Worthy News:Parades celebrate gay pride nationwide - CNN

[sgaotw]

I don't know if I was born gay or not, and it doesn't really matter for me.

As long as I have attraction towards the same gender, I am gay. Why is being gay such a bad thing? As long as I don't act on it, it's not a sin. My concern is by removing the "gay" label, you are taking away a part of me, a part of me that is a real struggle and a means of continuing to search for God, and you're pretending as though my life would be suddenly easier if I stop calling myself gay. If I am not gay and I am not straight, then what am I? If you have a pernicious desire to steal things all the time, you are a klepto, whether you actually steal or not.

And yes, they would be fornicators. Jesus said if you thought about it, you might as well have done it. It's also difficult to compare fornication and homosexuality when one is defined by action and one is defined by attraction.

Edited July 25, 2006 by sgaotw

[sgaotw]

I don't know if I was born gay or not, and it doesn't really matter for me.

As long as I have attraction towards the same gender, I am gay. Why is being gay such a bad thing? As long as I don't act on it, it's not a sin. My concern is by removing the "gay" label, you are taking away a part of me, a part of me that is a real struggle and a means of continuing to search for God, and you're pretending as though my life would be suddenly easier if I stop calling myself gay. If I am not gay and I am not straight, then what am I? If you have a pernicious desire to steal things all the time, you are a klepto, whether you actually steal or not.

And yes, they would be fornicators. Jesus said if you thought about it, you might as well have done it. It's also difficult to compare fornication and homosexuality when one is defined by action and one is defined by attraction.

I just don't understand why you need a label to be you. I already said that I understand you are not doing anything sinful. You said that when you tell some people you are gay, the reaction is that people hide their children assuming you may be a child molester. If I was working in a retail store and a man came up to me and said he was a klepto, what do you think would be my reaction? I would be watching him like a hawk making sure he doesn't steal. At the same time, if this man has never acted on his impulses, he has brought upon himself a type of scrutiny he shouldn't have to wear. As a store clerk, I have been made to think this man will rob me, when nothing could be further from the truth. In addition, if a man never steals, to me he is not a thief because he is tempted to steal.

Let me give you another example. Lets say that I had a desire to be an astronaut. There was just something inside of me that drove me to want to be able to explore outer space. If I never act upon that desire and actually become an astronaut, can I honestly tell people I am one? The desire is there, but that is where it ends. To take the title astronaut away from me would not be to take away who I am.

Anyway, I did not write any of this to give you a hard time. I honestly believe you are a Christian and just think you are wearing something you shouldn't be. In addition, in my opinion for whatever that is worth, I do believe your life would be easier if you got rid of the title and stopped confessing to everyone you are gay. If I went around telling everyone all of my areas of weakness, or for that matter, if any other Christian did so, there would be people that would look down on us and question if we are real or not. I am not even talking about committing sin, just being tempted.

Concerning what you said about fornicators, what Jesus said was that in God's eyes if a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he considers him to be guilty of adultery. The Bible doesn't say that if a man is tempted by a woman he is guilty of adultery. The difference is that a man can be tempted, take the thought captive and reject it, or he can dwell on the thoughts and be guilty of lust.

lol I never said people actually hid their kids from me. I'm saying I'm ready for the response. (I'm 21 and I look younger, so I don't give off the creepy old man vibe. lol) Having a desire to steal something isn't a fundamental part of being human. Feeling emotionally and romantically attracted to someone is. Again, this is semantics that I'm tired of. Homosexuality is defined by attraction itself - it's in the head or whatever. You don't have to act on it, but you're still gay. Fornication is defined by action. Lying is defined by action. Walking, talking, breathing, worshipping, and eating are all defined by action. Hypothetically I can be in a near-coma and still be gay.

Why shouldn't I wear this label? Because people are uncomfortable around me? Unless I'm openly displaying my lifestyle, they shouldn't be. Again, I don't care if Christians look down on me. Only God matters. Look, if someone came to me looking for advice on women, I'll politely say I'm gay and I'm not an expert in that area. I won't beat around the fence about it.

I'm not proud of being gay per se, but I'm proud of the fact that despite being gay, I still choose to follow God. I don't have a giant rainbow flag in my room, but I won't be in the closet because "I make people uncomfortable." Not that I'll ever march in a parade or anything like that.

I think this "same sex attraction" label is worse than the "gay" label. It's a way to whitewash an uncomfortable truth.

