homosexuality

[wil]

What ticks me off, and I suspect you as well, is the constant battle of wills, between a minority of people and a majority of people.

What ticks me off is the length of time it takes for the majority to do what is right....ie respect others.

Slavery almost a century
Women's rights longer
Civil rights near two centuries
ADA two centuries

personal freedom of consenting adults behind closed doors....

who knows how long before the majority will accept it?

For many it isn't until it becomes personal, when their child or sibling's procilivity suddenly allows one to see the light and the error of their ways.

Suddenly they sing a different tune...

 

[kenod]

For many it isn't until it becomes personal, when their child or sibling's procilivity suddenly allows one to see the light and the error of their ways.

Suddenly they sing a different tune...

Wil, how little you understand.

My son lives with a married woman - a relationship no less wrong than a gay relationship in my eyes.

On Sunday they will both be very welcome guests in my home, and there will be no less love at our dinner table, than the most loving of families.

 

[mee]

2. Does conversion mean "conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions"?

quote]
What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes,NOR MEN WHO LIE WITH MEN 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 AND YET THAT IS WHAT SOME OF YOU WERE, But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God 1 CORINTHIANS 6;9-11 According to this verse i would say that those who formally did things out of harmony would refrain from doing so , they were doing things wrong then they changed their ways.
(Titus 3:3) For even we were once senseless, disobedient, being misled, being slaves to various desires and pleasures, carrying on in badness and envy, abhorrent, hating one another.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

regardless of the sin, it is sin nonetheless. however, we are not here to judge, but to love. we are not here to put a guilt trip and point fingers, but to show a better way. a healthy person does not need a doctor, but a sick person does. we are to love one another without judgement and continue to pray for them and spread the good news to them that god loves them. being gay is like many other bad things we can do to ourselves. it statistically puts us in danger of a shorter life, of hurting those around us, of sinning against god, and if left unrepentive and unchanged, there is the possibility of eternal damnation.

 

[mee]

regardless of the sin, it is sin nonetheless. however, we are not here to judge, but to love. we are not here to put a guilt trip and point fingers, but to show a better way. a healthy person does not need a doctor, but a sick person does. we are to love one another without judgement and continue to pray for them and spread the good news to them that god loves them. being gay is like many other bad things we can do to ourselves. it statistically puts us in danger of a shorter life, of hurting those around us, of sinning against god, and if left unrepentive and unchanged, there is the possibility of eternal damnation.

true we are not here to judge that is not our job, but its good to know what the bible says , because that is Gods word. and its good to know what the early christians did.
(Romans 7:23) but I behold in my members another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my members. yes we are an imperfect lot in various ways, and we are all working on various things . work in progress .
Yes, Christian virtue thrived even in the vice-filled world of the first century. Believers were ‘transformed by making their minds over.’ (Romans 12:2) They abandoned their "former course of conduct" and were ‘made new in the force actuating their minds.’ Thus they fled from the world’s vices and "put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty."—Ephesians 4:22-24.

 

[Dondi]

Afterall, if sex isn't such a big issue, then why are specifically told 6. "Neither shall you commit adultery ?" And fornication is an abasement? And why did Jesus warn us that if we even think about lusting after another, we have comitted the same as is we acted on that lust?

Wow! You folks up north beware:

In the United States, laws vary from state to state. For example, in Pennsylvania, adultery is technically punishable by 2 years of imprisonment or 18 months of treatment for insanity

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

 

[Quahom1]

By those standards, then, is oral sex considered to be unnatural, too? Such acts do not contribute to procreation. Is there no benefit to physical pleasure? Furthermore, the use of birth control to prevent pregnancy would also be considered unnatural in the same respect.

The idea that the only purpose sex serves is procreation is a grossly utilitarian view of the human body. It's like saying that the purpose of a fine painting is wall decoration.

-jiii

What goes on in a marriage is between the married couple. However the intimacy of sexual union is considered to be a right only for a married couple (biblically speaking). Besides, I was referring to and specifically stated was concerning the physical purpose of sex, not the emotional and psychological purpose. Of course it should be enjoyed, even revered (consider Song of Songs).



v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

Hi jiii:

I agree...Paul Gauguin sure wouldn't have agreed with strict adherence to biblical admonitions. His Adam and Eve paintings of the garden of eden set in S. Pacific locales were so beautiful and informative. It is clear to me that he was emphasizing not the physical aspects of sexuality, but the emotional and spiritual joys of it.

