David Miller wrote:
>> Do you think homosexuals need special protection
>> from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups
>> would? Are you in agreement with the legalization
>> of homosexuality and adultery?
John wrote:
> Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs;
> if we are going to kill them or put them at the back
> of the bus, my answer is "yes."
I assume you feel the same way about those convicted of murder, and I would
agree that we should not treat any criminal this way when he is allowed his
freedom in society. My question, however, concerns 1) whether or not
anybody in society treats homosexuals this way,I am sure you know that "they" do and 2) whether or not homosexuality should be a crime. The Law of Moses was the national legal code for the Jewish nation and no one else. In NT times, it is a sin but not a cr ime. Culturally, speaking I think the same consideration should apply - so, no , it should not be a crime.
>> Do you think homosexuals need special protection
>> from prejudice just as other minority ethnic groups
>> would? Are you in agreement with the legalization
>> of homosexuality and adultery?
John wrote:
> Well, if we are going to keep them from having jobs;
> if we are going to kill them or put them at the back
> of the bus, my answer is "yes."
I assume you feel the same way about those convicted of murder, and I would
agree that we should not treat any criminal this way when he is allowed his
freedom in society. My question, however, concerns 1) whether or not
anybody in society treats homosexuals this way,I am sure you know that "they" do and 2) whether or not homosexuality should be a crime. The Law of Moses was the national legal code for the Jewish nation and no one else. In NT times, it is a sin but not a cr ime. Culturally, speaking I think the same consideration should apply - so, no , it should not be a crime.
The Bible treats it as a capital offense, as it does other crimes we have legalized, such as adultery or breaking the sabbath. What is your view about the legal standing of homosexuality?
John wrote:
> Homosexuality IMO is the far end of the
> scale we call promiscuity.
True.
John wrote:
> At the same time, I do believe (in fact,
> I know ) some are born gender "confused."
While gender confusion may happen at a very early age, I question whether
anybody is born that way. Why would the Bible call it an unnatural
affection (Rom. 1:26, 27) ? Probably an appeal to cultural bias (not always a bad thing), and the fact that the larger population does not practice homosexuality ...... certainly not because love between homosexuals cannot be as heart felt as among heterosexuals.
Herein lies another confusion in terminology. I have no obejectio n to a
person's inner issues, whether you want to call that gender confusion or
something else. If a person is sexually attracted toward others of the same
sex, that is not any of my business. However, the philosophical agenda of
the LGBT community is that the only way to happiness is to engage in sexual
hedonism, meaning, that they need to follow the desires of their body to
engage in sexual relations with whatever gender or species they find
attractive. This is where I draw the line. When I speak of homosexuality,
I am talking about same gender sexual relations. Often in discussions, when
others talk about homosexuality, they are talking about same gender sexual
attraction. From my perspective, a homosexual ceases to be a homosexual the
moment he becomes celibate in his behavior in regards to others of the same
gender.That Paul lists event sins in the closing verses of Romans 1 is something I agree with.
So there is a confusion of terms in the discussion because some try and make
homosexuality a civil rights fight for the rights of people to be perverted
if they find themselves in that state. I'm not sure of the best way to
tackle this problem, but I'm standing up to say, "Houston, we have a
problem..." My complaint is with the militancy of the movement. It sounds as if you agree. I believe that , in time, the laws that ban hate speech will come to include any public statement against the homosexual way of life or their political agenda. I do believe that this is where it is all going. &nbs p;Further, I am afraid that the teaching of tolerance in the school system is a first step to the public teaching of homosexuality as an acceptable social consideration. But, what do you do? Tolerance is a good thing, socially. So it looks like the church will actually have to get off its collective proverbials and do something.
John wrote:
> Homosexuality IMO is the far end of the
> scale we call promiscuity.
True.
John wrote:
> At the same time, I do believe (in fact,
> I know ) some are born gender "confused."
While gender confusion may happen at a very early age, I question whether
anybody is born that way. Why would the Bible call it an unnatural
affection (Rom. 1:26, 27) ? Probably an appeal to cultural bias (not always a bad thing), and the fact that the larger population does not practice homosexuality ...... certainly not because love between homosexuals cannot be as heart felt as among heterosexuals.
Herein lies another confusion in terminology. I have no obejectio n to a
person's inner issues, whether you want to call that gender confusion or
something else. If a person is sexually attracted toward others of the same
sex, that is not any of my business. However, the philosophical agenda of
the LGBT community is that the only way to happiness is to engage in sexual
hedonism, meaning, that they need to follow the desires of their body to
engage in sexual relations with whatever gender or species they find
attractive. This is where I draw the line. When I speak of homosexuality,
I am talking about same gender sexual relations. Often in discussions, when
others talk about homosexuality, they are talking about same gender sexual
attraction. From my perspective, a homosexual ceases to be a homosexual the
moment he becomes celibate in his behavior in regards to others of the same
gender.That Paul lists event sins in the closing verses of Romans 1 is something I agree with.
So there is a confusion of terms in the discussion because some try and make
homosexuality a civil rights fight for the rights of people to be perverted
if they find themselves in that state. I'm not sure of the best way to
tackle this problem, but I'm standing up to say, "Houston, we have a
problem..." My complaint is with the militancy of the movement. It sounds as if you agree. I believe that , in time, the laws that ban hate speech will come to include any public statement against the homosexual way of life or their political agenda. I do believe that this is where it is all going. &nbs p;Further, I am afraid that the teaching of tolerance in the school system is a first step to the public teaching of homosexuality as an acceptable social consideration. But, what do you do? Tolerance is a good thing, socially. So it looks like the church will actually have to get off its collective proverbials and do something.
David Miller
