Does nature discriminate against same sex people

[IMINXTC]

In all my years as a believer - a significant stretch, and in all the local churches I've been a member in, this type of sin was never an issue of special concern.

Believers repented of sins, lifestyles and previous associations and moved on with their faith.

This issue is just one flagship of a capsizing armada called the testimony of the church. In fact, it's late in the day.

[ProDeo]

The current trend where I live is that teenagers are told at school to just try out both options to find out what suits them best. How bad do you want to have it?

[Athanasius]

But, what did Jesus say to the woman herself? He said, "Go, and sin no more." He told her to change her lifestyle. You infer that calling homosexuality a sin shows a lack of love, and disappoints God. However, downplaying homosexuality and enabling those in its grip to continue in a lifestyle that will ultimately send them to hell is not love. It's facilitating a soul's downward spiral into damnation. Do you not think God would be disappointed with that?

I would be implying and you would be inferring, but no, that's not what I've implied.

I don't know that adultery is a 'lifestyle' for this woman (is such a thing ever said about the woman?), so I'd wonder if that's an eisegetical insertion meant to create a connection between her adultery qua lifestyle, that Jesus tells her to 'sin no more', and same-sex relationships / sexual encounters that are today often talked about as a 'lifestyle'.

My mention of the story brings us, I think, to the obvious "go and sin no more" and in today's cultural climate this is Jesus letting someone off easy for sin (we don't acknowledge that because it's Jesus, but if it were anyone else, say Brian McLaren - remember him? - we'd be all over him). But that places us in the position of being on Jesus' side, and if you want, we could take the more cynical approach.

The cynical approach is that we are in the position of the religious leaders. They brought the woman before Jesus in accordance with the Mosaic law, except they also forgot to bring the man with her, which was required by Mosaic law. In our circumstance, the position of the modern Western church is to consider "homosexuality is sin" as orthodoxy, and anything else at heterodoxy or heresy. Do I think same-sex activity is sin? Yes, and that's clearly what Scripture teaches. The lack of love isn't in calling 'homosexuality a sin' (slightly inaccurate phrasing but hey that's what we have to work with), it's in how we engage with the same-sex attracted person.

John 8 from a different possible world:

Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a man who had been caught in the act of laying with another man. They put him in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this man was caught defiling himself with another man. The law of Moses says to stone him. What do you say?”

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the man. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the man, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” he said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

I'm suggesting that the lack of love is in how we tell same-sex attracted people that same-sex activity is sin, and then God from heaven pats us on the back. In reality, the church has said something like, "You're in sin you gross disgusting deviant homosexual child predator God hates you repent sinner or you'll burn in hell with the rest of the pedophiles you gross excuse of a good for nothing 'person'". Today people have gotten clever: hate the sin, not the sinner, but the presumption of "I am not them and thank God for they are gross" remains.

I've overtly emphasized my view that that sin is sin, regardless of the type, and that homosexuality is no worse than many others. But you've ignored that, asserting that I'm fixated on homosexuality to the exclusion of all other sins--which simply is not true.

No I haven't said that about you, and no, I haven't ignored your view that sin is sin (is sin?).

I've pointed out that this sin stands out from others because it is the only one that is publicly affirmed and "celebrated," even among some Christians.

It's not the only sin that's publicly affirmed and celebrated, even among Christians. Are you telling me you can't think of any other sin that stands out to you in this way? Same-sex activity is the only one? There's no like, gossip magazines, daytime talk shows, and prayer request phone lines? Nothing at all?

You've proven my point by continuously minimizing and downplaying it, making me out to be some kind of hate-monger for even mentioning it. I believe you, like many others, are emotionally invested in the matter, hence the myopic view and rigorous defense.

That's an uncharitable reading of what I've written. Where did I say you were some kind of hate-monger?

[Redeemed]

Societies in a lot of so-called Christian countries have been promoting homosexuality and the like as not only "not so bad" but actually something to be celebrated and applauded for a long, long time.

Heck, here in America public schools are actually encouraging children, of all ages, to be gay, bi, trans or "gender fluid."

