I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

Originally posted by spw184

Well maybe if people like you wouldn't discriminate against us and tell us that we're going to burn in hell every day, than maybe we wouldn't drink and have violent behaviors. There is also a reason that homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide. Add up the facts bibleboy.

As far as hiv, yes that is a majority "gay" illness, however HETEROSEXUALS are the fastest growing group.

You can't blame other people for ones own problems. That's not a good excuse. Just because people disagree with homosexuality doesn't give them a free license for violent behavior. They just don't want to take responsibility for their bad behavior. No one forces them to go get high on meth and have sex with hundreds if not thousands of partners a year. No one forces them to behave violently to the same gender person they are living with.

I'd like to see that statistics on heterosexuals are the fasting growing group. You didn't cite any sources. Perhaps they are getting HIV from bisexuals?

reply to post by GNUFanx86


Are you homophobic? Because you sure as hell sound like it.

Hundreds if not thousands? For me to have one thousand partners, I would have to have sex with 3 guys a day.
Being gay does not mean you are slutty, It does not mean you are flaming, it does not mean you look good, you do not have to wear makeup, you do not have to like fashion. You can be chasite, you can be catholic, you can go to church, you can worship a god, you can be clean of drugs, you can whoever and whatever you want to be.

The same argument your using is the same argument that was used against blacks and is being used against mexicans. Soon you will see the error of your ways.


I hope your kids are gay

reply to post by DRAZIW


Again, you are misinterpreting/ purposely selective. I was talking about humans. 1+1=2 is NOT a valid comparison. Humans, no matter how sure they are of something that isn't tangible will always have passing thoughts of "what if..."- you may suppress them (or ignore them like you are so good at) but they will still occur.

I said it earlier but a complete void of self- doubt is normally considered a tenet of psychopathy.

And until you prove me wrong, you have no right to tell me that I should doubt my knowledge.

And I say you have no right to claim a whimsical belief as 'knowledge'.

And I believe you try to validate all you claim to know with verses of the bible and criticising others to attempt to validate your beliefs which cannot be 'known'.

I don't call anything 'good'- certainly not myself or my actions: I would consider that self-righteous and obnoxious.

I don't follow all the laws in the Bible. God gave me a brain to use. I only follow those laws that I can understand.

If you follow any part of the Bible then you are presumably endorsing it as at least ascribed to god. If you then simply choose which parts to follow then that is not really christianity. I cannot belief you accused me of abdicating responsibility because of doubt! This is the ultimate in arranging your beliefs because you disagree/ don't understand certain parts- how is that any different to what I have done except I've gone further to 'use my brain' (as you put it) and not believe in any of it.

But, you don't have the freedom to disobey and claim you're obeying at the same time.

Hmmm. Comparison/ contradiction here somewhere?

They are allowed to do wrong by the Lord. They are not allowed to call the wrong action right though. They are not allowed to change the words of the book.

Right, so you not following all the laws of the Bible isn't you changing the words for yourself?

It doesn't matter whether the woman consented or not. In those days, it was the father's consent the man needed.

Oh dear. I won't repeat RedGod's response- but it is very valid. Why would cultural evolution change anything- is the law of god dependent on societies norms? Do you see the implication there?


I'm just amazed that you have posted so many contradictions in your last few posts. Your sources have always been the bible and now you say because you 'have a brain' you know not to follow all of the bible! A little picky about what you want your God to be- though that's hardly a surprise the way have desperately attempted to make it seem obvious to yourself.

I agree with the above post, how can you consider religous beliefs "Knowledge" Its not knowledge, you know nothing about it. There is no fact, which means you can know nothing. I am catholic and I believe it, but i do not "Know" it.

reply to post by spw184


Nice try with the ad hominem attack. Just because a person doesn't agree with homosexuality doesn't make them homophobic.

Those hundreds if not thousands of partners is a fact my friend.

Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men... 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.

www.exodusglobalalliance.org...

Facts are facts you can't deny that. Homosexuals have an extremely high rate of sex with many, many partners and are more prone to STDs such as HIV/AIDS.

Originally posted by spw184

 

 

How was this off topic???

Fine, i dont feel like retyping all that so here was the nitty gritty:

You said in a year
The study says no time period
The precentages are not the majority
48 < 52
Stop sterotyping

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

www.traditioninaction.org...

