Sentences with phrase «not as a homosexual»

Not exact matches

for me a committed homosexual couple is the same as a committed heterosexual couple; not the same as a rapist, pedophile, or drunk.

If it's a case of the problem being with anal sex then that would not apply to many practising homosexuals as they don't have anal sex.

If marriage is a «lifestyle» choice for heterosexual couples, as people seem to believe, why should homosexual couples not be allowed to marry?

My question is: Shouldn't the preachers» brainstorming on homosexual activity in more and more disrespectful details be considered as perversion and a sin?

Homosexuals and their naïve supporters will simply label this repugnant expository fact of homosexuality as hate speech and try not to look too hard at it, angry that someone spoke it's disgusting truth aloud.

preacherlady said, on November 5th, 2009 at 9:35 pm Fishon... thats as prejudiced a statement to condemn something because it was written by a homosexual as it was to judge you because you are Church of Christ -------- Alice, the Bible doesn't condemn being in or of the Church of Christ, but it does condemn practicing homosexuality and as I said before, calls it....

And to think that being a practicing homosexual is the criteria, Jesus changed that... so it can't be used as an argument.

His wife, Peggy, believes as I do, that committed, monogamous gay relationships are not sinful and Tony believes that homosexual sex is sinful but that homosexual orientation is not (i.e. gay folks should be celibate).

I also know people who hold to the same beliefs regarding homosexuals as fishon but who have gone out of their way to educate themselves on both sides of the debate... and even though they still think homosexuality is a sin, they don't resort to the language and comparasions that fishon does... because they know that homosexuality isn't anything comparable to pedophilia or alcoholism.

Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality by Pim Pronk Eerdmans, 350 pages, $ 24.99 paper An interesting book not so much for the position it advances (approval of homosexual relations) as for the claim that any position on homosexuality (or anything else) must be reached on the basis of moral reflection independent of nature, science, or theology.

Laycock's hypothesis ripened into full - blown suspicion by June 2000 when Justice Stevens took the position that the free speech rights of the Boy Scouts were not violated by a state law requiring them to employ an avowed homosexual as an assistant scoutmaster.

I don't identify with the victims, the Islam ladies, the quivering question marks, the short people, the homosexuals, all the persecuted Naked Pastor exposes so as to reveal the horror and the agony.

As the story makes clear, it is not actually the teenagers who are opening up the subject as it is organizations run by adults who want to «help» teenagers identify themselves as homosexuaAs the story makes clear, it is not actually the teenagers who are opening up the subject as it is organizations run by adults who want to «help» teenagers identify themselves as homosexuaas it is organizations run by adults who want to «help» teenagers identify themselves as homosexuaas homosexual.

One suggestion recommends, «not using phrases such as «gay», «lesbian» or «homosexual» to define a person's identity,» in order to «take every aspect of the person into consideration.»

When he answers that he believes the Scriptures refer to homosexual activity as sin, they do not join our community.

The theological issues are far from resolved; but, judging from what has happened in Bloomington, even conservative Christians (though traditionally among those most opposed to gay civil rights) are learning that theological concerns need not blind any of us to the needs and rights of homosexuals as human beings.

Maybe a few are struggling not to indulge in homosexual activities, and these could be possibly christians as well.

There's such a tendency among Christians to lump all homosexuals together as a group of faceless, nameless «perverts» and to make statements not rooted in fact.

Engaging or not engaging in homosexual activities is viewed as a choice, and thus the power of Christ is needed to enable the person to change or resist homosexual temptations.

To develop such a morality, emphasizes Smedes, «is not to accept homosexual practices as morally commendable.

As Scalia summed it up, «This case «does not involve» the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.»

As Alan Chambers, the leader of the world's largest ex-gay network states, «99.9 % of homosexuals will not have their orientation changed.»

Cindy, I have no agenda regarding homosexual individuals and in roughly 1000 posts on my blog I have not even covered it once, as far as I can remember.

Note well that the homosexual person, in living chastely, is in a most noble way doing something profoundly positive: by not misusing his sexuality he is respectfully acknowledging that ultimately our generative faculties are not ours to use as we please; the sacred interplay is God's territory wherein we participate, not over which we arbitrate.

Wesley Hill understands that, as a faithfully Christian homosexual man, he is not in the only category of people who are not called to sexual activity.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean one hates homosexuals if they see it as a sin.

I would be happy to debate the question as to whether homosexual activity is in itself inherently sinful, but this was not my statement as you suggest.

