[Aussie_Lovin126]

Hi there,
I was curious about other people's views on an issue I have come across in my Philosophy class. I, too, am non-denominational and wanted to specifically here your views on this issue. We came across the issue of homosexual civil unions and/or adoptions. What do you think? Should homosexuals be able to create civil unions and/or adopt? And why do you think your view is correct? I have researched it a bit on the internet, but now would like to here others' (not the media's) views. It might be of interrest to you that I have decided that I side with homosexuals on both these matters after quite a bit of research into it. Of course, nothing is ever set in stone and as new research comes forward I take it into account. It would also be helpful to know whether or not you have ever met a homosexual and if so whether it was a good encounter or not. I appreciate any and all in put! Thanks, AussieLovin126.

[bryanfal]

I do not side with homosexuals on either of these issues. I have met many, grew up with a few, and worked very closely with one. Almost every expereince was mostly good. The hardest trial I had was trying to love the person and openly disagree with their lifestyle. It was and is very difficult. But that aside.

Homosexual civil union, or marriage, is against God's plan for marriage. The marriages in today's world are weak enough as it is, without us promoting and supporting a marriage between the same sexes. It is a sinful lifestyle. Should we allow drug dealers to live in the suburbs? Should we allow known murderers to own handguns, and live next door to us? As a society this would be dumb, and would be a step to a less moral society (as if America is not there already). And homosexual adoption simply teaches and advocates this lifestyle to the children. Although, these children land in some of the most loving homes, the moral damage done through this is the same as letting a child be adopted into a family of alcoholics, or a family of murderers. Sin is sin is sin is sin, and it doesn't matter how we feel about it, all sin is wrong. Homosexuality is not the greatest of sins, it is just one of many sins. But when God's standards come into question, we MUST SIDE WITH GOD!!!

[bryanfal]

Oh yeah, I attend a non-denominational church but I consider myself to be an evangelical presby-bapti-cathe-costal

[sgary]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

It might be of interrest to you that I have decided that I side with homosexuals on both these matters after quite a bit of research into it. Of course, nothing is ever set in stone and as new research comes forward I take it into account.

I'm glad to know that nothing is set in stone, check:

Romans 1.27 (KJV) "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Trust God only, not men/women.

[goldenchild]

I'm not non-denom but I'll say that I am completely against homosexual civil unions and against such couples adopting. I believe such unions are against Scripture and as far as the adopting goes, well I put it in the same boat as 2 friends(not related in anyway) adopting. I just don't think it works.

And yeah, I've had homosexual friends. I don't hate people who engage in such things, I only hate the sin they are engaging in.

[Aussie_Lovin126]

Can you give me specific reasons why you are against it. Not just the general "it is against scripture" but why is it against scripture? Where can I find these anti-homosexual scriptures? As you can see I have not studied the Bible completely... in fact I just began reading it a several months ago. The Old Testament is a bit hard to read... eventually I gave up on it and started the New Testament, Much Better, but I still have not completed it. I appreciate your input! Thanks, AussieLovin126

Originally Posted by goldenchild

I'm not non-denom but I'll say that I am completely against homosexual civil unions and against such couples adopting. I believe such unions are against Scripture and as far as the adopting goes, well I put it in the same boat as 2 friends(not related in anyway) adopting. I just don't think it works.

And yeah, I've had homosexual friends. I don't hate people who engage in such things, I only hate the sin they are engaging in.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

Can you give me specific reasons why you are against it. Not just the general "it is against scripture" but why is it against scripture? Where can I find these anti-homosexual scriptures?

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
--1 Cor 6.9-11

This seems to indicate a before-after image. They were once sexually immoral, homosexual, greedy, etc., but they "were washed" by Christ, and no longer partake in such things.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
--Lev 18.22

Pretty self-explanitory.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
--Romans 1.24-27

Paul is talking here about the Fall, about the innate sinfulness of mankind. "Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie", "the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men...". This shows that homosexuality is a sin, it is not part of God's natural order for sexuality, and most of all, it is one of the many ways we have rebelled against our Creator, and in so doing, we brought eternal seperation upon ourselves. But God, in His mercy, paid the penalty for our sins, that we may have eternal life and be in a right relationship with Him.

The most important thing to consider when talking about homosexuality is that we should never single it out like the Church does now, especially in America. Yes, it is a sin. Yes, unrepentant homosexuals will spend eternity apart from God. But, it is only one way in which sin shows itself in our lives. Notice that the NT writers never discuss homosexuality specifically. It is always in a list of perversions. My point being, when witnessing to a homosexual, the goal should be to convince them of their need for a Savior despite their homosexuality, not only because of it. You can ask, "Have you always loved God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul?" Who of us can say yes? That is only one example, but the point remains. They need to know that they are damned not because they are a homosexual per se, but because they were born sinful (as all of us were), and that sin has corrupted their relationship with their Creator. But, in His power, He can save and restore. Speak the Truth, but speak it in love.