There is one quote to back up what I said. It's an old study from 1978-1994, the numbers are probably higher now since the internet and cell phones make it easier for homosexuals to hook up for one night stands.

Also you said homosexuals abuse drugs/are violent/etc due to stigmatization which is also untrue here is a quote from a study about that.

73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization

www.traditioninaction.org...

You can't blame Christians for homosexuals personal problems. It doesn't work there is no evidence to back up your statement on that. There are other psychological reasons why they are unhappy.

reply to post by GNUFanx86


Well i know for a fact that hetrosexual couples have WAY more than 8 a lifetime, seeing that my friend has at LEAST had 12 in the last year and shes not gay. also, 20 is not that much, and 106 i bet you was prolly some prostitute or a complete sleezebag. Just saying. Regarding the other part, what other reasons would you say?

reply to post by spw184


Probably due to the high alcoholism and drug abuse would cause unhappiness and or being infected with STDs would cause one to be unhappy and get involved with alcohol and drugs.

reply to post by GNUFanx86


Well i dont know what "The experts" say, but I know that I almost committed suicide soon after coming out of the closet, and it had nothing to do with stds, drugs, or anything else besides the fact that everyone that i knew stopped talking to me except some people that I didnt really know. To give you an idea, my facebook friend list went from 230-ish down to under 100 in less than a week.

reply to post by spw184


Can't rely on other people for personal happiness. Friends on Facebook shouldn't be a gauge. Most the time the vast majority of people are on the friends list are people one is not really close too.

I could understand if all your really close friends abandoned you, but they wouldn't be real friends in the first place.

People tend to create self isolation. If you don't get invited to hang out with friends go out by yourself to the movies, or where ever. You can create new friends that way.

There is probably a lot more too it than just losing friends that make homosexuals as well as people in general get depressed. Suicide is never the answer to depression.

I seen browsing through this thread that some people support that homosexuality is caused by too much estrogen released into the male fetus by the mother. So let me pose this question if that is true couldn't testosterone be used to counter act that? If so should would you do that to prevent homosexuality in your child if it could be cured? Or you as an adult if they said they could cure homosexuality by one vaccination would you take it?

reply to post by GNUFanx86


Nope, It was tried in the 1800-1940 era. Testosterone therapy actually only made the men even MORE effeminate. It must affect the brain in a way that can only happen during pre-brith

Originally posted by spw184
I agree with the above post, how can you consider religous beliefs "Knowledge" Its not knowledge, you know nothing about it. There is no fact, which means you can know nothing. I am catholic and I believe it, but i do not "Know" it.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. -- John 20:29 KJV Bible

Some of us need to see, and to know, to find, and to understand, before we believe. But the blessed believe without any such proof. They have a "sixth sense" that the word is true.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. -- 1 Corinthians|13:11 KJV Bible

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. -- 1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV Bible

The reason why some can believe without proof, is because the LORD put the "knowledge" inside of them !

"I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, -- Jeremiah 31:33-34 KJV Bible

So, some people don't need to be "taught" because they "know" already, the word is within them, it's in their DNA -- to use modern terminology.

They understand immediately when they read the word of the book, that the word is true.

But, because of "lusts", many cannot understand the word:

"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. -- John 8:43-44

What we see here, is that as "lusts" are put away, man begins to understand the word. But, the lusts of the soul blinds man to the word.

"Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. -- 2 Timothy 2:22 KJV Bible

As the individual flees his "lusts" his mental eyes begin to open, and he begins to see, and to know, and to understand, even though "darkly" at first. A new comprehension dawns on him. He finally comes to know and not simply to believe.

Originally posted by infojunkie2

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by The Old American

 

Change your ways and ways of thinking or change your christian status; you can't have both better yet.. read the bible from cover to cover.................

That's what Im saying, to call yourself a Christian means that you agree with what God agrees with and disagree with what he disagrees with...

EXACTLY! To be a christian isn't an idea.. or even holding onto the ideologies of the faith, it's about making him LORD, in other words,

you life is now under the dictation of a King and his kingdom, what ever he's established as being a transgression to his kingdom, you NOW have now just signed on the dotted line and are in agreement that his WORD is final.

Originally posted by yes4141
I said it earlier but a complete void of self- doubt is normally considered a tenet of psychopathy.