It's needs to be called out loudly not just by The Church but by everyone who doesn't want their children indoctrinated/brainwashed on this issue.

Hollywood, corporations, governments, lobbyists, "internet influencers" are all promoting pro gay anti-Christian ( and not just because of this issue) thinking daily and have been for a long, long time.   

So what's the Church to do? Roll over and accept it? Some denominations have done exactly that. Do any truly think God will call them righteous on the day of judgement? 

Of course homosexuals shouldn't be barred from coming to church if they are seeking the truth and want to learn about God, love, sin and repentance. They should be welcomed with open arms and much thanksgiving to God just as any other sinner should.

But if they refuse to repent of their sins and refuse to even admit that it is a sin then they can't remain forever any more than a drunkard, thief, adulterer, murderer etc etc should be allowed to.

Didn't Paul say to put them out and not to even eat with such unless or until they change and repent?

 

[Athanasius]

If this is directed towards me...

So what's the Church to do? Roll over and accept it? Some denominations have done exactly that. Do any truly think God will call them righteous on the day of judgement?

Do we all understand that I have raised concerns about the church's action/activity and not its theological position? What I'm saying is that this isn't about rolling over and accepting anything, but about better representing the love of Christ to our neighbours, enemies (read: neighbours), etc. The denominations that affirm same-sex relationships are clearly acting contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Of course homosexuals shouldn't be barred from coming to church if they are seeking the truth and want to learn about God, love, sin and repentance. They should be welcomed with open arms and much thanksgiving to God just as any other sinner should.

But if they refuse to repent of their sins and refuse to even admit that it is a sin then they can't remain forever any more than a drunkard, thief, adulterer, murderer etc etc should be allowed to.

Didn't Paul say to put them out and not to even eat with such unless or until they change and repent?

Yes, and the Mormons and JW's take this most to heart.

I'm not suggesting - indeed, no one is - that someone actively in a same-sex relationship should go without being confronted about that particular sin. When I make my point about hypocrisy it's that we have in our list:

- Homosexuals
- Drunks
- Thieves
- Adulterers
- Murders
- 'etc.'

But the now implied minor sins aren't so much of a problem: idolatry, lying, gluttony, taking the Lord's name in vain, porn addiction, failing to love one's neighbours, etc. When is the last time someone was kicked out of a church because they ate too much, or didn't help the poor, the widow, the imprisoned? Has any church tossed out all the prayer line gossipers? We don't kick out the alcoholics unless they get sloppy, the pastors that utterly fail their families, or the porn addicts because there are numerous programs to help with the addiction. The church even celebrates, as a testament to its great discernment, leader after leader who one after another is caught up in sex scandal after sex scandal, authority abuse, and more.

My point is that the framing of the question is important.

Natural law is a sort of "biological governance" designed and implemented by God

And the suggested answer applies to everyone who rejects God, not just men having sex with other men.

We're in contro and to be perfectly honest I'm not sure what the OP is trying to demonstrate. That there's a natural law God has put in place to ravage/condemn men who have sex with other men? That's not eye rolling.

[Sojourner]

But, what did Jesus say to the woman herself? He said, "Go, and sin no more." He told her to change her lifestyle. You infer that calling homosexuality a sin shows a lack of love, and disappoints God. However, downplaying homosexuality and enabling those in its grip to continue in a lifestyle that will ultimately send them to hell is not love. It's facilitating a soul's downward spiral into damnation. Do you not think God would be disappointed with that?

I would be implying and you would be inferring, but no, that's not what I've implied.

I don't know that adultery is a 'lifestyle' for this woman (is such a thing ever said about the woman?), so I'd wonder if that's an eisegetical insertion meant to create a connection between her adultery qua lifestyle, that Jesus tells her to 'sin no more', and same-sex relationships / sexual encounters that are today often talked about as a 'lifestyle'.

My mention of the story brings us, I think, to the obvious "go and sin no more" and in today's cultural climate this is Jesus letting someone off easy for sin (we don't acknowledge that because it's Jesus, but if it were anyone else, say Brian McLaren - remember him? - we'd be all over him). But that places us in the position of being on Jesus' side, and if you want, we could take the more cynical approach.

