Exodus International shuts right the hell down.

[NoraBrimstone]

I really didn't see that coming. I'm pleased that it happened. I hope other similar groups follow suit soon.

Especially the humourously named OVERCOMER ministries.

[Drich]

Shall I let you in on a secret, Drich? Homosexual attraction isn't some cursed sigil on the heart of every gay man

Then why is one of the primary banners or goto defenses: 'We did not choose this life we were born this way?'

It's a sexual attraction, the same as any other

Which is the very point I have made in this thread at least 1/2 a dozen times alrready. Now just because it is a sexual desire does not mean one gets a pass on all obligation he may have with a wife, and family.

The same as heterosexual attraction. The reason we have people having gay sex is the same reason we have people having heterosexual sex; people like having sex. It's a natural instinct.

Which makes it no different than hetrosexcual sex in that it is also a sin if not sanctioned in the proper context.

The issue here is that you are making the gross error of treating homosexual attractions and sex as a problem intrinsically, something that needs to be fought against at all times, or else it's a "problem."

Nope. That's what you need me to argue inorder for your argument to work.

I suggest to you that it is not, and that the reason we have so many families troubled by same sex attraction is because we have a culture, influenced by religion, that has enforced heteronormative gender and sex roles and, until quite recently, a mostly violent and discriminatory response to those who break them.

This is not what is being discussed. Put your personal feelings aside and address the topic at hand.

I set a very specific set of parameters in play. One where a family man wakes up one day and realizes he has been gay all of his life, but has made a commitment to a wife and kids. This man seeks the help of a place like the one that is being discussed. My question was what happens to those guys? What happens to their families? Are they doomed to fail because people like you do not wish to acknoweledge them in favor of their own situations?

This is not about you or how hard it is to be a gay/bi man in a religious world. (or whatever you told me you were) Again this discussion concerns one situation out of the possiable millions of situations, which may effect thousands of lives.

The issue isn't in gay people leaving their families. It's in having a society that forced them into a familial configuration that doesn't fit right in the first place, rather than just allowing them to form one in a way that works for them.

Actually this is exactly what we are discussing. For what give a gay man the right to seek personal happiness over that of the Family he has vowed to Honor and protect?

The problem is this desperate need of religious groups to preserve their nuclear family ideal, no matter who they need to trample to make that the standard.

The problem is the agenda that has one seeking self wants/needs over those he has commited to love and protect. What is wrong with the world when we have to remind fathers to grow the f*** up and be men. To put their wants and desire aside for those who depend on him. For those he Literaly took a vow to die for! To be with till death!

Yes, but if you're married you might want to talk to the missus about it before you go ahead with it. And if she's not into it, keep it in your pants. And if she is but the cleaning lady isn't, same deal. Once again, the problem you're seeing has nothing to do with same sex attraction, but with infidelity.

Really?!?! So what if the Missus decides it is not ok for her Husban to be drilled in the can by some other dude? Must he too keep his pants on?

That's between you and your wife. What the hell is wrong with polyamory, anyway?

Paul identifies it as a "Thou shalt not" of the followers of Christ.

Agreed.

(To the gay man should be held to the same standards as herto men in marriage) So my question remains. If all the places like exodus int. shut down how or where will potentially gay men seek help? If the society deems that all antigay therapy is a sin against society then is every family man who has gay thoughts doomed, while straight men can easily find help for their extra martial urges?

Isn't that a little bit anti gay/inequality for those 'gay men' who want help? It's being gay hard enough, with out the militant gay guys who would force their life style down the throats (possiable pun intended) of every man who would even potentially be gay?

But then, there's a difference between developing a craving for, say, redheads, and living in a society that systematically enforces a preconception that your attraction to redheads is different and sinful, and deserving of punishment.

Who is looking to punish, God? If we are looking at God's punishment then know it is not restricted to unrepentant gay men. All unrepentant sinners are subject to this punishment. Christ Himself even extended this sin to include lustful hetro thoughts. So seeking help for sexual urges is not a gay only mandate.

There was an equality when it comes to helping men in general with their sexual urges with in the church. it is not limited to suppressing gay men. Now a big part of that equality is gone (and all who hate God said Amen) You all seem to abhor the idea of allowing a potentially gay man the freedom needed to choose his sexual orientation. You seem bent on the iidea that there is only one correct way to be gay and that is the flameist way possiable.

There's a difference between finding redheads attractive and being biologically predisposed to only find redheads attractive, and yet living in a society that forces you to hide that attraction and get married to a brunette, whom you can't find attractive, just to keep up appearances.

after 20 years and three kids, anything that shows you intrest that is not in your situation becomes extreamly attractive. There is nothing new here. Only the idea that one can now skirt his or her responsiablity if they fly the gay banner.

