Pro Basketball Player Announces he is Gay... AND BLACK!!

[Ooberman]

OK, so it's not really shocking he's black... This is the first time an active professional athlete in a major sport has announced he was gay.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazi ... ile=no#all

Needless to say, now that the Christian Extremists are in decline, the responses are largely positive.


I'm sure there will be pockets of bigots who continue to attack, but the age of institutionalized bigotry towards homosexuals based on religious belief is in decline, thank God, so to speak.


Again, I repeat myself, Gay Rights is not an issue any more. It's done. Gay marriage will happen, gay rights WILL happen, and majority public acceptance WILL happen.

The question is what should we do about the small, vocal and hostile minority who would spread filth and lies in the name of God?

[charles_hamm]

Please cite your source here. I don't think it is "completely normal in nature". This is a good source showing where it is not a normal animal behavior in nature.
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html He has no reason to hate nature since it is not normal there either and has been demostrated to be abnormal.

Homosexuality is normal. Your source is as biased as it gets.

So allow me to get this straight. I provide a source and all you can say is it's biased? I asked you for a source and you didn't provide one. I'll take that to mean you don't have one and this is merely your opinion.

In 2009 an American Psychological Association research summary[28] included the following statements:
The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] has been controversial due to tensions between the values held by some faith-based organizations, on the one hand, and those held by lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organizations and professional and scientific organizations, on the other.
There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether recent SOCE do work to change a person’s sexual orientation.
Some individuals and groups have promoted the idea of homosexuality as symptomatic of developmental defects or spiritual and moral failings and have argued that SOCE, including psychotherapy and religious efforts, could alter homosexual feelings and behaviors. Many of these individuals and groups appeared to be embedded within the larger context of conservative religious political movements that have supported the stigmatization of homosexuality on political or religious grounds.
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA,[29] Royal College of Psychiatrists,[30] and Australian Psychological Society.[31]
The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.[30][32]

You are siding with a group that encourages bad behavior.

We see who you are.

You do understand that the study was flawed from the outset because the group studying the effectiveness of SOCE was comprised of only individuals who supported gay marriage. Can you say, useless study.

BTW, What is normal? Anal sex with a woman? Oral sex? Masturbation? Polygamy? Knocking up 14 year olds (like "God" did to Mary?).

http://www.healthizen.com/sexual-health ... avior.aspx This website gives a list and explanations. Anal, Oral and mastubation, while legal are considered controversial. Polygamy is illegal in the U.S. so it is not normal. Remember, Mary was a virgin, hence the virgin birth.

How normal is a virgin impregnation? Aren't you defining the "miracle" of Mary as abnormal?

You have made arbitrary judgments on what is sinful or not.

Miracles by their nature are not normal. If they were, they would not be miracles. I've made no judgements, only addressed your questions with a cited source and a reminder about Mary. The only sins I will ever list are listed in the Bible.

So you decided to choose a religion that just happens to think homosexuality is a sin? Why not choose a religion that speaks out against pedophilia or murdering people for religious reasons?

Christianity does not endorse either one, so you can say I did choose one that calls both of those a sin.

Please cite the references. And why did you God command death to people, if he didn't agree with religious killing? Why did he endorse Mary who had married at 14, perhaps even had children younger?

Mark 7:21-23
21 "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.�

Matthew 18:6
"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Galatians 5:19-21
"19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Pedophilia is sexual immorality and a sin. Jesus tells people if you cause a child to sin it would be better to be dead than to that. God killed people for their unwillingness to repent and stop sinning. He killed them, not Christians. Mary was betrothed to Joseph between 12-14 as was the custom at that time. God endorsed her because she was pure, a virgin. Please cite a source that shows she had children prior to Christ.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/pedophilia. ... z2SF2GDxl2

Classic Apologetics. Of course, there is no mention of pedophilia - because as you even point out, they married girls who would be considered children today.

All a person has to do is think God approved of pedophilia. There is no mention against it int the Bible, and therefore a person, perhaps a whole group of people, could think 9 years old is acceptable. Or younger.

There is also no direct mention against online identity theft, but I think we can agree it is a form of stealing.

After all, if one is married, it's not considered a sin of the flesh, is it?

There are laws in the U.S. setting a minimum age a person can marry at. IF the childs parent consents then it is no longer pedophilia because the parent has allowed the marriage to happen and any relations they have after marriage are not sin.

This is how the Christian adjust to new moral values that differ from his religion...

