• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Should Christians evangelize gays?

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
Gay: Male homosexual. Homosexual sex with people of the same male gender.

Lesbian: Female homosexual. Homosexual sex with people of the same female gender.

Bi-Sexual: Sex with anyone of any gender.

Transgendered: Whatever?

GLBT.

All denote sexual behavior desired, sought or engaged in.

No - as I've told you before: gay, lesbian, and bisexual are not about who people have sex with - they're about who people are likely to be romantically and physically attracted to. A homosexual person is likely to be romantically and physically attracted to someone of the same gender as him or herself. A bisexual person is likely to be attracted to people of either gender. A heterosexual person is likely to be attracted to people of the opposite gender to him/herself. But just because the attraction is there (or potentially there) says nothing about whether any sexual activity is taking place.

(I'm bisexual myself; but I'll only be having sex with my fiancee after our wedding night, and I'm not likely to be having sex with any men at all because we've committed to be faithful to each other. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm bisexual.)

And it's definitely not about desiring or seeking sexual behaviour. I don't know where on earth you get these ideas from.

David.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wanderingone
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No - as I've told you before: gay, lesbian, and bisexual are not about who people have sex with - they're about who people are likely to be romantically and physically attracted to. A homosexual person is likely to be romantically and physically attracted to someone of the same gender as him or herself. A bisexual person is likely to be attracted to people of either gender. A heterosexual person is likely to be attracted to people of the opposite gender to him/herself. But just because the attraction is there (or potentially there) says nothing about whether any sexual activity is taking place.

Talk about strawmen. You make out the GLBT community as next to monastery life of solemn and prayful monks. yet, reality in the city shows it for what it is.

You can spin it as you want to, but as the New Testament writers present Church life, same-gender sex acts are inappropriate for believers. And GLBT is denoting who the adherants are having sex with. The Gay Community and its Culture as fluffy bunny routine is not a sound position. Christians do not oppose homosexuality because it is just an uncomfortable "idea." They oppose it for real reasons.

(I'm bisexual myself; but I'll only be having sex with my fiancee after our wedding night, and I'm not likely to be having sex with any men at all because we've committed to be faithful to each other. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm bisexual.)

I "really" like curvy blonde women (plural) but I don't act on it "as a Christian." Though thoughts can be sinful, (thanks loads Jesus) the issue with GLBT's is their desire to promote homosexual sex. Plain and simple.

And it's definitely not about desiring or seeking sexual behaviour. I don't know where on earth you get these ideas from.

Reality maybe?
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I "really" like curvy blonde women (plural) but I don't act on it "as a Christian." Though thoughts can be sinful, (thanks loads Jesus) the issue with GLBT's is their desire to promote homosexual sex. Plain and simple.

Even when they've already stated that that is not the plan they have *for their own life,* let alone anybody else's?

Reality maybe?
Well...the reality of life in, say, my house (two geeky young women, best friends for ever, not "involved") is very different than the reality of life in my neighbor's house, (a young adult couple, with a baby).

Certainly, what you are describing is reality *for some people* *at some times.* But it is definitely does not describe most gay people's lives. Judging from what you are citing as your experience of "reality," I'd say you need to stop hanging out in glory-hole filled truck stop restrooms and find a healthier crowd.
 
Upvote 0

PetersKeys

Traditionalist Catholic , Paleo-conservative
Mar 4, 2008
536
36
42
✟8,376.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, it would appear that you are wrong about people defining themselves based on "sexual acts" -- married people definitely use being married to define who they are. And according to many here, the definition of marriage is to have sex with someone to start a family.

Now, you'll probably try to claim that marriage is so much more, that it is based far more on getting along and loving that person you married outside of sex. However, when homosexuals try to say the same you disagree and say simply it is only about sex. So it doesn't matter which definition you decide on, either way it shows you are trying to judge based on a double standard.


First off marriage in itself started off as a religious sacrament in the book of Genesis LONG before it was a government issue. The prerequisites for marriage is always between a man and a woman. Those prerequisites of marriage define what it is in the first place. Change it and it ceases to be marriage because it deviates from its original meaning and definition.

A man cannot love another man the way a man loves a woman. There is no chivalry in same sex unions. Yes the couple may greatly like each other in what they consider to be love, but there is no chivalry and feminine nature that the male clings to when he marrys his wife. There is a certain essence that only a woman has that a man responds to in a special way, and visa-versa. The chivalry of the man finding the woman he loves and the woman finding the man of her dreams. Without that chivalry between man and woman in marriage it pretty much dosen't work.
 
Upvote 0

HaloHope

Senior Member
May 25, 2007
506
165
✟17,438.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
A man cannot love another man the way a man loves a woman. There is no chivalry in same sex unions. Yes the couple may greatly like each other in what they consider to be love, but there is no chivalry and feminine nature that the male clings to when he marrys his wife. There is a certain essence that only a woman has that a man responds to in a special way, and visa-versa. The chivalry of the man finding the woman he loves and the woman finding the man of her dreams. Without that chivalry between man and woman in marriage it pretty much dosen't work.

You have absolutely no evidence in regards to this. There can be plenty of chivalry in same sex unions. I cant speak for all gay couples of course but my girlfreind certainly "clings to my feminine nature". If a man was to attempt to cling to me in a similar way I'd probably vomit all over him. I can assure you that the "man" of my dreams is definately not male, but female and our soon to be marriage will work just as well as our commited relationship does i.e. exactly the same as a happy hetrosexual marriage.
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
A man cannot love another man the way a man loves a woman. There is no chivalry in same sex unions. Yes the couple may greatly like each other in what they consider to be love, but there is no chivalry and feminine nature that the male clings to when he marrys his wife. There is a certain essence that only a woman has that a man responds to in a special way, and visa-versa. The chivalry of the man finding the woman he loves and the woman finding the man of her dreams. Without that chivalry between man and woman in marriage it pretty much dosen't work.