I agree with you that cheating isn't cool, but you have to admit that the situation is less in the gay man's control than it probably should be. He should get a divorce and be allowed to marry someone he's genuinely attracted to.

Oh wait, you guys aren't keen on either of those things, either...

Let me know what you come up with.

[Silver]

I set a very specific set of parameters in play. One where a family man wakes up one day and realizes he has been gay all of his life, but has made a commitment to a wife and kids.

As important as it is to keep one's commitments, it is unrealistic to expect some people to keep their commitments under certain circumstances. Of course, each family should decide how to best handle the situation for their best interests.

There is nothing wrong with the man divorcing his wife so that he can seek happiness elsewhere. After all, if he remains trapped in the marriage, both he and his wife, and the children as a result, will all be unhappy.

Happiness must come first, because love cannot possibly survive without the foundation of happiness to support it. As much as religious people like to pretend at reality with faith, faking happiness is just as detrimental in the long run.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Don't care if being gay is natural or unnatural or just a "phase" some people go through or experimentation or rebellion or (insert anything else you can come up with here), it is not wrong. I've never grasped the obsession with the "gay is natural" argument, so what if it isn't? If it's a choice, big deal, as long as they're happy. But as so many subscribe to the other argument, it has been shown biologically that gay people are born gay. So.

@Drich
If a woman finds out her bf/husband is gay, unlikely she'll want to be with him in that sense. Concealing his gayness from her is a bad thing to do, she has unknowingly dedicated many years of her life to a man who is unable to feel the same way. The right thing to do is to be honest and salvage what is left, not continuing on and be miserable together till death. Please don't say lie to her to keep her happy, that's condescending and disrespectful, also making the enormous assumption that she can only be happy with you.

[Drich]

I can judge the actions of God against his own morality, if you prefer. He does not even meet his own standards.

what are you talking about?
"God's standards" are a dividing line that seperates man and God. Man has been told do not do X, not because there is some magical force that says X is always bad, and that God to is bound by this force. What makes X bad is because God said X is bad for us to do.

I'm certain they would tell you that they are interpreting the Bible and God's word correctly. Who's correct and how do you prove it? I bet that would be a debate that would never end.

The debate end rather quickly when you have a solid understanding of the very basics (have actually read the bible and understand the core of it.) Most biblical debates go one because neither party really have a basic understanding of it.

All debate begins and ends on one precept. Are we using the bible in it's entirety and are we using passage in it originally intended context? If the answer is yes then 90% of the debates will end on exposing context, along with the basic common sense understanding that we are not Old testament Jews.
Ever heard the expression: You were given enough rope to hang yourself?
I believe that is one of the reason we have the old testament.
The OT is still being used by God to help us see the unforgiving nature in our own hearts as Christians. When we couple this unforgiving nature with the whole "Treat others as you like to be treated and couple that with the parable of the unmerciful servant." We have all that we need to understand in this life why God does not see us as one of His own.

Our forgiveness is VERY conditional as per the two conditions I mentioned above "Treat others as you like to be treated and couple that with the parable of the unmerciful servant." In that inorder to forgive and be shown mercy we also must forgive and be shown mercy. Christ even places this condition when He taught us to pray. "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." Without the ablity to forgive we inturn loose our own forgiveness. This and loving God with all of our being is the key to biblical Christianity. Not what church tradition holds onto.

The irony of this being that the only reason homosexuality is life-changing and disruptive is because Christianity views them as enemies of God.

Not of God. Of the Family. Of a man's personal honor and commitment to serve, honor and love all of those under his charge. Homosexuality disrupts all of this and says it is ok to persue what ever you want.

Without that constant and heavy negative influence, homosexuals would not live lives significantly different from heterosexuals.

is living life as hetrosexuals the end goal? What if the hetrosexual couple you up hold chooses to goto hell? Does that not matter? is this perceive normalacy all that is desired?

Again, it is only a problem for people because Christians try so hard to make it a problem for them. If the roles were reversed and homosexuals oppressed heterosexuals in the same way, you would be saying precisely the opposite of what you do now and heterosexuality would be a problem in your eyes.

Ah, no. If the roles were reversed then the problem would resolve itself with in a few generations (or lack of them) For even your god of science and evolution says homosexuality is a sin against nature, one that's reward is an empty womb.

Lest we are already returning to the kryptonian/Matrixian model of procreation. which kinda bypasses Nature, Evolution and God. which maybe why it is not possiable as of yet.