The cynical approach is that we are in the position of the religious leaders. They brought the woman before Jesus in accordance with the Mosaic law, except they also forgot to bring the man with her, which was required by Mosaic law. In our circumstance, the position of the modern Western church is to consider "homosexuality is sin" as orthodoxy, and anything else at heterodoxy or heresy. Do I think same-sex activity is sin? Yes, and that's clearly what Scripture teaches. The lack of love isn't in calling 'homosexuality a sin' (slightly inaccurate phrasing but hey that's what we have to work with), it's in how we engage with the same-sex attracted person.

John 8 from a different possible world:

Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a man who had been caught in the act of laying with another man. They put him in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this man was caught defiling himself with another man. The law of Moses says to stone him. What do you say?”

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the man. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the man, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” he said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

I'm suggesting that the lack of love is in how we tell same-sex attracted people that same-sex activity is sin, and then God from heaven pats us on the back. In reality, the church has said something like, "You're in sin you gross disgusting deviant homosexual child predator God hates you repent sinner or you'll burn in hell with the rest of the pedophiles you gross excuse of a good for nothing 'person'". Today people have gotten clever: hate the sin, not the sinner, but the presumption of "I am not them and thank God for they are gross" remains.

I've overtly emphasized my view that that sin is sin, regardless of the type, and that homosexuality is no worse than many others. But you've ignored that, asserting that I'm fixated on homosexuality to the exclusion of all other sins--which simply is not true.

No I haven't said that about you, and no, I haven't ignored your view that sin is sin (is sin?).

I've pointed out that this sin stands out from others because it is the only one that is publicly affirmed and "celebrated," even among some Christians.

It's not the only sin that's publicly affirmed and celebrated, even among Christians. Are you telling me you can't think of any other sin that stands out to you in this way? Same-sex activity is the only one? There's no like, gossip magazines, daytime talk shows, and prayer request phone lines? Nothing at all?

You've proven my point by continuously minimizing and downplaying it, making me out to be some kind of hate-monger for even mentioning it. I believe you, like many others, are emotionally invested in the matter, hence the myopic view and rigorous defense.

That's an uncharitable reading of what I've written. Where did I say you were some kind of hate-monger?

Reviewing your previous post, I realize I reacted more defensively than your verbiage warranted. Due to my general view of same sex relationships, I took references regarding callousness toward same sex people, judgmental finger-pointing, and "high horses" as personal, when that should not have been the case. You're correct that I misinterpreted your intent and I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction, and for unduly mischaracterizing your intent. When I'm wrong, I take ownership. I was, and I do.

Understand that as someone pushing 70, and dyed-in-the-wool "old school," the moral turpitude in which our society is descending is disheartening to me -- of which the growing power and influence of LGBT organizations are part and parcel. The LGBT agenda has gone well beyond a struggle for civil rights and freedom to be who they are. A burgeoning desire for acceptance and equality has given way to the expectation of assent and affirmation. And that brings with it changes that are unsettling.

 I struggle with the idea that calling someone "sir or "ma'am" can now potentially offend someone "identifying" as other than their appearance suggests. I don't like the fact that we're expected to use gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them" when referring to an individual. Normal rules of grammar must be abandoned because a person "might" be offended? I think the concept of gender fluidity -- that a person's gender can actually vary from day to day, depending on the present state of mind is ludicrous.

I hate that public school systems are teaching kids to question their gender identity, explore their sexuality and to dismiss the concept of binary gender. I detest the fact that kids are being programmed to think men dressing up like women is normal, as per the "drag queen story time" campaign being adopted by many public schools,  libraries, and bookstores. Kids at a young age are very impressionable, and this is nothing short of blatant indoctrination.

God created male and female specifically, and never intended for the line between them to be blurred by same sex relationships, bisexuality, or cross-dressing. These things have been around almost as long as mankind, but only in recent times have we seen an agenda promoted and advocated to such a degree of aggressiveness and tenacity.

