What's the BEST (most realistic) Approach to Homosexuality?

[melikio]

This is the One Stop thread for all discussion that revolves around the issue of homosexuality.

ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

Please do not use our Community to in any way promote or advocate the acceptability of same-sex unions/marriage, homosexual activity, or homosexual adoption rights.

For the sake of this discussion the following definitions will be used:

Homosexual ::
A person who engages in sexual relations with members of the same gender

SSA (Same Sex Attraction) ::
A person who struggles with being attracted to members of the same gender but abstains from engaging in sexual relations with them.

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email xxxx@sxxxx.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

On one particular internet forum, this message is frequently posted by the site ADMIN. Not that anyone necessarily intends to advocate what is sinful, but that often, any viewpoint which even slightly mitigates the typical SINS perpetrated upon "homosexuals" (in the name of "God", "truth" or "morality") were/are often viewed as being against that site's TOS. The policy and the way it is enforced is a matter of TOS; still, I believe that approach or attitude is ultimately unhealthy and BOGUS as viewed in light of discussing things openly in the light of "truth" and "reason".

And while I will agree that it is within the site owner’s property rights to LIMIT the information which is contained there, it does (IMV) present a MASSIVE problem for Christians overall, in discussing homosexuality (as homosexuality actually affects the lives of real human beings). I used to be a member at that website; I left after some important questions (which I address below) went unaddressed and unanswered.

If so many CHRISTIANS believe that there is only one very LIMITED way to approach and/or discuss "homosexuality", then how do they/we expect to (ever) resolve the myriad issues “surrounding” the topic? I am certain people are being lost (driven away) because many "Christians" are just so "unreal".

Or is it simply that their actual “agenda” doesn’t allow for any real resolution of the problems? Does the agenda itself actually control the real opportunities for those seeking “truth” to hear and examine all sides honestly and openly? I personally think it does perpetuate the skewing of actual truth (overall).

The article here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/1 ... cus12.html,
shows an approach to the related issues, which to me (and others) is far more realistic than the approach of the sample TOS quoted above.

Am I right or wrong, or somewhere near the "middle"?

Does anyone agree with that forum ADMIN's approach and/or related policy?

(In any case, PLEASE support your reasoning as best you can as a HUMAN BEING; just be REAL and frank, don't pretend you know more than you really do.)

-Mel-

[r~]

the Bible is Israel's, not yours to divide up as you please. it's a single, cohesive book. it was the Sanhedrin's roll to execute some forms of JUDGEMENT for Israel's good.
by the way why not ask about the persecution of gossips ? God looks at them as being the same. oh ya WE don't.

Please forgive. Again, I am having some difficulty following your train of thought.

I did not divide the Bible, Jesus did; the Bible does.

Where the Old Covenant Bible says eating shellfish is unclean, Jesus said it is not what you put in your body that makes you unclean.
Where the Old Covenant Bible says hate sinners, Jesus said to love and forgive sinners.
Where the Old Covenant Bible says drive unrepentant sinners from amongst us, Jesus invited sinners to dinner with him.
Where the Old Covenant Bible says to stone sinners, Jesus rebuked the Sanhedrin and prevented the “lawful” stoning of an adulteress.

According to the Old Covenant Words of the Bible, Christ was a Blasphemer and rightly condemned by the Sanhedrin to be crucified. That pretty much fits my definition of anti-Christian.

The persecution (or not) of gossips does not change my understanding that persecution is anti-Christian. Did you mean to confess that YOU are anti-Christian and do not obey God?

Just out of curiosity, please give your interpretation of this Bible quotation that is clearly meant to divide the Old Covenant Words and Laws of the Bible from the New Covenant Spirit of Christ:

He has enabled us to be ministers of His new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

It is with the greatest sorrow that I confess that Self-Evident Truths and the New Covenant Spirit of God and Christ are not necessarily self-evident to the unenlightened.

I am
ItS
r~

For you cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not use reason to reach.

