Gays are "Disordered"

[Jims5543]

Additionally,

Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed by God for being cities filled with sin. When god sent his angles to warn Lot to get out the MEN of the city came to rape the angels that had taken the form of men.

Lot offered his virgin daughters to them and they declined wanting the men.

No where was it mentioned that there was a problem with the women having relations with each other. Just a problem with the men.

Fire and brimstone for a poo punchers folks.

[Hawktel]

I'd rather live next next to a gay then an alcoholic

(Corrected the spelling!)

[dd74]

Originally posted by Dottore
So my question is: Why is it that a lot of you guys who get riled up about male homsexuality seem to find lesbianism, girls kissing, carpet-munching, sipping from the furry cup (or whatever you want to call female homosexuality) funny, cute, erotic and otherwise perfectly in order?

One theory might be that you are all closet homosexuals, and it's only the male thing that makes you uneasy.

That's my theory.

It's easy to forget: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged! and Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone ...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by nostatic
no you can't. and we love you just the way you are.

Todd, you're a pretty darn sharp guy, but this is about the only part of this one you got right.

The church is a joke. A bad, dangerous, sick joke.

The church is nothing of the kind. It is very much missunderstood, and that is what leads to this perception. The church has arguably done more good on this planet than any other single entity. And please, don't parade out the millenia old Crusades and other abuses; nor the whack-jobs that claim to be a church.

If everyone is "disordered", then they should come out and say that. But they don't.

Uh, which church do you attend? I've been attending church all of my life. The resounding message in all of them is that yes, we are all, in fact, "disordered". No one's particular "disorder" is seen as any "better" or "worse" than anybody else's. Every Christian I know (and I bet I know a hell of a lot more of them than you do) sees their own shortcomings. They do not place gays or anyone else (mass murderers, for example) "lower" than themselves .

This is probably the single trait that non-Christians find the most difficult to understand. Everyone else "ranks" offenses and offenders - child molestors are worse than petty thieves. Christians do not. Most non-Christians take some solace in finding others "worse" than themselves. "Hey, I may cheat on my taxes, but at least I don't club baby seals", or something like that. Christians do not do this. They understand everyone is in the same boat in God's eyes; there is no "my faults are not as bad as his" mentality.

Instead they bury heterosexual issues and instead focus on a conveninet flash point where they know that fear and loathing can breed.

No, it's only that this is the kind of stuff that makes headlines. People outside of the church know this is a hot-button issue, so they are eager to report it. They know folks' ears prick up when they hear it. Then they spread the word to these folks, who have no other exposure to the church, who then wind up thinking this is all the church ever talks about. The church is not nearly that focused or exclusive: they bad-mouth everybody.

Porn exists mostly because of the churches. The ridiculous puritanical views on sex drive the growth of than industry. You think only perverts are buying that stuff? How many "Christians" here go to titty bars? Or post pictures of scantily clad women here on the board?

Another widely held myth about the church and its members is their views on sex. Yes, they teach it is best left to married men and women. It's pretty wide open from there. I'm sure less (self-professed) "uptight" folks just love their little mental images of those poor Christians, doing it in the dark, under the covers, missionary position, and only when absolutely necessary to reproduce. Maybe they feel "naughtier" thinking their uptight Christian neighbor would be shocked at how they carry on in bed. If they only knew just what their neighbor really did in bed...

And yes, Christians go to titty bars. There's a pretty good one just a few miles north of me. And yes, Christians read porn. Post photos of hot babes, and enjoy them as much as the next man. Yup, they cheat on their taxes. Probably speed every now and again. Take more than 10 items to the express lane. You name it. There is no "hypocrisy" in that they readily admit to all of those things, and much more.

The double standard reeks worse than a Beijing public bathroom...

No double standard exists within the church. It may appear that way to those of you that have no idea what the church is all about. The fact is that they discuss men's weaknesses pretty frankly, and don't even hint that one may be worse than another. That they discuss these things out of genuine concern for their fellow man. I guess it makes the non church-going public feel better in some way to blow it all off as a bunch of pompous holier-than-thou asses spouting hypocritical hatred. It is nothing of the kind. But, if it makes you feel better while you are banging some cheap underage Chinese whore, more power to you.

[sammyg2]

Todd, exactly what church are you talking about? If you are talking about the catholic church system, I'll let them argue with you.
If you are talking about Christianity in general, then you came to the right place for a fight.

Porn exists because men are lustful, sinful beasts who crave sins of the flesh.
It's always been that way. Long before Christianity or Judaism.

Most Christians are just as sinful as most atheists, I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. The difference is that Christians realize that some things are sins and try to fight the temptation. if they do not win that fight, they ask for forgiveness and try to repent. Often they are not successful but at least they recognize the sin and make some attempt to resist it.

