Should Christians Oppose Homosexuality?

[judechild]

You know what homosexuality means. You know what oppressed means. In all likelihood, you know exactly what I am talking about. The debate has been laid out for those who accept it.

You are correct that I know what homosexuality means, but you are certainly unclear on the issue. Homosexuality and gay marriage have no necessary connection - by the definition that they've adopted in all areas where gay marriage has been legalized (i.e. no principle of consummation). That you think that gay marriage has something necessary to do with homosexuality (that is, with people engaged in sex), but not with public nudity in gay pride parades, is arbitrary, so I need you to clarify your thinking.

As for oppression; no, I don't know what you think it means. If you think that a definition which excludes same-sex marriage is oppressive, you'd have to explain why. If you think that oppression has to be more than simply refusing a definition that would allow gay marriage, then I just I don't necessarily argue for their oppression, do I? A lot depends on this nebulous little word...

No, you wouldn't have that power... is your odd request to restrict the debate to just that, when you know for dang sure that the general topic of homosexuality covers more than just that.

Sure I'd have that power. Let's say that yes, I accept the debate-question and say "Christians should oppose homosexuality," and then the only issues I bring up in round 1 are that Christians should oppose public nudity during gay-pride parades, and should argue against the philosophical-prerequisite of the dominant gay-lobby that gender is arbitrary and that their are at least five sexes (other theories, as is well known by now, hold that there are many more). How would you respond? You'd have to agree with me on the first question, maybe argue with me on the second one - but would you then argue that homosexual attraction itself is not a sin? If you did that, in round 2, I'd have to agree with you that homosexual attraction itself is not a sin, and argue with you only on the philosophical-prerequisite. In any case, we'd be arguing exactly as I'd determined - unless you're more specific about what you want to argue about.

Arguing about gay marriage will necessarily lead to debating the philosophical-prerequisites, and whether the definition of the re-formulation of gay marriage can be sound. There's plenty enough in that; otherwise, you're going to be trying to pigeon-hole me, and I won't let you; that will only waste time and space.

In any case, I think it's likely that we won't be debating - at least, I doubt anything will come out of it, so I suppose I'll withdraw my challenge.

 

[elopez]

I've been clear. You're just being oddly difficult. You're not even focusing on the key points of outlining the debate. That you are and have been playing out the debate is odd. That you'd purposefully bring up a point in which you know that I agree even to some aegree is what would be a waste of time and space. All I told you is I'm not restricting the debate to a legal one of same set marriage. If that is what disinterests you so be it. I'd like to simply open the topic up for more thought out discussion.

 

[judechild]

I've been clear. You're just being oddly difficult. You're not even focusing on the key points of outlining the debate.

You have not even been able to tell me what you mean by "oppression" even those you use the word as if it is important. That is not clear. You may not be used to dealing with someone who cares about precision, but if that's being "oddly difficult" then I suggest you become a little more odd.

That you'd purposefully bring up a point in which you know that I agree even to some aegree is what would be a waste of time and space.

The reason was to help you see that you're no arbiter of what it means to "oppress homosexuals":

How do I know what you mean by "oppress homosexuals" when you would deny them a very ubiquitous expression of their homosexuality which they - as a community - have chosen? There are plenty in the movement that would call you an oppressor, just on that basis. Are we both oppressors, oh ye who knoweth the definition of oppression, yet cannot tell me?

All I told you is I'm not restricting the debate to a legal one of same set marriage. If that is what disinterests you so be it. I'd like to simply open the topic up for more thought out discussion.

If you can't see how the legal implications would dove-tail into the philosophical underpinnings, then you really haven't done any leg-work. In any case, whomever you do debate will be in for a largely un-interesting debate, I'm afraid.

 

[elopez]

I'm not worried about defining terms at this point. As I've repeatedly stated, I'm interested in setting the outlines of the debate. I don't want to actually debate right now, although that is all you're seeming to want to do. I think you're focused on irrelevant matters at this point in anything that could be called a discussion. You oppose gay marriage but again I don't want to outline the whole debate around that specific, even so so much as to change the debate topic question. Many people could come here, answer yes, and go on to explain how they think homosexuality should be opposed and why.

