Sincere apologies for taking 5 years to understand NDE comments on Gay Community!

Imagine that. For thousands of years, men were suffering from homophobia, and nobody knew it.

And for thousands of years, men have been performing abnormal sex acts upon each other and as it turns out, it's perfectly normal.

Who knew?

Y'all can spin like a top attempting explain away how this is not a mental illness, how it is not abnormal behavior, but sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

It's ok, we don't need you to buy anything. The majority already reject the idea of homophobia and the belief that homosexuality is a sociopathic disorder.

 

You never wrote a psychosis. You just made up some phony diagnosis to a thing you claim is a mental disorder yet fail to explain why.

We are done here. You know nothing of the subject you have stumbled and sputtered your way through it. You don't even know the basics. You can't even define what a mental disorder is.

You have revealed yourself to be a charlatan, much like any other clown that thinks that things are mental disorders but can't explain why other than " we used to think it was."

You've been owned kid.

 

I can explain how it isn't unusual, it is.

I can explain how it isn't a mental illness. There is no psychosis.

There has to exist some behavioral trait that causes the person some form of discomfort or inability to function normally in society. Otherwise it's just a peculiar behavior.

 

I would like to explain it to you, but you just would not understand. You see, you have been taught a different form of the English language where the definitions of bigotry, normal, peculiar, behavior, mental illness and marriage and other words have been turned on it's head.

 

So now you are going to blame post modernism for your inability to explain why homosexuality was ever listed as a mental illness?

Those words wouldn't have a different meaning, they certainly wouldn't be turned on their head. I was actually using the classic meaning of mental illness. Simply being abnormal no matter if you subscribe to modernism or post modernism isn't enough to say somebody is mentally ill.

That is a pathetic dodge.

 

Sure, if post modernism is to blame for you thinking that homosexuality is somehow normal.

 

I never said it was normal. Just that it wasn't mentally ill.

If you think that something that makes a person unusual than makes them mentally ill, you clearly don't understand what mental illness is.

Abnormalities don't equal illnesses.

 

I accept that it must be rather frustrating and bemusing for you to witness the ground shift from beneath your feet.

Much like it was for many men during the suffragette/women's rights era, and many "traditionalists" during the civil war/civil rights eras.

Bigotry has many faces.

 

It says nothing about frequency. I think everyone "burns with lust" from time to time, but this is talking specifically about homosexual lust.

The only kind of "lust" that is Biblically-correct is within the confines of marriage, is it not? And the Bible defines marriage very clearly.

 

Only after giving up natural attraction to women. Most homosexuals never had an attraction to the opposite sex.

Before we continue, are you trying to discuss my beliefs to better understand your fellow man, or are you trying to prove that the bible is incompatible with my sexuality?

 

100% the former.

- - - Updated - - -

So, would homosexuality only be a sin if one "gives up" on heterosexuality? And if so, how does this impact on bisexuals who choose same-sex relations?

 

We shall see.

Forgive me for being doubtful but you once mentioned you don't have a stake in this but than IT APPEARS you attempt to jam evangelical fundamentalist interpretations on me.

Homosexuality isn't a sin at all

I don't really know. The bible never mentions homosexuality or bisexuality. So it's not really possible to make any conclusion. You can only go with what it says.

If I were to believe it was a condemnation of all homosexuality and bisexuality out would be a huge stretch. Paul was either really cryptic with his words or man for the post two hundred years has been attempting to cram meaning that isn't there into them.

 

You probably know the Bible better than I do - I am non-Christian, but from what I have seen... it DOES seem to condemn homosexuality. And that's my honest observation. It has nothing to do with trying to upset or belittle gay Christians.

I agree from a non-religious perspective, naturally. But from a Biblical one, it seems to refer to it quite a few times. And even if we act as though it doesn't directly address it, it defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, therefore it would appear as though homosexuality would be a form of 'fornication'.

It refers to men "giving up" their affections to women. Many bisexual people, albeit still attracted to the opposite sex, 'choose' a homosexual relationship for the rest of their lives. Sounds like it would apply to them.

