Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Here is a question for you all: If there are verses in the bible that says that women are inferior and slaves should obey their masters, then why did Woman’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements occur? Are they against the bible? Some people in those eras used bible verses to condemn woman rights and african americans getting equal rights. How is gay rights any different?

SL, you can write shorts posts that require dissertations to answer! These are all good questions, but there are no short answers to these. But I'll have to try.

The Bible says men and women are made in the image of God, both of them. As such, they both carry equal and inherent value and worth.

In speaking of husbands and wives, wives are to submit, but husbands are to love with a love that would figuratively and literally die for their wives (just like Christ laid His life down). Both parties are called to sacrifice for the sake of the other. There is no inferiority/superiority there.

I can imagine you are thinking of some other specific passages when you say "the bible says women are inferior", and I can tell you I won't have time any time soon to deal with the specifics and still get to my already existing backlog, but there is much to say on this topic.

I can also sum it up by saying the Bible never says being a woman is a sin. It also never says being black is a sin. Those are both states of being.

For the record it also never says being gay is a sin. That is a state of being.

But it does say gay sex is a sin. It's not a state of being. It's an action. That's the sin.

As far as the politics of gay rights, it's different from women's rights and african american rights. Women and african american rights are about voting, employment, schooling, segregation, etc. They did not have the same rights and were fighting for equal rights.

But gay people have always had the exact same rights as every other person regarding marriage. Everyone can marry someone within certain parameters. Those parameters are:
1. not already married
2. not underage
3. not of the same gender
4. not a different species
5. not too closely related

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

But what gay rights are fighting for are the right to marry who you are attracted to. Well, that's never been an outright right for anyone without meeting certain conditions. There are always boundaries to marriage. Gay rights sought to change the boundaries, the definition of marriage. To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.

With the argument being "I should be able to marry whoever I'm attracted to" that forced an erosion of the same-sex boundary, which necessarily lends itself to the erosion of the other boundaries. The reason and logic and argument against "why shouldn't I be able to have multiple husbands/wives then?" erodes with it, as well as "who cares if they are underage, if we are both attracted and want it, what's the problem?" There are cascading moral repercussions to the way things have gone.

I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

SL, you can write shorts posts that require dissertations to answer! These are all good questions, but there are no short answers to these. But I'll have to try.

The Bible says men and women are made in the image of God, both of them. As such, they both carry equal and inherent value and worth.

In speaking of husbands and wives, wives are to submit, but husbands are to love with a love that would figuratively and literally die for their wives (just like Christ laid His life down). Both parties are called to sacrifice for the sake of the other. There is no inferiority/superiority there.

I can imagine you are thinking of some other specific passages when you say "the bible says women are inferior", and I can tell you I won't have time any time soon to deal with the specifics and still get to my already existing backlog, but there is much to say on this topic.

I can also sum it up by saying the Bible never says being a woman is a sin. It also never says being black is a sin. Those are both states of being.

For the record it also never says being gay is a sin. That is a state of being.

But it does say gay sex is a sin. It's not a state of being. It's an action. That's the sin.

As far as the politics of gay rights, it's different from women's rights and african american rights. Women and african american rights are about voting, employment, schooling, segregation, etc. They did not have the same rights and were fighting for equal rights.

But gay people have always had the exact same rights as every other person regarding marriage. Everyone can marry someone within certain parameters. Those parameters are:
1. not already married
2. not underage
3. not of the same gender
4. not a different species
5. not too closely related

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

But what gay rights are fighting for are the right to marry who you are attracted to. Well, that's never been an outright right for anyone without meeting certain conditions. There are always boundaries to marriage. Gay rights sought to change the boundaries, the definition of marriage. To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.

With the argument being "I should be able to marry whoever I'm attracted to" that forced an erosion of the same-sex boundary, which necessarily lends itself to the erosion of the other boundaries. The reason and logic and argument against "why shouldn't I be able to have multiple husbands/wives then?" erodes with it, as well as "who cares if they are underage, if we are both attracted and want it, what's the problem?" There are cascading moral repercussions to the way things have gone.

