Homosexuality

[klavierkonzerte]

there are many things that we are not supposed to know
we can't question gods actions
and everything happens for a reason there's nothing random.

[lenny]

interesting

tell that to starving orphans and parents who have lost all their children

[klavierkonzerte]

i want to clear one thing i don't hate hamosexuals (straight acting homosexuals) and i'm not attaking them, i'm only stating my openions.

if a friend told me he's sick i wouldn't cut my relation with him, i would stand by him
homosexuality,to me, is like sickness

[aquariuswb]

i want to clear one thing i don't hate hamosexuals (straight acting homosexuals) and i'm not attaking them, i'm only stating my openions.

if a friend told me he's sick i wouldn't cut my relation with him, i would stand by him
homosexuality,to me, is like sickness

You are either ignorant or are in denial. Homosexuality is a sickness? Please, keep the idiocy to yourself. I have plenty of friends (male and female alike) who are homosexuals, and you know what? Most of them didn't "come out of the closet" until their late teens. Most of them have had heterosexual romantic experiences in the past; for most of them, it was these heterosexual relationships that made them realize they were homosexuals -- they felt awkward and uncomfortable in relationships with the opposite sex. Why? They don't know, because it's just something INHERENT in their nature. Why is a straight man attracted to women? Because he's born that way, and it's INHERENT in his nature. How can you honestly believe that homosexual men are really attracted to women, but choose to dismiss these INHERENT tendencies in favor of being with men? Do you really think it's some kind of rebellious thing? It seems far more reasonable to assume that a homosexual man is INHERENTLY attracted to other men; for him, being with a woman is unnatural, awkward, and uncomfortable. You can call it a "choice" and you can call it a "sickness," but you'd be simply wrong. There is clearly something in their physical makeup that makes them attracted to members of their own sex. And so what? Should they stay in the closet their whole lives and feel uncomfortable and awkward forever? Maybe they should get married to someone of the opposite sex and keep in their feelings until they get old?

Or maybe our society should stop being so hostile toward these people who cannot help how they were born. That way, if a person realizes he/she is homosexual, he/she will feel safer coming out. What's the point of denying that homosexuality is something people are born with? It just opens the path toward bigotry and prejudice toward a group of people that pose no threat to the rest of society.

[Brian Healey]

Homosexuality has been proven to occur naturally in animals.

A dog, for instance, does not have the proper brain power to make the choice about whether it is homosexual or not. A dog simply follows his instincts and natural urges. And some dogs are homosexual.

Therefore, homosexuality cannot be called unnatural, when it obviously occurs naturally within the animal kingdom. And last I checked, humans were animals.


Peace,
Bri

[galonia]

if a friend told me he's sick i wouldn't cut my relation with him, i would stand by him
homosexuality,to me, is like sickness

I have to say this is one of the most offensive things I have ever read in my entire life.

I have gay friends, and I have questioned them at length, and concluded that being homosexual is genuinely not a choice.  I didn't wake up one morning and run into my mother's room and say, "Guess what Mum?  I'm heterosexual!  I like men!"  I didn't choose to be heterosexual.

In exactly the same way, homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.  A lot of people cite the confusion and debate and inner conflict as proof that the individual is wrestling with their own choice.  But this is incorrect.  It is precisely because society condemns these people for who they are, that they have to wonder if there is something wrong with themselves.  The confusion is about how to deal with other people's perceptions of them, not with their own identity.

We need to stop labelling people as gay or straight, because it really doesn't change who they are as individuals.  You do not need to "stand by" someone just because he is gay as though he has an illness, because he is a perfectly formed individual with no disabilities or deformities or anything that needs to be changed about him.  If a friend is homosexual, so what?  Does that impact on you in a negative way?  Why should it affect your friendship with him/her?

[klavierkonzerte]

i'm very very sorry if i have offended anyone
i think i'm not well informed about this subject.

i actually had one homosexual friend,that i really liked, in my circle
when i found out it didn't bother me at all
we were close friends for like a year until he started coming on strongly
it was ok at first we all like to feel attractive i didn't take it seriously and always made  jokes about it but later it became really uncomfrtable so i had to cut him out of my circle.

[galonia]

i actually had one homosexual friend,that i really liked, in my circle
when i found out it didn't bother me at all
we were close friends for like a year until he started coming on strongly
it was ok at first we all like to feel attractive i didn't take it seriously and always made jokes about it but later it became really uncomfrtable so i had to cut him out of my circle.

You know, I've never had a girl come onto me, but some of my female friends have, and they said all you have to say is, "thank you, I'm flattered you find me attractive, but I don't feel the same way" - which is the same way you would reject unwanted attentions from someone who is of the opposite sex.  You don't stop being friends with someone just because they ask you out and you don't want to go out with them.

The time when it becomes important to "cut them out of your circle" is if they become crazed... like stalking you or being aggressive.  Otherwise, a sensible, sensitive and honest approach is all that's needed.

[willcowskitz]

"Everything happens for a reason", in the older times, was meant to help ourselves get over personal losses or deaths of our relatives.

"Everything happens for a reason", in the modern times, when we're more informed about errors of the world or society state contrasts, is the easiest way of freeing ourselves from worrying about it when we know we possess power to balance these differences but don't want to use it.

[aquariuswb]

I invoke Godwin's Law and claim victory -- this thread is over. Go home, get some rest, and stop homo-bashing you insecure pricks.

[SteinwayTony]

I have nothing to do with this thread, but this is worth posting:

"...In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have 'lost' the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups."

That concept is (apparently) formally called "Quirk's Exception."

(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law.)

Godwin himself discussed it in an issue of Wired: https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html

[athykay]

I have nothing to do with this thread, but this is worth posting:

"...In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have 'lost' the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups."

That concept is (apparently) formally called "Quirk's Exception."

(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law.)

