It is politically incorrect to express negative moral judgment regarding homosexuality, and even worse if anyone supports such claims by mentioning the higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, illness, and death in the gay community. But we all know that the rampant, gross (pun intended) promiscuity in the male homosexual community is what caused AIDS to take root and explode around the world.
Now, a highly drug-resistant staph infection has taken root in the gay communities in Boston and San Francisco, and threatens to spread to the general populace due to finding a favorable climate in the sexuality of gay communities.
The persistent and repeated incubation and growth of such diseases in the gay community is yet another sign from nature that they are doing something unnatural – most probably, promiscuous gay sex. And not only are they endangering their own lives through their selfish and risky behaviors, but the lives of the rest of society.
Now, I’m sure such language on my part will lead gay advocates to conclude that I am trying to argue for a pogrom, and that we should start rounding gays up into ghettos, and making them wear arm bands with pink triangles on them. But that’s just emotional scare tactics, not reason.
So where am I going with such accusations? First, we need to admit to the fact that the infections ARE more prevalent in the gay communities:
Incidence of the new variant is 13 times higher in San Francisco’s
heavily gay Castro neighborhood and surrounding zip codes than in the
city’s general population.
Poorly addressed in the NPR report is the WHY.
That concentration — and the fact that many infections appear on the
buttocks and the genital region — is leading researchers to suggest
that MDR staph is being spread through sexual contact.
Brilliant. However, doctors are worried about what that could mean:
That leads some to worry this new infection could stigmatize gay men once again.
"We are worried about the fact that this could be taken to mean that this is another gay man plague," Diep says.
While stigmatization may be an issue, the bigger issue they should be worried about is public health, and why the politically-motivated medical community ignores the epidemiology surrounding male homosexuality.
Although staph is not merely a sexually transmitted disease, and is not isolated in the gay community, the fact that needs to be seen is that gay promiscuity, and perhaps the risk inherent in anal sex, are providing the perfect incubation grounds for disease, and in turn, is endangering all of us. Staph infections kill more people annually than AIDS, and the ease of transmission (skin to skin contact is enough) should make us all sit up and recognize that homosexual behavior is not just a private act, but a public risk factor.
We need to educate people on these high-risk behaviors, and remember to mention that behaviors that lead to significantly increased morbidity and mortality are irresponsible, immature, and often, immoral – be they overeating, promiscuity, and/or unnatural sexual acts.
And perhaps we should also remember the biblical warning regarding homosexuality from Romans 1:27, indicating that homosexuality leads to a penalty which is deserved and a natural outcome that is received, most probably in the body as disease:
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful,
and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
seeker, you are completely shameless. Only someone intent on demonizing gay people would take advantage of this. Once again, you are a fine argument to stay the hell away from christianity.
I hesitate to say this, but I'm really beginning to think that you are evil, seeker.
Hi Seeker:
My problem with this post of yours has nothing to do with my disagreement with your reading of the Bible wrt homosexuality. Your argument is that this new strain of staph is spread by gay promiscuity, providing more evidence that homosexuality is morally wrong. But suppose it was discovered that a strain of staph was spread by Holy Communion, or by doing things like what the Good Samaritan did, stopping to help bleeding victims of crimes. On your argument, Communion and Christian charity would have been shown to be morally wrong. This is an outrageous moral standard, and the opposite of what Christ taught! We Christians are not supposed to look at the world that way, seeing the sufferings of our neighbors as what the deserve for their sins, this is exactly the attitude Jesus taught against when he taught us to take care of our own sins before we try to fix the sins of our neighbors.
Now perhaps it's a fact that promiscuity spreads the disease faster–not a moral judgment or anything, just a scientific fact. If so, this is an argument for society trying to help support monogamy–gay or straight. That of course means the highly judgmental politics of my conservative Christian brothers and sisters is exactly the reverse of the appropriate social stance. Now I am as judgmental as the next guy, it's something I am working on, with God's help. But seriously, Seeker, the argument that "gays are threatening US with THEIR "gross" sexual practices" IMO seriously communicates an unloving attitude toward people for whom Christ died just as much as he died for you and me. I think you really need to reconsider your pedagogy here.