Nope. This is how it has always been. Pedophilia is when a person performs lewd conduct in front of or to a child. It is not when a parent allows say a 16 year old to marry her 18 year old boyfriend.

Nope. I thought it was detesable the first time I ever heard about what it was. The day I read the Bible just confirmed what I already knew.

I believe you. I'm sorry you have such hatred.

I am sorry you accept acts that are morally questionable at best.

[charles_hamm]

It is called abnormal sexual relations and detestable in the Bible and the Bible states the the Lord hates detestable things.

It's completely normal in Nature. Why does God think it's abnormal? Does he hate Nature, too?

Please cite your source here. I don't think it is "completely normal in nature". This is a good source showing where it is not a normal animal behavior in nature.
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html He has no reason to hate nature since it is not normal there either and has been demostrated to be abnormal.

BTW, What is normal? Anal sex with a woman? Oral sex? Masturbation? Polygamy? Knocking up 14 year olds (like "God" did to Mary?).

http://www.healthizen.com/sexual-health ... avior.aspx This website gives a list and explanations. Anal, Oral and mastubation, while legal are considered controversial. Polygamy is illegal in the U.S. so it is not normal. Remember, Mary was a virgin, hence the virgin birth.

So you decided to choose a religion that just happens to think homosexuality is a sin? Why not choose a religion that speaks out against pedophilia or murdering people for religious reasons?

Christianity does not endorse either one, so you can say I did choose one that calls both of those a sin.

Please cite the references. And why did your God command death to people, if he didn't agree with religious killing? Why did he endorse Mary who had married at 14, perhaps even had children younger?

Mark 7:21-23
21 "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.�

If all of the above come from 'the heart of man' doesn't this imply that 'man' is inherently evil and therefore 'the Creator' is at fault? Besides, why do Christians always reference such lists of 'evil' whenever the 'gay' issue arises? A person's being gay has nothing to do with a list of 'evils'.

Not at all. It shows that man corrupted the pure heart that God gave us. A person's being gay is a form of sexual immorality so the verses I listed are appropriate here.

Matthew 18:6
"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

What does the above have to do with gay people?

Nothing. He asked for a verse that dealt with pedophilia. This was one of those verses.

Galatians 5:19-21
"19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Again, the above is a favorite of the Christian anti-gay which is presented as if it addresses 'the gay issue' which it does not. To the ...um ...not so bright ...um ...Christian the above appears to equate to the gay person. This is, of course, the intention of the presenter. As hard as this is to believe, Christians are not above using deception when it comes to promoting their agenda ...!

Please then explain how homosexuality is not at a minimum "sexual immorality" and "impurity" for us. Have you ever thought it's a favorite because it fits perfectly? It seems the only deception being used is by you to try to divert attention away from what the verses I listed clearly say. BTW, I would say that is true of groups promoting homosexuality way more than Christian groups, in my opinion.

Pedophilia is sexual immorality and a sin. Jesus tells people if you cause a child to sin it would be better to be dead than to that.

Children are swamped with 'sinful' messages on a daily basis, almost minute by minute. People - including children - are obsessed by TV and the popular media and bombarded with a barrage of lies and immoral messages. Many parents use such media as 'baby sitters'. Are you seriously targetting a minority group - gays - for doing this?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that since the other poster asked about pedophilia, you didn't see that part of his post. My response was about that, not homosexuality here.

God killed people for their unwillingness to repent and stop sinning. He killed them, not Christians.

And this is evidently okay by you ...? Is this the God we kowtow to every week in church?

I don't know if you go to church or not so I don't know what God you "kowtow" to. I worship the Christian God.

Mary was betrothed to Joseph between 12-14 as was the custom at that time. God endorsed her because she was pure, a virgin. Please cite a source that shows she had children prior to Christ.

Surely there are virgin girls around today between the ages of 12-14. How would it sit with our society should such a girl be betrothed to (probably) an older man?

I don't know. It seems to sit perfectly well that a 14 year old can go have an abortion so I would assume it probably would not be that big of a deal to society. Now if you are asking how it would sit if that were the custom today, I would assume just fine.

Nope I was drawn because of Jesus Christ and the salvation He gives. Were drawn away from Christianity because it made your Christophobia seem O.K.?

So when did you decide homosexual was detestable? The day you read the Bible?
That's when I became a non-Christian, btw. When I read the Bible.

Nope. I thought it was detesable the first time I ever heard about what it was. The day I read the Bible just confirmed what I already knew.