Such biblical information and admonishments have always been used by some literalists to take the simple joys out of life...but nothing new in that eh? I prefer the real thing...but in lieu of that...great art is also joyful and great, because it emphasizes the spiritual aspects of life and not just the physical. I can speak from first hand experience that loving and interacting with another person, regardless of gender, is meant to be joyful and spiritual, not just physical. But then some people might only be able to think in objective ways about it all.

flow....

Again, the paintings were of a husband and wife...and of course they enjoyed the pleasure of each other. That is the way it is supposed to be.

And we're not talking about loving and intimacy between people. We're taling about thet physical act of sex. It may be legal in secular society's laws, but according to the laws of the Bible, it is reserved for married couples (consisting of man and woman).

v/r

Q

 

[flowperson]

Q

I saw an exhibit of this work by Gauguin some time ago, and I don't recall any notices written by the artist that he was depicting a married man and woman. He was, however depicting his version of the romance between an adult man and woman in a paradise, and the knowing and loving expressions of each person transcended any sort of legalized bond that might have existed between them.

We might presume that the first man and woman were "married" as we might infer from the "garden" story. We have a habit of "projecting" our beliefs on our ancient origins, and mythologies humanize such narratives, but archaeology and anthropology render different viewpoints usually.

flow....

 

[Quahom1]

Q

I saw an exhibit of this work by Gauguin some time ago, and I don't recall any notices written by the artist that he was depicting a married man and woman. He was, however depicting his version of the romance between an adult man and woman in a paradise, and the knowing and loving expressions of each person transcended any sort of legalized bond that might have existed between them.

We might presume that the first man and woman were "married" as we might infer from the "garden" story. We have a habit of "projecting" our beliefs on our ancient origins, and mythologies humanize such narratives, but archaeology and anthropology render different viewpoints usually.

flow....

I am aware of his works. And I fail to see where there is a "presumption" of anything concerning Adam and Eve being married. Since the Bible states they were husband and wife, the burden of proof is not on me to present, as so.

And Archaeology and anthtropology appear to be daily confirming stories told in the Bible, as true (on the literal side, more or less).

The "myth" of Adam and Eve appears to be changing to reality...time will tell as scientists continue to back track through the ages. So far, they have confirmed the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, for example. That puts them at circa 1700 BCE...and a real Joseph, son of a real Jacob (remember the technicolor dream coat?)

v/r

Q

 

[flowperson]

Q:

With all due respect , stories in the Bible really prove nothing about the specifics of past relationships, however these "stories" do point out to us what was appropriate to their lives then and what was not, according to their contemporary standards. What I was saying was that Gauguin's works only address the thematic aspects of the "first couple", not the specifics, and to do this in his original treatment in the late 19th century, he placed the story in a S. Pacific paradise, not in the middle East. That is an example of the power of original artistic expression.

The sciences uncover lots of things over time, but not much of a factual nature when it comes to the events and characters illustrated by the stories in the Bible. But I will agree with you that Bible stories contain kernels of factual truth which are quite often based upon our growing knowledge base concerning what really happened back then.

There is an excellent periodical that I subscribed to for a few years sometime ago, Biblical Archaeology Review, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who wishes to track the matching of Bible stories with scientifically determined facts as they are uncovered in today's world.
Unfortunately for our efforts to uncover the facts from the past, lots of it is being systematically destroyed and looted in Middle East warfare.

Oh well....

flow....

 

[Quahom1]

Q:

With all due respect , stories in the Bible really prove nothing about the specifics of past relationships, however these "stories" do point out to us what was appropriate to their lives then and what was not, according to their contemporary standards. What I was saying was that Gauguin's works only address the thematic aspects of the "first couple", not the specifics, and to do this in his original treatment in the late 19th century, he placed the story in a S. Pacific paradise, not in the middle East. That is an example of the power of original artistic expression.

