Leviticus. And Romans 1 describe homosexuality as we define it today rather excellently, and, in condemnatory descriptions.

Then again, as also referenced many times, the 'flow' of the other prohibitions in Leviticus are suddenly interrupted by the reference to "Molech" (18.21), the scripture just before the 'man lying' text.

And yet never connect the men lying with each other as with a woman aspect. It rather looks like behaviors in a relationship aspect when looked at in context. Not exactly any support for the "Christian" gay marriage movement.

This then appears to take on an entirely new line of thought pertaining to idol worship and its associated practices.

Yes, without a doubt the temple worship aspect of gay sex is recent theological tactic. Follows the line of reason "Did God really say" doesn't it? Yet there is far more to the prohibition and proscription of gay sex than just pagan worship aspects. And of course the creation account in Genesis, and the Ten Commandments as well as of course the immutability of marriage as being man and woman/husband and wife sends the anti-Christians packing with their pro homosexuality campaign.

Moreover, we now see the term "abomination" used in reference to the 'man lying' text. The Hebrew definition of the term "abomination" appears to confirm the link between 'man lying' and idolatry. One's support or non-support of gay and lesbian people has no bearing as to the actual definition of the Leviticus texts.

Well, the description of the intense inappropriateness of gay sex in Leviticus and the entire silence of pro homosexuality statements in the Bible places the gay pride movement outside of "the word of God." And OF COURSE we see the belittling and discarding of the importance of scripture connected to pro homosexuality campaign now don't we? You, have made that kind of pronouncement often. Which is fine, which id fine, you have the right to reject scripture as a matter of choice.

As much evidence as can be given has been supplied to link the 'man lying' texts of Leviticus with idolatry and/or shrine temple prostitution. Can you provide evidence that suggests the 'man lying' texts of Leviticus mean any thing other than the explanations already given?

Ah back to the tactic of being shown evidence and replying: Where's your proof? Then being shown the evidence and then demanding "Where's your evidence?" KCKID, there is not even one pro homosexuality description anywhere in the Bible.

How about we look at one of the Ten Commandments shall we? Or maybe two? Another addition to the long list of "clobber passages."

“Honor your father and your mother . . .,"

Notice the silence of mother and mother? Father and father? There is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. But there is in peoples not of Israel now isn't there?

So logically shouldn't you ALSO affirm sex with animals as well since that prohibition, that followed your so-called Temple Shrine prostitution connection to human same gender sexual acts, has now been made null and void AS LONG AS a person does not engage in the sexual behavior as part of a pagan temple act? The gay theology for now affirming homosexuality must as well affirm any and/or "other" sexual orientations as a matter of declaration of any sexual orientation and its implementation.

In fact, "Jesus never said a word" about sex with animals. Yet he did reaffirm marriage as man and woman/husband and wife. And his reference came long before Abraham or Moses walked the Earth.

Another fact, if anyone can reinvent Christian life based on some personal inclination, where can that rewrite end? Anything goes that's where. But that is not the case with the writings IN the New Testament now is it?

Here's Lev. 18 again:

Unlawful Sexual Relations
18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws.

The native-born

AND

the foreigners residing among you must not do ANY of these detestable things,

27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does ANY of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people.

30 Keep my requirements and do not follow ANY of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’�

To answer the OP, why can't you just go to the pro homosexuality denominations and be satisfied with your religious decisions there?

[KCKID]

KCKID

I listed the Leviticus scriptures to KCKID, and there is no connection to ONLY pagan temple worship and gay sex. And of course in Romans, Paul's usage of women homosexuals places a wall of separation between the pagan temple worship being exclusively sexual practices tactic.

Hmmm, I was just passing by and I 'heard' my name mentioned.

Yes, the Leviticus texts have been presented and discussed many times, 99percent. And, we can only do the best we can with what we have when it comes to deciphering them.

You seem to use them as the definitive, end all statement that gay sex is appropriate for Christians. Do you not actually do that? Is that not actually the gay theological effort you are expended?

I don't use and never have used the Leviticus texts as "the definitive end all statement that gay sex is appropriate for Christians". There you go again with your fibs. As you've said many times before, and I agree, there are no passages in scripture that 'celebrate' homosexuality or gay marriage. But then, why must there be a Bible 'okay' before we in the year 2014 can be accepting of gay marriage?