People should be free to be who they feel they are, without interference from those who disagree with them. But those who demand freedom of conscience, that people respect their differences and perspectives, should be willing to do the same for those prone to a more traditional, Bible-based mindset. And as those charged with bearing the light of the Gospel, Christians should not be expected to hide their lamps under a basket because it opposes an agenda promoting sexual deviance. But love and compassion should always undergird their testimony.

[Redeemed]

If this is directed towards me...

Nope. It sure wasn't.

Do we all understand that I have raised concerns about the church's action/activity and not its theological position? What I'm saying is that this isn't about rolling over and accepting anything, but about better representing the love of Christ to our neighbours, enemies (read: neighbours), etc. The denominations that affirm same-sex relationships are clearly acting contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Again. I agree. I already thought we were on the same page about that.

Of course homosexuals shouldn't be barred from coming to church if they are seeking the truth and want to learn about God, love, sin and repentance. They should be welcomed with open arms and much thanksgiving to God just as any other sinner should.

But if they refuse to repent of their sins and refuse to even admit that it is a sin then they can't remain forever any more than a drunkard, thief, adulterer, murderer etc etc should be allowed to.

Didn't Paul say to put them out and not to even eat with such unless or until they change and repent?

Yes, and the Mormons and JW's take this most to heart.

So what? Seriously. Am I wrong?

I'm not suggesting - indeed, no one is - that someone actively in a same-sex relationship should go without being confronted about that particular sin. When I make my point about hypocrisy it's that we have in our list:

- Homosexuals
- Drunks
- Thieves
- Adulterers
- Murders
- 'etc.'

But the now implied minor sins aren't so much of a problem: idolatry, lying, gluttony, taking the Lord's name in vain, porn addiction, failing to love one's neighbours, etc. When is the last time someone was kicked out of a church because they ate too much, or didn't help the poor, the widow, the imprisoned? Has any church tossed out all the prayer line gossipers? We don't kick out the alcoholics unless they get sloppy, the pastors that utterly fail their families, or the porn addicts because there are numerous programs to help with the addiction. The church even celebrates, as a testament to its great discernment, leader after leader who one after another is caught up in sex scandal after sex scandal, authority abuse, and more.

My point is that the framing of the question is important.

I agree and wonder why you would assume I wouldn't. Have you never read any of the many, many posts I've written over the years that say pretty much the same thing?

Maybe I should ask for my screen name to be changed to BrianW. Would that help?

 But again I ask; Must we deal with the hypocrisy before we can discuss this?

We're in contro and to be perfectly honest I'm not sure what the OP is trying to demonstrate. That there's a natural law God has put in place to ravage/condemn men who have sex with other men? That's not eye rolling.

I'm wondering the same thing. It certainly appears that way. The thread has gotten pretty sidetracked so we haven't been able to get to it yet I think.

[Oscar_Kipling]

The current trend where I live is that teenagers are told at school to just try out both options to find out what suits them best. How bad do you want to have it?

Told by who at school?

[Athanasius]

So what? Seriously. Am I wrong?

It's a curiosity (to me) because when the JWs or Mormons do it I think the behaviour is rather extreme. It's not just ex-communication from the congregation until the sin is repented of, but cutting off from family as well. In these cases, I would suspect that either group takes the Pauline instruction too far, and forgets the intent (to save the person in question, ultimately).

I agree and wonder why you would assume I wouldn't. Have you never read any of the many, many posts I've written over the years that say pretty much the same thing?

Maybe I should ask for my screen name to be changed to BrianW. Would that help?

I'm not assuming anything, which is why I'm being as verbose as I am. It's been years since I read any of your posts so even if I had read any of the ones in question, I doubt I'd remember.

(Just to mention: we can change your username if you want).

But again I ask; Must we deal with the hypocrisy before we can discuss this?

As I said: no, but we have to be careful in how we discuss this.

I'm wondering the same thing. It certainly appears that way. The thread has gotten pretty sidetracked so we haven't been able to get to it yet I think.