I have self-doubt about many things. I doubt I could swim the English Channel. I might be able to do it. But, I doubt it very much. I'm not devoid of self-doubt. I just don't doubt the things I know.

And I say you have no right to claim a whimsical belief as 'knowledge'.

It's only "whimsical" to you.

And I believe you try to validate all you claim to know with verses of the bible and criticising others to attempt to validate your beliefs which cannot be 'known'.

What's the point? I select verses from the Bible, because the title of this thread has "Christian" in it.

I don't call anything 'good'- certainly not myself or my actions: I would consider that self-righteous and obnoxious.

If you don't know what good is, you're in a really bad way. I'm not sure what "self-righteous" means. But, I can identify many things I'd consider "good".

If you follow any part of the Bible then you are presumably endorsing it as at least ascribed to god. If you then simply choose which parts to follow then that is not really christianity.

Nobody follows all the laws in the bible. So, by your reckoning, there are no Christians.

However, the bible contains many things. It's not about the life of one man. But, about the lives of many. No one is expected to follow all the laws, since some laws are not meant for some individuals. For example, some laws concerning women, apply to women only, and not to men. Some laws concern certain tribes, and not other tribes. Some laws concern the young, others the old. Some laws concern the Priests, but not the laity, etc..So, does a particular law concern you in your current state of life? That is what you have to determine first.

I cannot belief you accused me of abdicating responsibility because of doubt! This is the ultimate in arranging your beliefs because you disagree/ don't understand certain parts- how is that any different to what I have done except I've gone further to 'use my brain' (as you put it) and not believe in any of it.

You should read those words you just wrote, stand in front of a mirror and look at yourself, contemplate them deeply, and see if you can understand how they apply to yourself. Your words are wise, and merit self-reflection.

But, they represent your wisdom !

Right, so you not following all the laws of the Bible isn't you changing the words for yourself?

There's a difference between knowing what's right, and doing what's right.

I'm just amazed that you have posted so many contradictions in your last few posts. Your sources have always been the bible and now you say because you 'have a brain' you know not to follow all of the bible! A little picky about what you want your God to be- though that's hardly a surprise the way have desperately attempted to make it seem obvious to yourself.

The source is the bible because this thread is about "christian male" etc...How else could I make my arguments "christian" if I don't illustrate with verses from the christian holy book?

Originally posted by DRAZIW
You do understand that if the man did rape the woman, then the fact that he can never divorce her is "punishment" for him?

How exactly is that punishment for him? Now he has easy access to his victim and no fear of legal repercussion. Being forced to marry her rapist won't make her likely to consent in the future. Now, the rapist can get off on the power and control of forcing himself on her whenever he wants.

But, if she did love him, and consented, the two of them may be overjoyed at being wedded for life, against her father's wishes !!!

Did......did you just give me the old "She probably wanted it" rape apologist response?

Do you see the justice?

I see that you need to replace the captain of your brain-ship, because he's drunk at the wheel.

What's to stop her from beating you? Putting poison in your food? Tormenting you day and night with taunts and disrespect too? You're stuck with her.

Well, the beatings and conditioning. Worked for hundreds of years with slavery. Slaves killing their masters were rather rare. It's worked in modern times too. Patty Hearst. Jaycee Dugard. Besides, seeing as the rapist has already taken her by force, I think beating him is out of the question.

If you read that correctly, you'd notice that any kids that result as the fruit of your loins, you become responsible for. In fact, that's the basis for "child support" in the modern world. The modern society may not call the non-virgin your "wife", but still requires you to support any kids produced just as if she were your wife. So, now you've got the "obligations" without the benefits.

Must have misunderstood you then. My apologies.

Yes. Of course. God is both good and evil. He put the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden, remember?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. -- Isaiah 45:7 KJV Bible

That's why people "fear" the LORD. Who "fears" the good man?

Do you know anybody who is "afraid" of "Jesus"?

But, they fear his FATHER !

Imagine, a father who would send his own son, and then persecute him, and string him up on a cross!

Alright, we've got the evil down, so where exactly would the good be?

Well, man is both good and evil. Like God, who is both good and evil.

But, the whole object of the Bible is to tell man to focus on the GOOD and leave the EVIL to the LORD.

To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense; their .... Deuteronomy 32:35 KJV Bible

edit on 13-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: spelling

Then....why not leave everyone that doesn't follow your faith well enough alone? Why force your faith into the law of the land? Unless, of course, you're looking to rape and murder without consequence.