I await your complaint that I am letting my so-called compassion interfere with proclaiming God's righteousness. We can debate that I suppose, but for now all I will say is that I don't believe Christ would have taught that "they" were a danger to "us".
your friend
Keith
This new strain is a variant on MRSA, another "super" staph infection. It incubated in hospitals and has spread into society at large, particularly among sports teams and gyms and prisons. Should we morally condemn athletes and decry their "unclean" practices? The newest super-staph was also most likely created by the administration of antibiotics for MRSA in hospital (not gays' anuses), with the well-known effects of natural selection at work (of course, seeker will deny this since he doesn't believe in evolution – evidently God created MRSA to punish us for going to hospitals). It is spread by skin-to-skin or skin-to-infected-surface contact, including sexual contact or sharing towels or using sports equipment or barbells and benches at the gym. Unfortunately, promiscuity is a way of life among small sectors of the gay community (as it is among straights), setting up the current epidemic. seeker's rant, of course, blames all gays for the carelessness and irresponsibility of a few (how many cases compared to millions of gays – a few hundred?). Of course, this is using reason, and not emotion and bigotry which are on seeker's agenda: he is on a jihad against gay people and he doesn't give a damn about truth or facts. To him, disease is a moral and cultural issue to be used to bash and scapegoat the people he already hates.
seeker, you are irrational on this topic. You should get help (preferably shock therapy).
This is an outrageous moral standard, and the opposite of what Christ taught!
I think that my explanation of Paul's "receiving in themselves the penalty" is perfectly logical, and a correct reading of that passage. Do you think it means something else? Or more than just biological?
Now perhaps it's a fact that promiscuity spreads the disease faster–not a moral judgment or anything, just a scientific fact. If so, this is an argument for society trying to help support monogamy–gay or straight.
I agree that if it was just promiscuity, then I could not use this as an argument against homosexuality. But it is not just the rampant promiscuity of the gay community that may be the problem – it is likely that anal sex is a high risk behavior as well – much higher than vaginal. My argument is that it is not just promiscuity which is immoral, but anal sex, and by extension, homosexuality.
Additionally, the higher rates of all kinds of illness in the gay community indicates to me that perhaps the whole system is unhealthy, right down to the gender-identity of gays.
I find it a totally valid scriptural principle (not to be taken in isolation, however, else you will end up with your Holy Communion example) that sin leads to death, and that things that lead to death are probably sin, esp. if they have been condemned as sin by the bible.
And before you argue that, for example, Jesus' teaching led to his own death, and therefore his teaching was sin, I would hasten to add that you would need a clarifying principle or two. But if you don't want any clarifying principles, then you have already gone off the deep end of being unreasonable.
For instance, the bible says "thou shalt not murder." But if you want to extend that to mean that the bible is against capital punishment, you would be wrong. But why? Because there are other principles in play.
In this case, sin leads to death, but not all things that lead to death are sin – only certain ones. Which ones? When YOUR action leads to a natural increase in disease and death from natural causes (being killed is not natural), that should be considered sinful. I believe this is what Paul is alluding to.
Seeker, the argument that "gays are threatening US with THEIR "gross" sexual practices" IMO seriously communicates an unloving attitude toward people for whom Christ died just as much as he died for you and me.
That may be because you care more about gays than about the innocent people that they put at risk through their rampant promiscuity and high-risk anal sex.
The FACT that the practices of the gay community leads to the wildfire spread and incubation of dangerous diseases should be a sign to both them and us that what they are doing is against nature, and against public health. To not call this out is to be irresponsible.
There is plenty of scriptural precident for outright condemnation of sexual immorality – as when Paul required the church to dis-fellowship the man sleeping with his mother in law. It is not Christlike to coddle people when they persist in unrepentant sin. While we are to be patient, to be afraid of offending when such dangers are real and immanent is cowardice, not kindness.
Rebuke, even hot rebuke, is part of the Christian life, esp. when people are stiff-necked, unrepentant, and "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness."
I believe that they gay community, and those of us who refuse to condemn such sins, are offending God by our cowardice and selfishness.
We can debate that I suppose, but for now all I will say is that I don't believe Christ would have taught that "they" were a danger to "us".
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think that plain fact is that their selfish and unrighteous behavior IS a danger to humanity. I think the gay/bi community is not only repsonsible for the initial growth of AIDS, but for the following resurgence of TB, and now, this virulent strain. The fact that their communities are so vulerable to disease does not just mean that they are somehow innocently more at risk – their behaviors, including not just promiscuity, but anal sex itself, are unnatural and lead to disease – and why?
Because their entire orientation is obviously against nature. And since there is a way to health and change, they ARE responsible for their actions. They are as guilty as the adult entertainment industry, prostitutes, and drug dealers and users of endangering society, whether or not you think what they are doing is immoral, or if you think Jesus would rebuke them (and I am sure that he would, at least like he did the woman caught in adultery – GO AND SIN NO MORE).
On your argument, Communion and Christian charity would have been shown to be morally wrong.
Hmmm. Keith makes a good point there if the basis for the argument is purely the results.
