Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[Stevil]

IMO, it's very disrespectful to compare the discrimination against blacks for their skin color to discrimination against someone for who they want to have sex with...

If you focus less on sex and more on love you may start to understand the other side.e.g discrimination against someone for who they love. With this in mind Christianity become an antilove organisation. antilove = hate. Hence Christianity becomes a hate organisation, spreading the message that its member should hate people that love if that love is deemed inappropriate by the church.

In my opinion hate is very ugly, the atheist view is to be tolerant of others especially if it does not impact you. People that find themselves in love with someone of the same sex are in my book, lucky to have found a special someone and lucky to have found mutual love. This should be encouraged and glorified not vilified and driven underground.

It is not my place to tell a person whom the can and cant fall in love with.

[Voter]

Both can't control how they were born.  I don't' care if I or anyone else here is disrespectful of bigoted views.

No one knows how nature and nurture combine to produce sexuality.

No one knows how many self-identified homosexuals are really bisexuals.

You can't tell me which infants are gay. You can tell me which infants are black.

There are significant differences between the two.

[Voter]

If you focus less on sex and more on love you may start to understand the other side.e.g discrimination against someone for who they love. With this in mind Christianity become an antilove organisation. antilove = hate. Hence Christianity becomes a hate organisation, spreading the message that its member should hate people that love if that love is deemed inappropriate by the church.

If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

[Stevil]

Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

It is not about sex! Love is much more important, significant and defining than sex, love is an emotion and state of being, sex is a momentary action.

If you are happy for two people to fall in love regardless of their respective genders then at least you are close to acceptance and tolerance. My next question for you is this
Why are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

[AnimatedDirt]

If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

[AnimatedDirt]

It is not about sex! Love is much more important, significant and defining than sex, love is an emotion and state of being, sex is a momentary action.

I agree.  However, within the Christian viewpoint, sex is the natural "ultimate" expression that seals love between two (presumably, male and female).  

If you are happy for two people to fall in love regardless of their respective genders then at least you are close to acceptance and tolerance. My next question for you is this
Why are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

I'm not...and this is me talking for myself.  (Not assuming Voter shares my belief here.)

Where Christians (traditional) and Homosexual Christians part ways and where the arguments begin, is when the Homosexual tries to reconcile their SEXUAL preference (I'm not speaking about who or what gender a person chooses to love) as "ok" or better put, as not sin.  Therein lies the quarrel.  What I'm saying is that the Christians you one sees protesting against homosexuality are those that have made BEING homosexual a sin to a greater degree than simply being human...where as Christians with an ounce of reason would realize that we are born, check that, we are conceived in sin and LOST prior to exiting the birth canal, whether or not the individual is heterosexual or homosexual.  There is no difference in that regard.  The difference is whether the ACT of homosexual SEX is acceptable to God as right or if it, as He apparently states in scripture, is wicked.

Again, I'm trying to best put this into words as I can.  I hope I'm not failing miserably.

[Voter]

If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

[LegendarySandwich]

If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

I have lost any respect for you I once had.

[Voter]

I have lost any respect for you I once had.

I never had respect for you, so I guess we're even. Now that that's settled, is there a particular flaw you see in my logic?

[Voter]

It is not about sex!

Yes it is! Exclamation points don't change that! If it's not about sex, then date people of the opposite sex. They have the same spectrum of personality.

Why are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

Generally they're not, as I've mentioned. See my signature.

[Tank]

If you focus on love rather than sex, then there's no need for homosexuality.  Consider a man who loves another man with a traditionally feminine personality. If sex isn't a major component, then he could have fallen in love with a woman. Further, there are men with feminine personalities and vice-versa. Saying it's not about the sex is self defeating.

I'm not quite certain what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you do, I think we just may've parted ways on this matter.

Maybe you could clarify for me before I pass judgment.  

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

I have lost any respect for you I once had.

Why so? Voter's view seems perfectly valid to me. Emotions are at the base of relationships. Physicality is what one is born with. Whom one loves is what matters not the respective genders of the individuals concerned. Which is what I think Voter is getting at.

[elliebean]

Voter, the only thing you've demonstrated here so far is your own appalling degree of ignorance wrt the following subjects:

Sex
Sexuality
Gender
Identity
Personality
Tolerance
Acceptace
Discrimination
Bigotry
Harrassment
Persecution
Privilege
Race
Genetics
Socialisation
Civil Rights
Human Rights
Dignity
Respect
Justice
Logic


Also, I take it you could fall in love with someone regardless of their gender, is that accurate? Do you identify as pansexual, or queer?

[Voter]

Voter, the only thing you've demonstrated here so far is your own appalling degree of ignorance wrt the following subjects:

Sex
Sexuality
Gender
Identity
Personality
Tolerance
Acceptace
Discrimination
Bigotry
Harrassment
Persecution
Privilege
Race
Genetics
Socialisation
Civil Rights
Human Rights
Dignity
Respect
Justice
Logic

Please, if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting.

Also, I take it you could fall in love with someone regardless of their gender, is that accurate?

Probably not. How did you come to that conclusion? I'm not the one trying to take sex out of the love equation. I'm arguing against that position.

[LegendarySandwich]

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

I have lost any respect for you I once had.

Why so? Voter's view seems perfectly valid to me. Emotions are at the base of relationships. Physicality is what one is born with. Whom one loves is what matters not the respective genders of the individuals concerned. Which is what I think Voter is getting at.

On its own, I don't see much wrong with it, other than the fact that sex IS part of the equation, because sex is a part of love.

However, he's trying to use this argument to say that if being gay isn't about sex then they should just date members of the opposite sex to gain society's/"God's" approval, and if it is about sex then it's okay to discriminate against them since it isn't the same thing at all as discriminating against people based on their skin color (I think...tell me if I've gotten your position wrong).

Hopefully,  I don't need to explain how wrong this argument is.

[elliebean]

Please, if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting.

Why not? You do. Anyway, I'll reserve the real arguments for those who've shown they can understand them.
The purpose of that list was to illustrate how many layers of stupidity I'd have to cut through just to educate you to a level sufficient for even beginning a proper argument with you.

Also, I take it you could fall in love with someone regardless of their gender, is that accurate?

Probably not. How did you come to that conclusion?

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.