Godwin himself discussed it in an issue of Wired: https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html

This is all so hilarious!  I never knew of this before!  I am now armed with the knowledge of Goodwin's Law!!  And  Tony, I disagree with your conclusion.  I think a declaration of Goodwin's law trumps the stinky old Nazi card any day of the week.  And it *is* a stinky card.   A similar one is declaring that someone is anti-semitic because they voice an opinion  sympathetic to  Palestinians or Muslims.  I've had that one hurled at me in the past, and it made me livid.  Just  as Goodwin says, the Nazi accusation tends to denigrate the thread to "You called me a Nazi, weeeeelll, YOU"RE the Nazi. . . , " that was exactly my reaction to being labeled an anti-semite.    Both are totally cheap shots.

Hah!  Goodwins' Law.  Love it!

[SteinwayTony]

This is all so hilarious!  I never knew of this before!  I am now armed with the knowledge of Goodwin's Law!!  And  Tony, I disagree with your conclusion.  I think a declaration of Goodwin's law trumps the stinky old Nazi card any day of the week.  And it *is* a stinky card.   A similar one is declaring that someone is anti-semitic because they voice an opinion  sympathetic to  Palestinians or Muslims.  I've had that one hurled at me in the past, and it made me livid.  Just  as Goodwin says, the Nazi accusation tends to denigrate the thread to "You called me a Nazi, weeeeelll, YOU"RE the Nazi. . . , " that was exactly my reaction to being labeled an anti-semite.    Both are totally cheap shots.

Hah!  Goodwins' Law.  Love it!

My post was completely void of any opinion, so I don't know which conclusion you are referring to.  Quirk's Exception explains that it is "poor form" to cite the law directly, and anyone who does so is considered to have lost the argument.  It makes sense, because it's stupid to try to win an argument by saying "Godwin's law" and then calling it a day.

[athykay]

Excuse my faltering here, but I'm just getting up to speed on the exciting UBB internet laws that I heretofore had never encountered.  (You see, I *am* a lawyer, so I *do* tend to get very excited by new laws).

I should have said I disagree with Quirk's law rather than with you Tony.  I stand corrected.  That said, I stand by my initial nose-thumbing at Quirk's law.  I think that if one wasn't allowed to invoke Godwin's law, many of us (like me )  ) wouldn't even know what it was. 

Therefore, I support Aquarius - this thread is dead. [pounds the gavel]  (I always did want to be a judge )

[Siberian Husky]

Homosexuality has been proven to occur naturally in animals.

A dog, for instance, does not have the proper brain power to make the choice about whether it is homosexual or not. A dog simply follows his instincts and natural urges. And some dogs are homosexual.

Therefore, homosexuality cannot be called unnatural, when it obviously occurs naturally within the animal kingdom. And last I checked, humans were animals.


Peace,
Bri

LOL..no..no dog is homosexual...most people confuse dogs humping other dogs as a sexual act and see the dog as lusting or in need of sexual activity. WRONG...90% of humping and mounting comes from displaying dominance and when two dogs meet, its commonly seen...its as if to say "hey im a very outgoing and confident dog...so i'll let you know by mounting"...a dog's true desire to have sexual intercourse is SOLELY AND PRIMARILY based on instinctual feelings of the urge to MATE and produce offspring...there is no emotional or bodily attraction physically nor intellectually....anyway..that kinda bugged me..im a huge canine enthusiast...anyways..back to the homosexual subject

i have and even relatives who are homosexuals...i see them no differently, when it comes down to it..they are good human beings with awesome dispositions regardless of who they find attractive...

look..its one thing walking life with pre-set standards and expectations for yourself...this..is acceptable and commendable

its another thing walking life with pre-set standards and expectations for others...this..is rediculous. ignorant, and a reflection of one's soul lacking education and applying it to life

[Brian Healey]

LOL..no..no dog is homosexual...most people confuse dogs humping other dogs as a sexual act and see the dog as lusting or in need of sexual activity. WRONG...90% of humping and mounting comes from displaying dominance and when two dogs meet, its commonly seen...its as if to say "hey im a very outgoing and confident dog...so i'll let you know by mounting"...a dog's true desire to have sexual intercourse is SOLELY AND PRIMARILY based on instinctual feelings of the urge to MATE and produce offspring...there is no emotional or bodily attraction physically nor intellectually....anyway..that kinda bugged me..im a huge canine enthusiast...anyways..back to the homosexual subject

Um, did I mention anything about humping and mounting? I realize everything you said is true, but I wasn't talking about displays of dominance. This relates to other social interactions as well. It's been proven in studies that animals can be homosexual, and note that I was only using dogs as an example. I could have just as easily said orangutan or hippopotamus. I read this in an article from some journal a while back. I don't have the exact article, but here's a website related to what I'm talking about:

https://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm


Jumanji,
Bri

[Siberian Husky]

sorry bout that...just skimmed over your response..twas early before school and rushed to get some forum postin in...good reply

[willcowskitz]

...a dog's true desire to have sexual intercourse is SOLELY AND PRIMARILY based on instinctual feelings of the urge to MATE and produce offspring...there is no emotional or bodily attraction physically nor intellectually....

I'm not sure if humans are much different from this. Are the dogs aware of the consequences of their actions when they instinctively "hump" other dogs, be it same or opposite sex? Probably the only practical difference in sex between animals and humans is that the latter have developed fetishes to different seemingly irrational things, probably due to our complicated (can be argued) social characteristics that allow such perversions (perversion here only means exceptionality from "natural" sex, and is probably a rather conservative expression) to be developed and sometimes derived to childhood. Especially due to widespreading of gay culture its evident that people's relationships *are* heavily based on power relations, just now instead of assuming that the physically weaker female is always the subdued one, these characteristics and needs are to be scanned from appearance, expressions and other signals to find out how the polarity of the relationship is divided. Its comparable to a magnet; to have a working relationship there must be the north and south pole that create a synchronic flow of force in co-operation with each other. Of course, in the end, in a successful relationship neither side is truly dominant but rather they have different ways of achieving their goals in balance.

