Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dumbledore's Gay


kengs333

Recommended Posts

I'm hardly a biblical scholar, but it's kind of ridiculous to use highly contentious evidence to bolster your case.

Perhaps contentious, but nonetheless germane as a genuine gnostic document. I rather think it is more convincing than some of the gospels that tend to copy each other on many different occasions. Thomas appears independent from the synoptics, thus granting a little more credence to his authenticity, and perhaps the real words of Jesus. Just because the Nag Hammadi stands alone as perceived heresy, does not make their writings any less valid. "Inspiration from God" and politics have unfortunatley been used as justification for biblical inclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 556
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Homosexuality is not pedophilia. You're continual equating the two is bullshit.

Homosexuality is no longer illegal because of the homosexual lobby who got sick and tired

of the oppresion they suffered from a society trying, for hundreds of years, to crush them. They made thier case, over the years, and they won most of us over to seeing homosexuality as a condition of thier existance and that they shouldn't be jailed, denied jobs or housing etc because of it.

I never said homosexuality is pedophelia--I said that it's two forms of deviant sexual behaviour. Moreover, many pedophiles are homosexuals. The majority of sexual assault committed by female teachers is on female students, for instance. Moreover, man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture.

You have to keep in mind, this "oppression" that you feel that gays have experienced is not really oppression. They want to undermine and corrupt goodness and morality in society; the attempts to stop this from happening were a legitimate attempt to protect society. That's never oppression. What we have now, though, is truly oppression--forcing good, moral and decent people to accept sexual deviancy as "normal" and threatening them with economic and social sanctions if they don't submit.

You, apparently, still thnk that would be a good thing.

I think living in a moral good society where people can live free of sexual deviance of every kind is "a good thing".

But pedophilia is still illigal. Thats because of a fundemental difference between the two, wich you are too blinded by your religion to see; Pedophiles invariably cause harm. Homosexuals do not.

I'm never blinded by "my religion"--I'm quite able to see the problems that sexual deviance causes to society. All forms of sexual deviance cause harm. There are many who are trapped and manipulated into the gay lifestyle--sadly I saw it happen to one person, and I've seen it tried on others--and the end result is detrimental to them and society.

I like performing oral sex. I am a deviant. I should be outlawed.

That's something that you brought about on yourself. There is always the possibility of changing your ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say homosexuality is wrong. You cite as proof the fact that homosexuality was once considered a crime. Using that logic, you could argue that allowing women to vote is wrong because it was once not allowed under the law. Do you now see why your argument is flawed?

No, you still don't get it. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it used to be a crime. Homosexuality is wrong because it is sexual deviance, is immoral, and therefore wrong. The argument was made that homosexuality is not wrong because it is no longer illegal. I did NOT make that argument, somebody else did. I stated that by their logic that the fact that homosexuality used to be illegal should call into question whether it is not not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexuality is legal. Gay marriage is legal. Anglicans bless gay couples. Gays live openly and are found in all walks of life - business, arts, politics, religion.

You are equating them with murderers?

That still doesn't make it right, though. The Nazi regime was democratically elected, and ALL of its initiatives to eliminate undesireable races were legally sanctioned. Which is why the Nuremburg trials had to be conducted the way they were.

Moreover, the Anglican church is quite divided on the issue, and ultimately whatever they choose to do has no bearing on who ends up going to Heaven or hell. The Anglican church, like all other organized churches, is merely an institution created by humans--true salvation only comes through putting one's faith in God and abiding by his rules--which includes sexual deviance as being a no-no. One can attend church as much as one wants, perform all of the applicable rituals and ceremonies, it makes no real difference. Organized churches have advocated/supported a whole host of things; it just goes to show that they are too easily influenced by secular ideas and power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one uses biblical passages as their reason for believing Homosexuality is deviant, are they aware of the Secret Gospel according to Mark?

Passage: St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) contains a passage which includes the following text. --

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

That sounds like a homosexual liason to me, was Jesus GAY?

Link to the article: http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Al...pel-of-Mark.htm

The "discovery" of this supposed text is more than a little questionable, and most scholars seem to be leaning towards its being a forgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said homosexuality is pedophelia--I said that it's two forms of deviant sexual behaviour. Moreover, many pedophiles are homosexuals. The majority of sexual assault committed by female teachers is on female students, for instance. Moreover, man-boy love is a celebrated aspect of male gay culture.