 

Where?

I appreciate that, but I fail to see any place in the bible that it says anything regarding homosexuality.

From a non theistic position there is no such thing as sin. So that statement seems circular.

I honestly haven't seen a single verse about it. It all really has to do with interpretation. Until you can fully understand the bible's meaning, I don't think the interpretation can be valid. Now if you remove the scripture from the people who have written it and the original language it has been written in, it's possible to interpret that you need to dance with snakes and drink poison, marry fifty women and not celebrate your birthday. But frankly that isn't the purpose of the text.

It actually doesn't. It defines marriage many different was. And the word marriage never once appeared in original text.

Again that is only if you remove it from context.

Only if that is your interpretation. What exactly is being given up? It doesn't say affection or attraction. It says that giving up what is natural for what is unnatural is what is going on. Now if we are to believe it's natural to be homosexual or bisexual, than these people aren't giving up what is natural to them.

 

Tell me what you think the aforementioned passage is about.

It's OBVIOUSLY talking about homosexuality. Men with men, women with women. So under WHAT circumstances is such behavior sinful?

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, when I said I "agreed", I meant I agreed with you: homosexuality ISN'T a sin. But that's in the wider and realistic sense, not the Biblical sense.

 

I already did.

I thought you were interested in discussion to better understand your fellow man.

So I see, you weren't interested in that.

If you already know without a doubt what the bible means, you have no interest in discussion.

This is a sense fragment and it makes no sense.

What behavior?

 

No, all you did was clarify who you think it DOESN'T refer to. It obviously describes something. What is it?

So you deny that it's even describing same-sex relations?

A rather bemusing description of events.... I am saying that it APPEARS that way. I would love to be convinced otherwise, but I'm just not seeing it.

That is what the passage refers to. Every translation of Romans 1:26-27 refers to what is obviously same-sex relations.

Instead of telling me what it DOESN'T condemn, tell me who it DOES condemn, and for what reason? It seems painfully clear.

See it my way: I reject the Bible because I believe it reflects the mores of the time. It was written by men. And those men existed in a time when homosexuality was considered wrong.

 

Okay, to get into that I will have to discuss culture of the time period. But seeing as it seems you only wish to bicker with me and insist your interpretation of scripture is correct, I don't feel like wasting the time. Now if you are indeed interested in discussion to better understand your fellow man, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But I am not just going to open up if all I am going to get from you is the same thing I get from the talibornagain.

By which I assume you mean sexual intercourse no, I don't deny that. That just isn't what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation that doesn't involve having sex with anybody. I don't follow that logic Sec uses, that if you have sex with somebody of the same sex than you are homosexual. It involves attraction romance and all sorts of things.

You choose not to see it. I can't really help you with that. If you aren't willing to listen to a single word I have to say, than you clearly aren't interested in discussion.

But does it refer to sexual orientations?

No. It's obvious you aren't going to try to understand what I say or that you are even going to read it. Based on the discussion this far.

Why should I you Didn't even give me a chance.

So let me guess, anybody that doesn't see it your way is wrong right? How convenient.

I would explain to you how you might be mistaken about the way you see it, but it's clear you aren't interested in such discussion.

 

Why is time period relevant? I thought things were either right or wrong. Did people once go to hell for something that is now deemed acceptable? Does God change his mind?

I'm really not. I'm asking you some hard-hitting questions for no other reason than the fact I believe the Bible is full of the words of imperfect and bigoted men, not god.

I'm saying what I see. Most people read that and reach the same conclusion, believers or not. If you wish to offer an alternate explanation the burden of proof is on you.

But a component of romantic relationships is sex. Not for everyone, but for the majority of people. For example, there are gay Christians who have same-sex romantic relationships based on love, companionship and connection, yet refrain from sex because they believe the Bible prohibits it.

I'm all ears. But if you are truly convinced of your position you should not be uncomfortable with answering questions.

It refers to acts.

You are jumping to conclusions based on our previous altercation I think. And the fact you've probably had to deal with people who aren't open minded. I assure you I'm extremely open minded. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here seeking alternative views to shore up my own.