[timothy42b]

It has always seemed curious to me that of the 27 chapters, and 859 verses of Leviticus, there is only one "sin" left in force today:  "lying with a man as with a woman."  Forget the rest, they don't apply anymore;  but this one does.

Never mind that few people understand what that passage really prohibited.

I'd like to have someone explain how they can justify quoting Leviticus to justify their position, but not feel compelled to follow a single other requirement.  I've asked this question more than once - no answer has been forthcoming, but maybe somebody will surprise me. 

I don't think there is a single Christian anywhere in the world who, from reading the bible, decided homosexuality is wrong.  I think a large number of Christians started with a strong opinion and searched the scriptures for some evidence to support it. 

By the way, the black swan is a good example of a species known for what appears to be true homosexual pairings.  A pair of male black swans can defend twice the area while nesting, resulting in more eggs surviving to adulthood.  Stolen ones, of course.  But at any rate, it is an adaptive advantage. 

[lagin]

Answering your question, there are lots of things from Levitcus that are still relevant to today.  Don't kill anyone, don't steal, don't rape, don't lie, don't have affairs, ect.  Some things like, don't cook a lamb in it's mother's milk have to do the Israelites not copying the pagan rituals of the other nations around them.  How to cook your meat today is not a life or death issue, but the general idea of guarding your reputation still applies.

Here's an interesting thought someone shared with me regarding this issue of homosexuality.  If a homosexual is born that way and is just following their natural urges, then we should probably stop coming down on murderers, and child incest, because they could very well say that they were just following their natural urges.  Okay, now say that these examples are different, and don't apply.  Then what or who decides what is right and what is wrong?  We could say majority rules.  A while ago, majority said homosexuality was not good, but now opinion has changed.  Who's to say in 40 years murdering won't be considered as a necessary outlet for self destructive emotions or something like that.  The way I see it, is you need an unchanging standard, because if truth is relative then by definition, it doesn't even exist.  And since hundreds and hundreds of people have tried to prove the Bible false, and haven't yet succeeded, why not use it as a basis.  I'd rather live my life as if God existed, and then find out He doesn't, then live my life as if He doesn't and then find out He does. 

[aquariuswb]

Answering your question, there are lots of things from Levitcus that are still relevant to today.  Don't kill anyone, don't steal, don't rape, don't lie, don't have affairs, ect.  Some things like, don't cook a lamb in it's mother's milk have to do the Israelites not copying the pagan rituals of the other nations around them.  How to cook your meat today is not a life or death issue, but the general idea of guarding your reputation still applies.

Here's an interesting thought someone shared with me regarding this issue of homosexuality.  If a homosexual is born that way and is just following their natural urges, then we should probably stop coming down on murderers, and child incest, because they could very well say that they were just following their natural urges.  Okay, now say that these examples are different, and don't apply.  Then what or who decides what is right and what is wrong?  We could say majority rules.  A while ago, majority said homosexuality was not good, but now opinion has changed.  Who's to say in 40 years murdering won't be considered as a necessary outlet for self destructive emotions or something like that.  The way I see it, is you need an unchanging standard, because if truth is relative then by definition, it doesn't even exist.

You say a lot of interesting things in your post. I do think that there is a clear difference between homosexuality and murder, though. Murder physically harms others, homosexuality does not. And I agree, truth does not exist in absolute form.

And since hundreds and hundreds of people have tried to prove the Bible false, and haven't yet succeeded, why not use it as a basis.  I'd rather live my life as if God existed, and then find out He doesn't, then live my life as if He doesn't and then find out He does. 

This is where we differ. I'd rather live my life based on the principles of my Constitution, but I do see your point, and it's well made.

[Floristan]

A while ago, majority said homosexuality was not good, but now opinion has changed. Who's to say in 40 years murdering won't be considered as a necessary outlet for self destructive emotions or something like that. 

Incredibly twisted logic.  No individual is harmed, let alone deprived of life, by homosexuality.  You might think homosexuality harms society, but that would be your opinion only.  It certainly isn't mine and one you'd be hard pressed to prove.  The institution of marriage, supposedly threatened by the possibility of homosexual marriage, as been disintegrating all by itself, without any help from homosexuality.  Heterosexuals seem quite capable of screwing up the sanctity marriage all by themselves.  The hubris to suggest that homosexuals could screw up what heterosexuals have already destroyed themselves!

Homosexuality is most likely inborn.  No homosexual has parents teaching them even that homosexuality is OK.  Quite the contrary, from early on, homosexuals get a clear message that it is, at the very least, a huge detriment in our extremely prejudiced society to be homosexual, and many parents teach that it is a terrible sin which will send the child to hell.  Still people are homosexual, and obviously not from choice in a society that has always condemned it.  Who would choose that kind of scorn, ridicule, and ostracism?   

Murderous tendencies are not inborn, with the possible rare exception of cases of the criminally insane murderer.  Almost no murderers on our death rows are declared criminally insane, for the simple reason that they aren't.  They often had terrible, abusive childhoods and learned violence at an early age as an "appropriate" response to the world.  They made choices in life that led to lives where they inflicted on others the abuse that was inflicted on them.  The key is harm to others, and in the case of murder, the most extreme harm possible.

To equate homosexuals with murderers is really beyond the pale.  This is a false and pernicious analogy of the worst kind, intended merely to arouse people's emotions and bypass their rational thought processes.  Truly outrageous.

[chopiabin]

Answering your question, there are lots of things from Levitcus that are still relevant to today.  Don't kill anyone, don't steal, don't rape, don't lie, don't have affairs, ect.  Some things like, don't cook a lamb in it's mother's milk have to do the Israelites not copying the pagan rituals of the other nations around them.  How to cook your meat today is not a life or death issue, but the general idea of guarding your reputation still applies.