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by infojunkie2

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by The Old American

 

Change your ways and ways of thinking or change your christian status; you can't have both better yet.. read the bible from cover to cover.................

That's what Im saying, to call yourself a Christian means that you agree with what God agrees with and disagree with what he disagrees with...

EXACTLY! To be a christian isn't an idea.. or even holding onto the ideologies of the faith, it's about making him LORD, in other words,

you life is now under the dictation of a King and his kingdom, what ever he's established as being a transgression to his kingdom, you NOW have now just signed on the dotted line and are in agreement that his WORD is final.

What is in contention is that His word means what men have interpreted it to be. The Judeo-Christian bible is "God-breathed" according to the NIV:

www.bible.cc

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

However, in the King James version it is inspired by God (emphasis mine):

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The KJV does not substantially deviate from Tyndale's translation:

William Tyndale's Translation

2 Timothy 3:16
For all scripture geve by inspiracion of god is proffitable to teache to improve to amende and to instruct in rightewesnes

The KJV was written mainly in response to two stimuli:

1. The Catholic church didn't appreciate being relegated to second class status after God (yes, I have a bit of a bias). Tyndale's translation, from which the two major translations before the KJV were written, said a church was anywhere a group of people met to worship, learn about God, and teach others about him. This put bit kink in the The Holy See's craw because they were the end-all be-all as far as they were concerned.

2. The people of England were becoming more insular, and learning Greek and Latin was falling out of favor. Each generation was finding it harder to learn it, but they were quite familiar with the languages, and so King James had the bible translated directly from Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

Since KJ's version, which was translated directly from the above languages, doesn't diverge from Tyndale's in regards to 2 Timothy, I'm confident they both got the wording as Paul wrote it correct.

So the KJV (finished in 1611) of 2 Timothy, as translated from the original Greek manuscript, says all scripture is inspired by God, but the NIV says scripture was "God-breathed", given directly to man by God. These patently say two different things.

Which one is right? Whichever one you choose on means that you're choosing the one that best fits your personal view of what being a Christian means. So telling someone that they're not a Christian because they believe something that isn't quantitatively different from doctrine as written is self-centered at best.

/TOA

Originally posted by RedGod
How exactly is that punishment for him?

You've got to live with a woman to understand.

Now he has easy access to his victim and no fear of legal repercussion. Being forced to marry her rapist won't make her likely to consent in the future. Now, the rapist can get off on the power and control of forcing himself on her whenever he wants.

The psychology of the rapist is that he wants what he can't have. Having it placed on his plate is a turn off for him.

But, if she did love him, and consented, the two of them may be overjoyed at being wedded for life, against her father's wishes !!!

Did......did you just give me the old "She probably wanted it" rape apologist response?

I was referring to the biblical verse which continues

and lie with her, and they be found; -- Deuteronomy 22:28 KJV Bible

which clearly implies that the virgin's consent is also included in the rule. For she doesn't run to tell dad that the man had sex with her, they have to "find them in the act", so she is sneaking around with her lover.

I see that you need to replace the captain of your brain-ship, because he's drunk at the wheel.

This captain doesn't drink.

Well, the beatings and conditioning. Worked for hundreds of years with slavery.

The difference with slavery is that the "Police" supported the master actions. Here the "Police" would support the wife.

Alright, we've got the evil down, so where exactly would the good be?

Right at the beginning...

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. -- Genesis 1:10

Then....why not leave everyone that doesn't follow your faith well enough alone?

True Christians are supposed to do this. Jesus never forced anybody to believe. The whole idea from the beginning was to broadcast the word and let those who found meaning in the word come of their own volition to join the flock, and let the other wanderers walk away.

Why force your faith into the law of the land? Unless, of course, you're looking to rape and murder without consequence.

That's what you have to ask the Christian men who wrote the law. I didn't write any laws. Tell your congressmen to take the faith out of the law. Remove "marriage" from the civil law. Don't bring "marriage" to gay unions, because that's like forcing gays to accept religion. Let the gay union have its own unique ceremony. Why corrupt both the religious concept and the gay concept, by blending the two together? It's just confusion.

reply to post by The Old American


Toa, i know your on my side so as not to piss you off, but they are fixing that. The catholic church has been retranslating all of the holy books into a more literal sense.