I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

Where does parameter 3 come from? Black people can marry. Women can marry. gay people cant marry. That’s fair? I disagree, being gay is a state of being which encompasses everything that has to do with gay attractions, including intimacy. Just like you cant take such an important part of being a woman which is also intimacy or black people which is also intimacy. You cant take away the attractions. To deny gay people their rights to marry is to deny their right to intimacy, such an important component of healthy human relations. Yes I understand your post is supposed to be intellectual but you cannot look at the issue of humanity with just this lens. If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature. The only two choices for them is to not marry or marry an opposite gender with zero intimacy. Thats not the same “rights” as a person who is heterosexual, able to enjoy intimacy in their relationship.

In addition, comparing gay couples to incest or polygamy is like comparing apples to oranges. Gay couples can have lasting healthy relationships within marriage. Incest leads to birth defects. Polygamy can lead to jealousy between the wives. Can you tell me one negative thing gay marriage can lead to for the gay couple? If you look at the condition “clinically” as you said, gayness is not a disease or aberration psychologically, mentally, emotionally.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Where does parameter 3 come from? Black people can marry. Women can marry. gay people cant marry. That’s fair? I disagree, being gay is a state of being which encompasses everything that has to do with gay attractions, including intimacy. Just like you cant take such an important part of being a woman which is also intimacy or black people which is also intimacy. You cant take away the attractions. To deny gay people their rights to marry is to deny their right to intimacy, such an important component of healthy human relations. Yes I understand your post is supposed to be intellectual but you cannot look at the issue of humanity with just this lens. If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature. The only two choices for them is to not marry or marry an opposite gender with zero intimacy. Thats not the same “rights” as a person who is heterosexual, able to enjoy intimacy in their relationship.

In addition, comparing gay couples to incest or polygamy is like comparing apples to oranges. Gay couples can have lasting healthy relationships within marriage. Incest leads to birth defects. Polygamy can lead to jealousy between the wives. Can you tell me one negative thing gay marriage can lead to for the gay couple? If you look at the condition “clinically” as you said, gayness is not a disease or aberration psychologically, mentally, emotionally.

Parameter 3 comes from:

1. God
2. the Bible
3. all of human history
4. outward design
5. inward biology

Of course gay people can marry. They can marry anyone within those boundaries just like everyone else. Like I said in my post, the right to marry has not been denied gay people, but the right to marry "whoever I'm attracted to" has NEVER been a blanket right for ANYONE.

Again, this post is going to be clinical and cold. It is not personal towards you. It does not mean I don't care a lot. But the cold hard truth is that COUNTLESS people don't get to have their "right to intimacy", for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with LGBT issues.

-mental retardation
-physical defects
-illness that takes their life prematurely
-car accident paralyzing them, leaving them without the ability to feel sexual pleasure
-heterosexuals for whom God doesn't answer their desperate pleas
-people who were married but their spouses divorced them for unbiblical reasons leaving them unable to remarry and have sex while they wait on their ex-spouse to break the marriage covenant sexually.....I know too many like this
-etc

Life is suffering. Period. We are not here for this world. We are on a plane ride on a broken down plane and we all have to jump with a parachute when the plane goes down. The parachute is Jesus, who saves us from death.

What we've done is think that while we are on this broken down doomed plane we are entitled to everything our heart desires, but that focus is completely wrong.

Remember, you are speaking to someone who knows every second of every day that we don't all have a "right to intimacy" however we want it.

I never compared gay couples to incest. That parameter was on the list, but it wasn't a comparison TO gay couples.

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes. Remember, God took woman FROM man. They are part of the same whole. And when they come together again in marriage and in sex, they complete the whole as God designed it. God created it and called it "good". But then humankind comes along and takes two halves that were never meant to be together, never part of the design, never called "good" but is actually called a serious sin in God's eyes, and tries to say that the action of coming together in that way is laudable and holy and approved and blessed by God.