There are any number of heterosexual people who would find the physical act of heterosexual sex to be quite 'yucky' (detestable) if it were not so pleasurable. Try watching some porn and enjoy a meal at the same time. In other words, what YOU find detestable has no bearing on what others might find pleasurable. Furthermore, God finds shellfish detestable too. Many Christians love them ...! What ARE we to do with them?

Does your statement hold true for homosexuals as well? Would they find it 'yucky' if they didn't think it was so pleasurable? Keep in mind that pleasurable and acceptable are two different things. I don't know what to do with them. Do the same things that we do with homosexuals (said tongue in cheek)?

For those interested ...check on the Internet for the MANY things that God finds 'detestable' that YOU probably do on a daily basis with nary a thought . . .!

While you are at it, why not look up how one can be saved. Just a thought.

[KCKID]

I am sorry you accept acts that are morally questionable at best.

But, are not these 'morally questionable' acts performed in private by consenting adults? Why then do those such as yourself make personal something that is consentual and also private and nothing to do with you anyway? Does merely imagining what a gay couple might be up to in their bedroom offend your sensibilities? If so, isn't that a tad 'creepy'?

[charles_hamm]

I am sorry you accept acts that are morally questionable at best.

But, are not these 'morally questionable' acts performed in private by consenting adults? Why then do those such as yourself make personal something that is consentual and also private and nothing to do with you anyway? Does merely imagining what a gay couple might be up to in their bedroom offend your sensibilities? If so, isn't that a tad 'creepy'?

This is a slippery slope argument you are making because it can be used to support almost any sexual deviant behavior, even ones that are illegal under U.S. law. For that matter it can be argued that anything done in private that has nothing to do with anyone else is O.K. Meth, cocaine, or anything done in private, so long as it stays private is O.K. Consensual and private are irrelevant. The act of two people of the same sex having sex is not illegal. I don't accept them as being morally acceptable acts. There is a difference. The U.S. makes laws all the time that regulate what an individual or couple can do in the privacy of their own home so there is absolutely nothing personal about this.

[Ooberman]

Mark 7:21-23
21 "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.�

If all of the above come from 'the heart of man' doesn't this imply that 'man' is inherently evil and therefore 'the Creator' is at fault? Besides, why do Christians always reference such lists of 'evil' whenever the 'gay' issue arises? A person's being gay has nothing to do with a list of 'evils'.

Not at all. It shows that man corrupted the pure heart that God gave us. A person's being gay is a form of sexual immorality so the verses I listed are appropriate here.

That's just it. It doesn't say anything about being gay.

After all, are half your Christian brethren liars because they say there is nothing specific about homosexuality being a sin, but male prostitution, etc.?

After all, it's not just Secularists arguing that homosexuality isn't immoral, but Christian's too.

I'm sure you're going to say they just have the wrong interpretation or something...

presuming a specific group is right, the other wrong.

I think this is a wrong approach and most readers see that.


You said: "A person's being gay is a form of sexual immorality ....."

Please prove this.

[Ooberman]

I am sorry you accept acts that are morally questionable at best.

But, are not these 'morally questionable' acts performed in private by consenting adults? Why then do those such as yourself make personal something that is consentual and also private and nothing to do with you anyway? Does merely imagining what a gay couple might be up to in their bedroom offend your sensibilities? If so, isn't that a tad 'creepy'?

This is a slippery slope argument you are making because it can be used to support almost any sexual deviant behavior, even ones that are illegal under U.S. law. For that matter it can be argued that anything done in private that has nothing to do with anyone else is O.K. Meth, cocaine, or anything done in private, so long as it stays private is O.K. Consensual and private are irrelevant. The act of two people of the same sex having sex is not illegal. I don't accept them as being morally acceptable acts. There is a difference. The U.S. makes laws all the time that regulate what an individual or couple can do in the privacy of their own home so there is absolutely nothing personal about this.

It's not a slippery slope at all. And the examples you give are useless, unless you presuppose homosexulality is as "bad" as meth and coke... which, is allowed to do in the privacy of your own home, but getting it, selling it, etc are the problem. That is the part legislated.

That is, heterosexuals with their "good and pure" form of sexual interactions still can't do it in public.

Obviously, society is creating the rules on sexual morality.

Regardless of why YOU might think it's immoral, why should society care what you think?

Why does it matter to you that homosexuality is a sin?

[marketandchurch]

I could use the analogy of a single Christian tempted to get involved in pre-marital sex but as one who rejects the Bible you'd have no problem with that.

This is also a false analogy since you wish to deny marital sex to gay people.

