We're here, we're queer and we're coming for your children'

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

My thoughts about this subject in a nutshell (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong):

A. Being gay is not a sin. (By this I mean sexual attraction to the same sex, not participating in the activity. The same would be true of a married man who is attracted to a woman who is not his wife—attraction itself is not a sin).

B. Engaging in gay sex is a sin. (The same would be true of a married heterosexual man who engages in sex outside of marriage.)

C. Gay sex and marriage should remain legal. As a country that is a democratic-republic, and the ultimate beacon of freedom, denying citizens the right to marry anyone who is of legal age to consent, would be antithetical to freedom and democracy.

 

[abcaines]

Ok... I get A & B... But C... While that may sound fair and reasonable on the surface (put that way) I'd call your attention to the floodgates that were opened when gay marriage was legalized. Of course proponents of gay marriage claimed that folks would not be forced to accept such marriage while they were stomping for it but you see what happened to that promise once it passed. Also, almost as soon as gay marriage became legal, transgenderism moved from being a fringe issue to exploding on the scene. Now, you can be fired, or otherwise castigated if you refuse to use a person's preferred pronoun. It's also becoming possible for the state to take your children from you if you don't affirm their gender dysphoria. All this since we started recognizing gay marriage.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Ok... I get A & B... But C... While that may sound fair and reasonable on the surface (put that way) I'd call your attention to the floodgates that were opened when gay marriage was legalized.

Freedom is a double-edged sword. I’m sure the same argument was made about the legalization of interracial marriage, the end of segregation, women's suffrage, etc.

 

[Gringo]

It sounds great (to me) to say that being gay is not a sin . . . but is that really what the Apostle taught?


21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.


It seems to me that if you take Paul seriously, then before a gay person ever had the first gay inclination, there was a reason for it; that we didn't want anything to do with God and therefore how can we say that being gay is not sinful when it is just an evidence of a greater sin - our "hatred for God" and our not wanting anything to do with Him.



Is that not right?

 

[abcaines]

Freedom is a double-edged sword. I’m sure the same argument was made about the legalization of interracial marriage, the end of segregation, women's suffrage, etc.

If freedom were the issue, all people would be free to make their own choices. If the government is threatening your freedom because you choose to have a different opinion, you aren't free.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

If freedom were the issue, all people would be free to make their own choices. If the government is threatening your freedom because you choose to have a different opinion, you aren't free.

You’ll have to elaborate a little bit more on what you mean. If you’re referencing cancel culture, that’s not a government issue, it’s more of a private business/social media reaction.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

It sounds great (to me) to say that being gay is not a sin . . . but is that really what the Apostle taught?


21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.


It seems to me that if you take Paul seriously, then before a gay person ever had the first gay inclination, there was a reason for it; that we didn't want anything to do with God and therefore how can we say that being gay is not sinful when it is just an evidence of a greater sin - our "hatred for God" and our not wanting anything to do with Him.



Is that not right?

So, it sounds as if you do believe that being attracted to the same sex is a sin, even if celibate. Is this correct?

 

[ALAYMAN]

It sounds great (to me) to say that being gay is not a sin . . . but is that really what the Apostle taught?….It seems to me that if you take Paul seriously, then before a gay person ever had the first gay inclination, there was a reason for it; that we didn't want anything to do with God and therefore how can we say that being gay is not sinful when it is just an evidence of a greater sin - our "hatred for God" and our not wanting anything to do with Him.



Is that not right?

The “we” and “our” in your post (highlighted in red) that should be understood in reference to Paul’s condemnation in Roman’s chapter 1 is the collective human race (for those not ultimately in Christ), not merely homosexuals, for as Paul builds his case starting in Chapter 1 of Romans for the guilt of mankind he eventually declares “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Chap 3).

 

[Gringo]

So, it sounds as if you do believe that being attracted to the same sex is a sin, even if celibate. Is this correct?

.
Of course I don't. I don't believe it's any more wrong than having brown hair or being left handed. I believe that the inability to be drawn towards the opposite sex is a trait that a MINORITY has had since the beginning of time.