The sciences uncover lots of things over time, but not much of a factual nature when it comes to the events and characters illustrated by the stories in the Bible. But I will agree with you that Bible stories contain kernels of factual truth which are quite often based upon our growing knowledge base concerning what really happened back then.

There is an excellent periodical that I subscribed to for a few years sometime ago, Biblical Archaeology Review, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who wishes to track the matching of Bible stories with scientifically determined facts as they are uncovered in today's world.
Unfortunately for our efforts to uncover the facts from the past, lots of it is being systematically destroyed and looted in Middle East warfare.

Oh well....

flow....

I disagree. By the very nature of the situations and relationships that occur today, the stories of the Bible prove much to be true, then and now...

And I opine, that the artist was painting a reminder to us, on the way it is supposed to be. That is the beauty of artistic minds. They can somehow slip the surly bonds of what is, and show what should be...

 

[kenod]

And I opine, that the artist was painting a reminder to us, on the way it is supposed to be. That is the beauty of artistic minds. They can somehow slip the surly bonds of what is, and show what should be...

Christianity and art might make an interesting thread ... or has that been done already? I wonder if the moral character of the artist influences his work - Gaugin abandoned his wife and 5 children I understand ... but then Michelangelo was no saint either - some even claim he was gay! ("Gifts and callings are without repentance ...")

 

[kenod]

Wasn't homosexuality considered a psychological disorder by psychologists once?

In 1973 homosexuality was removed from the "sexual deviance" section of the diagnostic manual (by a less than unanimous vote) but retained as "ego-dystonic homosexuality" or "sexual orientation disturbance". Many who voted for the removal of homosexuality as a disorder were genuinely concerned with trying to reduce the level of hate crimes and discrimination that homosexuals suffered.

Today the official line of the APA is that homosexuality is not a disorder (30 years of inculcation can do wonders) and that conversion therapy is ineffective.

In practice, many psychologists recognize that homosexuality can be a cause of conflict socially, emotionally, physically and spiritually. They will be guided by the client as to what goals he/she wants to achieve and will not try to impose a politically correct solution from the official rule book.

 

[Quahom1]

In 1973 homosexuality was removed from the "sexual deviance" section of the diagnostic manual (by a less than unanimous vote) but retained as "ego-dystonic homosexuality" or "sexual orientation disturbance". Many who voted for the removal of homosexuality as a disorder were genuinely concerned with trying to reduce the level of hate crimes and discrimination that homosexuals suffered.

Today the official line of the APA is that homosexuality is not a disorder (30 years of inculcation can do wonders) and that conversion therapy is ineffective.

In practice, many psychologists recognize that homosexuality can be a cause of conflict socially, emotionally, physically and spiritually. They will be guided by the client as to what goals he/she wants to achieve and will not try to impose a politically correct solution from the official rule book.

Interesting. One of the biggest beefs with Homosexuality, is the IN YOUR FACE attitude, the progenatures and defenders of, present.

Now...watch this...

One of the biggest beefs with Fundemental Christianity, is the IN YOUR FACE attitude, the progenatures and defenders of, present.

One of the biggest beefs with Liberalsim, is the IN YOUR FACE attitude, the progenatures and defenders of, present.

One of the biggest beefs with Feminist Movement, is the IN YOUR FACE attitude, the progenatures and defenders of, present.

One of the biggest beefs with The White House, is the IN YOUR FACE attitude, the progenatures and defenders of, present.

One of the biggest beefs with Family Advocates, is the IN YOUR FACE attitude, the progenatures and defenders of, present.

One of the biggest beefs with Senator Hillary Clinton, is the IN YOUR FACE attitude, the progenatures and defenders of, present.

What is the common denominator here? Answer: those who want change to suite their personal interests, regardless of the remainder of humanity's needs or requirements or beliefs.

However, this is taking us from the original question (that you proposed).

v/r

Q

 

[kenod]

An excerpt from an APA statement concerning the removal of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder from the diagnostic manual (1973).

What will be the effect of carrying out such a proposal? No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as “normal” as heterosexuality. They will be wrong. In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behavior.