I don't think seeker is saying that this is the reason why he disagrees with homosexuality, but that it is part of a broader picture of the teachings of the Bible and scientific evidence. Also, we should not allow PC thought to stop scientific or medical research. I'm not sure if that's the case here, but I guess it could be.
To be honest, I'm very squimish about venturing into this type of territory because I know it is very likely to enflame, I'm not sure how much good it does and the root causes of sickness are always more gray than black and white.
I'm interested to see how you respond to some of the objections seeker.
Gee, Aaron, thanks for your courageous stand against disinformation and hate. Very xian of you.
I suppose next seeker will blame all gays for cancer, the run-up of oil prices, and the sub-prime mess. The rhetoric here, along with xian timidity in opposing it, reminds me of Nazi scapegoating of the Jews. The analogy is exact.
seeker wrote:
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think that plain fact is that their [gays] selfish and unrighteous behavior IS a danger to humanity.
Indeed. This is the rhetoric of pogrom and genocide. It is the same rhetoric the Nazis used against the Jews (and the gays, btw). This is not an emotional argument, but one based on fact and history. stinker has revealed his true colors, and his bleats about not being a hater and bigot are given the lie. How deep does this evil go among Christian circles?
Another topic for discussion: Is Christ to be held responsible for this evil jihad against gay people? Or can He somehow be extricated from it? And is it a product of organized religion? And, if so, should we abandon organized religion as hopelessly corrupt and evil in our quest for authentic spiritual experience?
Keith?
Louis, I think Seeker wrote this post more to get a rise out of you than to actually discuss and explore the topic. Don't waste your time responding to him.
1. I wrote this because I think the story on NPR was factual. I'm sorry that the liberal media didn't kowtow to your opinions.
2. I wrote it because I do believe that homosexuality is a personal and societal illness, and because pushing for its acceptance as normative is both harmful to society and promoting a lie.
3. The study may have some holes in it, but that does not mean that it is untrue, only that more studies have to be done. But does anyone doubt that disease has more prevalence in the gay culture? Just like the promiscuous kings of history were often known to have syphilis, the rampant, repugnant, and unhealthy promiscuous anal sex in the gay community is known to promote disease. No one is surprised by this except those who don't want it to be true.
I have little doubt that if a "better" study were done, these results could be confirmed.
4. I do personally believe that the epidemic promiscuity and high drug use in the gay community makes it an incubator for disease which can then gain critical mass and spread throughout the populace.
5. While I don't support any kind of legal or violent action against gays, I am firmly opposed to the medical promotion of homosexuality as normative, and even more opposed to government sanction of gay marriage, since such sanction would promote sickness.
6. While telling the truth ought to be done in love, and Christians, myself included, could learn to love more when approaching this issue, I contend that those who excuse homosexuality and call themselves Christians are not only in error doctrinally, they are motivated not by the love of God, but by sentimentality, and have fallen prey to what the bible calls "the deceitfulness of sin."
Hi All:
Louis asked: Another topic for discussion: Is Christ to be held responsible for this evil jihad against gay people? Or can He somehow be extricated from it? And is it a product of organized religion? And, if so, should we abandon organized religion as hopelessly corrupt and evil in our quest for authentic spiritual experience?
Keith?
I'd say not, no to all of the questions you asked. In fact, Louis, I'd say your objections commits the same fallacy Seeker commits. It isn't religion in general that causes the bigotry you rightfully complain about, it is a specific set of beliefs that ARE the bigotry. You share with a lot of people the idea that organized religion is the enemy of true spiritual experience, but I would say that true spiritual experience is by necessity a community activity, so you need to be part of a spiritual community. A spiritual community is a group of people organized around that spirituality, which is to say, it is an organized religion.
Seeker: Louis brought up some problems with the story you quoted, quoting sources that said that this latest outbreak is nothing new, but that anti-gay bigotry turned it into a major case. But assuming for the sake of discussion that this IS a new outbreak, still your comment is bigoted, I think. Even on your assumption, the cause of the epidemic is a certain kind of promiscuity, not homosexuality itself. You have previously said your case against homosexuality is based on science, not on your religious beliefs, but just as in your previous examples, this example doesn't argue against homosexuality itself but rather certain practices that some homosexuals engage in, or is certain characteristics that our present homophobic culture imposes on homosexuals. The problems you cite can arguably be solved by being MORE tolerant of homosexuals, not less.