The negative thing that can happen for the gay married couple? Finding out what it means to fall into the hands of the living God who has made it repeatedly clear that homosexuals who practice same-sex relations won't make it into the kingdom of God. Finding out what the wrath of God is. Finding out just how seriously God takes sin. Finding out that God is not all-forgiving, but punishes all sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed one single time, and their punishment was death. I would say that's a pretty negative consequence for gay married couples.

This is the same argument for two committed heterosexuals living together their whole life, having sex but not being married. "What's the one negative thing that can lead to?" Plenty of people do it. It's normal in this society now. But the negative thing is that God has said very clearly that it is sin in His eyes.

Don't mistake God's patience and kindness as His approval.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Parameter 3 comes from:

1. God
2. the Bible
3. all of human history
4. outward design
5. inward biology

but the right to marry "whoever I'm attracted to" has NEVER been a blanket right for ANYONE.

Remember, you are speaking to someone who knows every second of every day that we don't all have a "right to intimacy" however we want it.

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes.

I would have to disagree with you on numbers 3-5
3) not All of human history-homosexuality has been around since the dawn of civilization- the Greeks and Romans practiced it, the Native Americans practiced it
4) outward design- The women's sensory spots are within reach of their arms and hands. You still have to answer my previous rebuttals on masturbation.
5) inward biology- I won't repeat what was on my previous thread but there are evidences of both inborn traits from the womb and genetics that result in sexual orientation. Some people are born intersex

So in the end, only God and the Bible are your sources. God evolved over time, as you can see from varying degrees of New Testament and Old Testament divine inspirations. The Bible was written by man.

And "repeated over and over on this thread", it seems like you are only reading you and the other Bible literalists' points of views on here, and disregard what Awareness and I repeat over and over.

"spiritual lens"- you mean "Bible literalists" lens.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The negative thing that can happen for the gay married couple? Finding out what it means to fall into the hands of the living God who has made it repeatedly clear that homosexuals who practice same-sex relations won't make it into the kingdom of God. Finding out what the wrath of God is. Finding out just how seriously God takes sin. Finding out that God is not all-forgiving, but punishes all sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed one single time, and their punishment was death. I would say that's a pretty negative consequence for gay married couples.

But the negative thing is that God has said very clearly that it is sin in His eyes.

Don't mistake God's patience and kindness as His approval.

Thank you Trapped, it seems like you take Paul's words at face value, because that his books are the only books in the bible that claim those with homosexuality don't enter the kingdom of God. And due to previous discussions, you and I have different ideas of what the Greek term for "homosexuality" actually means, so in the end, it's pretty vague on what kind of homosexuals we are talking about here- men having sex with boys, temple prostitutes, boy slaves? or gang rape form Sodom and Gomorrah?

Everyone dies, not just same sex couples. The fact that God is not all forgiving contradicts God as forgiving. I thought Jesus took care of that.

Sons of Glory said that me and my sweetheart wont end up in hell and you imply that we will not enter into the kingdom of God. Where do gay couples end up? I hope it's in a land of unicorns and fairies so I don't have to deal with people who threaten homosexuals for using God to condemn them.

still don't see God stating it's a sin clearly, only writers in the bible who are interpreted by later readers that it's a sin.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So in the end, only God and the Bible are your sources. God evolved over time, as you can see from varying degrees of New Testament and Old Testament divine inspirations. The Bible was written by man.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Thank you Trapped, it seems like you take Paul's words at face value, because that his books are the only books in the bible that claim those with homosexuality don't enter the kingdom of God. And due to previous discussions, you and I have different ideas of what the Greek term for "homosexuality" actually means, so in the end, it's pretty vague on what kind of homosexuals we are talking about here- men having sex with boys, temple prostitutes, boy slaves? or gang rape form Sodom and Gomorrah?

Everyone dies, not just same sex couples. The fact that God is not all forgiving contradicts God as forgiving. I thought Jesus took care of that.