Here's an interesting thought someone shared with me regarding this issue of homosexuality.  If a homosexual is born that way and is just following their natural urges, then we should probably stop coming down on murderers, and child incest, because they could very well say that they were just following their natural urges.  Okay, now say that these examples are different, and don't apply.  Then what or who decides what is right and what is wrong?  We could say majority rules.  A while ago, majority said homosexuality was not good, but now opinion has changed.  Who's to say in 40 years murdering won't be considered as a necessary outlet for self destructive emotions or something like that.  The way I see it, is you need an unchanging standard, because if truth is relative then by definition, it doesn't even exist.  And since hundreds and hundreds of people have tried to prove the Bible false, and haven't yet succeeded, why not use it as a basis.  I'd rather live my life as if God existed, and then find out He doesn't, then live my life as if He doesn't and then find out He does. 

Funny how you say that there is " a lot in Levticus that is still relevant today" - doesn't this basically ridicule your argument later on? At the time the Bible was written, those things which are no longer relevant, such as cooking a lamb in its mother's milk, etc. were considered of the utmost moral importance - but we no longer use them. Then later you say that you need an "unchanging standard" which should be the Bible - what happened to that "standard"?. You are obviously not a very logical or complete thinker.

Also, besides the fact that every attempt to create an unchanging standard of morality - the illegality of abortion, segregation, prohibition, anti-sodomy laws, etc. - has failed miserably, any actual success with making a permanent morality is basically promoting mental death and anti-enlightenment thinking.

I guess how much you believe in the infallibility of the Bible depends on how strong your powers of denial and anti-learning are - the theory of evolution, which has been proven beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt and at any rate much more than the Biblical theory of creation, has alone pretty much proved that the Bible is fallible.

If you want the challenge and want to find the most thorough exploration of the origin of morality, guilt, and gods, read Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality, which is one of the most amazing examples of self-knowledge and truly deep thinking that has ever been written.

[timothy42b]

I think we can safely discard Old Testament for a basis in this case.  For one thing, Leviticus wasn't about homosexuality in the first place;  for another, we ignore most of the other prohibitions (eating sea food, shaving beards, etc.) without any qualms. 

Thinking about the NT a bit, what about this scenario?

On Friday I have sex with a woman I love, on Saturday I marry her, and on Sunday I have sex again.  If you argue that Friday was sin and Sunday was not, I certainly can't refute you on biblical grounds.  Note that nowhere in this does heterosexuality become sinful - just the unmarried expression. 

If I were gay instead, on biblical grounds absolutely the same situation should ensue.  They are exactly parallel.  There is no sinfulness within the homosexuality, only with the unmarried acts.  There is only one problem with this.  We don't allow gays to marry on Saturday.  That forces their Sunday sex to be sinful solely because of the human decision not to let them marry. 

It is a sad commentary about Christianity that very few gays ever escape high school without being beaten up in the name of Jesus.  And the number of preachers who speak out against this practice remains zero, among those who preach "hate the sin, love the sinner."  This sounds offensive.  It is.  It should be.  It is offensive to me as a Christian, I think my church should do much more to ensure inclusiveness and protection. 

[timothy42b]

Answering your question, there are lots of things from Leviticus that are still relevant to today.  

Separate post because this does not tie directly to homosexuality. 

You are telling me it is okay to interpret the Bible in a non-literal fashion.  You decide by looking for the intention behind the message, not the direct wording. 

I would certainly agree with that.  That is how I approach those passages too.  I know that the admonition about "lying with a man as with a woman" referred to visiting temple prostitutes of Baal, and the purpose was to prevent having the Jewish people absorbed into their pagan neighbors. 

So for you it is not hypocritical to follow one part of the Bible and ignore another.  However, I'd point out that many of the people who are so adamantly anti-gay are very fundamentalistic and literal Bible readers, and have a very different slant.  They don't see any conflict, because they've never read any other verses of Leviticus, and that's why they can never answer my question. 

Most of them have never read both Creation stories in Genesis, either.  But they would certainly not allow any nonliteral reading of those stories. 

[galonia]

I dislike the use of the word "proof" when discussing belief in God and the Bible, because I don't think proof has anything to do with faith - where is the merit in your faith if you need proof?  But anyway, that's a different discussion, unrelated to this post.

TimR, I completely agree with you that there should be more tolerance - the "hate the sin, love the sinner" should be adopted by those who abhor homosexuality, if they must insist it is wrong.  After all, no one is hurt by the private practises of consenting adults.

And this brings me to another point - I just wanted to clear up some of what was said in eariler posts - pedophilia is different from homosexuality.  Pedophilia is unquestionably an intolerable practice, which results in the abuse of a child.  Pedophiles are not homosexuals, they prey on children, regardless of the sex of the child.

[pianowelsh]

Fundamentalist christians today are tolerent of homosexuals. In early Christian times it was common practice to stone them!!! The problem with taking a non christian stance on homosexuality is the failing to realize that it matters! Ive heard so many times - it doesnt hurt anyone?!?!?! It hurt Jesus when he was torn apart and placed on a cross for it. Dear forum members God treats SIN very seriously and not just the issue of homosexuality - thats really a side issue. Realize it is not the Christian who is offended by SIN it is GOD. The goodnews is God has bought us a pardon through Jesus so that ALL that believe in his name are saved - homosexuals, peadophiles, murders - even shock horror someone who stole a penny chew once or told a lie to their parents - Like i did! God is merciful and abounding in loving kindness but he doesnt tolerate sin - dont make that mistake - PLEASE!