You call gays selfish, with the spread of this disease evidence for your charge. But that implies gay people were saying "I don't care about the illness I am spreading, all I care about is my own gratification". There is simply no evidence for this charge. There is no reason to think that gays won't take precautions to deal with this outbreak. The gay community did just that when AIDS first broke out. When you call gays selfish for living as gays, you are treating all gay people as if they are a stereotype, and you are suggesting that you know what's going on in their minds when they do what they do. This is exactly what Jesus commanded us not to do when he taught us not to judge. BTW, I am not here arguing that you are wrong about homosexuality and sin, and I am not even saying you ought not preach from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin. I disagree with you about such, but here my complaint is in HOW you are preaching. It seems to me that it is rather loaded with hostile judgmentalism. I haven't seen you preach so hard against gluttony, a sin that causes much more problems that homosexuality does, I'd say.
your friend
keith
Promiscuity is the problem, not homosexuality. Why condemn all gay people for what a few do? seeker finds it impossible to be fair with this issue: he just cannot see the forest for the trees. As Keith points out, after the cause of AIDS was discovered, and in the face of government and straight indifference (and hostility), the gay community swung into action to educate people, change behavior, and care for the afflicted. I know. I was there. This new disease just can be spread much more easily, skin or surface contact, and started in the straight community (hospitals, schools, gyms, the military) as did AIDS (Africa). It's not being incubated or spread by gays alone. It seems that it got into a tiny segment of the gay population. Why blame all of us? This is the action of stupid people, people who have prejudged the issue and who don't give a damn about facts or fairness. seeker's list above just shows how biased and incapable of reasoned judgment he is on this topic. He cannot even accept the caution of the scientific researchers against jumping to conclusions. He has "no doubt" that his contentions will be proven if only better studies are undertaken. Poor reasoning, indeed!
Sorry, seeker, but all that this proves is that you are hopeless on this topic.
seeker calls gay people "selfish" in this matter. Well, I can tell you that we are just the opposite, and this based on actions, not words. From the start of the AIDS epidemic, gay people showed such levels of selfless action that it put the xian community to shame. During a time when the government, the straight community, and most (if not all churches) showed indifference at best, and hostility and condemnation at worst, gay people rallied together on a purely voluntary basis to care for the sick and dying. They organized food drops, visits, trips to the doctor, education, etc. And this wasn't just for other gay people, but for all the afflicted – the outcasts like drug-addicts, prisoners, prostitutes, children, and so on – without regard for ability to pay or the worthiness of the ill. Partners would care for each other, friends for friends, on the most basic level. Gay doctors donated treatment at clinics. And so on.
This is the selfishness that seeker decries? Where were the churches? Where was the gov't? All we got was more condemnation and scapegoating! It's truly disgusting. No wonder so many gay people hate xianity. If Christ was present, He was among the selfless gay people caring for the sick and the poor and the outcast, and not among the seekers of the time.
When I think of what xianity should be, I think of Paul when, for once, he got off his high-horse:
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Of course, seeker will pooh-pooh this, because he doesn't have love. But that should be the central message of xianity to the world.
gay people rallied together on a purely voluntary basis to care for the sick and dying.
It's hardly a virtue to care for you own. While the xian community, to it's shame, was unable to resolve it's twin responsibilities to support the gospel and righteousness, while serving those outside, the fact that the gay community served the dying among them that was mostly caused by their own actions is as virtuous as Christians helping the poor who attend their churches. A good start, but nothing momentous to brag about.
And this wasn't just for other gay people, but for all the afflicted – the outcasts like drug-addicts, prisoners, prostitutes, children,
Again, somewhat laudable, but in large part, self-serving, even if they branched out beyond their own. And if you want to compare service to prisoners, prostitutes, and children worldwide, the Christian community is far and away the leader.
This is the selfishness that seeker decries?
Not at all. The selfishness is in doggedly continuing to practice and supporting the right to unhealthy sexual practices and lifestyles, failing to take adequate action against them, and defending such irresponsible behavior as human rights, all the while endangering the general public, and the blood supply, not to mention overburdening the healthcare system.
The "I can live however I want" whine comes at the expense of others, like smokers who want to smoke in public places, not caring if others are hurt. And while immoral sexual behaviors should not be controlled by law like smoking, the failure of the gay community to condemn promiscuity (not to mention anal sex, which is unhealthy) stems from it's selfish desire for pleasure, the health of the community and thouse outside be damned.
Of course, seeker will pooh-pooh this, because he doesn't have love. But that should be the central message of xianity to the world.
NO, this is a great passage, which we could all live up to more. But the problem with this "God is love" theology, which denies also that God is holy, and that God is truth, and that God will judge us all, so we should be circumspect and stop sinning and teach others to not sin, is a cheap excuse to be one-sided, as bad as fundamentalists who only talk about sin and not love.
And this same God who commands love will also not strive with hardened, unyielding, unrepentant people forever – as Jesus said, those who reject his message of repentance and faith towards God will suffer worse than those in Sodom, whom the loving God destroyed for their ungodliness (as evidenced by the fact that their society had degraded to the point of rampant homosexuality).