If a family ostracizes someone for their sexual orientation, that is not a family who is worth returning to, because that is not a family who loves them.

If dad comes home and says: "you know what I think I'll be gay from here on out, sorry 'bout your current life kido but me and Chad here, we are off to do whatever it is we want to do without you and your mother... Then he deserves to be ostracized, just like if he runs off with the cleaning lady.

The only reason for the emphasis on Homosexuality, is because Homos get a pass while hetros still get condemned for doing the same thing.

---

So fucking what if you're not divorced.

I'm not talking about you in particular.

So, your not talking about me??? Your just talking to me, about everyone else who believes what I believe?

I'm talking about christian hypocrites in general. So address my argument instead of trying to put a strawman up.

People like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh who spew forth on the "sanctity" of marriage(a meaningless term if ever I heard one) being threatened by gay weddings yet have had multiple divorces.
They are just two that spring to mind, thousands of devout christians get divorced every year despite jesus's clear injunction not to.

Fucking hypocrites, all of you.

So you are talking about me??

Yet will rail against gays even though jesus says nothing on the subject..

Actually He did. He said no sex outside of a sanctified Marriage. He demonstrated a Santified marriage as between a man and woman.(on several different occasions.) He gave absolutely no sanctified pretext in which Homosexuals can have sex. Which makes all Homosexual sex a sin.

[Silver]

Actually He did.

It is interesting how theists consistently tear pieces of scripture out of context to promote their bigotry. Jesus had absolutely nothing to state in regards to homosexuality. Considering how people love to interpret scripture to suit their own needs, there has even been valid scriptural evidence that perhaps Jesus was even gay himself.

[Drich]

I set a very specific set of parameters in play. One where a family man wakes up one day and realizes he has been gay all of his life, but has made a commitment to a wife and kids.

As important as it is to keep one's commitments, it is unrealistic to expect some people to keep their commitments under certain circumstances. Of course, each family should decide how to best handle the situation for their best interests.

There is nothing wrong with the man divorcing his wife so that he can seek happiness elsewhere. After all, if he remains trapped in the marriage, both he and his wife, and the children as a result, will all be unhappy.

Happiness must come first, because love cannot possibly survive without the foundation of happiness to support it. As much as religious people like to pretend at reality with faith, faking happiness is just as detrimental in the long run.

When did 'happiness' become the primary goal of marriage?

Marriage is about Love. Not just eros or the emotion of love but of Agape, Phila, and Storge. For if we choose to love (phila) the other forms will follow, and will step in when one form or another fails.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

Meaning Real love, Die for your family in the most horrid way possiable without giving it a second thought love is not based on happiness or completely on eros. For both of those can come and go like the tides. Mature love looks beyond the passion looks beyond the way you feel, looks well beyond self to the well being of everyone under your charge, despite what you may feel in the moment.

If we all followed how we feel Most marriages wouldn't last too far beyond the honey moon.

[Silver]

When did 'happiness' become the primary goal of marriage?

Since procreation is no longer the primary reason for marriage. The world is already overpopulated. People marry for love and happiness, which go hand in hand, rather than some dark age biblical arrangement.

Meaning Real love. If we all followed how we feel Most marriages wouldn't last too far beyond the honey moon.

Sorry, but religion holds no monopoly on the definition of love. Each individual is free to find love how s/he wises.

Statistically, gay relationships last longer than most heterosexual marriages.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Ah, no. If the roles were reversed then the problem would resolve itself with in a few generations (or lack of them) For even your god of science and evolution says homosexuality is a sin against nature, one that's reward is an empty womb.

No. Homosexuality is explained by evolution. Science has yet to adopt a god, let alone one of science and evolution (what an oxymoron, btw). Science also doesn't use words like "sin". Do your reading before trying to use the respectability and integrity of science for your arguments.

[Drich]

Actually He did.

It is interesting how theists consistently tear pieces of scripture out of context to promote their bigotry. Jesus had absolutely nothing to state in regards to homosexuality. Considering how people love to interpret scripture to suit their own needs, there has even been valid scriptural evidence that perhaps Jesus was even gay himself.

You are a terriable Hypocrite.

In one sentence you say you believe the bible recordes nothing of Christ saying anything against Homosexuality, condemning my use of scripture to point out that the ONLY Santified Pretext in which Sex is allowed in Scripture is in the Marriage bed (Which is said by Christ several times to be between a Man and woman.) Then in the very next sentence you say Jesus was gay...

Do you not see you own foolish Hyprocrisy here? You condemn me for telling you something you do not believe is in the bible, but you end your post with something that is indisputably not in the bible.