[chopiabin]

I don't believe in any god, especially one that calls natural human desires sins. We are animals just like a tiger or a gorilla - we have natural urges (selfishness, sex drive, instinct to protect children, etc.) and they are not sins - they are part of what it is to be human. Christianity is based off the idea that man is a "fallen" or inherently flawed animal, to which I say, "Compared to whom?". A god WE created to make it easier for society to exist? We are at the point where we no longer need some threat of eternal punishment to scare us into obeying the compromises necessary for the functioning of society - we need to come up with something new that is life-affirming and human-affirming. You may say that you are waiting for eternal life in the next world, but I would ask, "What's wrong with this one?". We only get one life - there is no afterlife, the concept began as something that simply scared ancient humans into following the necessary rules of society - and we need to actually LIVE for ourselves, not for some being who, if he did exist, would have to be a very cruel and unjust being.

[pianowelsh]

See my post on other thread and check the gospels out and see if you find a tirant God?!

[chopiabin]

What a glib response to a wll thought idea.

Lets pretend for a moment.
A being creates an animal that has natural desires/urges/wants, and then, when the animal acts on those desires, he is punished or called wrong. How is this just or loving? It's just like a bratty little child who tells a dog to jump up on his lap and then hits the dog with a newspaper. I wish you would actually respond to the ideas in my posts rather than simply taking issue with one word.

[Siberian Husky]

why does everything have to turn into a religious topic?..i understand the need for concrete foundation in order to debate or argue one's side in answering what they claim as "absurd allegations"..but i just find it retarted how the most random of subject can lead to the most time wasting debate ever...Religion vs. Non-religion...


hey athykay  ..whats up

[timothy42b]

why does everything have to turn into a religious topic?..i understand the need for concrete foundation in order to debate or argue one's side in answering what they claim as "absurd allegations"..but i just find it retarted how the most random of subject can lead to the most time wasting debate ever...Religion vs. Non-religion...


hey athykay  ..whats up

But it IS a religious topic.  It didn't turn into one, it just had the camouflage pulled away.

Look at the Ten Commandments.  Well, not the original ones, that the Bible actually calls the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34, you've never seen those.  Instead read the more common versions out of Exodus 20 or Deut 5.  There are 3 secular ones (don't kill, don't steal, don't lie under oath) and 7 more or less religious observance ones (worship One God, don't curse, rest on Saturday). 

The secular ones have valid practical advantages for society - they make sense.  They should be part of the law of the land.  They are inherently wrong even without the commandments, I think;  Cain was wrong to kill Abel, even though this predated the Ten Commandments and he hadn't actually been told not to. 

The religious ones have valid reasons within, and only within, religious doctrine.  They should not be legally enforced by the government, at least when you have a consitution. 

Homosexuality clearly falls into the religious category.  There is no secular reason to oppose it.  I would argue as a Christian that the religious reasons are misguided and this will eventually be understood.  Your position may differ from mine. 

[Siberian Husky]

but sexual preference shouldnt be an issue in when sending in that religious application to the man upstairs...i think its time God part takes in equal opportunity salvation...

[chopinisque]

Fundamentalist christians today are tolerent of homosexuals. In early Christian times it was common practice to stone them!!! The problem with taking a non christian stance on homosexuality is the failing to realize that it matters! Ive heard so many times - it doesnt hurt anyone?!?!?! It hurt Jesus when he was torn apart and placed on a cross for it. Dear forum members God treats SIN very seriously and not just the issue of homosexuality - thats really a side issue. Realize it is not the Christian who is offended by SIN it is GOD. The goodnews is God has bought us a pardon through Jesus so that ALL that believe in his name are saved - homosexuals, peadophiles, murders - even shock horror someone who stole a penny chew once or told a lie to their parents - Like i did! God is merciful and abounding in loving kindness but he doesnt tolerate sin - dont make that mistake - PLEASE!

Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. 

[pianowelsh]

Gods word does though. . I'm sorry for my 'glib' response. I was being told to leave the college because it was closing. Interesting someone said its 'beyond the pale' - a funny expression to say homosexuality comes under same category as murder and the like. - I note you glossed over the fact it also come in same category as pinching a penny chew or kicking your sister - once! SIN is SIN  - its all serious to God. If you break the law at any point you fall short thats why we needed an advocate in Christ. In terms of scripture it actually happens to be the case that the sexually imoral are linked with thieves and murders on a number of occasions though so i wasnt just stating a wild random opinion. God means what he says and says what he means - Oh for more people who speak like God!!!!!!

[jas]

This is a very interesting thread.

I don't believe in any god, especially one that calls natural human desires sins. We are animals just like a tiger or a gorilla - we have natural urges (selfishness, sex drive, instinct to protect children, etc.) and they are not sins - they are part of what it is to be human. Christianity is based off the idea that man is a "fallen" or inherently flawed animal, to which I say, "Compared to whom?". A god WE created to make it easier for society to exist? We are at the point where we no longer need some threat of eternal punishment to scare us into obeying the compromises necessary for the functioning of society - we need to come up with something new that is life-affirming and human-affirming. You may say that you are waiting for eternal life in the next world, but I would ask, "What's wrong with this one?". We only get one life - there is no afterlife, the concept began as something that simply scared ancient humans into following the necessary rules of society - and we need to actually LIVE for ourselves, not for some being who, if he did exist, would have to be a very cruel and unjust being.

I was going to ignore the religious side of this debate because frankly, it winds me up, but I had to say that that is exactly how I see it. I find Christianity to be very frustrating: people offering (sometimes) obsequious service to a God who advocates punishment for nothing more than being a normally-functioning human, people who try to suppress anything from within that a deity presumably doesn't have and therefore doesn't agree with. That's why I stopped playing the organ. I couldn't stand the thought of playing for a congregation, not because I think there's anything wrong with it, but because it's so far from my own views that it's not something I want to be a part of.

Anyway... 

I just look forward to a time when people can be who they want to be without unnecessary and unfair judgement from people who don't share -- and therefore likely don't understand -- their views/feelings/whatever. Obviously, this is all within reason. I think we can all agree that there are things that are wrong and about which there can be no argument, but there are some that shouldn't be under dispute, homosexuality among them. Idealistic, maybe, but not hopelessly so.

