Would, or even COULD you cast yur vote for a married gay president?

[Salty]

There are many in my job environment. I count many of them my friends. This does not mean I approve of their sin. None of them, that I know, call themselves Christian, therefore I do not confront them to change their behavior. They are sinners by nature, bound in sin by their master. I pray for them that they might be reconciled to Christ. When Christ has redeemed them, then I can talk with them and counsel them to flee their sexual sin.

Do they know that you disapprove of their lifestyle?
Has anyone asked you to attend their HS "wedding"
if So, what was your answer ?

 

[evenifigoalone]

#50 "Celibate. Christian. Gay."
That would assume that "gay" is who a person is and not an action born out of same sex lust.
I know several ex homosexuals. They turned from that activity and take any susequent thoughts captive. They are Christians and don't excuse their temptations. They also know that their temptations do not define them.
But to answer your question. No I would still not vote for him. The same Democratic party policies remain in place under your scenario.

Gay means "attracted to the same sex", and does not necessarily equate to actions. It's merely a descriptive word for what one experiences. Most Christians who experience same sex attraction still experience the attraction even after conversion, and in many cases always will.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Particular]

Do they know that you disapprove of their lifestyle?
Has anyone asked you to attend their HS "wedding"
if So, what was your answer ?

No, they do not know I disapprove. I have no compulsion to tell them I disapprove and they have not asked me. If they ask me, I will be honest.

No, I have not been asked to attend a marriage. If asked, I would have to politely decline. If pressed, I would express that my faith does not teach that their union is approved by the Creator who made them. I would tell them in love and continue to be their friend, if they would accept that.

I am friends with many unsaved people. They know I am a man of faith. They know that I love God. I know that they ask questions, and I answer until they decide to stop asking.

As a Christian who believes God is Sovereign and will save those whom He has chosen, I rest in God and walk through doors He opens, not through doors I have knocked down in my fleshly zeal. When I was a free-will advocate, I kicked down doors, spoke mean and harshly to make sure sinners knew they must repent or burn. I don't do that anymore. I trust God to open doors. Amazingly, I have seen people come to faith that I have known for years. Either I was the seed dropper or the waterer, but God made the seed grow.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Gay means "attracted to the same sex", and does not necessarily equate to actions. It's merely a descriptive word for what one experiences. Most Christians who experience same sex attraction still experience the attraction even after conversion, and in many cases always will.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

And for sources? I'm in a group for people who experience same sex attraction and follow the traditional sexual ethic. It has 600+ members. Many in there have had experiences with "orientation change" philosophy (we call it side X), and found it lacking.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[evenifigoalone]

Oh, I do call myself bi, but personally, if I were to run for President or any political position at all (entirely hypothetically), how I personally describe myself wouldn't be a part of my platform.

To me saying I'm bi, apart from being a descriptor, gives me a platform from which to educate people. Same as telling people I'm mentally ill gives me a platform from which to educate people on mental illness. Same as being a recovered psychological addict gives me a platform from which to educate people about the nature of addiction.
However, for running for President, I would feel that then wouldn't be the time or place to bring any of those things up except if I were asked about it.

Them's my thoughts.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Washad]

Posts 62 and 64.
Define it how you wish. I define it as explained to me by those who have experienced it. Their sin was three-fold.
1. they lusted after another person their mind.
2. they committed the act of fornication. 3. the act of fornication was with a person of the same gender.
When convicted of their sin they ceased the action( thus taking care of 2 and 3) and through the power of the Spirit were given the grace to take the thoughts captive before enticement could lead to sin (taking care of 1).
Culture has chosen the definition you have given. Note that there is never freedom from the sin when it is so broadly defined. Once that always that. I believe the Lord has provided healing and a way of escape even from this life shattering sin.

 

[Benjamin]

Gay means "attracted to the same sex", and does not necessarily equate to actions. It's merely a descriptive word for what one experiences. Most Christians who experience same sex attraction still experience the attraction even after conversion, and in many cases always will.

I'm in a group for people who experience same sex attraction and follow the traditional sexual ethic.

You are merely in the practice of surrounding yourself with like minded people who are in the practice of habituation and justification of perversions. You may have not acted on the impulses you claim to be under but I suspect you are definitely attempting to build a protective wall, looking for approval and working toward putting yourself out there to find love – in the wrong places.

To me saying I'm bi, apart from being a descriptor, gives me a platform from which to educate people.

You may have your purposes and enjoy sharing such "education" but I would stand on a platform that disputes your attempts to carry out this typical agenda.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Like I said before, the good Lord blessed us with everything a man and woman need. Desiring more... well that’s not only an insult to the Most High, that’s also breaking one of his commandments, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor...

Besides, coming from the mans point of view, what the heck an a man got to offer that is better than a woman in regards to becoming one flesh? I for one surely know I wouldn’t want to lay down next to another me at the end of the day. I’m an animal, an unshaven one at that...

 

[evenifigoalone]

Posts 62 and 64.
Define it how you wish. I define it as explained to me by those who have experienced it. Their sin was three-fold.
1. they lusted after another person their mind.
2. they committed the act of fornication. 3. the act of fornication was with a person of the same gender.
When convicted of their sin they ceased the action( thus taking care of 2 and 3) and through the power of the Spirit were given the grace to take the thoughts captive before enticement could lead to sin (taking care of 1).
Culture has chosen the definition you have given. Note that there is never freedom from the sin when it is so broadly defined. Once that always that. I believe the Lord has provided healing and a way of escape even from this life shattering sin.

I actually don't believe that attraction and lust are always one in the same. When we talk about hetero attraction, we usually acknowledge that attraction to the opposite sex isn't even always sexual in nature; it's multifaceted. Homo attraction is every bit as multifaceted.

A lot of the gay men I know grew up in church and still had attraction to men, despite never acting on it.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[evenifigoalone]

You may have not acted on the impulses you claim to be under but I suspect you are definitely attempting to build a protective wall, looking for approval and working toward putting yourself out there to find love – in the wrong places.

Lol, you don't know me from Adam.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, andwhile there are many who are "decent", but also there some of them who love to rub their sin behavior in our faces, and in face of God!

And that bothers you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ah, the lesser of two evils. Nicely done.

... that you know of

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I know of lots of happy people - but I only know a couple of hom0sexu@l's

I did not ask you

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Like I said before, the good Lord blessed us with everything a man and woman need. Desiring more... well that’s not only an insult to the Most High, that’s also breaking one of his commandments, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor...

Besides, coming from the mans point of view, what the heck an a man got to offer that is better than a woman in regards to becoming one flesh? I for one surely know I wouldn’t want to lay down next to another me at the end of the day. I’m an animal, an unshaven one at that...

Yea and with egg on your face

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Yea and with egg on your face

Well my beard does carry lots of leftovers so you might find a snack in there. Cookie crumbs, tater chips... eggs yoke been in there before

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well my beard does carry lots of leftovers so you might find a snack in there. Cookie crumbs, tater chips... eggs yoke been in there before

So you’re always carrying your lunch

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Lol, you don't know me from Adam.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

Yes, but he thinks he does

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

So you’re always carrying your lunch

Such is life when your sporting an Esau style beard!

 

[Salty]

I did not ask you

Open Forum - anyone can answer

 

[Yeshua1]

I actually don't believe that attraction and lust are always one in the same. When we talk about hetero attraction, we usually acknowledge that attraction to the opposite sex isn't even always sexual in nature; it's multifaceted. Homo attraction is every bit as multifaceted.

A lot of the gay men I know grew up in church and still had attraction to men, despite never acting on it.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

The actual sin would be in acting out that temptation/attraction, to carry through the act so to speak. correct?