No I'm actually on his side, I don't support lgbt marriage

LGBT isn't hurting anyone, and the same arguments today were used in the 60's against african americans.

SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

In my opinion all those -phobia words are an oppressive mean to declare dissenters as being clinically insane, which they are not. That is manipulative and totalitarian and has nothing to do with tolerance whatsoever. Stalin did use that in his time declaring all those who were opposing socialism and his rule as being insane, if he did not kill them right away. Islam is doing that, declaring those people who leave Islam as being insane as a mean to not having to kill them right away.

The reasoning is the same on both occasions: Socialism and Islam respectively see themselves as the best or simply the correct way to live and anyone who opposes this cannot be right in their minds. And that kind of Stalinist society is the ultimate state we are heading to with this kind of cultural engineering, aka brainwash. I even heard the argument in these days, that leftist extremism cannot exist, because it is simply common sense. Treating any dissenters is not far off from that point of view. If we continue on this path, then in the future dissenters will be tucked off the streets and therapized, if not killed right away. And that will be named tolerance.

The use of the word "tolerance" itself in this context and used by these people, tagging dissenters with having phobias, is manipulative as well, as it is a mean to declare themselves as righteous, which they are not, but the opposite.

It is not worthy of freedom nor of an open society to declare dissenters as being clinically insane, that is of having phobias. And as long as we do not fight for our freedom, we do not deserve it. Everyone got a right to his own opinion without being outlawed or therapized for it, indeed, without any harassment whatsoever. This is for homosex-normalists and it is for those who call homosexuality a sin, both.

I tolerate the self-proclaimed "progressive" people in the actual sense of the word as I bear with their opinion painfully. They are voicing their mind and they must be able to say what they want to say freely, but I do not agree with them and I do not accept their attempt to brainwash, but call it by name.

Homosexuality is not love in the deeper meaning of the word. It is using a vase for hammering nails. That is not love to the vase nor to the nails or what these nails are made for. That is my opinion. Bear with it. Be tolerant.

This entire thread

The reasoning is the same on both occasions: Socialism and Islam respectively see themselves as the best or simply the correct way to live and anyone who opposes this cannot be right in their minds. And that kind of Stalinist society is the ultimate state we are heading to with this kind of cultural engineering, aka brainwash. I even heard the argument in these days, that leftist extremism cannot exist, because it is simply common sense. Treating any dissenters is not far off from that point of view. If we continue on this path, then in the future dissenters will be tucked off the streets and therapized, if not killed right away. And that will be named tolerance.

It seems you believe that the American society today (and to a lesser degree the Western European societies) is not being brainwashed. You are wrong.
Other than that, this paragraph contains many truths.

Salinist, Maoist and Facist societies were seeking to achieve what our democratic countries have achieved nowadays. As an example, he Nazis sought German domination of Europe. When genocide failed, they turned to the "EU".

Homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuality is determined by experiences which happen in a person's life.
I myself do not treat anyone according to their beliefs, behaviour or history. I do not discriminate.
In my opinion homosexuals are in dire need of psychological help, and I will voice my opinion and advocate it if I see an opportunity to do so. However, I do not prevent others from voicing their opinions nor do I attack them for doing so. I think that's the main difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives are more open to letting others voice their opinions, and Liberals are less so. When someone voices an opinion which they deem not to be progressive, they demonise the person with such names as "homophobic", "xenophobic", "racialist", "fascist" and "bigot".
GET A LYFE!

To make it clear, one doesn't have to be mentally ill to dislike homosexuals. I, and probably many other people too, use the term "homophobia" as a colloquialism to describe the phenomenon, not because I actually think that the position necessitates a mental disorder.

Now that you have well established that declaring one's opponents as mentally unstable is a tactic used by totalitarian societies, let me point out that some christians in these recent LGBT threads have called homosexuality a mental illness. Keeping that in mind, do you think that Christianity could do a better job relating to sexual minorities?

Another thing that I would like to know from you is, how do you reconcile these substantially differing views in society? Should gays and Christians both just keep to themselves, avoiding contact with each other? How does that work if people are forced to associate with each other in the workplace, for instance?

Lastly, seeing that you criticize Islam, and rightly so, can you see weaknesses in your own religion? What do you think about Lot and his daugters, who engaged in incestuous sex? Seeing that the Bible did not condemn the act, do you agree with the Bible's position?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-36&version=ESV

Now that you have well established that declaring one's opponents as mentally unstable is a tactic used by totalitarian societies, let me point out that some christians in these recent LGBT threads have called homosexuality a mental illness. Keeping that in mind, do you think that Christianity could do a better job relating to sexual minorities?

Actually, it might be equality in arms when the one side calls the other sinners while the other side calls the one side insane. Christians cannot step back from calling sin a sin, because it would not be love, if you refrain from warning the lamb on its way to the slaughter. Therefore it will eventually happen that they will be hated for and be called insane. Which you might take as a violation or sin against the god of western society, which is Ratio. Therefore there is equality in arms, indeed, as both calling the others of sinning against their respective god.