My subjective belief of which I can't prove is that I tend to agree with the idea that most people have the ability of same sex attraction. It doesn't even make sense that one would love his own plumbing but not be attracted to someone else's. But what I do believe is that while most people have the ability to be attracted, they also by nature have been given the ability and natural drive to be driven towards the oppostite sex and to put their own same sex attraction on "the back burner", if you will. It's so minimal that most people after puberty probably don't even realize it's there because their opposite sex attraction is so strong.

But for those we call "gay", they somehow, never developed opposite sex attraction and drive towards the opposite sex - for whatever the reason.

I believe that everyone has the ability to find other people of the same sex attractive (guys eyeing their classmates in the shower) but that it stops there and that opposite sex attraction takes over - except for a minortiy of people in each generation, who oppostie sex attraction and drive never took hold. I dont' believe they're "sinful".

I'm not sure if they are who Jesus referred to as "eunuchs", or not.

But the apostle Paul seems to think that we didn't want anything to do with God and that's why we are that way.

I disagree.

 

[abcaines]

You’ll have to elaborate a little bit more on what you mean. If you’re referencing cancel culture, that’s not a government issue, it’s more of a private business/social media reaction.

I don't believe that the issue of gay marriage was ever about freedom and the outcome validates my conviction. Gay marriage is about coercing the government and thus the citizenry into not just being tolerant of the practice but to accept and celebrate it. Were freedom the issue, we'd be free to hold our own opinions on the matter without fear of castigation or reprisal for not supporting the narrative. We're all familiar with the stories of people loosing jobs and being branded as bigots for refusing to bow the knee to this baal. As soon as gay marriage made it through the gate, transgenderism was hot on its heels with a new militancy. Then with the drag queens coming after children, we know that pedophilia isn't far behind. So far, the government's approval of shutting down dissenters is tacit but before long, we'll see the official sanctioning of retribution of dissenters.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

I don't believe that the issue of gay marriage was ever about freedom and the outcome validates my conviction. Gay marriage is about coercing the government and thus the citizenry into not just being tolerant of the practice but to accept and celebrate it. Were freedom the issue, we'd be free to hold our own opinions on the matter without fear of castigation or reprisal for not supporting the narrative. We're all familiar with the stories of people loosing jobs and being branded as bigots for refusing to bow the knee to this baal. As soon as gay marriage made it through the gate, transgenderism was hot on its heels with a new militancy. Then with the drag queens coming after children, we know that pedophilia isn't far behind. So far, the government's approval of shutting down dissenters is tacit but before long, we'll see the official sanctioning of retribution of dissenters.

Gay marriage is very recent history, so fortunately we don’t have to dig back very far. If you’ll recall, this issue pretty much got divided along red and blue state lines as far as the legality of it. In a West Coast state gay marriage/partnerships became “legal,” but in many conservative states it was illegal. It was the Supreme Court that ultimately decided on the legality of gay marriage, just as they did with interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

As I alluded to in an earlier post, freedom (and Supreme Court decisions) are a double-edged sword. While many Christians are still upset about the legality of gay marriage, the SC just came out a couple days ago with a ruling that Christian businesses can’t be forced to offer business services to gay citizens who are getting married. This is a huge precedent and victory for Christians who feel that providing their business services for a wedding they have moral scruples with is compromising their religious beliefs. All that being said, it won’t stop a woke mob from boycotting the business and the media from attempting to “name & shame” them. Freedom means that liberals have the right to cancel a conservative business just like conservatives have the right to cancel Budweiser.

 

[FSSL]

It appears that I'm engaging it now. I'm happy to engage anyone on any topic. However, I may have been mistaken about the mission of the FFF. One would presume, naturally, that it is here for Christians exclusively, and for those of what is called the 'Fundamental' persuasion primarily.

The FFF initially started as a Hyles forum with current and former students making up the majority of posters.

Alumni and others from the broader IFB communities joined (mix of current and exIFBs)

As long as I have been involved (since 2011ish), its been open to anyone wanting to discuss.

There is no stated purpose for this forum. It is informal.

 

[subllibrm]

You’ll have to elaborate a little bit more on what you mean. If you’re referencing cancel culture, that’s not a government issue, it’s more of a private business/social media reaction.