That raises a question, 99percent. What do you do on a daily basis that is representative of the scriptures that the average person doesn't do? You see, I sometimes get the impression from reading your posts that you're floating around on a cloud strumming a harp and, well ... avoiding life among we mere humans.

What I have done is to show as convincingly as I'm able that the Leviticus texts pertaining to 'man lying' are not as clearly defined as most Christians would have us believe. Of course, I really don't expect you or most Christians to accept this. Let's face it, if we take away the 'clobber' passages of Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 then "Christianity" loses its strongest weapon to use against gay people! And we can't have that, now can we?

Maybe Matthew Vines can enter this debate here and show where that is not his case as well? Have any of his pals answered your call?

No, unfortunately I haven't heard from any of them.

Now, if the the infamous Leviticus texts are 'blanket condemnation' of homosexuality, then why is female same-sex missing from these texts? The texts only refer to male/male 'lying'. Why so? Are Lesbians ALSO excluded, scripturally speaking, from intimate relationships? I really would like an answer from you, 99percent, on this one.

Now wait a minute, be consistent. You attach Romans to Leviticus. And Romans 1 describe homosexuality as we define it today rather excellently, and, in condemnatory descriptions.

Actually, "I" haven't attached Romans to Leviticus but it would appear that others have made the connection. But anyway, what's the problem? The Romans text still appears to be addressing shrine temple prostitution only this time, unlike Leviticus, Paul also references female prostitutes.

Then again, as also referenced many times, the 'flow' of the other prohibitions in Leviticus are suddenly interrupted by the reference to "Molech" (18.21), the scripture just before the 'man lying' text.

And yet never connect the men lying with each other as with a woman aspect. It rather looks like behaviors in a relationship aspect when looked at in context. Not exactly any support for the "Christian" gay marriage movement.

Is that an answer to my question ...if the Leviticus passages are a blanket condemnation of homosexuality then why are females (lesbians) omitted from the text??

This then appears to take on an entirely new line of thought pertaining to idol worship and its associated practices.

Yes, without a doubt the temple worship aspect of gay sex is recent theological tactic.

Well, it isn't a theological tactic at all but it IS recent. And, it stands to reason why this is so. Christian slurs against gay people are also relatively recent and so the scriptures used with which to make those slurs needed to be examined within their exegetical context. There was no real need to do so previously. Okay?

Back later.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 30 by 99percentatheism]

Why can't you just go to the anti-homosexuality denominations and be satisfied with your religious decisions there?
If you can answer that, you can probably answer the question you posed.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 28 by 99percentatheism]

First off, you’re quotes are absolutely baffling here... So I’m going to respond to your statements, but I’m not going to try and connect the dots in how that relates to what I have said... if that connection was important then make it more clear next time because I really don’t see some of these connections at all.

Excuse me? We Christians that affirm the reality of the Bible's proscription of same gender behavior and immutable definition of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife . . . we are called "anti-gay," homopobes, bigots, etc., etc., negative labels 1 through whatever inclusive.

You’ll notice I have never called you so much as one of those things... now why not do me the same courtesy and stop with the labels.

That temple shrine worship included homosexuality in Canaan, does not carry a blanket definition of same gender sex acts being inappropriate if ONLY in pagan religious worship

When the sin being referenced is one of idolatry I think it is actually a pretty safe jump to make... personally. I think the irresponsible one is to take the leap from idolatry to condemning someones entire identity.

Also, where was "temple shrine prostitution" carried out in Egypt?

I don’t believe so... but how is that important?

In his opinion. And since Bell was referenced in a gay pride thread, obviously "judging" that usage this kind of man and of his liberalism is logical.

But it is not, for the exact reason I mentioned with the ‘1+1=2‘ example. Everything he said in that video was theologically sound... Regardless of what else he may believe that video in no way addresses homosexuality at all and should be examined on the merits of what it is saying... Not what else he says elsewhere. I mean Rob Bell believes we are to lead a Christ-Like life... Is that point nullified because of what else he believes? Because if that’s all it takes to affect what you believe then your faith is on shaky ground my friend.

Well, John the Baptist is portrayed as a man that was very similar to the Bull Horn character used by Bell.

Not really, while they both may preach repentance, John’s idea of it has much more to do with loving your neighbor, whether that be by offering your spare shirt to another who has none, or by not overstepping your boundaries when in a position of authority. I don’t think we ever really get much fear-mongering if any from John... Just honest discussions where he can express his opinion and show people how he might deal with the situation at hand.

But that is exactly what the LGBT community" and its agenda is demanding.