For someone to sit there and suggest that Christians are hypocrites because they are not perfect is asinine.
We believe that there has only been one man walking this earth that was perfect, no other will ever come close.

BTW just in case you haven't heard, the bible lists several hundred sins that man should avoid. Homosexuality is just one of them. Suggesting that the "church" is focusing on just one of those sins is silly. the only reason this particular issue got all the attention is because the liberal media and the gay organizations wanted it to get attention. THEY WANTED TO GET PEOPLE ALL STIRRED UP. That's what they do.
The bible is a very interesting read, I suggest everyone (especially non-believers) should become familiar with the bible and familiar with this subject in general. Especially if they are going to call the church a joke.

[Hawktel]

Religion is a sick joke. I like the dodge, Don't bring up any of the church's past misdeeds, cause like they don't really count, cause those bastard sinners did it, not the church.

I don't mind god, but his fan clubs are killing me.

Saw that on a car one time. Still true now, 10 years later.

[gassy]

Wow. What a read. I'm not sure where to start. Just like a political thread, I'm sure my post will be quoted in thick black font with many a retort...First of all, there is no God. Any of you religious guys believe in aliens? Didn't think so. Same thing. Secondly, Edited - foul language removed. that think being a homo is a decision that one makes. Its genetic. The bible is fiction, by the way. Give me a God Damn break.

[sammyg2]

Hawtel, what's a acholic?
Doesn't sound too good, I don't think i want to live to one either.

Actually that was a rhetorical question, no need to answer. You'll be on the ignore list before you finish typing.

You too gassy. I would report you to the moderator for being a troll and violating all the roles of the OT forum, but that might be a futile effort. Fox guarding the henhouse and all that.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
I'm as straight as an arrow. Let me just place that up front. I have gay and lesbian friends that I adore. Their lifestyles and decisions are none of my business. I like them just fine as people, regardless of their decisions in the bedroom.

None of the above is necessary, Supe. It's just not.

As I have reported here before, it seems crystal clear to me that a person's relationship with God is intensely and completely personal. That's between God and that person. It further seems crystal clear to me that 1) we are supposed to behave in a certain way and that way involves discipline and 2) We in fact do not behave the way we should. We are fallen creatures.

Uh, huh.

Gays' vigorous negative reaction to the Church's recent declaration that homosexuals are "disordered" was predictable. The Church does, and will continue to, regard homosexuality as "disordered," and will continue to declare sexual relations with same-sex partners as sinful. The Church will not pretend that good behavior is convenient. The Church will not tell the world what it wishes to hear.

"The Church" needs to remain moral, no matter who it may upset. If being homosexual isn't immoral, then they need to convince the church through study of scripture that it is not. The church, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or other cannot "reinterpret" religious doctrine based on "1990's feelings", wouldn't work, some things need be immutable.

[b][quote]But I just wanted to post here my observation that it's not just homosexuals who are "disordered." You all know I feel sorry for humans. I do. We are all broken, and here is an example that I think relates to the current Church announcement. I confess I stole this example from CS Lewis:

We all have appetites. Homosexuals like rubbing peepees with other same-sex folks. Heteros like other-sex peepees. Most of us enjoy a nice ice cream treat. Many of us can appreciate a tender rib eye steak with a baked potato and perhaps an artichoke or yellow squash. Baked Copper-River salmon is heavenly. Et cetera. But have you ever seen folks go to the movie house to watch someone else eat a delicious meal. That's what we sometimes do with sex. X-rated movies and videos are fairly popular. Strip joints, too. So if we wouldn't go watch someone else enjoy a delicious meal, why would we go watch someone bone a bimbo?

If your treatise is accurate, then violent pedophiles are to be tolerated, since they "have appetites" under your moral philosophy.

Heteros are just as twisted as homos. If people had a better appreciation for the broken condition of the earthbound human, the perhaps we would be less likely to get our panties (or boxers, whatever) in a wad over Church statements that we know darned well are entirely true.

No, that's not true. When scripture says that everyone is a sinner, it doesn't mean a "sexual" sinner.

Stifling urges is not unique to Christians with homosexual inclinations. Nature, as Katherine Hepburn once said "is what we are put here to rise above."

Extra bonus points for the first person who can place that quote.

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that government schools are teaching sociofascist ideology, which includes teaching that invasions of countries like Iraq is Okay.

[gassy]

You too gassy. I would report you to the moderator for being a troll and violating all the roles of the OT forum, but that might be a futile effort. Fox guarding the henhouse and all that.

Whatever. A troll with 1000+ posts? BTW--what are the "roles" of the OT forum that you speak of? I didn't call anyone out.

[dhoward]

This thread is gay.

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Jim Cesiro
Additionally,

Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed by God for being cities filled with sin. When god sent his angles to warn Lot to get out the MEN of the city came to rape the angels that had taken the form of men.