Sons of Glory said that me and my sweetheart wont end up in hell and you imply that we will not enter into the kingdom of God. Where do gay couples end up? I hope it's in a land of unicorns and fairies so I don't have to deal with people who threaten homosexuals for using God to condemn them.

still don't see God stating it's a sin clearly, only writers in the bible who are interpreted by later readers that it's a sin.

And that pretty much sums up where things stand on this thread (bolded quotes above). Not much good presenting you with things from the Bible . . . because you don't believe it's veracity. So ultimately this kind of discussion is futile . . .

However, if the Bible is indeed the word of God, then the verses conveyed by various ones on here, will have some impact. Maybe not immediately apparent now, but He says, "My word will not return unto me void." So, I pray, let us let the word and the Spirit do it's work in people's hearts, and shine loving light as He may!

And a word on hell and the kingdom. Christians - those who have Christ's life in them - are not eternally damned. We are His children. However, there is still accountability for Christians, as the word says, "For things done in the body." Therefore there are rewards for what we do on earth now, or there may be loss, but not eternal fire.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

but He says, "My word will not return unto me void."

The whole verse:

Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.


Look up the "word" in Strong's. My goodness, it's used over 1400 times, and is all over the place.

But what's most critical about the verse is the last statement : and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it

That means it's a living word. Not a dead letter word. Like the verse.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature.

As has been discussed on here, it is not against their "God given nature." It is an aberration, something off-the-mark (sin) that occurred after God's perfect creation.

Trapped put it very well as is quoted again below. Sin is a very basic idea in the Bible, and therefore why we need The Savior!

Originally Posted by Trapped

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes. Remember, God took woman FROM man. They are part of the same whole. And when they come together again in marriage and in sex, they complete the whole as God designed it. God created it and called it "good". But then humankind comes along and takes two halves that were never meant to be together, never part of the design, never called "good" but is actually called a serious sin in God's eyes, and tries to say that the action of coming together in that way is laudable and holy and approved and blessed by God.

As an example to this last part, it is like me getting drunk and committing adultery and then saying God fully approves of it! (these things, like gay actions, are all off the mark)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature.

But gay sex between married gay couples is not sin.

And God, in the Bible, is not against getting drunk. And I suppose you'd throw the first stone.

And Trapped, your posts are great, and well thought out, but wrong in so many places.

I won't belabor them, but just one : The idea that we're all made in God's image, so we're all equal. Not only have we humans not practiced that, but neither does God. Example : God's chosen people, the equal Israelite's, and then all the rest of unequal image bearers.

And Sons to Glory. As far as I tell in the Bible, God has never had a perfect creation. He said it was "good," but not "perfect." And it was neither.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

But gay sex between married gay couples is not sin.

And God, in the Bible, is not against getting drunk. And I suppose you'd throw the first stone.

And Trapped, your posts are great, and well thought out, but wrong in so many places.

I won't belabor them, but just one : The idea that we're all made in God's image, so we're all equal. Not only have we humans not practiced that, but neither does God. Example : God's chosen people, the equal Israelite's, and then all the rest of unequal image bearers.

And Sons to Glory. As far as I tell in the Bible, God has never had a perfect creation. He said it was "good," but not "perfect." And it was neither.

WOW - what can one say to these responses?! I am speaking to a believer in the God of the Bible here, right?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

WOW - what can one say to these responses?! I am speaking to a believer in the God of the Bible here, right?

It is confusing. I don't like the God of the OT, but I'm a big fan of the God of the NT, except for Revelation. That book brings back the OT God.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

It is confusing. I don't like the God of the OT, but I'm a big fan of the God of the NT, except for Revelation. That book brings back the OT God.

I can sorta understand that. The God of the OT was dealing with us according to the law and was all about righteousness to the inth degree, with not much grace. Yet He showed mercy to those who trusted Him. Then when He came in the person of Christ, we got His provision/gift for sin, and along with it grace and truth.

BTW - the book of Revelation is about love.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.


I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

During the Civil rights movement, proponents of black slavery were using Ephesians 5:6 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

African Americans had to change the parameters to get what they deserved.

1st Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Women rights were trying to change this parameter to become teachers and enter educational fields