If we do at all. It seems we've mostly said, "yes" or "yes but everyone" and then moved on.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Reviewing your previous post, I realize I reacted more defensively than your verbiage warranted. Due to my general view of same sex relationships, I took references regarding callousness toward same sex people, judgmental finger-pointing, and "high horses" as personal, when that should not have been the case. You're correct that I misinterpreted your intent and I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction, and for unduly mischaracterizing your intent. When I'm wrong, I take ownership. I was, and I do.

Understand that as someone pushing 70, and dyed-in-the-wool "old school," the moral turpitude in which our society is descending is disheartening to me -- of which the growing power and influence of LGBT organizations are part and parcel. The LGBT agenda has gone well beyond a struggle for civil rights and freedom to be who they are. A burgeoning desire for acceptance and equality has given way to the expectation of assent and affirmation. And that brings with it changes that are unsettling.

 I struggle with the idea that calling someone "sir or "ma'am" can now potentially offend someone "identifying" as other than their appearance suggests. I don't like the fact that we're expected to use gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them" when referring to an individual. Normal rules of grammar must be abandoned because a person "might" be offended? I think the concept of gender fluidity -- that a person's gender can actually vary from day to day, depending on the present state of mind is ludicrous.

I hate that public school systems are teaching kids to question their gender identity, explore their sexuality and to dismiss the concept of binary gender. I detest the fact that kids are being programmed to think men dressing up like women is normal, as per the "drag queen story time" campaign being adopted by many public schools,  libraries, and bookstores. Kids at a young age are very impressionable, and this is nothing short of blatant indoctrination.

God created male and female specifically, and never intended for the line between them to be blurred by same sex relationships, bisexuality, or cross-dressing. These things have been around almost as long as mankind, but only in recent times have we seen an agenda promoted and advocated to such a degree of aggressiveness and tenacity.

People should be free to be who they feel they are, without interference from those who disagree with them. But those who demand freedom of conscience, that people respect their differences and perspectives, should be willing to do the same for those prone to a more traditional, Bible-based mindset. And as those charged with bearing the light of the Gospel, Christians should not be expected to hide their lamps under a basket because it opposes an agenda promoting sexual deviance. But love and compassion should always undergird their testimony.

That was mighty white of you to apologize. Hasn't It always been the case that you could offend someone by referring to them as a gender that they don't Identify as much like saying "congratulations on your pregnancy" to a woman that is merely overweight may be offensive or hurtful? I had a dinner with my fiancées parents a few weeks back and they similarly expressed frustration and confusion about "this whole pronoun thing", however when I asked how many times they had actually been confronted about it by some gender fluid weirdo or some such they admitted that it never actually happened to them. That isn't to say that it has never happened to you, but I do wonder if the backlash is proportionate to the actual aggrieved or if it is proportional to the perception of being overrun by these new frightening attitudes and ideas. Vowels shift, neologisms become logisms and grammar evolves, standing on the rules of grammar is something of a last bastion imo and I have to wonder if your adherence to your understanding of grammar is more important than referring to a person in a way that makes them feel comfortable outside of your religious stance on gender/sexuality...If you call someone ma'am or sir and they say  "please don't, that makes me feel old" do you insist on continuing because its grammatically correct? There are plenty of grammatically cromulent words you probably shouldn't use if you don't want to offend people, I mean grammar as you see it is itself is surely chock full of decorum, courtesies and bits of etiquette that do not come naturally to the non-native but they are transparent to you because you have been indoctrinated already.

I haven't been in grade school in many many years, so i'm always very skeptical about uproars over what is being taught to children. CRT and common core and of course gender/sexuality business are all hot buttons but there are reasons to be skeptical of the scope and scale of those issues in our education system. Outside of that though Gender dysphoria is real, Homosexuality is real, drag queens are real  along with many other plenty "alternative" ways of being, and our society hasn't always put its best foot forward when treating "different' people like people that aren't to be gawked at or treated as outcasts or with disgust. Again my expirience with what school aged children are actually learning only goes as far as my conversations and occasional help with schoolwork of children of family and friends but insofar as gender and sexuality is treated its treated like other historically maligned minority "positions" like ethnicity, culture, disabilities and so on where the purpose is get children to recognize those things that are and were considered as weird and something in days gone by that would have been ridiculed or castigated as simply another way for a person to be and as such they should be treated with the respect and dignity of "normal" people, heck you can even be friends with a person like that, and heck even if you are like that you yourself do not deserve ridicule and disrespect because you too are a person worthy of dignity respect and friends and stuff like that. IT makes me wonder, how do you teach a child that their gay or gender dysphoric peer is a sinner and that should be addressed while also ensuring that that doesn't curdle into what being different often means to children? I get if you don't like how this conundrum is being addressed today, but you have to admit that your generation did a pretty piss poor job of addressing it in the past...so maybe you have something more constructive on the matter than it frightens and frustrates you?