It's aaaaall about the harmony, baby.

Jas

[pianonut]

Dear Tim R., and Jas,

i was hesitant to say anything because you know it will be 'religious' as you call it.  but, truly, the people who post God's word are speaking from a point of view of salvation and not judgement.  we don't want to see anyone suffer more than necessary in this life or the next.

someone posted that Sodom and Gommorah was about strange flesh and not homosexuality.  actually, 'they called to Lot and said to him, 'where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so to us that we may have relations with them.'  they were struck with blindness and had to leave the doorway. this is confirmed in the NT 'just as sodom and gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example , in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.'

John (iii john 9) says anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.  if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him a greeting.  i used to think this was too much!  that i would continue to greet people all the same--BUT God means what He says.  If you live in a dorm and are 'forced' to dwell with people who stare at you - go to the advisors and request a room with someone who will not molest you (possibly) for no reason.  if you know people are doing this, would you want them near your children. NO. (i wouldn't anyway).  Would you ask God to curse them.  NO. far from that.  i would pray for them to experience healing.  perhaps THEY were abused as a child by their father, or a relative, or a church member --or perhaps their mother was over doting and smothered them.  it is a long road (probably) to recover from any addiction (drugs, alcohol, sexual, whatever). 

if you view homosexuality as something that is a choice - you can start to reroute your desires.  say - if you really have 'a thing' for someone of the same sex - you can openly say that you are working on your spiritual side and need some time to study.  when you open the Bible sometimes things pop out at you suddenly (especially in the NT) where you say - oh, i never really thought of it that way.  maybe God doesn't define masculinity and femininity as our society does (macho macho, and pinky and fluffy).  maybe it's all shades and colors.  maybe he just wants us to accept people without judgement - and whatever their sins - it's none of our business. (that's why i was hesitant to write here - since there are plenty of sins that tempt every one of us)

[pianonut]

this may be going too far on my part, but as a mother i tend to look at people in their 20's as children.  with my own son, he asked me yesterday about both heterosexual anal sex and homosexual anal sex.  i was kind of surprised (but not really, since he is taking a health class).  i know everyone has different views, but i told him my own (from not just a bibilical viewpoint).  i asked him if he would want poop all over.  he said that people use douches etc.  then i said, even a small amount of fecal stuff can get you into really bad infections (not including aids).  so that's my mom side.  then he said, what about married people.  do they have it.  i said, some do.  i don't think it is what we were created to do.  one way people are facing away from each other having a sexual experience that could be less intimate than face-to-face.  some married couples may disagree and have a wonderful time (who am i to judge?)  experimentation in marriage isn't really discussed in the bible, but i would think that general hygene is.  women are probably more concerned about hygene than men - sometimes - but, i wonder also how much tv promotes the idea that women have to constantly excite a man instead of both working together to be intimate in ways that aren't always sexual.  what i mean - is if a man really wants good sex from a woman - i think he should start in the morning by being tender and caring.

[V Queen]

before I go on a big rant I have to say HI I am new!

now about homosexuality.. basically the only real decent reason people have that is not based on ignorance or prejudice is religion. now this is a touchy subject I know, but let me state before I go into this that I respect all religions and I'm not saying anything to degrade your religion.

first off, the definition of prejudice: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. just like RACISM or SEXISM. would you tell a person they were sick because of the color of their skin? or because of their gender? everyone is equal. as I said there is no reason to hate homosexuals other than complete ignorance or prejudice.

as for Christianity there is a bible passage that states homosexuality is wrong. for people who believe the bible is god's EXACT word, the bible also says not to judge another. who are you to deny someone else of equality and the chance to live a normal life? that's god's job. although I'm not Christian I think the bible is a wonderful book and sometimes people just misuse it and this is one of the bigger cases of that IN MY OPINION.

a person above me mentioned sex. WHAT in the HELL does facing away from each other have to do with anything?! sex is NOT strictly missionary position for one. second of all if you clean very well you avoid getting diseases and whatnot, there's the same risk as getting a disease as having sex with a straight person. thirdly someone already mentioned homosexuality with dogs and why it is a natural thing.

most importantly of all homosexuality is not about sex, sex like in any relationship (I hope) has nothing against emotional connection.


I really hope I didn't offend anyone, that was my intention.

*edit* whoops I forgot to mention, Canada, America and many other countries around the world support freedom of religion, and many religions support homosexuality, Buddhism for example. Buddhism is my favorite, it's so nice and open and just encourages people to be a light for their own path that they choose. er anyway point being religion is not a excuse to criticize homosexuals, if you want to do that you can just go to some more repressed country and do that.

[janice]

but sexual preference shouldnt be an issue in when sending in that religious application to the man upstairs...

It's not an issue.  God tells us to come to him "just as we are".

[timothy42b]

before I go on a big rant I have to say HI I am new!


most importantly of all homosexuality is not about sex, sex like in any relationship (I hope) has nothing against emotional connection.

This is a very good point.  It has been made before, but it usually gets ignored.  I guess it's more fun to talk about sex than love!  <grin>

The Bible forbids illicit sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual.  It really should be okay to just stop there and put a period.  But it isn't, because judgmental Christians feel homosexual illicit sex is thousands of times as bad as heterosexual.  It isn't clear why.  The Bible does not support this.

The Bible does not address homosexual orientation at all that I can tell.  The writers would appear not to have been conscious that it could exist.  (except possibly for Paul's "thorn.")  It may be that the Bible ONLY addressed same sex actions by straight people, because that's all the writers understood to be possible.  Clearly most if not all the references to same sex sins in the Bible referred to straights. 

The Bible does contain three accounts of long term, committed, devoted same sex relationships.  It does not explicitly state that these were or were not sexual.  In modern writing it would have been addressed, because these relationships were clearly loving enough that wondering would be logical. 

I cannot find it in my heart to believe that a loving God would find a loving committed monogamous same sex relationship any more, or any less distasteful than a heterosexual one.  I think he would want both confirmed and strengthened in the sacrament of marriage. 