I keep harping on this, not because of some hateful agenda, but because those who are saying that gays can't change, and that God accepts homosexuality, are lying against the truth, stealing hope from those who want to change, and damning people to a life of perversion, not to mention a life of unbelief in the gospel leading to damnation. I don't hate gays, just the lying doctrines that gay apologists promote.
You should stop excusing a light, if not entirely unbiblical view of homosexuality based on my shortcomings. It's lame.
As James White said in The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality.:
Thanks, seeker, for proving my point.
Hi Seeker:
I think this illustrates what is in my opinion your mistaken way of looking at things.
Louis wrote: gay people rallied together on a purely voluntary basis to care for the sick and dying.
To which you replied:
It's hardly a virtue to care for your own.
But Seeker, the sick and the dying AIDS patients were–and are–OUR own too. Your words seem to indicate that you see gay people as "those" sinners over there, instead of our neighbors in need. I think the "us" vs. "them" attitude is contrary to the way of Christ.
your friend
keith
Keith, you've missed my point entirely. That's like me saying "hey, I help people in my family and church, that's just as good as reaching out to people who are unlike me."
While everyone is "our own" in the sense that we are human, to say that we are somehow virtuous for caring for those who are like us while failing to care for those who are unlike us, and claiming moral superiority for it, is dishonest, if not unbiblical.
Or as Paul said in a related vein in Romans 5:7:
While our lack of concern for AIDS victims shows a lack of love, the concern of gays for AIDS victims is far from altruistic, but rather, an empathy born out of being in the same boat. While their service is laudable, is is not without self-interest.
And their LACK of concern for biblical morality, and the public health, is itself a problem – you can't just cure the world with love, you have to do it with love and truth.
And the truth is, the promiscuity and other risky behaviors and unhealth that are disproportionately represented in the gay community are poo-pooed by gay advocates who mistakenly think that love devoid of truth and repentance will cure or halt the spread of disease. It won't.
And while you are somewhat right in attacking my claim that such stats mean that homosexuality is the problem (when it's really promiscuity and perhaps anal sex), I still think that
– homosexuality and social acceptance of it in and of themselves are bad for society, and unhealthy
– the scriptures clearly condemn it
– in light of the the questionable roots of it, we should NOT sanction homosexual marriage, lest we risk the further degradation of the family and morals that hold our society together
– if we fail to condemn sin, in all it's forms, and as the scriptures do, ESPECIALLY CERTAIN SINS like sexual immorality, for which the consequences are so great, we are being cowardly, and hiding behind a false image of love that never corrects, never offends, and never communicates the truth.
Poor seeker, he has no idea what love is, or its relation with truth. Pity him.
It might be dirty but we all know you still want it seeker.
How's the "ex-gay" treatment you got workin' out for you?
HEY ALL,
IF WE MUST EMBRACE OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT BRETHREN, AS IT IS ONLY CHRISTIAN, WE MUST EMBRACE OUR HOMOSEXUAL BRETHREN ALSO. THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFE MAY BE A BIT MORE RISKY, BUT IT IS NOT EITHER CRIMINAL OR ILLEGAL HERE, SO WE MUST EMBRACE IT.
LETS NOT CONFUSE SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT THIS BEHAVIOR PROBABLY SPREADS A HORRIFIC INFECTION WITH THE BIBLE'S OUTSPOKENNESS ON THE SUBJECT. IF YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THE BIBLE ACTUALLY HAS INSIGHT AND WISDOM TO OFFER. WE NEED TO LOVE 'EM, NOT BIND 'EM TO TRUTH. AT ALL COSTS, JUST LOVE 'EM, ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO…..well, just kidding.
SEEKER SAY:
"While our lack of concern for AIDS victims shows a lack of love, the concern of gays for AIDS victims is far from altruistic, but rather, an empathy born out of being in the same boat. While their service is laudable, is is not without self-interest.
And their LACK of concern for biblical morality, and the public health, is itself a problem – you can't just cure the world with love, you have to do it with love and truth.
And the truth is, the promiscuity and other risky behaviors and unhealth that are disproportionately represented in the gay community are poo-pooed by gay advocates who mistakenly think that love devoid of truth and repentance will cure or halt the spread of disease. It won't." ——-
SEEKER, THIS "NAZI PROPAGANDIST PHARISEE" AGREES WITH YOUR POINT. GOD HELP US. I SEE HIV/AIDS AS MOSTLY A SELF INFLICTED WOUND THAT SPILLS OVER AND AFFECTS US ALL, SADLY.