Another thing that I would like to know from you is, how do you reconcile these substantially differing views in society? Should gays and Christians both just keep to themselves, avoiding contact with each other? How does that work if people are forced to associate with each other in the workplace, for instance?

There cannot be reconciliation. Ours is a world under the rule of sin. There will be war. There will be strife. There will be opposing opinions. You cannot reconcile Christ and Belial. The enmity is too hard sworn on each other. Christ did put our sin on himself and literally killed sin with himself on the cross. Imagine that. That is hatred towards sin, but love to us.
BUT what you can do is bear with the other and take him as he is and tolerate him which means endure his opinion as painfully as it might be, while still leaving no doubt to your own position. Which is actually biblical teaching. Therefore working together is no problem in the Christian or biblical perspective.

Lastly, seeing that you criticize Islam, and rightly so, can you see weaknesses in your own religion? What do you think about Lot and his daugters, who engaged in incestuous sex? Seeing that the Bible did not condemn the act, do you agree with the Bible's position?

The bible might give report on this or that without letting judgement follow immediately which is some sort of sovereignty. The bible does not need to tell at that point what this means, because there is no doubt about what the Lord is thinking of this due to other explicit chapters like Leviticus 18 or even Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, if you understand it in all deep meaning like Jesus did. The love between parents and children is originally meant as one of being accepted as is without giving any performance and without having give and take equalling each other. The Lord even takes this ideal love of parents towards their children as being a showcase for his own love towards us. The breaking in of sexuality into this wholesome and sane situation does destroy that kind of love, but changes it into something about performance and about give or take, thereby snatching away the only safe haven. Therefore any kind of sexuality in that parent-children-situation is against love and therefore sin. No need to say on each and every instance.

Addition: You might glean the biblical position towards this happening as the bible does point out that Lot did not notice. The bible does point that out explicitly both times. Why is that, if not for excusing Lot?

Edited 4/4/2015 13:45:25

It's interesting that you brought up incest, because you could use arguments for incest marriage identical to those liberals use for gay marriage (it's just love, it isn't hurting anybody,, it happens in nature...) - however, liberals see incest as something backwards as opossed to gay marrriage which is something progressive to them.

One could even argue that incest is more normal, because you can still reproduce that way. However, incest is still rejected, simply because it's seen as weird by society, the same way like gays are being seen. In conclusion, I can tolerate gay or incest relationships, but I believe than marriage is a union of not-related man and woman.

As for that Bible story about Lot: nowhere in the Bible it says that incest is normal (correct me if I'm wrong), and keep in mind that it's from the Old Testament, parts of which aren't historical and probably never happened.

Okay, so why dont we all just shut the fuck up? I mean honestly. The topic was entirely good. But when you start throwing hate into it you just get this. Instead of making yourselves look like bigger fucking asses. Just shut the hell up. Keep up this shit and watch the forums just get closed.

@Julkorn:

Alright, I will accept that there is a possibility of disagreeing with homosexuality without discriminating against them.

Let me give another example: an employer dislikes homosexuals, and therefore either outright rejects every homosexual job applicant, or at least expects them to compensate for their sexual orientation with superior performance. What should the law have to say about this? Should it penalize the employer for discrimination, as he is clearly putting homosexuals in an inferior position in the job market? When there is lack of jobs, the job applicant cannot just endlessly search for another employer.

How about the Earth being a pancake in the center of the universe, then? Do you believe in that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible#The_Bible_and_science

@CROivan:

Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, that is a valid and important point. This is a major reason to accept homosexuality.

With regards to incest, children being born out of sexual act between close relatives tend to have more problems than others, ie. health issues, lower IQ etc. This is a strong argument against incest, at least if it has the goal of producing offspring.

That said, I don't think incest is evil. My argument against it is purely a practical one.

I believe in the bible. However, the book which is called the bible nowadays is not the same bible which is God's word. The original old testament was written in hieroglyphics and the one present with us is written in Hebrew.
The Gospels were also destroyed and rewritten in other languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_languages

This article says that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Hieroglyphs are not mentioned.

But if you say that the present Bible is not God's word, then how can you know what God has said? Maybe it's all just lost in translation. Maybe God actually loves gays?

No, because the bible and the quran do not contradict each other.

I find it surprising that a muslim would use the Bible to validate things said in the Quran.

No, because the bible and the quran do not contradict each other.

I see, you are a Muslim. Therefore we will both agree that the bible as is, does contradict the quran totally. You reconcile that by claiming that today's bible was distorted by men and that a former original text would not contradict the quran. That is Islamic teaching.

I do disagree with this. Nothing in the quran could equal out my savior Jesus by whom I am safely saved and God's child and received the Holy Spirit. From that point on my bible must be perfect to me and I do trust her completely while I do mistrust the quran in total for denying my savior being my savior, Christ being Christ, taking all and everything of worth from me, if that would be true.

cute, a muslim vs christian argument over who has the best book :)

*eating popcorn*



Edited 4/4/2015 15:27:41

Hmmm..... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no