By creating a new category, Sexual orientation disturbance, we will be applying a label only to those homosexuals who are in some way bothered by their sexual orientation, some of whom may come to us for help. We will no longer insist on a label of sickness for individuals who insist that they are well and who demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness. We will thus help to answer the charge of some members of own profession, who claim that mental illness is a myth and that by labeling individuals we are merely acting as agents of social control.


Furthermore, we will be removing one of the justifications for the denial of civil rights to individuals whose only crime is that their sexual orientation is to members of the same sex. In the past, homosexuals have been denied civil rights in many areas of life on the ground that because they suffer from a “mental illness” the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate their competence, reliability or mental stability. (By linking the removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic nomenclature with an affirmation of the civil rights of homosexuals, no implication is intended justifying the irrational denial of civil rights to individuals who do suffer from true psychiatric disorders.)


This revision in the nomenclature provides the possibility of finding a homosexual to be free of psychiatric disorder, and provides a means to diagnose a mental disorder whose central feature is conflict about homosexual behavior. Therefore, this change should in no way interfere with or embarrass those dedicated psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who have devoted themselves to understanding and treating those homosexuals who have been unhappy with their lot. They, and others in our field, will continue to try to help homosexuals who suffer from what we can now refer to as Sexual orientation disturbance, helping the patient accept or live with his current sexual orientation, or if he desires, helping him to change it.








​

emphasis added

​

 

[Quahom1]

Politically correct.

 

[taijasi]

Perhaps the archbishop of Canterbury should do a little more praying, since I think he's missed something. Inclusiveness is a spiritual quality ... in fact, it's one of the defining characteristics of Christian agape.

So, I wonder, if we remember that Christ gave us only Two Commandments upon which to focus, what might it look like to try and practice "Love thy neighbor as thy self" in reference to gays and lesbians? What does agape LOOK LIKE when you actually LOVE a gay person?

I get the feeling a lot of folks are far too worried about what others might think if they bothered to give a (known, openly) gay person the TIME OF DAY ... much less practice actual philos! Most of the gay and lesbian people I've met, have little interest in demonstrating eros before an audience - of any sort. They carry on FAR LESS than a lot of heterosexual couples I seem to observe, making out in the middle of the grocery store, parking lot, or church pews - wherever the urge strikes them.

Yes, there are exceptions, and as you point out, Q, there are radicals of every flock and flavor. But in many cases, these RADICALs, just as the militant Muslims, are trying to make a point. At least the gay and lesbian crowd doesn't usually go about it with guns and knives, bombs and napalm ... or by destroying abortion clinics, that sort of thing.

If a flaming queer wants to wear his boa and flirt with all the frat guys on campus, let HIM take his life into his own hands. When's the last time your fellow soldier reached over and grabbed your nuts? And what would you do if he did? My answer? Well gee, when it was a somewhat confused - if arrogant - young fellow in college, I was a bit offended, but I didn't clock him, and I didn't jump up and make a scene, either. I just reminded him that there was no need for that. And since it was only to try and get a rise out of me anyway (ha, ha ... ha) - he never bothered to do it again. Why hit someone? Why make a scene? Is one less a man, less Christian, for letting such a thing slide? WWJD

So, again, what does AGAPE look like? Why energize the fear, lack of understanding, and even short-sightedness of high-ranking church officials? Why not try and do as Christ would do, instead? As the bumper-sticker indicates - at least around here - HATE is not a family value.

When you can HUG your gay friends, feel comfortable hanging out with them, kneel down and worship beside them ... and welcome them into your heart, as well as your Sanctuary (oh, gee, I thought these were the SAME) unconditionally ... THEN I think we will have BEGUN to do, WJWD. NOT PRIOR.

my thoughts ...

andrew

 

[kenod]

Love is unconditional - it is not the same as approval ... a lesson every parent learns real quick.

 

[taijasi]

Love is unconditional - it is not the same as approval ... a lesson every parent learns real quick.

Quite correct. One's God knows what one approves, and what one does not. I myself, do not believe that Humanity's future will include homosexuality as just one of many possible sexual orientations or preferences. But let's let God sort it out, eh? Then again, we can always act as if we have been appointed. That's freedom of choice, for ya.

andrew