"- homosexuality and social acceptance of it in and of themselves are bad for society, and unhealthy
– the scriptures clearly condemn it
– in light of the the questionable roots of it, we should NOT sanction homosexual marriage, lest we risk the further degradation of the family and morals that hold our society together
– if we fail to condemn sin, in all it's forms, and as the scriptures do, ESPECIALLY CERTAIN SINS like sexual immorality, for which the consequences are so great, we are being cowardly, and hiding behind a false image of love that never corrects, never offends, and never communicates the truth". ——-
SPOT ON. TO ACCEPT THIS BEHAVIOR OR SUPPORT IT, IS UNCHRISTIAN.
HEY ALL,
IF WE MUST EMBRACE OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT BRETHREN, AS IT IS ONLY CHRISTIAN, WE MUST EMBRACE OUR HOMOSEXUAL BRETHREN ALSO. THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFE MAY BE A BIT MORE RISKY, BUT IT IS NOT EITHER CRIMINAL OR ILLEGAL HERE, SO WE MUST EMBRACE IT.
LETS NOT CONFUSE SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT THIS BEHAVIOR PROBABLY SPREADS A HORRIFIC INFECTION WITH THE BIBLE’S OUTSPOKENNESS ON THE SUBJECT. IF YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THE BIBLE ACTUALLY HAS INSIGHT AND WISDOM TO OFFER. WE NEED TO LOVE ‘EM, NOT BIND ‘EM TO TRUTH. AT ALL COSTS, JUST LOVE ‘EM, ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO…..well, just kidding.
SEEKER SAY:
“While our lack of concern for AIDS victims shows a lack of love, the concern of gays for AIDS victims is far from altruistic, but rather, an empathy born out of being in the same boat. While their service is laudable, is is not without self-interest.
And their LACK of concern for biblical morality, and the public health, is itself a problem – you can’t just cure the world with love, you have to do it with love and truth.
And the truth is, the promiscuity and other risky behaviors and unhealth that are disproportionately represented in the gay community are poo-pooed by gay advocates who mistakenly think that love devoid of truth and repentance will cure or halt the spread of disease. It won’t.” ——-
SEEKER, THIS “NAZI PROPAGANDIST PHARISEE” AGREES WITH YOUR POINT. GOD HELP US. I SEE HIV/AIDS AS MOSTLY A SELF INFLICTED WOUND THAT SPILLS OVER AND AFFECTS US ALL, SADLY.
“- homosexuality and social acceptance of it in and of themselves are bad for society, and unhealthy
– the scriptures clearly condemn it
– in light of the the questionable roots of it, we should NOT sanction homosexual marriage, lest we risk the further degradation of the family and morals that hold our society together
– if we fail to condemn sin, in all it’s forms, and as the scriptures do, ESPECIALLY CERTAIN SINS like sexual immorality, for which the consequences are so great, we are being cowardly, and hiding behind a false image of love that never corrects, never offends, and never communicates the truth”. ——-
SPOT ON. TO ACCEPT THIS BEHAVIOR OR SUPPORT IT, IS UNCHRISTIAN.
And the truth is, the promiscuity and other risky behaviors and unhealth that are disproportionately represented in the gay community are poo-pooed by gay advocates who mistakenly think that love devoid of truth and repentance will cure or halt the spread of disease. It won't." —–
Of course it won't. Neither will religion. Science and education will.
btw: Promiscuity is present in all groups, so please stop trying to scapegoat all gay people for the risky behavior of a few.
Oh, and the MRSA scare has been debunked plenty in recent days. More disinformation from the homophobic MSM and their catamites among the religionistas.
CAN A GAY BE A CHRISTIAN?
Will you please stop typing in all capital letters? On the internet that comes across as shouting.
As to your query:
Who knows and who cares?
GOSH LOUIS, sorry. I will type more quietly.
WELL SINCE I USUALLY DO NOT RAISE MY VOICE, PLEASE TRY AND DEAL WITH THIS LOUD FONT. ITS THE ONLY TIME
RE-QUERY:I DO. AND SINCE THE MOTTO ABOVE IS "CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES ON LIVING, ETC.", I THOUGHT IT A PERTINENT QUESTION, AND SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE ONLY 4 OR SO PEOPLE POST HERE, I THOUGHT A FIFTH MY HELP FILL OUT THE RANKS HERE. BUT THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL INPUT.
THE QUESTION STILL STANDS………………..
Hi Louis and Ben:
To Ben: Louis asked you nicely and explained to you how he takes your writing in all CAPS. It is internet custom that all CAPS means yelling. If you didn't intend your remarks to be yelling then you could politely and apologetically explain that you didn't intend to offend him and if you still feel the need for caps you could explain why you think it's necessary. Otherwise you are just being combative and hostile, not what Jesus would do in this case.