And yet you keep bringing up pedophilia every time you talk about how bad homosexuality is. If you think they are two separate things then stop linking the two in your posts. Of course you claim that one is not the other, but then continue to make incorrect statements like "many pedophiles are homosexuals" or make unsubstantiated claims like "the majority of sexual assault committed by female teachers is on female students". As far as your statement that "many pedophiles are homosexuals" is concerned, there is ample proof on here that shows you are wrong on that.

They want to undermine and corrupt goodness and morality in society; the attempts to stop this from happening were a legitimate attempt to protect society. That's never oppression. What we have now, though, is truly oppression--forcing good, moral and decent people to accept sexual deviancy as "normal" and threatening them with economic and social sanctions if they don't submit.

What harms have homosexuality caused to our society? What economic sanctions exist when people like you declare that they think homosexuality is sexual deviance? And not to be too picky, but history is full of so-called "legitimate" attempts to "protect society" that have been extremely oppressive.

All forms of sexual deviance cause harm. There are many who are trapped and manipulated into the gay lifestyle--sadly I saw it happen to one person, and I've seen it tried on others--and the end result is detrimental to them and society.

Again, show the harm. There are many who are trapped and manipulated into the heterosexual lifestyle. Does this mean that heterosexuality is a form of sexual deviance that is harmful to society?

Homosexuality is wrong because it is sexual deviance, is immoral, and therefore wrong.

OK, so let's have it. Define sexual deviance for us and how homosexuality meets your criteria. Show us how homosexuality is immoral. Show us why homosexuality is wrong. Better yet, show us how any of that would justify anything from demanding that fictional characters in books never be homosexual to re-criminalizing homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Organized churches have advocated/supported a whole host of things; it just goes to show that they are too easily influenced by secular ideas and power.

Yes, churches have advocated a number of things over the years. Including ideas about what kinds of sexuality are moral and immoral. You can't say that a church that supports homosexuality is wrong because of human failure and then ignore the fact that the exact same argument applies to churches that condemn homosexuality. To ignore that fact is hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That still doesn't make it right, though. The Nazi regime was democratically elected, and ALL of its initiatives to eliminate undesireable races were legally sanctioned. Which is why the Nuremburg trials had to be conducted the way they were.

Hard to believe that the seven provincial courts who upheld SSM and a majority of the House of Commons who voted for Bill C-38 could be equated with the doctrines of Naziism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to believe that the seven provincial courts who upheld SSM and a majority of the House of Commons who voted for Bill C-38 could be equated with the doctrines of Naziism.

Why? Can't Canadian laws become twisted by radical, ideological ideas? The commonalities in the rise of Nazism and the rise of the "gay rights" movement are quite startling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, churches have advocated a number of things over the years. Including ideas about what kinds of sexuality are moral and immoral. You can't say that a church that supports homosexuality is wrong because of human failure and then ignore the fact that the exact same argument applies to churches that condemn homosexuality. To ignore that fact is hypocrisy.

That doesn't make any sense. What's moral and immoral in Christianity is defined in the NT, not by what an organized church states to be the case. An organized church that accepts the teachings of Christ and abides by them is correct; an organized church that twists the teachings of Christ, as do pro-gay churches, are incorrect. But not only that, they are spreading false teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you keep bringing up pedophilia every time you talk about how bad homosexuality is. If you think they are two separate things then stop linking the two in your posts. Of course you claim that one is not the other, but then continue to make incorrect statements like "many pedophiles are homosexuals" or make unsubstantiated claims like "the majority of sexual assault committed by female teachers is on female students". As far as your statement that "many pedophiles are homosexuals" is concerned, there is ample proof on here that shows you are wrong on that.

Okay, homosexuality and incest are two forms of sexually deviant behaviour. Better? Whether you want to accept it or not, the reality is that many pedophiles are homosexuals, as is my statement about female teachers. The only cases that make the headlines, though, are the ones involving boys.

What harms have homosexuality caused to our society? What economic sanctions exist when people like you declare that they think homosexuality is sexual deviance? And not to be too picky, but history is full of so-called "legitimate" attempts to "protect society" that have been extremely oppressive.