Sorry for the sermon...

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

Can you give me specific reasons why you are against it. Not just the general "it is against scripture" but why is it against scripture?

Okay well, in the very beginning at the creation of the world. God made all things and said like seven times that it was all "very good". He made Adam, but when He saw that Adam was without a partner in Genesis 2:18 God said it was "NOT good". So He made a suitable partner for Adam, who was Eve, a woman(not a guy )

Now go to Genesis 19:24-28 and we see that God punished the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins. Sodom is named for the sin of sodomy.

In Leviticus 18:22 it says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." And in Leviticus 18:29 it says "everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people."

Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

And in Deuteronomy 22:5, "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God." We see that it is even cross-dressing is wrong.

Then in Romans 1:26-27 it says "Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

It says that these actions are not natural and that these things are "shameful". Not only acting upon these things is shameful but lusting for one of the same sex is shameful as well.

1 Corinthians 6:9 says "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites" The last one, sodomites, includes homosexuality as well as any type of intercourse considered "unnatural"(I won't go into the other kinds that are considered unnatural). It says that these people will not inherit the kingdom.

In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 it says "We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

In this passage we see that practicing homosexuals(this is very specific) are considered in the same category as other sinners like liars and murderers. I should point out that this passage says something that the other passages don't necessarily allude to. This is, it may not necessarily be a sinful thing to be of a homosexual biological make-up(I don't know if it's something that is chosen or not). What this passage is saying is that it is the sin of ACTING UPON the sin of homosexuality that is wrong, not necessarily being a homosexual. I'm not sure, but if one is a homosexual and DOES NOT act upon this, then I think they are okay. If a homosexual can resist the temptation to act upon the sin, then this is very good. Just like it is good for anyone to resist temptation to any sin.
_________________________________________________________________

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by bryanfal

I do not side with homosexuals on either of these issues. I have met many, grew up with a few, and worked very closely with one. Almost every expereince was mostly good. The hardest trial I had was trying to love the person and openly disagree with their lifestyle. It was and is very difficult. But that aside.

Homosexual civil union, or marriage, is against God's plan for marriage. The marriages in today's world are weak enough as it is, without us promoting and supporting a marriage between the same sexes. It is a sinful lifestyle. Should we allow drug dealers to live in the suburbs? Should we allow known murderers to own handguns, and live next door to us? As a society this would be dumb, and would be a step to a less moral society (as if America is not there already). And homosexual adoption simply teaches and advocates this lifestyle to the children. Although, these children land in some of the most loving homes, the moral damage done through this is the same as letting a child be adopted into a family of alcoholics, or a family of murderers. Sin is sin is sin is sin, and it doesn't matter how we feel about it, all sin is wrong. Homosexuality is not the greatest of sins, it is just one of many sins. But when God's standards come into question, we MUST SIDE WITH GOD!!!

what does the bible say?

[Aussie_Lovin126]

Originally Posted by bryanfal

Homosexual civil union, or marriage, is against God's plan for marriage. The marriages in today's world are weak enough as it is, without us promoting and supporting a marriage between the same sexes. It is a sinful lifestyle. Should we allow drug dealers to live in the suburbs? Should we allow known murderers to own handguns, and live next door to us? As a society this would be dumb, and would be a step to a less moral society (as if America is not there already). And homosexual adoption simply teaches and advocates this lifestyle to the children. Although, these children land in some of the most loving homes, the moral damage done through this is the same as letting a child be adopted into a family of alcoholics, or a family of murderers. Sin is sin is sin is sin, and it doesn't matter how we feel about it, all sin is wrong. Homosexuality is not the greatest of sins, it is just one of many sins. But when God's standards come into question, we MUST SIDE WITH GOD!!!

Okay I understand that one should not get "married" within a religion unless one follows it's standards or rules, but what of a "civil union?" This is not within a religious realm... It is purely under the law. Why not allow these individuals claim their love for one another when it does not interfere with you...? It is their personal choice to make not yours or mine? What one does in the privacy of their home is none of our business unless it affects us or someone we love dirrectly. Are we to force our religous beliefs and rules on those who do not believe these same rules? We have committed this mistake in the past and are still committing it today. Wars have been started over people forcing others to believe what they believe. Is that a just cause? Why??? How can we justify forceing someone to believe something that they don't? Just a couple questions to help you help me? Please solidify your answer. Thanks for your input!!! AussieLovin126

[Aussie_Lovin126]

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
--1 Cor 6.9-11

This seems to indicate a before-after image. They were once sexually immoral, homosexual, greedy, etc., but they "were washed" by Christ, and no longer partake in such things.