To Louis: He might be using caps so that it's easier to separate his words from the words of the other folks in the discussion. That is indeed not the convention, but do we rule conventions or do they rule us?
your friend
keith
I DONT THINK JESUS TYPED, AND I DID NOT KNOW SOMEONE COULD ACTUALLY RAISE THEIR VOICE IN PROSE. I BELIEVE WE ARE ALL ADULTS HERE. EASY MY FRIENDS, EASY.
WHAT I WILL DO IN THE FUTURE IS ITALISIZE WHEN I YELL.
I WILL NOT BE COMBATIVE AT ANY TIME HERE. ONLY STATE MY VIEWS.
I will not answer Ben until he stops using caps.
ARE YOU KIDDING?
I WILL NOT ANSWER LOUIS NOT ANSWERING ME UNLESS HE USES CAPS.
CAPS ARE COOL
Morons.
come on louis. just a little joke. easy man.
any way, all sexual promiscuity leads to problems. that can not be argued against. i think taht is the actual problem here with mrsa.
CAN A GAY BE A CHRISTIAN?
Ben, unless you are a total internet noob, typing in all caps is considered rude "shouting."
But I answered your question above in
Debate: Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?
Does Romans 1 Condemn Homosexuality?
Evangelical and Gay
But essentially, you can become a Christian and still initially be involved in sexual sin, until you move to maturity. You can not become a mature Christian and continue in unrepentant sexual sin, a condition that the Apostle Paul corrected by disfellowshipping such rebellious xians.
Also, such a condition would disqualify one from xian leadership in the church.
So, you could become a Christian as a gay, but you could not continue in it if you intend to become a mature believer, or a church leader. At least, that's how I read the bible.
SEEKER, (sorry i slipped) , seeker, i have lowered my key board volume … my last post on this topic, i hoped that i had shown my repentance.
but anywho, i mostly agree with your post here. although i would say if you are practicing homosexuality, you can be interested in christianity, but not be a confirmed christian, since to be christian means to follow jc's example.
if a person is interested in christianity and a homosexual, then everything should be done to help that person, using the scriptures, see how god feels on the subject.
BAD SEEKER:
Calling someone a INTERNET NOOB(what ever that is) Is a little more rude in my opion than writing in CAPS.
SEEKER YOU SHOULD READ KEITHS QOUTE: Don't try to fix the gran of sand in your brothers eye when you yourself have sand in your own eye……. (something like that)
And Yes i was yelling. RUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BEN,
**if a person is interested in christianity and a homosexual, then everything should be done to help that person, using the scriptures, see how god feels on the subject.***
AIM IN BROTHER!!!
It never occurs to most "Christians", like yourself, that higher disease and mental illness is prevalent in any group of people socially opressed and stigmatized.
If someone told Christians that they were worthless to society, how would they respond?
Oh, we already know, don't we. Thanks for that demonstration atheism, you've proven my point.
Christianity has stopped being about Christ. Few Christians even know what he actually said, and they take Paul's word instead.
This blog is another unfortunate smear on the name of the greatest person to ever live. Jesus was martyred once, why do you have to make him look like a jerk?
It never occurs to most "Christians", like yourself, that higher disease and mental illness is prevalent in any group of people socially oppressed and stigmatized.
Actually, it did occur, but as I mentioned, studies in the Netherlands, where homosexuality is not socially stigmatized, indicate that stigmatization alone does not explain the high correlation of homosexuality with disease, substance abuse, and mental problems. For example:
If someone told Christians that they were worthless to society, how would they respond?
You nean like in China for example, or any other place where Christians are oppressed? I guess we'll have to do studies.
Christianity has stopped being about Christ. Few Christians even know what he actually said, and they take Paul's word instead.
While I agree that most Christians are woefully deficient in their bible knowledge, and have in some cases emphasized political involvement over following Christ personally, your deprecation of Paul's words belies your allegiance with the heretical doctrine of what is being called "red letter" Christianity (Here are some red-letter criticisms).
Such people often ignore the harsher sayings of Jesus, and reject Paul's letters because, quite frankly, they more clearly condemn homosexuality and other sexual sins, and are therfore somehow "less loving."
They willingly forget that Paul wrote what is probably the best-known scripture on love, read at nearly every wedding in the West:
This blog is another unfortunate smear on the name of the greatest person to ever live. Jesus was martyred once, why do you have to make him look like a jerk?
I'm afraid that you will even be offended by the words and acts of Jesus if you observe them closely. How do you feel about these statements he made? Is he now a jerk?
