I appreciate you finally showing your cards (the ones I suspected you were holding), as it puts the basic ground assumptions out there for everyone to see, and at this point there is nothing more I need to say about it.
Let people judge for themselves.
I see homo/trans as lust driven not love driven. Hence hedonism. Hence selfishness.
What makes "lust" a sin? The preference itself is not "lust" -- the attitude of how one treats and uses the partner is "lust." Using a partner as an object satisfy the cravings of the self is "lust."
People aren't "gay" because they're "lusty." Many people who have same-sex attraction don't even want it, because of the social persecution from people such as yourself; yet it doesn't go away. It's not based on "lust," and there are far more "lust" beacons in our culture revolving around heterosexual relationships than gay ones. That's also indicative of what gay marriages I personally know; they aren't any different than any normal suburban established long-term relationships.
Point in case: Gay Pride parades. Is there anything about that display that speaks to you about love?
"gay pride parades" = not equivalent to gay or trans people
I might as well say that the "heterosexual club scene" means that heterosexuality is lust driven and should be damned.
Yea last time I check my calendar I was in the bathhouse and it said 1972 so, you could be right.
I've never been in one, so I wouldn't know.
The fact is they don't share the same love as a man and woman.
What are the differences to you? Besides genitalia?
You used the word decree and I liked the word. So maybe I should have said: "natural law in humans is that they cannot reproduce without a male-female coupling"
Thanks for clarifying. It helps people better assess your stance.
Family is about love not lust.
Exactly. We agree on something. Hooray.
You would be okay teaching your kids that it is okay to be "an abomination?"
I taught my children that love is how one treats themselves and treats others. The abomination is hatred and prejudice, and choosing to remain in ignorance when a lot of information is available that can be used for the purposes of self-education and reaching mutual understanding. That doesn't mean being non-discerning, but it remains an attitude of looking for and seeing the heart in people.
Jesus criticized the judgmental religious establishment of his day, and he praised the actions of the type of people who you essentially damn here. I know whose side I'd rather be on, and it's not yours.
Being gay/trans (trans really is basically the same as being gay)
I'd beg to differ on that, depending on how you are framing the matter. What, have you been reading LeAnne Payne or talking to Jerry Leach?
and being Christian are two different things. One is a sexual preference and one is a belief system.
Not in the way you are using them.
You say you're not against people being gay ("bless them!"), you're against them saying that "gay is okay." At that point, you are attacking someone's belief. You have a different opinion that you are labeling as "Christian" and that's also a belief.
They are both beliefs.
(Unless you care to rephrase your initial comments on the matter?)
What I meant is that the kids are more likely to be okay with trans/gay behavior if they grow up in a household with such "parents." That to me is hindering. The "outcome" is a degradation of society.
I think society was pretty well degraded, especially when Christians dominated the government, long before gays were capable of expressing their opinions publicly without being imprisoned or executed or locked away in asylums and drugged up.
How can they have such a moral code of right and wrong when it comes from people who themselves are not trying to live the moral life.
Yes. Anyone who disagress with your beliefs is immoral. I get it.
Care to put your life out there for moral scrutiny? People can give you feedback. If you are what you say you are, you should be beyond reproach.
This is the Burger King generation: have it your way. You are saying here that morals are relative to the times. A sign of a good moral is that it is correct and unchanging.
I'm not saying that it is "relative to the times" at all. This is your invention, not mine. I've heard these same arguments from religious fundamentalists since I was ten years old and going to the Baptist programs. You basically "binary-ize" the culture into "Christians vs not," and label those you disagree with as hedonists and rebels against God so that you more easily ignore their POV. It's all just a public relationships strategy meant to justify not actually looking at the data... how people actually live, what the results actually are.
There's a lot of people in the world who are just as moral as you, and they don't necessarily share your beliefs. When I say "moral," I'm saying in how they treat people and how they contribute to healthy people around them.
To be honest, I've found many more neurotic people in the church, in the few decades I spent there. Why are people wack when they're supposedly serving the Lord? Why are they more hateful and condemning rather than reasoned and loving? Something isn't right with that journey.