[Redeemed]

It's a curiosity (to me) because when the JWs or Mormons do it I think the behaviour is rather extreme. It's not just ex-communication from the congregation until the sin is repented of, but cutting off from family as well. In these cases, I would suspect that either group takes the Pauline instruction too far, and forgets the intent (to save the person in question, ultimately).

Ahh. OK, now I get what you meant.

I'm not assuming anything, which is why I'm being as verbose as I am.

I misunderstood then. Sorry about that.
 

It's been years since I read any of your posts so even if I had read any of the ones in question, I doubt I'd remember.

I made that much of an impression, eh? 

( Yes, that's a joke)

OK. I'll flesh out my posts and replies more fully in the future then. Easy peasy.

[Athanasius]

I made that much of an impression, eh? 

That Brian fellow, I remember him, but what was he about again?

[Athanasius]

Reviewing your previous post, I realize I reacted more defensively than your verbiage warranted. Due to my general view of same sex relationships, I took references regarding callousness toward same sex people, judgmental finger-pointing, and "high horses" as personal, when that should not have been the case. You're correct that I misinterpreted your intent and I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction, and for unduly mischaracterizing your intent. When I'm wrong, I take ownership. I was, and I do.

Thanks, that's appreciated.

Understand that as someone pushing 70, and dyed-in-the-wool "old school," the moral turpitude in which our society is descending is disheartening to me -- of which the growing power and influence of LGBT organizations are part and parcel. The LGBT agenda has gone well beyond a struggle for civil rights and freedom to be who they are. A burgeoning desire for acceptance and equality has given way to the expectation of assent and affirmation. And that brings with it changes that are unsettling.

It has even gone so far that there are plenty of within the LGBT 'community' (as if it's some homogenous thing) who are pariahs and black sheep for holding to views deemed verboten (particularly within trans spaces). But yes, there has been a move beyond 'recognise I'm a person trying to live my life' towards affirm X, Y, or Z or else you're outmoded, immoral, and so on. I don't think there's any working through that conflict when it comes to Christian teaching, as the nuanced interaction of love in light/in spite of sin has been lost on both sides. It's now affirmation not toleration, and actually I think that's a point on which society is being polarised. So that big agenda as presented by the media is only that, I think -- a media presentation. Maybe that's a discussion for a different thread, though.

I struggle with the idea that calling someone "sir or "ma'am" can now potentially offend someone "identifying" as other than their appearance suggests. I don't like the fact that we're expected to use gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them" when referring to an individual. Normal rules of grammar must be abandoned because a person "might" be offended? I think the concept of gender fluidity -- that a person's gender can actually vary from day to day, depending on the present state of mind is ludicrous.

To be fair, if someone looks like a 'sir' or a 'ma'am' and they're referred to as such, but aren't, then that's an opportunity for them to correct, not to become offended. There are certainly people that immediately jump to offence, but I don't think that's the majority, and I think the majority don't approve of such antics. At the same time, consider if you were expected to justify your existence to everyone you met -- you'd eventually get annoyed too.

To 'they' / 'them', that's something only enbys (non-binary) typically request, and if you were to call someone else a 'they' / 'them' you would be misgendering them, and possibly also offending their understanding of grammar. The gender neutral stuff is another puffed-up media thing that does nothing but polarise society. Outside of the enbys I know, I don't know anyone who cares for 'they' / 'them'. And yes, it's a difficult one to use without having to think about it.

The whole gender fluid by the second thing is a trope.