Well that certainly didn't help as I'm fully aware. I'm not just denying homosexuals, though, as I said I believe that law should be applied to hetero, too. So no, I'm not oppressing, and if someone happened to claim that, they'd be wrong.

Also, how can you not tell I want this to have theological underpins? This would be a Christian ought to Christian. Yes I am open to legal and philosophical ones , yet this discussion should be based on such. And I've participated in one of these before yet on open theology. It was a great thought out debate, and good positive feedback overall.

 

[PastorTeacher]

While I think this would be an interesting topic to debate because the topic of homosexuality can be very wide, meaning, having "sub topics", it may be hard to debate in it's fullness. For example: I believe that gays should be allowed to marry, but I don't believe anyone should be forced to officiate a wedding if they do not agree with it-which is what's happening. Also, I believe that we as Christians should condemn the sin, but love the sinner-the whole plank in the eye. Perhaps by dividing homosexuality into "sub topics" for debate might be more beneficial instead of debating the "whole spectrum" of homosexuality, as some might "be for gay marriage" but against the actual sin of homosexuality. Just a thought.

 

[elopez]

While I doubt this debate could even cover the whole "spectrum" of the topic, I'm sure it could cover more than just one sub topic.

 

[elopez]

And aside from that, specifically between you and I, I'm not sure there'd be much debate of those sub topics.

 

[PastorTeacher]

what do you mean?

 

[elopez]

I mean it seems you don't really oppose homosexuality, at least not enough to have a debate with me on it.

 

[PastorTeacher]

I do oppose the act, not the person. But I see what you are saying, I don't oppose it enough to make a good debate out of it, which I agree.

 

[CryOfALion]

If you are a Christian, sure you can oppose homosexuality like one would lies. But, as a Christian, you know at least once you have sinned, which means you deserve death.

Calling the Sin homosexuality, or convincing a child Santa exists draws the same temperature of "
deserving "flame" from God. All humans deserve the same hell and death, but somehow we have accepted homosexuals are more of bans than adulterers, liars, fornicatiors, pharisees, false prophets, gossipers, revilers, tempters, etc.

To God, we are all in the same unfortunate boat. So, I see no reasons why Christians shouldn't oppose the offense, but embrace the offender. Judgment shouldn't be an issue of worry for the offender or offended - if we are, in fact, Children of The Most High, following His Son.

 

[endofrope]

I personally oppose thievery in principle and at every instance I personally encounter, yet I get the impression that somewhere, somehow, people are being sneaky and continuing to steal.

Politically, and in our culture, I do not support gay marriage or civil unions or such, but I try to remember that this world is going from bad to worse, it's all going to burn one day, and that in the midst of this mess, sinners are coming to Christ. I have written letters to legislators. I have participated in vigils. We our outnumbered on this issue locally, and you cannot legislate Christ into peoples' hearts.

 

[humbleServant77]

I think the problem with this thread is that the statement "oppose homosexuality" makes no sense; it's a non-statement. What does it even mean?

I think you need to be willing to re-frame the debate. I could offer ideas, but it seems many have been offered already, only to be shot down.

 

[elopez]

I think the issue is people may not want to take this issue on in such a context. The statement makes no less sense than as another poster said that he "personally opposes thievery." Surely that is a statement, not a non - statement.

There isn't even anything to reframe lol. This is the place to do just that. I'm just not interested in only debating the legal aspect of this issue. I want to open the discussion to the theological side as well as that,.

 

[humbleServant77]

I personally oppose thievery. For me to personally oppose homosexuality could only mean that I myself am straight. But when it comes to thievery, I would stop someone else in the act given the opportunity. There is no real parallel to homosexuality. (Unless you're even more vile than the WBC and would punch homos in the mouth, I guess?)

Your argument needs to be framed into something meaningful. For example, your current Pope is quite a likable guy, who makes waves. If I'm not mistaken, he recently said something to the effect that homosexuals should be accepted into the Church. No doubt celibacy would still be taught. Is this "against homosexuality?" Well, yes and no. You'd need to frame these things.