No it isn't, it is quite consistent. God's standard for sex is a man and woman in a marriage relationship, life-long. I only expect Christians to understand that.

Yes, I'm sure that man/woman/sex WAS God's standard for means of procreation. How else would humans 'go forth' and populate the earth? That said, God never even hinted that man and woman actually love each other before they commit themselves to one another. Not at all. There was no mention of romance or dating or actually 'falling in love' by God. In fact, the relationships between men and women appear to have been rather 'clinical' with the female basically being little other than a 'baby making' machine who was the property of her husband. Why do you use this rather ancient and bizarre form of male/female relationship as 'the desired norm'?

God's idea of male and female relationships were designed specifically with procreation in mind. It's my understanding that barren women were looked on with disapproval since they did not fulfill the marital role of the female. This again indicates that women were designed specifically to bear children and had little other use. All biblical scholars would know this. These days people meet, they date, they romance, they fall in love, they marry. The bi-product of a marriage may well be the birth of a child or children but I personally don't know of anyone who has married in order to procreate as a sense of duty to God. Some couples even choose not to have children but they marry anyway. Is THIS the kind of relationship that would be approved of by the OT God?

Soooo ...what is the difference between the examples mentioned above and gay people who meet, date, romance, fall in love and, perhaps, marry? Be careful of your answer since you could very well shoot yourself in the foot . . .

You are sort of right in saying:

There was no mention of romance or dating or actually 'falling in love' by God.

Matter of fact, one can encapsulate a major theme of Genesis as "Dysfunctional Families."

But I do not agree with the assessment you make following this statement. We in modern life fall-in-love, marry, and then fall-out-of-love. In the older days, they married, and then fell in love. Love was defined as both a feeling, and a behavior. Moses framed this well when he said that you love God by doing what God asks of you. It doesn't matter what's in your heart if it doesn't come through in your behavior, something that is largely lost in this age of emotions.

Society determined the role of womanhood. But the respect that was given women of the torah were on a much higher level then most places on earth today, in 2013... let alone the world over, 3,000 years ago. She wasn't just a baby making machine for her husband. Moses demanded in Deuteronomy that men take a year's leave from military duties so that he could spend time making a home for his wife, and getting to know her better. The rabbi's used to speak of the old ways, where a woman was owed, by her husband, and allotted amount of sex, depending of his line of work. If his line-work was something like fisherman, or something that required his being away for extended periods of time, he owed her even more intimate time, while he was home. I will make the biblical-case for elevating women rights in the coming days.

I'll wait and see what you have to say.

All traditions held procreation as the primary function of pairing up the two sexes. The Jewish tradition differed from this, however, in that the primary purpose of pairing up the two, was for them to know other. "Knowing the other" who is different from you is one of the primary roles of the torah. Having a children is a great benefit, of course, but not the primary role of pairing a man with a woman.

The command by God WAS to go forth and multiply but I don't recall God ever having said anything about as simple a thing as "affection" between man and woman. As said, the union between man and woman was quite a clinical affair as far as God was concerned.

Please cite the ignorant OT scholar know-nothings who hold this position you cite.

I said that all biblical scholars KNOW that the role of the woman was subordinate to that of the male, the woman being the man's property. This does not mean that too many would freely acknowledge that God seemed to have little regard for the female species. For a God who is forever preached as being just, pure, good and holy this would upset the apple cart somewhat, would it not? No Sunday sermon is going to be preached that the God of love people have come to worship also had no qualms commanding murder, rape, genocide, destruction, slavery, etc. etc., is it?

Go forth and multiply is a commandment. It is not the definition of the institution of marriage, which was later defined as time progressed, and polygamy was proven as unworkable, and phased out of ancient Israeli life in full. Marriage, however, is fleshed out, when you add up the sum of the bible's parts, to construct the bible's ideallic portrait, of the male-female union.

I agree in full vis-a-vis women being property of men. Women & children in the ancient world were like livestock. They were property, and were as exchangeable as a piece of land, a flock of sheep, a house, or a carriage. That is one of the many things the bible battles, when it choses to reframe women in a more elevated framework.

A woman was protected if she had had premarital sex, and all scholars attest to this. Women were given a right to divorce by the community at large, and she was given a bill of goods to protect her in her life after the divorce. You are equal in God's eyes, to your husband, and you not only have rights to sex, but a relationship as well. It is arguable that women of ancient Israel had it far better in their day, then most of humanity living today, in 2013.