 

See, I DO have an agenda, and that is this: The Bible, like the Koran, like the Torah... is nothing more than a reflection of man's views at that time, coupled with a desire to control human behavior. Not in the "evil" sense - in a sense they believed would benefit society according to their views. But rules don't work too well unless you back them up with the threat of punishment.

The people responsible for religion as we know it today understood psychology centuries ago better than the average person understands it today.

 

You clearly know nothing about the subject. And no you have no credibility.

You asked hard hitting questions? When?

You see what you wish to see.

Oh the appeal to the majority. Nice.

If all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and say lalalalala, there can be no discussion.

And for the third time the bible never forbade that.

And there are some Christians that are gay that don't abstain from sex because they believe the bible doesn't forbid it. What is your point?

That is a lie. You are belligerent and deaf.

"Why is time period relevant? I thought things were either right or wrong. Did people once go to hell for something that is now deemed acceptable? Does God change his mind?"

I have to be in a conversation with somebody willing to listen. And when you say that stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) in the top of this post and then say you are all ears, I am left thinking you aren't.

Prove you are all ears, listen.

Right, the act of giving up what is natural for what is unnatural. Being that is what it said. And it didn't say that homosexuality is wrong because that is not an act but a sexual orientation.

You think incorrectly. It's based on this discussion. You have continually insisted that homosexuality is forbidden in the bible, I try to discuss it with you than you post this...

"Why is time period relevant? I thought things were either right or wrong. Did people once go to hell for something that is now deemed acceptable? Does God change his mind?"

That is both belligerence and mockery. Frankly I never said anything to provoke that.

You aren't open minded. You pigeon holed me with this strawmen...

"Why is time period relevant? I thought things were either right or wrong. Did people once go to hell for something that is now deemed acceptable? Does God change his mind?"

I don't believe you with good cause. See just above.

We are in a communication breakdown there has not been any discussion in the last two posts regarding beliefs because you insist you are open-minded but your posts tell a different story.

I have prefaced my statements by asking you if you are interested in honest discussion, you assure me you are, than you post your childish belligerent response.

I am sorry, I don't feel like bickering, I don't believe you. You have mislead me several times.

 

I however don't have an agenda, I simply wish to have a discussion, to learn to better work with and understand my fellow man.

See I don't need affirmation of my beliefs. I have no desire to convert anybody. It's a folks errand. I know the only people that will agree with me aren'tin need of conversion, they likely already agree with me. And because I understand people can't be simply talked out of their beliefs I see no value in that endeavor.

 

It's painfully obviously you are flat out refusing to answer perfectly reasonable and relevant questions. I asked you why a particular rule pertaining to same-sex interaction would only apply to people of a certain era, and you accuse me of failing to understand the subject... aswell as lacking credibility?! I'm at a loss.

I asked you a direct question pertaining to Romans 1:26-27, and your answer was that you would have to discuss the culture of the time... so discuss the culture of the time. And why these considerations no longer apply.

If I'm misinterpreting something you should have a clear and concise answer ready.

Think of me as ignorant fool that needs educating then, whatever. Just explain your interpretation of that passage. That's all I ask.

So you're saying the Bible does not forbid sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage? Bearing in mind marriage is defined as union consisting of only men and women?

My point is that gay Christians who abstain from sex have a reason for doing so. They didn't just pull it out of thin air.

How does asking those questions make me deaf and belligerent?

Start answering questions rather than shooting me down based on your unreasonable assumptions and I will listen.

Right now all I hear is you trying to tear me down and paint me as an ignorant fool for genuinely seeking answers.

Homosexuality is both an action and an orientation.

I just can't comprehend for the life of me why you interpret a sincere question as an attack on you. I could accuse you of many things at this point like the others did in that Idaho thread, but I'm not going to because I only care about the topic at hand.

 

I'm on your "side" for the most part, but us gays don't have to agree on everything. You speak to me as though I'm "one of them", when in fact my thinking is based on a deep distrust for religion.