 

[elopez]

I personally oppose thievery. For me to personally oppose homosexuality could only mean that I myself am straight. But when it comes to thievery, I would stop someone else in the act given the opportunity. There is no real parallel to homosexuality. (Unless you're even more vile than the WBC and would punch homos in the mouth, I guess?)

Well, would you punch someone in the mouth to stop them from stealing? What if it was an adolescent? Surely not. You'd go about some other way of preventing it, say more practical. Same could be said for homosexuality in the context of opposing it.

Your argument needs to be framed into something meaningful. For example, your current Pope is quite a likable guy, who makes waves. If I'm not mistaken, he recently said something to the effect that homosexuals should be accepted into the Church. No doubt celibacy would still be taught. Is this "against homosexuality?" Well, yes and no. You'd need to frame these things.

I'm not even arguing here lol. Again, this is the lace to set terms for the argument, which is what I'm trying to do. The actual debate does not occur in this forum. What I'm asking for is so simple: one who opposes homosexuality in any context agree to discuss the issue with me, however, I'd like to cover more than just one context of this discussion. We can talk about the pope. We can talk about the politics of it. The theology side of it. I just don't want the debate to focus on only ONE of those things.

 

[humbleServant77]

Well, would you punch someone in the mouth to stop them from stealing? What if it was an adolescent? Surely not.

Some 12 year olds who are far larger than me have been in the news lately, and a punch in the mouth would have been the least of their problems. Yes I would, if I felt that was the only way to stop the crime.

You'd go about some other way of preventing it, say more practical. Same could be said for homosexuality in the context of opposing it.

Now you're seeing my point about the problem with your argument, why you're not getting any takers. Nobody's "trying to prevent homosexuality." Again, the statement doesn't even make sense. Preventing robbery does.

I'm not even arguing here lol. Again, this is the lace to set terms for the argument, which is what I'm trying to do. The actual debate does not occur in this forum. What I'm asking for is so simple: one who opposes homosexuality in any context agree to discuss the issue with me, however, I'd like to cover more than just one context of this discussion. We can talk about the pope. We can talk about the politics of it. The theology side of it. I just don't want the debate to focus on only ONE of those things.

Ok there, I bolded part of your statement. That's pretty open-ended! I'm not sure if that will make people more likely to debate you, or less? I'll keep my eye on this thread to see if it develops ...

 

[elopez]

Some 12 year olds who are far larger than me have been in the news lately, and a punch in the mouth would have been the least of their problems. Yes I would, if I felt that was the only way to stop the crime.

12 year olds, huh? How big compared to you?

Would Christ have prevented the robbery as you described?

Now you're seeing my point about the problem with your argument, why you're not getting any takers. Nobody's "trying to prevent homosexuality." Again, the statement doesn't even make sense. Preventing robbery does.

I don't think you have a point. People, specifically Christians, are trying to prevent certain areas of homosexuality. They don't think they should be married so it's banned. They shouldn't get benefits so they are blocked. And so on. So, I don't think the issue is with the idea of homosexuality being prevented in a sense, as it clearly is. I think know the issue is those who agree that it should be opposed to whatever extent either cannot truly justify themselves or the position is just too conflicting to portray.

Ok there, I bolded part of your statement. That's pretty open-ended! I'm not sure if that will make people more likely to debate you, or less? I'll keep my eye on this thread to see if it develops ...

That's what I've been saying this whole time...

 

[Inkfingers]

I think the problem with this thread is that the statement "oppose homosexuality" makes no sense; it's a non-statement. What does it even mean?

I agree.

It would be better to say something more like "Should Christians oppose the normalising of homosexuality in society" or "Should Christians teach against the normalising of homosexuality in society".

 

[elopez]

It would be better to say something more like "Should Christians oppose the normalising of homosexuality in society" or "Should Christians teach against the normalising of homosexuality in society".

Both of those things are in fact opposing homosexuality. They can be specified on in the debate...