It would take ages for me to describe the manner in which homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviant behaviour drag down society.

Again, show the harm. There are many who are trapped and manipulated into the heterosexual lifestyle. Does this mean that heterosexuality is a form of sexual deviance that is harmful to society?

No, they are trapped and manipulated into deviant sexual behaviours, not heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is normal, it is the way humans are intended to procreate. It's as simple as that. Your argument has no logic because heterosexuality is not deviant, therefore it cannot be considered sexual deviance.

OK, so let's have it. Define sexual deviance for us and how homosexuality meets your criteria. Show us how homosexuality is immoral. Show us why homosexuality is wrong. Better yet, show us how any of that would justify anything from demanding that fictional characters in books never be homosexual to re-criminalizing homosexuality.

I've already discussed the difference between normal and deviant sexual behaviour. Why homosexuality is immoral should be self-evident; as should any other form of sexual deviance. I don't have to "show... how" incest is deviant, nor should I with homosexuality. The fact that you've been brainwashed to believe homosexuality is not deviant does not change the fact that in absolute terms homosexuality is not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any sense. What's moral and immoral in Christianity is defined in the NT, not by what an organized church states to be the case. An organized church that accepts the teachings of Christ and abides by them is correct; an organized church that twists the teachings of Christ, as do pro-gay churches, are incorrect. But not only that, they are spreading false teachings.

And yet Jesus said not a word on the topic. In fact, he might have supported it given these scriptures:

From John:

"There was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." 13:23-25

"The disciple standing by, whom he loved" 19:26

"The disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper" 21:20

I believe it was the intolerant Paul who appears to be the biggest opponent to homosexuality. And once again we are trying to resolve 21st Century issues with a 2000+ year old book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet Jesus said not a word on the topic. In fact, he might have supported it given these scriptures:

From John:

"There was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." 13:23-25

"The disciple standing by, whom he loved" 19:26

"The disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper" 21:20

I believe it was the intolerant Paul who appears to be the biggest opponent to homosexuality. And once again we are trying to resolve 21st Century issues with a 2000+ year old book.

Jazzer I think if Jesus were alive today he'd give the Religious Right a good thumping. Religion has hid certain aspects of the bible or buried it because it points to the origin of Religion from Pagans. So anything to do with Pagons and homosexuality will be buried in a vault, the truth doesn't seem to matter only what the Church Doctorine wants seems to matter.

Kengs333 get real, churches that allow Homosexuals are thriving but Churches that are narrow minded and living in the past are dying. The RC church is on life support, the Vatican is going to consist of all Priest and no Parishners at the rate that narrow minded religion is de-evolving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet Jesus said not a word on the topic. In fact, he might have supported it given these scriptures:

From John:

"There was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." 13:23-25

"The disciple standing by, whom he loved" 19:26

"The disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper" 21:20

I believe it was the intolerant Paul who appears to be the biggest opponent to homosexuality. And once again we are trying to resolve 21st Century issues with a 2000+ year old book.

The fact that you're trying to turn Christ into a faggot speaks volumes about your credibility. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any sense. What's moral and immoral in Christianity is defined in the NT, not by what an organized church states to be the case. An organized church that accepts the teachings of Christ and abides by them is correct; an organized church that twists the teachings of Christ, as do pro-gay churches, are incorrect. But not only that, they are spreading false teachings.

An organized church defined what was included in the Bible and what was not included in the Bible. An organized church defined the New Testament. You claim that churches that accept homosexuality are influenced by society and are wrong. But you seem to think that society could not possibly have influenced the church at the time when it decided what to include in the Bible (and also what to leave out). Love God. Love your neighbour. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. These are the teachings of Christ. Where did Christ say that homosexuality was a sin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Can't Canadian laws become twisted by radical, ideological ideas? The commonalities in the rise of Nazism and the rise of the "gay rights" movement are quite startling.

I am pro-gay rights and have been that way all my life. And although I abhor some of the tactics they occasionally employ (like disrupting church services) it is ludicrous to compare them with Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RC church is on life support, the Vatican is going to consist of all Priest and no Parishners at the rate that narrow minded religion is de-evolving.