Also, do you think that this blog is somehow trying to kill Jesus? I think your main beef is that you think Jesus would somehow validate homosexuality. But since he validated the Old Testament, which included capital punishment for gays in Israel, I'd say you are mistaken.
seeker wrote:
"…as I mentioned, studies in the Netherlands, where homosexuality is not socially stigmatized, indicate that stigmatization alone does not explain the high correlation of homosexuality with disease, substance abuse, and mental problems."
I agree. Social stigma alone does not account for depressive disorders and associated problems. Biology does:
Gay men and straight women have similar brains, study says:
The brains of gay men resemble those of straight women, according to research published today that provides more evidence of the role of biology in sexual orientation.
Using brain-scanning equipment, researchers said they discovered similarities in the brain circuits that deal with language, perhaps explaining why homosexual men tend to outperform straight men on verbal skills tests — as do heterosexual women.
The area of the brain that processes emotions also looked much the same in gay men and straight women — and both groups have higher rates of depressive disorders than heterosexual men, researchers said.
Interestingly, the research study also indicated a biological origin to hx:
Savic said she thought the brain differences originated in the womb or infancy, probably as a result of genetic or hormonal factors.
And, gay promiscuity partly has a biological basis:
Vilain said his hunch was that the entire brain was not feminized because "gay men have a number of masculine traits that are not present in women." For example, he said, men regardless of sexual orientation tend to be interested in casual sex and are stimulated by sexually suggestive images.
Independent scientific research just keeps piling up against you, seeker.
btw: While Holland may have a greater level of acceptance of gays, social stigmatization hasn't entirely disappeared. For instance, religious discrimination still exists (particularly Islamic).
Independent scientific research just keeps piling up against you, seeker.
You mean *anecdotal* scientific conclusions. You ignore all of the science that indicates the significant, if not majority role of conditioning, as opposed to biology, in homosexuality.
And while genetics may play a part in sexuality, no one would want to defend promiscuity, adultery, or aggression because it may have genetic origins. Like homosexuality, such things are natural, but destructive if we think that they are deterministic.
The study I referenced isn't anecdotal at all. It used "magnetic resonance volumetry of cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres" to study the subjects, not just interviews or statistics, and certainly leads to conclusions more valid than those done by religious-orientated groups which have an obvious ax to grind. While not conclusive, the research here certainly supports the contention that there is a decisive genetic and/or biological component to sexual orientation. Biology or social conditioning? PotAto or potato? I sure both play a role in all human behavior.
And, please, no more of this nonsense about hx people suffering more mental problems for some vague moral reason. The science doesn't support it. Further argumentation along this line will only serve to further prove your bias.
<i?>and certainly leads to conclusions more valid than those done by religious-orientated groups which have an obvious ax to grind.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to answer the *science* of said groups, not merely reject their claims because they have a position (which undoubtedly your quoted scientists have as well).
While not conclusive, the research here certainly supports the contention that there is a decisive genetic and/or biological component to sexual orientation.
There may be. Of course, the researchers did not prove any causality – in fact, the phenomenon they saw may have been a RESULT of homosexual orientation, not a cause.
And the genetic studies give some clear evidence that homoseuxality is largely environmental and NOT genetic.
And, please, no more of this nonsense about hx people suffering more mental problems for some vague moral reason.
Vague moral reason? It is associated with other pathologies, including higher sickness and death, not just suicide, depression, and substance abuse – and a reasonable person might conclude that this reflects on homosexuality itself as being part of an unhealthy self concept and lifestyle. To not suspect so is to be willingly closed minded.
BTW, that LA Times article you site gets off on a great foot by referring back to LeVay's hypothalamus studies (himself a gay activist researcher), which have been largely debunked for poor design:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The very fact that you admit that there is a hx orientation as well as a percentage (they're still arguing about exactly how much) of genetic hardwiring speaks volumes.
What I get from all this is that human sexuality and its origins are mysterious, and certainly not the simplistic and facile one-dimensional meme you propose. I believe, however that, if Jesus Christ Himself were to float down and tell you personally that hx is part of His plan, you would argue the point. For, your aversion is more psychological than scientific (as evidenced by the vomit on your chin and your fondness for Nazi-style rhetoric) – the position of a man panicked by his own repressed desires. How does one argue with a frightened fanatic? One doesn't.
Look! daniel has a soul brother:
You want to know who the biggest hypocrite in the world is? The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals. Hypocrite. The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals – sodomites, queers! That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament … God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.
"God hasn't changed." Neither do fundamentalists, no matter the time or culture. What puzzles me is what happens to a person to make them this way. It almost makes one believe in demonic possession.