I hate that public school systems are teaching kids to question their gender identity, explore their sexuality and to dismiss the concept of binary gender. I detest the fact that kids are being programmed to think men dressing up like women is normal, as per the "drag queen story time" campaign being adopted by many public schools,  libraries, and bookstores. Kids at a young age are very impressionable, and this is nothing short of blatant indoctrination.

Yeah, I'm a black sheep for opposing the 'down with the binary' crowd. We have to understand that this thinking is informed by a metaphysic most people don't share in, and I think it's quite proper to be concerned about what this means for our understanding of things like biology.

I don't care for the drag queen stuff because I think it's a mockery of women, but I also don't live in an area with 'drag queen story time'. Like, do women really dress up as drag queens do? Not so much.

God created male and female specifically, and never intended for the line between them to be blurred by same sex relationships, bisexuality, or cross-dressing.

He did, but then He also presumably didn't want the rebellion of Genesis 3 to happen, and it did, so we don't live in the world as God created it to be, and we ourselves are not the people God created us to be.

I'm dysphoric by the way, and on HRT, and I do what you would consider to be cross-dressing (not that anyone would notice because at this level, the only difference is the gender on the tag). I tried for decades to find some other way to deal with the dysphoria, but it was either what I'm doing now, or depression leading into suicidal ideation. Throw in an unrelated medical issue, and well, here we are (I tried the depression, it didn't work out).

So that's why the stakes are existential for me. I've gone from theologically sophisticated to insane in a matter of seconds because of a medical issue sensationalized by the media. Fun times.

People should be free to be who they feel they are, without interference from those who disagree with them. But those who demand freedom of conscience, that people respect their differences and perspectives, should be willing to do the same for those prone to a more traditional, Bible-based mindset. And as those charged with bearing the light of the Gospel, Christians should not be expected to hide their lamps under a basket because it opposes an agenda promoting sexual deviance. But love and compassion should always undergird their testimony.

Yes well as Jesus said about the world...

[Sojourner]

We're in contro and to be perfectly honest I'm not sure what the OP is trying to demonstrate. That there's a natural law God has put in place to ravage/condemn men who have sex with other men? That's not eye rolling.

Well, I started the thread with the idea of suggesting that same sex relationships were contrary to nature. (I had intended to edit the title, but ended up submitting the post with the unsatisfactory, "Does nature discriminate against same sex people?") As I stated earlier, I pointed out that according to both the CDC and the WHO, men who have sex with other men seem to be more susceptible to certain diseases than the general population. It's consistent with logic that these individuals' being disproportionately affected suggests a correlation between the detrimental consequences and their sexual orientation.

There is also the fact that no sexual union between two men or two women can result in reproduction. Same sex couples cannot reproduce. Unless there are children by a previous marriage, they must resort to adoption, in vitro fertilization, a surrogate mother, or some other workaround. In that sense, nature definitely does not favor same sex couples. Some may argue that heterosexual couples sometimes have to resort to these same measures. Yet, in those instances, it's the exception, rather than the rule. In most cases, sexual union between a man and a woman can result in conception and pregnancy. Nature and biological dysfunction prevent this from occurring with same sex couples 100 percent of the time.

Nature seeks to enable the perpetuation of a species. So, we must ask ourselves what benefit is there in a sexual attraction that cannot result in offspring. Would nature facilitate a genetic dead end? If a sexual attraction cannot possibly result in reproduction, such a pairing is not of nature, and is by definition, unnatural. People are free to go at it however they choose, but same sex couples must do so with the caveat that their intercourse is an unnatural act. If natural design is not facilitating the union, it must be something else.

For many, what the Bible says is irrelevant. It was my intention to show that nature itself "discriminates" against same sex people, and that such pairings run contrary to what God originally intended. Whether that fact makes a difference to anyone, or causes them one pause for reflection depends on the individual. No judgment, animosity, or lack of compassion or empathy was intended.

[ProDeo]

The current trend where I live is that teenagers are told at school to just try out both options to find out what suits them best. How bad do you want to have it?

Told by who at school?

Teachers. 12-13-14 old boys/girls are told to experience. I wonder how confusing that must be at that age.