I read two articles last year (which I didn't document, like you, thinking it was out of the question) about pedophiles making the exact same argument as the present day argument that homosexuals have taken from the cause of the Black people; «they were born that way.»

having ssid that i think that for God sin is sin and only sin he can't forgive is the unpardonable sin of unbeliving that Jesus is the the word made flesh who paid the penalty for sins on the cross at calvary he loves homosexuals as much as heterosexuals.

As to what the Scriptures have to say about homosexual orientation, my brother, you not only have to do deeper research, but most importantly approach Scripture in the Spirit of Love, as a child who knows nothing, seeking the guidance of his FatheAs to what the Scriptures have to say about homosexual orientation, my brother, you not only have to do deeper research, but most importantly approach Scripture in the Spirit of Love, as a child who knows nothing, seeking the guidance of his Fatheas a child who knows nothing, seeking the guidance of his Father.

It will be the Church which defends the dignity of all persons when the levers of power move from the present hegemony that favours the homosexual lobby to another hegemony that may just as easily not.

And so his book is intended primarily for Christians who are «already convinced that their discipleship to Jesus necessarily commits them to the demanding, costly obedience of choosing not to nurture their homosexual desires,» but also to the Church at large as it seeks to make a place for those Christians.

This becomes thornier yet for those who discern in themselves a «homosexual orientation,» as they adopt an identity distinguished essentially by a set of genital sexual desires that can not morally be fulfilled.

Indeed, homosexual persons are called to live out the inclination which is natural for them, namely, in fidelity to another person of the same sex, and enjoying sexual acts not primarily for pleasure but as expressions of love.

I think Jay may be writing in response to Mark Richmond's comment above where he basically says that what Christians say about homosexuals and women is not as bad as what Muslims say?

Yes, we need to, as Christians, LIVE God's way, but we also need to be light and salt and not just stick our head in the sand and act like... or give the impression that... homosexual marriage, genocide, and abortion are ok, by our lack of speaking out because we're too busy living our own little holy lives.

That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts It is not one of the laws against things that are identified as a toebah to God!»

As you may have heard, Pope Francis sent an electric shock through the world yesterday when he told reporters on his plane that he did not condemn homosexual priests.

since God made homosexuals, and all these heterosexuals keep producing gay kids and we have evidence of homosexuality occurring in another animals as well as neuroscience and social sciences since 1963 stating that being gay isn't a disease but a natural orientation and since the writers of the bible would have no clue that it could be an orientation (just as they could have no idea that the world isn't flat, not up on pillars, nor is it surrounded by water, nor was the earth created from a leviathan carcass) thus it is permissible and subject to the same statutes heterosexuals are.

God's morality does not change, and as a church and a people we often have a lot of bigotry toward the increasing numbers of homosexuals in our midst — however!

The argument that is being debated now falls, in terms of some of its aspects (not cohabitation in general so much as male homosexual couples specifically), within limits that are held to be inviolable.

The problem does not even seem very new, as demonstrated by a passage of the Babylonian Talmud (Chulin 92b) in which it is said that among the few limits that the nations of the world have not exceeded is that they have not yet consented to «writing the Ketubbà for males,» even if they are certainly not attentive to respecting the ban on homosexual practices.

But all of the recovering homosexuals that I have spoken with have made a decision to live and love as Jesus designed them to (their words, not mine).

The fact that you have atheists, homosexuals, and Buddhists as part of your church doesn't mean the church doesn't have an in / out boundary; it just means the boundary isn't in the traditional spot.

He went so far as to suggest, but did not develop the idea, that homosexuals who had been ordained were not validly ordained, homosexuality being an «impediment» to ordination in the same way that there may be impediments to a valid sacramental marriage.

I argued that the love between two lesbians or two homosexuals, assuming that it is a constructive human love, is not sinful nor does it alienate the lovers from God's plan, but can be a holy love, mediating God's presence in the human community as effectively as heterosexual love.

Just as Blankenhorn insists that he is not attacking homosexuals, Fox - Genovese reiterates that she is not blaming feminists.

He makes a good point that he uses the terms «gay» and «homosexual» as adjectives, not as nouns, as in «gay Christian» or «homosexual person.»

Books such as Homosexuality, which incessantly talk about the fears, frustrations, angers, and depressions involved in being homosexual, inadvertently reinforce the reasons why parents hope their children will not be homosexual.

I identify as Queer, not homosexual.