Final word on homosexuality (UPDATED!)

This would hopefully be my final post on the homosexual issue for some time. In this post, I would just like to look at some of the arguments homosexual apologists like to use:

1) Intolerant imposing of your own morality

We have covered this in a pervious post here, and have shown that they are the intolerant ones who are attempting to impose their immorality on others

2) Sexual discrimination

a) I wasn't aware that we have extra 1 2 3 eh 4 more genders, making a total of 6 (Male, Female, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgenders). However, dosn't anyone find it strange that all the others define themselves using the primary two sexes? For example, gays are biological males who have an attraction to other biological males. Transgenders are those who desire to become a member of the opposite sex (male to female, female to male), and may undergo surgery to make their 'dream' a reality. What kind of gender it is when it can't be defined by itself and is biologically non-existent?

If the homo-apologists deny that their GLBT 'classes' are true gender classes, then upon what basis do you derive the charge of sexual discrimination? Sexual discrimination can only exist when there is a gender class to begin with.

b) It is possible for those who are GLBT to change their 'orientation', as the presence of ex-gays proves. If the 'orientation' can be changed, then why should it be termed a gender class, as these are more or less immutable?

c) Some homo-apologists try to avoid the force of the previous arguments by claiming that those who revert were never true homosexuals at all, or if they were they delude themselves via fantasizing. In making such a claim, they create a circular argument which is unfalsifiable. How do you prove that you are truly homosexual? By staying homosexual. How do you prove that you are not a homosexual? By not remaining homosexual. That they would have to resort to such petitio principii shows the bankruptcy of their argument

3) Charge of homophobia

We have dealt with that charge over here. The word is a misnomer which etymologically makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, from the prefix homo- and the suffix -phobia, the word simply means fear of Man. In that post, the exposed phony "Rev." Sutter tried to push the nosensical modern definition of homophobia, to which I responded by saying that using such a definition is nonsensical and leads to ridiculous words (ie. Homophobe-phobia, Christo-phobia etc.). In fact, if you want to use that definition, all homosexual activists are by definition "Christian-phobic", and thus they should all be sued for "making hate speech" anytime they promote homosexuality.

And from the Gay 'Christian' Movement, at least those who attempt to use the Bible (against the Bible),

4) It's wrong to pick one verse from the Bible in Lev. and not apply others (which always turn out to be a ceremonial command)

The Law given by God in the Old Testament had multiple functions, of which some were temporal and some were not. The injuction against homosexuality is part of the moral law, whereas those that deal with dietary concerns, clothing etc are part of the ceremonial law, in which they are a foreshadow of the various aspects of Christian living and ultimately of Christ. Failure to differentiate between the various aspects of the law prove their ignorance.

Even if you do not like the Old Testament, the New Testament says enough to remove all doubt that homosexuality is acceptable anytime anywhere in all of Scripture.

5) Homosexuality which is condemned in the Bible refers to male temple prostitution only

This betrays an utter lack of knowledge of the ancient Greek world, which were even more gay-frindly than most 'progressive' countries today. Not to mention that the Scripture make no such distinction between 'forced homosexuality' and 'loving homosexuality'.

6) Strained exegesis eisegesis ....

I would now go into the gymnastics that homo-activists use to get around the plain teaching of the texts of Scripture. Suffice it is to say that most texts are so clear that a person with an interlinear Bible and a Strong's Concordance should be able to refute them.

UPDATE!

For societal issues,

7) Disproportionate attention placed on sin of homosexuality yet no one condemns sins such as gluttony

If that's the case, then whoever those Christians are, they are wrong. Sins such as gluttoney are still sins and ought to be called as sins. BUT, and this is a big but, sins have varying degrees of sinfulness. On such a scale, sexual sins are much worse than dietary sins, because sexual sins are sins against one's own body (1 Cor. 6:18). Therefore, sexual sins are to be more severely condemned than most other more trivial sins. GLBT perversation is even worse than other sexual sins, because it also sins against God's ordained order in sexuality which He first instituted in Gen. 2:21-24. It is in this in mind that we sharply oppose the GLBT agenda, especially its stated purpose of forcing everybody to accept their "sexualities" as normal.

The other important reason why we oppose the GLBT agenda is because the fundamental issue of normal and abnormal sexuality is one of the gateways mentioned in Scripture in Rom. 1:26-27 as to the health of a society. By allowing the GLBT agenda free rein, society would descend to the level of Rom. 1:26-27, and from there it is just a small step to Total Anarchy and the destruction of a nation.

8) It's hypocritical to condemn homosexuality while not condemning other sins like adultery in a secular context

Normally, this is placed in the context of 'imposing of morality' in a secular society. The problem with this line of argument is that Christians and society in general frowns on adultery. That it may be common does not make it mainstream morality, and even the adulterer does not think it is good (only probably necessary according to him/her). However, the GLBT agenda seeks to glorify their perverse lifestyle and force everybody to at the very least tolerate such actions of theirs. Therefore, it is imperative that we oppose them right from the start.

9) Why "impose" laws against homosexuality, but not blasphemy laws?

This problem only occurs if you think that the Kingdom of God is of this world. However, it is not (Jn. 18:36)! Therefore, all laws relating to God and the worship and honoring of God are not to be imposed by the secular courts, but left to God for His meting out of judgment in due course. Of course, if a society is Christianized, they may choose to pass laws against blasphemy as a near unaminous decision of its citizens, but that has no Scriptural support whatsoever, and is thus something which the citizens just want to have and enforce. Within limits which do not infringe on the rights of others to practice their own religions, such a law is perfectly legitimate but not compulsory.