Lot offered his virgin daughters to them and they declined wanting the men.

No where was it mentioned that there was a problem with the women having relations with each other. Just a problem with the men.

Fire and brimstone for a poo punchers folks.

Recent translations tend to dismiss the theory that it was homosexual activity that the people of the city were interested in. Seems a little confusion over the interpretation of a few words in the original texts.
Coincidence?

[gassy]

[Hawktel]

Leaving the Church is bad alone for a minute..

How come (to me a not very interested bystander) it seems like the church is working harder on condeming gays than it is on ohh say policing pediphile priests?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Hawktel
Leaving the Church is bad alone for a minute..

How come (to me a not very interested bystander) it seems like the church is working harder on condeming gays than it is on ohh say policing pediphile priests?

Most of the Pedophile Priests are Gay (i.e. homosexual), on the order of 68% or higher.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by dhoward
Recent translations tend to dismiss the theory that it was homosexual activity that the people of the city were interested in. Seems a little confusion over the interpretation of a few words in the original texts.
Coincidence?

Sheer and utter nonsense. Not a single recognized translation has been revised in this manner. Do you have an example you can share with us? One from a credible source? Believe me, there are a great many "new, revised, more accurate" translations floating about. Most have the very thinly veiled purpose of revising scripture to suit its audiences' desires.

Originally posted by gassy
Wow. What a read. I'm not sure where to start. Just like a political thread, I'm sure my post will be quoted in thick black font with many a retort...First of all, there is no God. Any of you religious guys believe in aliens? Didn't think so. Same thing. Secondly, F#ck you all that think being a homo is a decision that one makes. Its genetic. The bible is fiction, by the way. Give me a God Damn break.

Gassy, you sound rather strident in your beliefs. None of them are verifiable, but believe what you will. You are a member of an organized religion, without the means to disprove or verify its teachings any more so than your average Christian is able to do so with his. You are flying on faith every bit as much as the Christians you seem to like to ridicule for exercising theirs.

Oh, and incidently, most Christians I know are entirely comfortable with the thought of life on other planets. Why wouldn't they be? Oh, nevermind; I think I know. Guys like you like to make these sorts of assumptions because it fuels your mental image of the backward Christian, totally discounting science and all of that. It helps you to laugh at them in your ignorance; your utter ignorance of what they believe and what drives those beliefs.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Sheer and utter nonsense. Not a single recognized translation has been revised in this manner. Do you have an example you can share with us? One from a credible source? Believe me, there are a great many "new, revised, more accurate" translations floating about. Most have the very thinly veiled purpose of revising scripture to suit its audiences' desires.

Actually it was sex with children and animals that was the problem not homosexuality.

Gassy, you sound rather strident in your beliefs. None of them are verifiable, but believe what you will. You are a member of an organized religion, without the means to disprove or verify its teachings any more so than your average Christian is able to do so with his. You are flying on faith every bit as much as the Christians you seem to like to ridicule for exercising theirs.

Oh, and incidently, most Christians I know are entirely comfortable with the thought of life on other planets. Why wouldn't they be? Oh, nevermind; I think I know. Guys like you like to make these sorts of assumptions because it fuels your mental image of the backward Christian, totally discounting science and all of that. It helps you to laugh at them in your ignorance; your utter ignorance of what they believe and what drives those beliefs.

Then you wouldn't be opposed to the total deregulation of interplanetary exploration and travel.?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by sammyg2


You too gassy. I would report you to the moderator for being a troll and violating all the roles of the OT forum, but that might be a futile effort. Fox guarding the henhouse and all that.

well, that's thinly vieled...

[nostatic]

Jeff, I know a fair amount about Catholicism having studied it in college and undergoing the adult conversion process. You caught me in particularly bad mood, but the point of Supe's post that I wanted to focus on what his emphasizing that all are "disordered" but here was the church focusing on a particular one.

And I'm pretty tired of the "we're all sinners, but it's ok because we fight the urges and accept Jesus" while they're driving to the titty bar. Fighting pretty hard there...Nice work if you can get it. I never said people had to be perfect. But it seems that lots use the excuse of being "saved" for doing whatever they want.

[Vipergrün]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kang
[B]Do you feel the same way about gay animals?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6066606.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

EDIT: whoops, missed the ther other posts that already covered what I wrote below....just proves I'm right



I do not get your point about gay animals.

My dog eats his own ****, should humans eat theirs?

Some creatures in nature kill their mates when "done", should we whack our spouses after losing the load? Think of the mess if you were in a threesome.

Most animals eat other animals. Other than Jeffrey Dahmer and some jungle tribes, I cannot think of many people who would openly support cannabilism. I just do not see McDonald offering 100% all human patties.

So, the attempt to parallel the acts and instincts of animals to reasoning and thinking humans is a stretch at best and a poor excuse to justify a deviant lifestyle.