Actually I believe it says "homosexual offenders." At least in my version it does. Could this not mean homosexuals who were offenders? When it says "sexually immoral," could this not mean something other than what we now perceive it as meaning. I mean this was written a long, LONG time ago. Society was different then, than it is now. Could these not have meant something slightly different, than what they mean today?
I guess what I am trying to get at, is the Bible is open to interpretation, and depending on how you interpret it, your life and views will be different. The Bible was written by men, correct? These men also interpretted what was happening around them, had someone else written down that same situation we likely would have had a completely different view on the events. All that we do is based on our perception and perception can vary dramatically depending on many different variables (emotions, environment, childhood background, etc). The Bible was also compiled by a group of men, again is this correct? Once again we have a chance for those few men to influence the Bible and what we would be reading. As we know some "Gospels" and other religious books were left out. Why? Probably because the men compiling the Bible did not view them as correct, but how would they know and why did they not include it and let others decided for themselves? They shaped modern Christian thinking by obliterating the other possiblities. The possiblities are endless. With the recent discovery of other religious books with different views, how can we say that these are the only correct views when obvioulsy others had different oppinions. How do we know which is correct?
It all comes back to morality, right? What is moral? Does morality depend on religion? I say no! Let me put it to you this way: "Are things considered moral because GOD commands them, or does He command them BECAUSE they are moral?"
If we take the first view that "Thing are considered moral becuase God commands them," then we doom His commands to arbitrary commands. God could easily have said murdering and lying were moral and they WOULD be... because everything he commands is moral... "Well, God wouldn't do that..." Why not? You have just opened yourself up to the second argument...
"God commands things BECAUSE they are moral." This states that there is something outside of the divine realm that makes things moral or immoral; therefor, morality does not depend on religion. Morality is available to all rational beings... Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, etc...
What makes Homosexuality immoral...? What made the people comprising the Bible believe that God thought homosexuality was immoral? This is the essence of my question. So, I guess I really do not need scriptural proof, what I need is reasons for why God would have thought that?

[exo]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

I see here that you fail to mention that Lot offers his daughters to the townsmen instead of the visitors. I am afraid I do not look upon Lot with favor when he says, "Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." So, I would think that not only was Sodom destroyed for being sexually immoral, they care nothing for their women. Lot would allow the townfolk to ravage his daughters. The visitors have protection from the townsfolk, but the daughters have none. So, why was Lot spared his life when he was to throw his daughters to the hungry wolves outside? Is that not more immoral than "Sodomy?" I should think so, homosexuals do not HARM anyone, whereas allowing people to have unlimited sex with your virgin daughters would.

OK. Great. So, there's possibly another reason. However, you basically chose to completely ignore the reasoning that was given.

According to this passage it has no restrictions on having relations with a complete stranger. If we are to take Leviticus seriously them, we are all doing a lot of things wrong!!!

Much of The Law that is described in Leviticus and Deutoronomy does not apply to us today. All of the 'moral law' does. Study more, and you will learn the various laws that were fulfilled in Christ (which means we do not have to practice them any longer), and there are other laws that were present under the nation of Israel (a theocracy).

So you are saying we should put homosexuals, people who curse their parents, and people involved in an affair are to be put to death?

In a theocracy, yes.

That if a man has sexual relations with a woman during her period they are to be cut off from society?

I believe that they are merely unclean for a time.

If you follow part of Leviticus and not the other parts, how do you justify it? What do you choose to follow and what do you not?

See my comments above.

I am reading in my version of the Bible and it does not even mention Homosexuals. This would all come back to the interpretation of the Bible. Please refer to my earlier post.

In both word-for-word translations that I have, it refers to homosexuals.

I know you are unsure whether or not homosexuality is a chosen life, but I would like to try and put it forth maybe to clarify some things. Homosexuality is a choice, why not just make life easier for everyone and choose to love someone of the opposite sex? Just out of curiosity, who in their right mind would choose the homosexual life? They are banned from marriage and adoption. They live in hiding and fear of discrimination and worse. They are banned from certain jobs. They are unable to have children of their own (with their partner of choice). They are called sinners and condemned to Hell. Would anyone ever choose to be a homosexual? The logical answer is no. So, why then are their so many homosexuals out there? There must be another answer! The answer, “it is a choice” does not make sense. What is the answer? I honestly do not know, but should we judge these people with wrong and incomplete information. We have a law in court that says, “Innocent until proven otherwise.” Should we not judge these people until we have solid proof that it is not say genetic or environmental and even if it is a choice, isn’t it their choice to make? Why should we scorn these people when we really do not know what causes their sexual preference? It could turn out to be that it is genetic and then we would have an exact case of discrimination as we did back during the sixties with black Americans. Are we condemning ourselves to a repeat in history and a repeat in shame?