[sgaotw]

I was glad we were having an open conversation. Now I'm glad to know probably every Christian I'm going to meet is going to compare me with people who have sex with animals. I never said being gay was what defined me as a person. Actually, you did.

This just further goes to show I'm better off worshipping God through a television set on a Sunday morning worship service program.

Off topic, but if marriage is to so sacred, why not be more vigilant against spousal abuse and child abuse?

There should be an outcry, rage, and Constitutional amendment against that.

[billie]

Yay for Lincoln Davis, yay!

[sgaotw]

I am saying that having a sinful inclination is not a part of who someone is and they don't have to wear a label for it. As far as spousal abuse and child abuse goes, I like most are opposed to both, but a Constitutional Amendment is not necessary to enforce laws against these behaviors because no courts are suggesting there is a Consititutional right to be abusive. Laws are already on the books and being enforced against these crimes.

Umm...I thought we were born into sin and we are not perfect creatures so we are inherently inclined to sin? Unless by sin you mean "gay" sin, because that sin is worse than looking at Playboy, of course. I brought up the Constitutional amendment to highlight the hypocrisy of defending the "sanctity" of marriage when there are every day occurrences that can be prevented and punished, yet nothing is being done by the religious right. Where's the outcry and rage against domestic violence and child abuse? Forget man-made Constitution - what is the religious right doing for the starving children, racial hatred, hypersexualization, prevalence of pornography, etc etc? Don't they tear away at the fabric of society?

You probably thank God you aren't gay. For me, I see it as a blessing. I have more of a reason to follow God because the more Satan pulls at me, the more I call out to God. Why can't you people just accept that there are gay Christians? And what do you care about labels? Isn't "Christian" a label? Hell, why do we even have adjectives in the first place? None of them can accurately describe who we are.

[sgaotw]

Christian is a label, but not one associating a person to sin.

It's associated with sin because you assume the person lives in the lifestyle. If, for some crazy reason God uses you to reach out to a gay person, would you invalidate a crucial part of him/her by saying, "You're not gay - it's just a label"? God doesn't set you free from being gay - sure He might help you fight the temptation, but red, or yellow black or white, you'd still be gay.

You must be wondering why I'm so angry. You're just basically telling me I should hide who I am because Christians will perceive me to be more sinful. What happened to judging after getting to know the person or if s/he's actually doing the deed with members of the same gender? So if you call yourself "straight," then that's OK because "straight" sins are a little better than "gay" sins, and since almost everyone has "straight" sins, it doesn't really matter.

OK, I'm done. I hope you never come across a gay person who's trying to seek God. You'll basically spew the same "pray to God and he'll give you a nice wife and family and you'll be straight and everything will be dandy" crap.

[billie]

Sure God sets some people free from being gay. There are a lot in my church with families now. There are some too, who aren't living the lifestyle anymore, but still struggle with the temptation. I think we all need to remember that we do all have our own thorns, however you decide to describe it. It all depends on what God has planned for a person's life. Not everyone is meant to be married with children.

[George]

River, your comments are certainly what homosexuals would want us to think as to the reasons we are against homosexual marriages.

Perhaps we should just stick to what the Bible says -- or should we alter that as well since it doesn't fit?

[O'Dannyboy]

I was just watching a part of Mary Shellys' movie "Frankenstein" and I was reminded of something that has not been brought up in any homosexual debates I have participated in. Most homosexuals have heard the argument that were they given the legal right to marry, then the government would eventually have to legalize bestality. What I am curious about is how homosexuals feel about incest. Since they are of the opinion that neither race or sex matter where "true love" is concerned they must also aprove of incest as well, also regardless of race or sex. When you consider this, the argument that our social foundations would begin to crumble begin to seem a little more real. If the law permitted people of the same sex to legally wed then so too must that same law allow members of the same family to do the same. Taking this into consideration, we understand why same sex "marriages" must not be allowed as they would only serve as the spring board for the legalisation of other behaviors that are also socially unaceptable, and for good reason.

[O'Dannyboy]

I think now we have to reconsider our views on how we should react to those who chose not to act on desires. For those people who harber certain desires, while they may not act out on them, we must understand that the desire only continues to grow. If a man is sexually aroused by children then that man is a threat regardless whether or not he has YET acted out on it. Just look at the effects on children that have been molested by either a priest or parent. More times than naught they keep it to themselves and that single event becomes that particle of dust upon which other negative events begin to compound and grow. Then, at some point, when the pressure is unbearable, something triggers that person to act out and the results are often shocking. The point is, we should not be so quick to disregard desires that are not acted out on as they tend to fester and sour given enough time.