[arayhay]

[

quote="r~"]

the Bible is Israel's, not yours to divide up as you please. it's a single, cohesive book. it was the Sanhedrin's roll to execute some forms of JUDGEMENT for Israel's good.
by the way why not ask about the persecution of gossips ? God looks at them as being the same. oh ya WE don't.

Please forgive. Again, I am having some difficulty following your train of thought.

I did not divide the Bible, Jesus did; the Bible does.

no He did not your interpretation of Paul is incorrect.

Where the Old Covenant Bible says eating shellfish is unclean, Jesus said it is not what you put in your body that makes you unclean.

you say that not Him. where did He say what eve has a divided hoff but does not chew the cud is ok to eat ?

Where the Old Covenant Bible says hate sinners, Jesus said to love and forgive sinners.

the ot doesn't say that YOU DO. you seem to just make this stuff up.

Where the Old Covenant Bible says drive unrepentant sinners from amongst us, Jesus invited sinners to dinner with him.

sinners that repent, an ot qualification as well. Jesus never says just love the sinner no matter what.

Where the Old Covenant Bible says to stone sinners, Jesus rebuked the Sanhedrin and prevented the “lawful” stoning of an adulteress.

the so called ot is still in force in Jesus's day, what is going on in this instance is Jesus is saying to Israel that THEY are adulterers also Jer 6. the nation needs to see their sin and He points it out.

According to the Old Covenant Words of the Bible, Christ was a Blasphemer and rightly condemned by the Sanhedrin to be crucified. That pretty much fits my definition of anti-Christian.

the only blasphemer here is you.

The persecution (or not) of gossips does not change my understanding that persecution is anti-Christian. Did you mean to confess that YOU are anti-Christian and do not obey God?

i am not a christian and neither is Jesus.

Just out of curiosity, please give your interpretation of this Bible quotation that is clearly meant to divide the Old Covenant Words and Laws of the Bible from the New Covenant Spirit of Christ:

they don't exist, jesus CONFIRMED the whole ot.

[

color=indigo]He has enabled us to be ministers of His new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life. [/color] 2 Corinthians 3:6

i'll talk to you later bout this.

It is with the greatest sorrow that I confess that Self-Evident Truths and the New Covenant Spirit of God and Christ are not necessarily self-evident to the unenlightened.

if you have EYES to see, and EARS to hear ...


I am
ItS
r~

For you cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not use reason to reach.[/quote]


the truth is hard to hide from ,forever.

[r~]

Enough of this hijack.

The OP is: “What is the BEST approach to Homosexuality?”

My position is that all men and women, including homosexuals, are created equal, and that all are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My position is that this spirit of liberty is a self-evident truth that applies to all; no matter the secular or religious law; no matter the government.

The only position you have clearly revealed is that inalienable rights are not inalienable – homosexuals should be stoned if they are in Israel and claim to be a covenant member.

Please come out and tell us clearly: What is the best approach to homosexuality in America? Do inalienable rights apply to homosexuals in America, or is the concept of inalienable rights just meaningless rhetoric?

I am
Its
r~

P.S. Rest assured I will never mistake your Spirit as Christian.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[Goat]

Enough of this hijack.

The OP is: “What is the BEST approach to Homosexuality?”

My position is that all men and women, including homosexuals, are created equal, and that all are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My position is that this spirit of liberty is a self-evident truth that applies to all; no matter the secular or religious law; no matter the government.

The only position you have clearly revealed is that inalienable rights are not inalienable – homosexuals should be stoned if they are in Israel and claim to be a covenant member.

Please come out and tell us clearly: What is the best approach to homosexuality in America? Do inalienable rights apply to homosexuals in America, or is the concept of inalienable rights just meaningless rhetoric?

I am
Its
r~

P.S. Rest assured I will never mistake your Spirit as Christian.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

My position is if you think homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with someone fo the same sex.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.

That should be your choice and your right. On the other hand, homosexual sex and marriage is between two people, and God. I'll let God handle it if he disapproves.