People choose to murder, to lie, to commit adultery, etc., etc. If we begin to excuse sin away by saying, "God just made me that way." then we begin to tread down a slippery slope. Imagine if I came to you as my wife or husband and said, "Sorry honey I had an affair, but it's just my genetic predisposition so it's alright."

[exo]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

Actually I believe it says "homosexual offenders." At least in my version it does. Could this not mean homosexuals who were offenders?

Why would it single out homosexuals then? Your line of reasoning makes no sense and neither would Paul here. If it just meant offenders, it would not have singled out a particular group.

When it says "sexually immoral," could this not mean something other than what we now perceive it as meaning. I mean this was written a long, LONG time ago. Society was different then, than it is now. Could these not have meant something slightly different, than what they mean today?

We know precisely what it means, and the translation that you are looking at was translated for the time that you are in right now. If it had a completely different meaning than what we plainly know now, then the translation would be different.

I guess what I am trying to get at, is the Bible is open to interpretation, and depending on how you interpret it, your life and views will be different. The Bible was written by men, correct?

It was written by a group of men inspired by the Holy Spirit and has been carefully handed down throughout the ages.

These men also interpretted what was happening around them, had someone else written down that same situation we likely would have had a completely different view on the events. All that we do is based on our perception and perception can vary dramatically depending on many different variables (emotions, environment, childhood background, etc).

Yes, but we know precisely what was going on around them. You are talking as if we recently discovered the Bible and it is a book that is completely foreign to us. This is not the case.

The Bible was also compiled by a group of men, again is this correct? Once again we have a chance for those few men to influence the Bible and what we would be reading. As we know some "Gospels" and other religious books were left out. Why?

Because the Bible is sacred text and must be carefully studied and canonized.

Probably because the men compiling the Bible did not view them as correct, but how would they know and why did they not include it and let others decided for themselves?

It's called canonization. It's a pretty in-depth process. Study up on it.

They shaped modern Christian thinking by obliterating the other possiblities. The possiblities are endless. With the recent discovery of other religious books with different views, how can we say that these are the only correct views when obvioulsy others had different oppinions. How do we know which is correct?

Again canonization. There are guidelines, you know. People didn't just randomly select books.

It all comes back to morality, right? What is moral? Does morality depend on religion? I say no! Let me put it to you this way: "Are things considered moral because GOD commands them, or does He command them BECAUSE they are moral?"

Yes, morality completely depends on religion or a higher being. If there is no higher being to depend on, our morality is a mish-mash of likes and dislikes. I can very well say that I really enjoy murdering people and that it is perfectly fine to do so within my morals. Without God, we have no foundation for morality whatsoever.

If we take the first view that "Thing are considered moral becuase God commands them," then we doom His commands to arbitrary commands.

Not necessarily. God also created this world and the 'system' in which it works. God also very often tells us why he gives us the commands that He does. So, I would say they are moral because God gives them and because he created the world in which those morals apply.

God could easily have said murdering and lying were moral and they WOULD be... because everything he commands is moral... "Well, God wouldn't do that..." Why not? You have just opened yourself up to the second argument...
"God commands things BECAUSE they are moral." This states that there is something outside of the divine realm that makes things moral or immoral; therefor, morality does not depend on religion. Morality is available to all rational beings... Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, etc...

You have just claimed that there is something that is greater than God and that exists outside of God. This is heresy.

What makes Homosexuality immoral...? What made the people comprising the Bible believe that God thought homosexuality was immoral? This is the essence of my question. So, I guess I really do not need scriptural proof, what I need is reasons for why God would have thought that?

God created the world with men and women and for those men and women to live in union with one another (and for procreation). Homosexuality goes against this institution ordained by God.

[Epaphras]

I am reading in my version of the Bible and it does not even mention Homosexuals. This would all come back to the interpretation of the Bible. Please refer to my earlier post.

What version are you using?

[Simo]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

When it says "sexually immoral," could this not mean something other than what we now perceive it as meaning. I mean this was written a long, LONG time ago. Society was different then, than it is now. Could these not have meant something slightly different, than what they mean today?
I guess what I am trying to get at, is the Bible is open to interpretation, and depending on how you interpret it, your life and views will be different.

Im not non-denom either but this was kind of interesting!

Umm, i think sometimes we try to stretch the idea of interpretation way too far. I think this is where a lot of Christians go wrong, they stretch the bible to say things and claim meanings to other things that really are not there!!

Yes society has changed but the bible still applies and should be taken litterally!! we are told not to murder in the bible, nothing about society ever, could make murder acceptable, it is something that the bible is very clear on. It is the same with homosexuality, it is clear!!