But it is a governmental issue. As a recent public school employee, my job (and paycheck) was at risk if I didn’t toe the line regarding pronouns. Ignore my faith and it is still a first amendment issue of compelled speech.

That’s within the workplace. As regards to your own business, my wife owns a garment embellishment business. There are laws that require her to adorn her products with messages that are anathema to her. It isn’t just bakers who have this problem. Were the local liberal churches to ask us to produce items with the “Sparkle Creed” it would be the government that would force compliance, not a private company.

The recent SCOTUS decision regarding web page design was correct in my opinion but I don’t believe that the ruling will last. It is one more reason for the urge to pack the court will intensify.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

As a recent public school employee, my job (and paycheck) was at risk if I didn’t toe the line regarding pronouns. Ignore my faith and it is still a first amendment issue of compelled speech.

I’m curious, as a Christian, how did you choose to respond? Is that why you’re no longer a public school employee?

The recent SCOTUS decision regarding web page design was correct in my opinion but I don’t believe that the ruling will last.

We can’t operate off of the hypothetical what-if’s. This decision was made and should reverse many of the earlier lower court decisions. Often both our state and federal governments make decisions that are terrible and, unfortunately, sometimes these decisions can take several years or longer to get corrected.

 

[Ransom]

You’ll have to elaborate a little bit more on what you mean. If you’re referencing cancel culture, that’s not a government issue, it’s more of a private business/social media reaction.

It is a government issue, however. Here in Ontario, the Human Rights Commission has a policy that says refusing to use a person's preferred pronouns might constitute harassment. While it doesn't have the force of law, the human-rights tribunal that decides discrimination cases tends to follow policy.

This means that, theoretically, a biased, non-judicial tribunal might find you guilty of a human-rights violation for "misgendering" someone--put another way, you are compelled to participate in a lie for them.

 

[Ekklesian]

.
Do you feel that this person also has the capability of being drawn to the opposite sex but that he just prefers his own?
.

Sexuality is largely conditioned. Whether or not you are 'able' at this point to find a natural relationship with a woman appealing I think depends on how addicted you are to sex and how deviant is your appetite.

I think you could be brought to a point where you could find a natural relationship with a woman not only appealing, but fulfilling, but you would have to desire that.

It's like an addiction to food, and here I have to draw the biblical distinction between drunkenness and gluttony. Drunkenness is mere excess in food or drink.

Blessed art thou, O land, when ... thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness! Ecclesiastes 10:17​

​

Gluttony, though related, is about appetite. Not so much the size of the appetite, but the desires of the appetite.

Gluttony suggests voracity. We use the word omnivore for an organism that eats both plants and animals. But the voracity suggested by the NT use is a taste for anything, even those things that are vile.

And in the OT use, gluttony describes a vile man.

It's no accident that when Adam and Eve were tempted with the lusts of the flesh it was in the form of food, and so also in the case of Christ. Clinical experiments have identified the regions of the brain stimulated by certain things, and food and sex share the same region. (So does music, btw)

The kind of pleasure one derives from eating, is related to the pleasure one derives from sex. So it's an apt comparison.

After an extended fast, the pleasures from certain foods seem amplified. They're not, really. It's just that a full soul loathes honey, and to the hungry, every bitter thing is sweet.

So conditioning one's sexual appetite, is much like conditioning one's appetite for food. Give full vent to the fire and it will eventually rage out of control and consume everything, and it can be brought back under control only at great cost and with herculean effort. But regulate that vent, and it warms without consuming, and it requires the right kind of fuel.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

It is a government issue, however. Here in Ontario, the Human Rights Commission has a policy that says refusing to use a person's preferred pronouns might constitute harassment. While it doesn't have the force of law, the human-rights tribunal that decides discrimination cases tends to follow policy.

This means that, theoretically, a biased, non-judicial tribunal might find you guilty of a human-rights violation for "misgendering" someone--put another way, you are compelled to participate in a lie for them.