So true. I'm a recovering Catholic and I can't tell you how many Parishes I've seen shut down over the past few years. It can only get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, homosexuality and incest are two forms of sexually deviant behaviour. Better? Whether you want to accept it or not, the reality is that many pedophiles are homosexuals, as is my statement about female teachers.

Repeating your false claim does not make it true. You have yet to show any shred of evidence to support your claims regarding pedophiles and homosexuals.

It would take ages for me to describe the manner in which homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviant behaviour drag down society.

That sounds a lot like an excuse. Did your dog eat your evidence?

Tell you what, why don't you start with one or two concrete examples. If there are so many examples out there, then one or two shouldn't take long to walk through. And if it takes ages to get through a number of examples, so be it. We apparently both have the time, otherwise why else would we be posting on here?

No, they are trapped and manipulated into deviant sexual behaviours, not heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is normal, it is the way humans are intended to procreate. It's as simple as that. Your argument has no logic because heterosexuality is not deviant, therefore it cannot be considered sexual deviance.

Sigh. There ARE people who are trapped and manipulated into a heterosexual lifestyle. These are people who quite simply are gay. But people like you guilt them into thinking that there is something wrong with them. People like you claim that homosexuality is deviant and destructive and all that does is hurt these trapped people.

Your example above stated that one of the harmful effects of homosexuality was how people were trapped in that lifestyle. My example shows that people trapped in a heterosexual lifestyle suffer the same harms. Therefore, you cannot call one lifestyle sexually deviant and the other one normal based simply on this type of harm. Try to show how homosexuality is deviant without using examples that equally apply to other types of behaviour.

I've already discussed the difference between normal and deviant sexual behaviour. Why homosexuality is immoral should be self-evident; as should any other form of sexual deviance. I don't have to "show... how" incest is deviant, nor should I with homosexuality. The fact that you've been brainwashed to believe homosexuality is not deviant does not change the fact that in absolute terms homosexuality is not wrong.

More excuses. You think it is self-evident that homosexuality is immoral? If this is so, then you won't have any problem explaining it to us. (FYI, it is obviously NOT self-evident since many people have no problems with homosexuality.)

You have yet to show any harms that homosexuality causes. So yes, you DO have to show how homosexuality is deviant. Because so far all of your answers have been so vague and full of excuses that it seems like you are the one who has been brainwashed to believe that homosexuality is evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, who cares.

Should one avoid the teachings of Plato for fear of being influenced (or converted, judging by some of the nutty fears and insecurities of certain posters).

This is the war on teletubbies all over again.

Our life here is far too comfortable here if this is a serious point of contention in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An organized church defined what was included in the Bible and what was not included in the Bible. An organized church defined the New Testament.

Wrong on both counts.

Love God. Love your neighbour. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. These are the teachings of Christ. Where did Christ say that homosexuality was a sin?

Read the NT and find out. Jesus taught peace and non-violence, but he also taught about the evils of sin and the consequences of a sinful life.

Invoking the teachings of Christ when you don't really understand what they mean is not only ignorant, it's insulting and disrespectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kengs333 get real, churches that allow Homosexuals are thriving but Churches that are narrow minded and living in the past are dying. The RC church is on life support, the Vatican is going to consist of all Priest and no Parishners at the rate that narrow minded religion is de-evolving.

You don't really seem to get it. Whether or not Churches that follow the teachings of Christ "are dying" while Churches that erroniously "allow Homosexuals" are "thriving (they aren't) is irrelevant. People who follow the teachings of Christ are the only true Christians, they are the ones who will find everlasting life in Heaven. The Bible is quite clear when it comes to sexual deviance that it is a sin, Christ makes it clear what happens to those who continue to live in sin. If you recall the parable in which Jesus talks about those who lose interest in his teachings, and the roots do not take hold; you do recall that Jesus states that only the few will be rewarded for their faith. Homosexuals, or people who believe that sexual deviants can be Christians, can belive themselves to be Christians all they want, but in my opinion I don't think it will do them much good.

Faith in God, the teachings of Christ, are timeless--there's nothing narrow minded about it. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You're reference to narrow mindedness is, of course, one of the standard devices used by the gay rights movement--anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is "narrow minded"? Hardly. Being a slave to sin, sexual deviance is truly narrow minded. But I guess anyone whose mind is clouded by such things won'r recognize that fact.

I hope you one day see the error of your ways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...