I've made a rather long case for the torah's view of women. It is fully supported from passages within Genesis-Deuteronomy, anthropology, and the traditions that have survived over the last 3000+ years. You can read it here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22961

Thirdly, if you are going to cite murder, rape, genocide, and slavery, please have scholarship that supports this, be it yours, or someone else I can research and read more about. And I don't ask for scholarship on this site to shut people up. I do so because we're dissecting a very complex anthology of writings, for which I have yet to see any proof of it supporting those things, and neither have any of the serious scholars that I've read. So maybe you know something I don't, or a scholar you know, knows something I don't, which is fine, but please cite them or the text itself if you are steeped in biblical studies yourself.

[KCKID]

Mark 7:21-23
21 "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.�

If all of the above come from 'the heart of man' doesn't this imply that 'man' is inherently evil and therefore 'the Creator' is at fault? Besides, why do Christians always reference such lists of 'evil' whenever the 'gay' issue arises? A person's being gay has nothing to do with a list of 'evils'.

Not at all. It shows that man corrupted the pure heart that God gave us. A person's being gay is a form of sexual immorality so the verses I listed are appropriate here.

That's just it. It doesn't say anything about being gay.

This is what I find continually frustrating, especially when the relatively modern word 'homosexual' has been 'illegally' implanted into a list of condemning practices. Whenever that occurs the 'sin' of homosexuality is therefore highlighted and such things as murder, adultery, coveting, etc. are all but consumed by the glare OR otherwise applied to homosexuality even if on a subliminal level. But then, Christians have been using these kinds of deceptive tactics 'forever. so it's not likely that they're going to stop doing so any time soon. That said, and to his credit, even though I might not agree with him I find Charles Hamm a cut above most other anti-gays. There is no vitriol per se in his posts and I appreciate that.

After all, are half your Christian brethren liars because they say there is nothing specific about homosexuality being a sin, but male prostitution, etc.?

Well, last year I initiated threads that pertained to the very thing that you're referring to. The threads are: JUDE 1:1-25 - THE CULPRIT TEXT! (7 June 2012) and ROMANS 1:26-27 (12 June 2012). There's a lot of reading in the latter thread but it is laid out in quite a reader-friendly format and certainly is most interesting. These threads shed quite a lot of light as to the highly likely REAL meaning to two of the most infamous 'homosexual clobber texts'. Actually, I might try to locate them, or not, and bump them up for the sake of newcomers to the forum.

After all, it's not just Secularists arguing that homosexuality isn't immoral, but Christian's too.

Quite so. There probably IS immorality involved within homosexual circles just as there is immorality involved within heterosexual circles; however, at the end of the day 'what is immoral and what is not' is open to interpretation as well as the acknowledging that few, if any, of us can truly point the finger at anyone else.

[marketandchurch]

Mark 7:21-23
21 "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.�

If all of the above come from 'the heart of man' doesn't this imply that 'man' is inherently evil and therefore 'the Creator' is at fault? Besides, why do Christians always reference such lists of 'evil' whenever the 'gay' issue arises? A person's being gay has nothing to do with a list of 'evils'.

Not at all. It shows that man corrupted the pure heart that God gave us. A person's being gay is a form of sexual immorality so the verses I listed are appropriate here.

That's just it. It doesn't say anything about being gay.

This is what I find continually frustrating, especially when the relatively modern word 'homosexual' has been 'illegally' implanted into a list of condemning practices. Whenever that occurs the 'sin' of homosexuality is therefore highlighted and such things as murder, adultery, coveting, etc. are all but consumed by the glare OR otherwise applied to homosexuality even if on a subliminal level. But then, Christians have been using these kinds of deceptive tactics 'forever. so it's not likely that they're going to stop doing so any time soon. That said, and to his credit, even though I might not agree with him I find Charles Hamm a cut above most other anti-gays. There is no vitriol per se in his posts and I appreciate that.

After all, are half your Christian brethren liars because they say there is nothing specific about homosexuality being a sin, but male prostitution, etc.?

Well. last year I initiated threads that pertained to the very thing that you're referring to. The threads are: JUDE 1:1-25 - THE CULPRIT TEXT! (7 June 2012) and ROMANS 1:26-27 (12 June 2012). There's a lot of reading in the latter thread but it is laid out in quite a reader-friendly format and certainly is most interesting. These threads shed quite a lot of light as to the highly likely REAL meaning to two of the most infamous 'homosexual clobber texts'. Actually, I might try to locate them, or not, and bump them up for the sake of newcomers to the forum.