No, it’s not... Not from Christianity anyways. Have you even sat down and had this conversation with anyone from the community? No one is asking the Church to completely abolish morality (as you allude to)... No One.

There are some that are begging the question of why we believe what we believe and as I’ve been trying to state, perhaps that isn’t the worst question for us to be asking. But to say they want the Church, an organization primarily focused on morality to abolish said morality, is foolish and I’d be hard pressed to say anyone actually thinks this.

Because "no matter what" is not being honest. A Christian cannot encourage sin, sinning and the sinner to continue to sin.

AND I HAVE NEVER ONCE SAID THIS TO BE THE CASE. I HAVE NEVER SAID TO LOVE ONE MUST ENCOURAGE SIN! I certainly don't say 'Now go have tons of promiscuous sex my friend' when I finish having discussions with people. I also don't go around telling people they're going to hell, but that has more to do with how I see judgment. If I'm having a conversation with someone and I believe things differently than they, I will not hesitate to explain my position and why I disagree... But I don't demonized their position or condemn them for their beliefs, but let them know what I think and why... And you know what, I'll bet I've had more people consider my position than yours by having those conversations out of love and also treating them like any other person that I love.

Marriage carries with it acceptable sexual behavior. That's how, how, how.

BUT HE NEVER MENTIONS THAT IN THE VIDEO. Seriously the point I am trying to make with that video and the point he is trying to make within that video is about Christ’s message of love... Nothing Else. You can disagree with how he puts the points made in that video to practice, but that's not the discussion we are having here... The point being discussed in relation to this is Christ’s message of love, nothing else. If you don’t want to entertain the idea simply because of the implications of how it might affect the rest of your theology then I’m not actually sure how much longer we can continue this discussion... I also think that leads to an incredibly weak faith when you need to be constantly on guard, afraid of what might shatter it.

What hubris. What haughtiness.

I’m Sorry, I’m not trying to be... but when you constantly argue against the love portrayed in the video, even claiming that Rob Bell and his ‘cohorts’ are transforming love into hedonism when they have done no such thing... It’s hard not to think that your views on love may not be the healthiest or most well informed when you can’t stop and see what Rob Bell is actually trying to say in this video. I’m not trying to put myself above you, but you have complained more than once in this thread about being bunched into the hater’s category when you don’t feel you should be there. I was merely making an observation as to why I thought you may be having said problem... I really wasn’t trying to say ‘I’m better than you’ in any way and I’m truly sorry if it came across that way.

Is it love to give heroin to a heroin addict?

Maybe... How bad is their addiction? Could the withdrawal symptoms potentially kill them if they attempted to go 'cold turkey'? And you don’t encourage it either in this scenario. It is necessary in this example to ween them off... To make baby steps towards a grander end goal that may take quite some time.

It is logical, when debating a pro homosexuality ideologue, to debate them where they are coming from.

But that’s the problem... You don’t! You have made so many inaccurate assumptions about me throughout this discussion (and continue to) that it’s clear you don’t grasp where I’m coming from. I feel as though I am also a bit more well versed in the people I am quoting than you may be (considering that your rational for ‘judgment’ was the mere fact that he was in a gay affirming magazine and not on anything he actually said) and I think I can safely say that you are also pretty off the mark in a lot of the assumptions you have made about Rob Bell. Which is why I really think you need to drop the labels, all you’re doing is showing me that nothing I can say even matters because you’ve already made up your mind long before I’ve even thought about how I might respond, and at that point why even bother continuing the discussion.

It is not a far stretch at all to see using a relativist like Bell as encourage homosexuality

Bell is actually not one of the theologians that I think of when it comes to my theology on homosexuality. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever really used him much when talking about the topic. He’s very influential in how I view ‘Love’ which is why I used one of his video’s when addressing that issue, but on the topic of homosexuality... He’s not really my guy. So apparently it was a pretty far stretch... And yet another false assumption... Which is yet another example of why you need to stop using labels, they are leading you to so many false assumptions that it’s really getting hard to motivate myself to continue a conversation with someone who clearly doesn’t want a discussion.

That is simply not right. Otherwise there would be no issue at all in the gay pride "culture wars."

I think where you are getting hung up is the difference between ‘acceptance’ and ‘celebration’. They’re not asking you to shout from the pulpit ‘Everything associated with the LGBTQ* movement is A O K with me!’ Just to be accepted for who they are.