[pianonut]

i agree about immorality being the same (whether illicit same sex or different).  there is a mention to immorality in rev. 21:8 and many places to sodom and gommorah as reference to 'gross immorality.'  what else could this mean besides the combination of sexual activity that is not allowed in leviticus (one should not lie with a man, as a woman).  since God first gave us the law, we then have to interpret it in the NT.  and, all of us are found sinners (yes, christians).  many of us have lusted, acted on lust, etc. but we don't give up.  we should be walking by the spirit, but there are many temptations.  so we say 'may God help me and not forsake me' as David did.  He had a close male companion (i don't think it ever mentions sexual companion), Christ had twelve (none were sexual), and Paul (i believe it coul have been his thorn - so that many would come to know God and know that he understands every thought and desire).  Most of our desires come from a need of acceptance, companionship, trust.  perhaps women don't always fill men's needs in terms of friendships.  I think men do need men as friends (just as women need women friends).  But, when someone tempts you to have a sexual relationship you can think (ok. i have a choice - what would Christ do?)  I don't think he would 'go for it.'  He fought Satan's temptations with the Word. He would refer to lev. 20:13.

[jas]

Dear Tim R., and Jas,

i was hesitant to say anything because you know it will be 'religious' as you call it.  but, truly, the people who post God's word are speaking from a point of view of salvation and not judgement.  we don't want to see anyone suffer more than necessary in this life or the next.

I know you don't mean Christians want to see people suffer (I hope I didn't come across that way, that's definitely not what I meant!), but it's that word you used there: salvation. Salvation from what? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I know little more about the bible than what was force-fed to me in school. Is it salvation from ourselves? If that's it then there's an inherent implication there: that we need forgiven for being human! That's what doesn't sit well with me. Salvation from others? Implies the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think that for the most part, what Christians stand for is very worthy and a good thing in a world where there's an increasing number of bad things, but it's things like that particular point of view, doctrine, whatever you want to call it, that I just can't agree with!

John (iii john 9) says anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.  if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him a greeting.  i used to think this was too much!  that i would continue to greet people all the same--BUT God means what He says.  If you live in a dorm and are 'forced' to dwell with people who stare at you - go to the advisors and request a room with someone who will not molest you (possibly) for no reason.  if you know people are doing this, would you want them near your children. NO. (i wouldn't anyway).  Would you ask God to curse them.  NO. far from that.  i would pray for them to experience healing.  perhaps THEY were abused as a child by their father, or a relative, or a church member --or perhaps their mother was over doting and smothered them.  it is a long road (probably) to recover from any addiction (drugs, alcohol, sexual, whatever). 

Mmmm ... I'm not sure what you mean. Surely it wasn't meant that literally? (I suppose you'd know much better that I would, but that sounds quite metaphorical to me.) Obviously, if there's some pervert in your dorm, you don't just leave them to it just because you don't follow the teachings of God! I'm not religious at all -- which I may have made fairly obvious   -- but that doesn't mean that I'd be happy to let some weirdo do horrible and illegal things to some hapless, unsuspecting roommate! You don't have to be religious to agree with certain aspects of Christian doctrine. You also don't have to be "evil" to disagree with others.
As for the forgiveness thing ... I agree with you that many (maybe even most) things can be forgiven in time, but there's a line and some people do cross it and are (I believe) utterly beyond hope.
I'm sorry if I missed the point of your post there, I wasn't totally clear on what you meant...

if you view homosexuality as something that is a choice - you can start to reroute your desires.  say - if you really have 'a thing' for someone of the same sex - you can openly say that you are working on your spiritual side and need some time to study.

But who's to say that someone who's homosexual -- even if they did choose to be (and I personally think it's not a choice at all, that it's an inherent part of a person) -- would want to "reroute [their] desires?" This is what I mean. There's nothing wrong with it! Many people who say they're accepting of homosexuality put conditions on their acceptance. They say they don't have anything against homosexuality, but they treat it as though it's an unfortunate character flaw which, given the chance, should be obliterated. I'm not saying that's what you said -- maybe it's not -- but it sounds like that's what you meant. Obviously you're as entitled to an opinion as the next person, but it's this strange Christian idea that we should accept people for what they are (eg. gay) but that they'll need some sort of forgiveness for it in the end, that bugs me.
I know that applies to everyone, whether they're straight, gay, male, female, whatever. But I think a hedonistic, lust-filled, gluttonous lifestyle could only be "sinful" if it hurts people. And it doesn't, if you're careful. They might not exactly be desirable characteristics in a person, but until it starts having a tangible adverse effect on others, I say each to their own.

Erm. Anyway. I hope I haven't offended anyone, that wasn't my intention. I'm just explaining (badly) what it is about this subject that rubs me up the wrong way.

Jas

[pianonut]

i understand what you are saying.  having always been a sort of independent woman (i have had to rethink some things about how God views women and men).  i'd like to think that i am not prejudiced.  and, i know that i have never wanted ill to come to a 'gay' person.  when i read in the paper of a crime committed against them, i feel just as badly as i do when a straight guy/girl is molested and killed or beaten.  i don't think anyone has a right to judge anyone else (speck in someone else's eye might be a beam in our own).

my husband and i have helped each other feel secure and loved and companions.  we have differences of opinion, sometimes fight, but rarely hold grudges.  we should have been born italian because we say everything we think (and i am thankful he's willing to talk).  i realize others have companions that give them the feelings that they need to have at a certain time.  life is a journey, and you have to come to a place where you are searching for God to find Him.  sometimes it is when you have a relationship that doesn't work out, or one that doesn't make you feel whole.  if you have a relationship simply based on the evolutionary concept of sex, you may have multiple partners.  this is what God calls us to understand.  the danger of just doing whatever.  straight people can have multiple partners, too.  there probably is no difference in sin because it is 'gross immorality.'  we aren't meant to feel 'spread thin' or that our bodies are somewhat trash to others. many commit suicide for this very reason (no one that truly cares deeply for them personally - just sexual pleasure).  this is more what i was talking about.