Chivalric man of my dreams? Does he ride a stallion and speak in poetry?

sorry, I'm not violating what would *truly* make me happy in favor of something out of a faerie tale.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Then a man cannot love another man the way a man loves a woman.
And a man cannot love a woman the way a man loves a man. So?
There is no chivalry in same sex unions. Yes the couple may greatly like each other in what they consider to be love, but there is no chivalry and feminine nature that the male clings to when he marrys his wife. There is a certain essence that only a woman has that a man responds to in a special way, and visa-versa. The chivalry of the man finding the woman he loves and the woman finding the man of her dreams. Without that chivalry between man and woman in marriage it pretty much dosen't work.
You should get out more. This sounds like taken from a script for a dime novel.

Chivalry, tsk. :doh:

There is a certain essence that only a woman has that a man responds to in a special way, and visa-versa.
That´s probably somewhat true for heterosexuals. Whilst for homesexuals there´s this certain essence that a man has and that a homosexual responds to in a special way. Same goes for lesbians accordingly.

The lack of the "feminine nature" (whatever that may be) in homosexual relationships would be compensated by the doubled "chivalry" (whatever that may be).
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, that´s an outdated model. Today´s chivalric man of your dreams anonymously posts anti-gay propaganda on a message board.

That's funny...I'm almost certain that I've *never* had that dream. Last night I *did* dream about cuddling (fully clothed cuddling, mind you) a certain red-headed friend I've always been fond of. Annoyingly, she is straight and married but hey, a girl can dream.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
That's funny...I'm almost certain that I've *never* had that dream. Last night I *did* dream about cuddling (fully clothed cuddling, mind you) a certain red-headed friend I've always been fond of. Annoyingly, she is straight and married but hey, a girl can dream.
I´ sure there is a sin somewhere in there. If everything else fails I reserve the right to claim that you chose to choose this dream, (ab)using your freewill.
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I´ sure there is a sin somewhere in there. If everything else fails I reserve the right to claim that you chose to choose this dream, (ab)using your freewill.

Can this sin be balanced by the previous dream, in which I gave cookies to young Japanese boys who, for some reason, were racing sailboats from Australia to Boston with no food?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Can this sin be balanced by the previous dream, in which I gave cookies to young Japanese boys who, for some reason, were racing sailboats from Australia to Boston with no food?
At best this dream gains you an E for effort and an I for good intentions.
Chivalry goes man->woman, and not woman->man (the latter being an abomination). This has been explained before, hasn´t it?
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟64,868.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
First off marriage in itself started off as a religious sacrament in the book of Genesis LONG before it was a government issue.

And we can find historical records that show marriage predate the Bible. As for Christianity, it did not become a "sacrament" until at least 1545; this is the time that Catholics started requiring priests to perform marriage ceremonies. For the first millennium of Christianity marriages were not even allowed to be performed in church.

The prerequisites for marriage is always between a man and a woman.

Actually, the prerequisites for marriage have changed throughout history. Even the Bible has plenty of examples of one man and multiple women. History also provides us records of same sex marriages.

Those prerequisites of marriage define what it is in the first place. Change it and it ceases to be marriage because it deviates from its original meaning and definition.

In that case, I suppose marriage already has no meaning. As mentioned above, the prerequisites for marriage have changed multiple times throughout history. Even how we view marriage has changed drastically, since not so long ago women were considered the property of their husbands.

A man cannot love another man the way a man loves a woman.

Let me add my voice to others here who disagree with you, at least from the relationships of gay friends. Though you are more than welcome to provide evidence in an attempt to prove your claim.

There is no chivalry in same sex unions. Yes the couple may greatly like each other in what they consider to be love, but there is no chivalry and feminine nature that the male clings to when he marrys his wife.

Again, what I have personally seen between gay couples contradicts your claim. While anecdotal evidence is typically not enough, in this case it does appear to disprove your claim since you are claiming it can't exist at all. Therefore, any evidence to the contrary proves you wrong. Again, can you provide any evidence at all?

There is a certain essence that only a woman has that a man responds to in a special way, and visa-versa.

Yes, that "essence" is called pheromones. Problem is, studies show that gay men respond to the pheromones of other men in the same way women respond to the same pheromones. Consider yourself proven wrong on this count.

The chivalry of the man finding the woman he loves and the woman finding the man of her dreams. Without that chivalry between man and woman in marriage it pretty much dosen't work.

Sorry, you'll have to prove your outrageous statements. Especially given the evidence to the contrary.
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
At best this dream gains you an E for effort and an I for good intentions.
Chivalry goes man->woman, and not woman->man (the latter being an abomination). This has been explained before, hasn´t it?

I'm sure it was. I was probably doing something like blacksmithing at the time, and couldn't hear it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quatona
Upvote 0

Caylin

Formerly Dracon427
Feb 15, 2004
7,066
316
40
Olympia, Washington
✟24,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Gay: Male homosexual. Homosexual sex with people of the same male gender.

Lesbian: Female homosexual. Homosexual sex with people of the same female gender.

Bi-Sexual: Sex with anyone of any gender.

Transgendered: Whatever?

GLBT.

All denote sexual behavior desired, sought or engaged in.

Mr Johnson, is just a man in my Church. He has never labeled himself by his sexual thoughts or actions. But, is he being a bigot or hateful for labeling himself "Mr" ??? This gay rights thing puts a damper on everything.

You have no idea what transgendered means, do you?
 
Upvote 0