C'mon now. That isn't going to work with me. You are leading your discussion in the same direction as White and Vines tread.

Seriously, I do not know those authors at all. Never read a word of them. The majority of influence to how I approach homosexuality has come from Walter Wink, Walter Bruggemann and Richard Hays. That exegesis of Leviticus primarily comes from comes from a book written by George Rawlinson in 1889, long before we were even having the homosexual discussion, long before it would have even been controversial for him to mention such a hypothesis. The theologian whom informed my study of teovah is Jay Michaelson... So I’m sorry, but who are Vines and Mel White?

Paul's usage of women homosexuals places a wall of separation between the pagan temple worship being exclusively sexual practices tactic.

Ya, never actually mentions homosexuality in regards to women there... it mentions them doing what is unnatural. And here we may just have to either agree to disagree or take the discussion in the direction of what is meant by natural? Or against ones nature. But judging by your responses till now, I’m guessing that’s not a discussion that you care much for... So let’s just put that on the back-burner for now.

Your power dynamic energizes something not in the Bible at all.

Actually, it’s littered throughout most of the NT. And since I can’t do justice to the subject of power without you also having done a little reading (Wink’s Power Trilogy, ‘A Theopolitical Imagination’ by Cavanaugh and ‘The Politics of Jesus’ by Yoder to name a few good ones that deal with power dynamics) that may be another we may just have to agree to disagree on for now.

I'll agree with you and any pro homosexuality advocate if you produce clear and well-defined pro homosexuality texts from the Bible.

a) this is a pretty multi-facetted issue the scope of which the writers of the bible weren’t aware would be a thing.
b) it wasn’t really a concept (at least not in the way we know it) back then.
But then again, I’ve also never really been trying to change your mind on homosexuality, just challenge how you approach the issue and consider that these other readings may not be as illegitimate as you’d like them to be.

And then of course the theology based on things never said by Jesus.

Pretty much that entire sermon your referring to is based around challenging power dynamics, So it’s there... And it’s a much safer assumption to make than virtually every assumption you’ve falsely made of me thus far.

The propaganda of neologisms and fear tactics of calling Christians hateful for rejecting secular culture has been tried already over and over again and it isn't going to work any better in the "technological age" as it was in the splendors of Rome, where we were labeled: "Enemies of mankind."

Sadly for you, it is working... ever so slowly, but working none-the-less. Affirming Churches are growing while others are shrinking... Sooner or later, Love will win.

There were ten times more people at the support the Christians day. At least.

Hate to say this, but that might be a localized thing... because that is certainly not the case where I live.

[cool_name123]

In his opinion. And since Bell was referenced in a gay pride thread, obviously "judging" that usage this kind of man and of his liberalism is logical.

I'm sorry, I just realized that what you actually said was even more ridiculous than what I thought you said. I don't know why I thought you said he was in a magazine... Perhaps because my mind wouldn't let me assume that you'd actually make such an outlandish statement. You're judging him simply on the fact that I brought him up? Seriously?
a) I never once brought him up in an effort to defend homosexuality... NOT ONCE!
b) if everything I mention will be interpreted through the lense of 'gay pride propaganda' then I need to refer to my original post and ask. How do we have this discussion? Anyone please jump in here... How do you continue to discuss things when the one you are discussing with does not want to hear anything you say and instead just wants to make it known he disagrees with you as a person and therefor everything you stand for? I mean I want to have this discussion, the other party claims they do to, but through their actions they make it very clear that what they actually want is less of a discussion and more of an excuse to make their opinions heard. Where do I go from there?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 34 by cool_name123]

Anyone please jump in here... How do you continue to discuss things when the one you are discussing with does not want to hear anything you say and instead just wants to make it known he disagrees with you as a person and therefor everything you stand for?

From my experience with this subject here, there is nothing other than personal hate and desire to hate to discuss on the matter. Nothing new has been introduced to the topic; it always refers to specific biblical passages used specifically for gay-bashing (and that happens in the world not just in here), no new christian technique or epiphany that sheds light on the topic. Most of the topic, in here, seems to be nothing more than an effort to stay relevent.
It's all 'in the bible, god says' when no one - NO ONE - knows what god says; only what some dead man says god says. For the believers, that's all that's needed - and that's fine for them personally - they have to live their own lives after all. However, when it's used for anything that impacts the lives of others directly - that's not acceptable.

Where do I go from there?

With this topic in here, no where really. We're simply 'spinning our wheels'.