I’m not a Canadian free speech expert, but I don’t think it works exactly the same as our First Amendment in the U.S., otherwise you wouldn’t have that misgendering law in the first place. In fact, in Florida where I live, Governor DeSantis has actually banned the use of preferred pronouns in schools, thus not jeopardizing a teacher’s job for going against one’s religious convictions when it comes to this issue—the antithesis of what’s happening in your country! https://apnews.com/article/desantis-florida-lgbtq-education-health-c68a7e5fe5cf22ab8cca324b00644119

 

[Ekklesian]

The FFF initially started as a Hyles forum with current and former students making up the majority of posters.

Alumni and others from the broader IFB communities joined (mix of current and exIFBs)

As long as I have been involved (since 2011ish), its been open to anyone wanting to discuss.

There is no stated purpose for this forum. It is informal.

Copy that.

 

[Gringo]

Sexuality is largely conditioned. Whether or not you are 'able' at this point to find a natural relationship with a woman appealing I think depends on how addicted you are to sex and how deviant is your appetite.

And so, a young person who has never - yet - had sex, and is not drawn to the opposite sex,
is that way because he is addicted to the sex he hasn't had yet. Is that right?

I think you could be brought to a point where you could find a natural relationship with a woman not only appealing, but fulfilling, but you would have to desire that.

And so, the thousands of gay people who have gone into their pastors offices down throught the years asking for help, didn't really want that help quiet enough? When I, as a young man upon realizing my own situation and praying multiple times and begging for "deliverance", I just didn't want it quiet enough. Is that right? Because if I did, I could have had a natural relationship with a woman and found it appealing and fulfilling - if I just had desired it a little more. Is that right?

I too have known of people, more than one, who have indeed, lived their lives married to one of the opposite sex and have grown to love that person but no matter how much one wants or desires an opposite sex relationship, one's same sex feelings aren't going to go away and so like you said, I guess it does depend on how much one desires or wants it. For me, I just knew that I did not want to live a life of two-facedness, of conflict between natures, just so that I could fit in. And I certainly did not want to tie up the life of an innocent person so that I would not "be living in sin".
Fortunately, I have had a good and happy life, never having had to look over my shoulder trying to remember what I said and to whom. And having nothing to do with gluttonous sex, I have had a life of love for these last 30 years.

It's like an addiction to food, and here I have to draw the biblical distinction between drunkenness and gluttony. Drunkenness is mere excess in food or drink.

Blessed art thou, O land, when ... thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness! Ecclesiastes 10:17​

​

Gluttony, though related, is about appetite. Not so much the size of the appetite, but the desires of the appetite.

Gluttony suggests voracity. We use the word omnivore for an organism that eats both plants and animals. But the voracity suggested by the NT use is a taste for anything, even those things that are vile.

And in the OT use, gluttony describes a vile man.

It's no accident that when Adam and Eve were tempted with the lusts of the flesh it was in the form of food, and so also in the case of Christ. Clinical experiments have identified the regions of the brain stimulated by certain things, and food and sex share the same region. (So does music, btw)

The kind of pleasure one derives from eating, is related to the pleasure one derives from sex. So it's an apt comparison.

After an extended fast, the pleasures from certain foods seem amplified. They're not, really. It's just that a full soul loathes honey, and to the hungry, every bitter thing is sweet.

So conditioning one's sexual appetite, is much like conditioning one's appetite for food. Give full vent to the fire and it will eventually rage out of control and consume everything, and it can be brought back under control only at great cost and with herculean effort. But regulate that vent, and it warms without consuming, and it requires the right kind of fuel.

I sure hope that I am misunderstanding you but it seems like you are saying that a gay person is gay because of the amount of sex he has.

It seems like you are saying that if I want to be straight and cut out the excessive sex from my voracious sexual appetite, that I could become heterosexual after all; that even though I wasn't drawn to the opposite sex from the beginning, before sex, now that I have had sex, if I just cut down and stop it, I could become attracted to the opposite sex.

Is that rigiht? Surely, I am misunderstanding you.

 

[Gringo]

.
It really bothers me when I someone says that a gay person should seek a person of the opposite sex and live a heterosexual life anyway. If he goes into that relationship with the woman knowing he's gay, that's one thing but how often does that happen. A woman is not a piece of equipment that one should be able to use to remedy his own situation. She is an innocent human being who deserves a life of true love and affection. I know of people, more than one, who have done that and if she knew from the beginning, that's one thing. I sure hope so.
.