After all, it's not just Secularists arguing that homosexuality isn't immoral, but Christian's too.

Quite so. There probably IS immorality involved within homosexual circles just as there is immorality involved within heterosexual circles; however, at the end of the day 'what is immoral and what is not' is open to interpretation as well as the acknowledging that few, if any, of us can truly point the finger at anyone else.

It has to do with the thinking that, just because something is prohibited, therefore means that there is something "Intrinsically" wrong with it, rather then just "Symbolically."

There are divergences within Judaism as to whether to interpret the rituals or prohibitions in the text, as symbolic or intrinsic. There is a large body of us who see it as symbolic, and that the principles the we source from it are what matters. And then there are those who believe that rituals are intrinsic, similar to a catholic who believes that the bread they consume at mass turns into the physical body of christ, or the Jew or Muslims who think there is something intrinsically immoral with pork, and if something like that or non-halal/non-kosher comes into contact with their meal prep, it is no longer viable to eat. Muslims take ritual to a whole new level, by going overboard on the intrinsic morality of an act through their overly-literal interpretations of the text.

There is nothing inherently wrong with eating pork. Pork in hebrew means the Restorer, meaning when the world is finally ethical enough to bring the messiah, only then will we restore pork to the holy land, & the people of the book can enjoy BLT's and pepperoni pizza. Kosher meat is largely vegetarian, to communicate the vegetarian ideal of the old testament. It also chooses herbivores to communicate the prominent message throughout the first five books of moses, which is to recognize things that are symbolic of life-and-death, and in every occasion, pick that which symbolizes life, for we will be a "life-based" culture. What began as a symbolic omission to condition the Jews to the ethics of God, was taken by Muslims to have intrinsic evil qualities. This is a soft example, but one could apply the "Symbolic.Vs.Intrinsic" discussion to genocide, mistreatment of homosexuals, minorities, subjugation of women, sharia, & a whole host of issues.

There is nothing inherently immoral about a homosexual. The immorality enters into the equation, only when one lies down with another man as they would a woman, but there is nothing inherently evil or immoral about a person who was born with an attraction for others of the same sex, and even then, a homosexual who sins in that regard, in the privacy of their own home, is between them and God. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, so it is meaningless to preach that God will smite us for allowing Gays to do what they do behind closed doors. That is there business, between them and God. They are made every bit as much in the image of God as the rest of us.

There has been a lot of hate sent there way, unnecessary and unfortunate hate. And unfortunately, this hate, on the part of Christians, towards homosexuals often come out whenever the issue of gay marriage, gay rights, or gay life comes up. And it doesn't have to be this way. You can still oppose Gay marriage, and welcome the Gays in your life, as an equal, and loved in the same regard you do for the heterosexuals in your life. It would go a long way... and actually give those of us who argue for traditional marriage some credibility, because in addition for fighting for the biblical ideal, our message gets bogged down, trying to undo the damage from all the hateful rhetoric.

[charles_hamm]

Mark 7:21-23
21 "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.�

If all of the above come from 'the heart of man' doesn't this imply that 'man' is inherently evil and therefore 'the Creator' is at fault? Besides, why do Christians always reference such lists of 'evil' whenever the 'gay' issue arises? A person's being gay has nothing to do with a list of 'evils'.

Not at all. It shows that man corrupted the pure heart that God gave us. A person's being gay is a form of sexual immorality so the verses I listed are appropriate here.

That's just it. It doesn't say anything about being gay.

Yes it does. It list a blanket statement about "sexual immorality". That covers ALL sexual immorality.

After all, are half your Christian brethren liars because they say there is nothing specific about homosexuality being a sin, but male prostitution, etc.?

After all, it's not just Secularists arguing that homosexuality isn't immoral, but Christian's too.

I have heard the argument that being homosexual is not a sin but acting on those feelings is. I have never heard from a Christian group that there is nothing immoral about two men having intercourse with each other.

I'm sure you're going to say they just have the wrong interpretation or something...

presuming a specific group is right, the other wrong.

I think this is a wrong approach and most readers see that.

I would need specific examples of the argument to make any conclusion about it so if you can provide it I'll be happy to read it. As for what the readers see, I think that you probably can speak for those who support it.

You said: "A person's being gay is a form of sexual immorality ....."

Please prove this.

Easy enough. Read Leviticus 18. It list all unlawful sexual relations. This includes homosexuality (LEV 18:22). Now if you are saying that a homosexual never actually has intercourse with another man, then maybe that's not, but I would fail to see how the person could call themself a homosexual.