LGBTQ and the Bible

Homosexuality is no more inherently sinful than is heterosexuality.

 

In other words you are just pulling crap out of your nether regions!

Got it!

 

The Constitution ENSURES that YOU do NOT have any authority to IMPOSE your theist dogma on anyone else.

 

It also INSURES that YOU do NOT have any authority to IMPOSE your Atheist dogma on anyone else.

All we need now is a gubmint that supports the constitution.

 

In looking at that site it seems clear you are picking and choosing elements that seem to support your belief system rather than accepting the full story of what is being said there.

The fundamental issue is that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. That is what has been found by years of serious study in fields of biology, psychology, sociaology, etc. There is agreement on that.

The exact mechanisms, the way genetics and gestational development play a role, the specific kinds of outcomes, etc. do not form justification for ignoring that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Once we know it is not a choice, decisions to deny the full compliment of human and legal rights and freedoms can not be justified.

I'm not trying to defeat your religious views here. But, I'm HIGHLY opposed to the idea that the rights of this segment of our population may be denied by our government - a government that may not make decisions based on any religion.

As for your religious views, I really don't believe Jesus would behave toward those who are same sex oriented in the way that so many Christians demand. But, that's something you have to deal with.

 

I don't think it's totally a choice with lesbianism but it's more of a choice than male homosexuality.

 

I agree with you that we shouldn't focus on people's sins, what we should focus on is seeking God.

 

OK, so that is what you believe. And, I'm glad to see that you at least don't see sexual orientation as something that is a choice.

But, I'm not really hear to change your beliefs.

What I want to see is written into our founding documents, separation of church and state, equal treatment for all, and an end to discrimination on factors outside the control of individuals.

 

Great!

In my view, using government to deny rights of people your religion sees as sinning is not a legitimate approach to seeking god. And, of course it is also counter to our constitution.

I don't see the life of Jesus as an example of direction that would include promoting discrimination. Matthew 25 has some serious direction for us, including searching out people in prison, in hospitals, etc., and providing the help that those individuals need. By "help" I don't believe that Jesus meant to target those people to be proselytized. I think he really meant to help them with their human needs.

 

androgen imbalance isnt as common as estrogen imbalance. do you think sororal birth order and lesbianism have a correlation? There are more feminine men than masculine women, and bisexuality is more common in women. More lesbians are bisexuals than gay men.

 

I really don't see that this is worth even seconds of attention.

The whole issue is whether sexual orientation is always a decision that an individual can make.

If it's not a decision that all individuals can make, then it's game over for those who think they have ANY right of hatred or discrimination against people for this reason.

If it's not a choice, it is the business of NOBODY other than the individual, and certainly not the business of government.

There are plenty of places in the Bible that talk about the self gratification and indulgence of bachanalia, etc. From the position of living a rightful life it's perfectly reasonable to strongly advise against this kind of behavior. And, in Biblical times same sex behavior was part of that even though it doesn't suggest that this behavior had to do with sexual orientation any more than prison sex today has anything to do with sexual orientation.

 

not sure which planet you are born on but on earth the correct answer is either, some yes some no.

 

I think homosexuality is genetic in men and a chosen behavior in women. Most lesbians were previously straight and are by definition bisexual. I dont think gayness even exists in women.

 

AFAIK gender dysphoria shows up on brain scans for both, of course it would be fair to ask the question which came first the chicken or the egg.

 

Meaning gays, bisexuals, or lesbians?

 

Hmm... Id say with exception to bisexuals
it can be seen in male and female transgenders, by whatever other label they go by

 

Why do you think bisexuals dont have gender dysphoria? Lesbians dont have gender dysphoria, they are bisexual women.

 

I was referring to seeing it on a brain scan, I dont know about bisexuals, I would guess probably not.

 

Are you talking about gay males or females?

I dont think a bisexual gene can exist the way a gay gene can exist. The estrogen that influences the orientation of gay men doesnt influence bisexuality.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/

 

People dont have gender distinct words for most things because that would draw undue attention to gender, but there are gender distinct words when there are differences besides gender. There is no exact feminine equivalent of a womanizer, because of the visual nature of men and higher sex drives in men. Some people think that women are visual.

 

That doesnt mean that lesbians have masculine brains. https://www.livescience.com/751-lesbians-brains-react-differently.html

 

Game over.

If it's not a choice for individuals, then the government doesn't get to make the choice.

 

Why do people not refer to living together before marriage as unnatural? I read in an article, ". Even though God has revealed his plans for sex in nature, people have chosen to go in a different direction.", about transgenderism.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Living together before marriage is certainly more "natural" than getting a state license to do that. Why would Jesus demand that people ask for a license from goernment? Wasn't marriage created for issues such as inheritence and support of survivors?

I think we can miss what the Bible is saying by taking a totally legalistic approach to what was said in year 0.

And, I'm certainly not calling for relaxing. The real message of the Bible has absolutely NOTHING to do with relaxing. In fact, following rules is the easy way out. The message Jesus gave the rich man wasn't easy. The message of Matthew 25 from verse 30 on isn't easy. In fact it puts the golden rule to shame.