[darkrev]

It seems that the main group of people opposed to homosexuality are the christians.  Just the fact that christians insist on attacking gays is outrageous.  I mean, if you're against homosexuals, keep that to yourself because their actions have nothing to do with you.  There were studies conducted in the university of Illinois, confirming that there are genes in the dna that influence your sexual orientation, and therefore, there's absolutely nothing unnatural about being attracted to the same sex. What's unnatural though, is suppressing the traits which we've inherited.  How would you act if the bible says that heterosexuality is wrong? 

[Muzakian]

i understand what you are saying.  having always been a sort of independent woman (i have had to rethink some things about how God views women and men).  i'd like to think that i am not prejudiced.  and, i know that i have never wanted ill to come to a 'gay' person.  when i read in the paper of a crime committed against them, i feel just as badly as i do when a straight guy/girl is molested and killed or beaten.  i don't think anyone has a right to judge anyone else (speck in someone else's eye might be a beam in our own).

my husband and i have helped each other feel secure and loved and companions.  we have differences of opinion, sometimes fight, but rarely hold grudges.  we should have been born italian because we say everything we think (and i am thankful he's willing to talk).  i realize others have companions that give them the feelings that they need to have at a certain time.  life is a journey, and you have to come to a place where you are searching for God to find Him.  sometimes it is when you have a relationship that doesn't work out, or one that doesn't make you feel whole.  if you have a relationship simply based on the evolutionary concept of sex, you may have multiple partners.  this is what God calls us to understand.  the danger of just doing whatever.  straight people can have multiple partners, too.  there probably is no difference in sin because it is 'gross immorality.'  we aren't meant to feel 'spread thin' or that our bodies are somewhat trash to others. many commit suicide for this very reason (no one that truly cares deeply for them personally - just sexual pleasure).  this is more what i was talking about.

What does this have to do with your views on homosexuality? Do you think gays are only interested in sex, and incapable of having a relationship as wonderful as yours? 

this may be going too far on my part, but as a mother i tend to look at people in their 20's as children.

Considering many people on this forum are that age or younger, I hope you treat what we have to say with as much respect as you would show a "grown-up".

[pianonut]

dear muzakian, 

i accept what you are saying about others having a close relationship not based soley on sex.  this is very understandable.  i don't think that it will be a relationship bound by God even if they marry, tho.  marriage is basically a christian idea and based on blessing from God upon two people who become one.  a man and another man cannot fully become one (even if they are really close friends) in God's sight.  They can be BEST FRIENDS< but not, to God, anything more.  God creates the difference between men and women to compliment.  that's all i was saying.  sometimes it causes division (because of huge differences sometimes) but that is where we learn character because it probably is harder (at first) to meld with another being who sees things from a totally different perspective.

[Floristan]

God blesses gay unions.  You're just too closed minded to understand it.  God wants us to form unions -- primarily because in such unions one has to give up selfishness and, through love, put another person's needs on the same level or higher than yours.  We are thus taught to be less self-involved, ego-driven -- which brings us closer to God.  It's also manifestly better for society to have committed couples, who are the bedrock of our society and provide it with much stability.  Gay couples are no different from straight couples in that regard.  No, God blesses our unions.  He's certainly blessed mine.  Someday, God willing, you'll understand.

[pianowelsh]

Lets be clear. There is a difference in the love a christian has for another christian and the love they have for a non-christian. I see why you would be offended by the seeming contradiction of a christian who loves you but then says youll pay for your sin in the end. Can I say its because Christians love you that they warn you of what the bible teaches and its because they know what will happen in the end that they warn you and they warn you because they know the one who saves from danger. We all need salvation because 'all [even gays] fall short of Gods glorious standard'. Gods design for humankind is clearly man:woman not man:man... (im sure someone will remark upon the glibness of this comment but God created adam and eve not adam and steve and thats just fact.... he also gave very clear instructions about the kinds of 'intimate' relations we are to have and gay couples dont feature period. Lets be quite clear God is gracious and his common grace extends to the nations 'the sun shines on the righteous and the unrighteous' but God doesnt bless Sin. Sin is offensive to God and is ' a reproach to any nation'. A problem we run into is that people refuse to accept that men an women have certain characteristics that make them unique and therefore anyone with anyone is 'fine' but it is contrary to our design. Woman was made from man and for man (Genesis) and a couples design in that regard is to Glorify God. The gay movement out and out goes out to undermine Gods design surely if you regard Gods word as authoritative that muchg is 'clear'.

[TheHammer]

OK, that may sound disgressing, not to the point or sarcastic, but I am serious, so you say

Gods design for humankind is clearly man:woman not man:man... (im sure someone will remark upon the glibness of this comment but God created adam and eve not adam and steve and thats just fact....

So if that is a fact and and we have to organize our society after the biblical word, incest should be allowed? I mean, two persons, one man and one woman, create on their very own, a complete species? That sounds as if Kain had to marry his sister... So if I am wrong here please correct me, but, although some parts of the bible have certain moral value, I cannot see why a modern, "enlightened" society should be directed by, well, a unrealistic fairy tale (=OT).

Oh, and I have another related question to all bible-educated folks. Now, as I understand it, god created all people, their souls, minds, bodies. Right? Now, he knows everything, right? And, for him, time is irrelevant, since he is omnipotent, that means, even when he made the earth, he knew what exactly would happen the Last Day? I think someone mentioned prophecies in this or another thread, so I guess I am on the right track. Now, take a gay guy. He was created by god, with all his temptations and so on. Now, if he does not repent and "becomes" straight he will go to hell for his sinning. But, isn`t this concept quite unfair? God creates this soul, thinks, hmm, I will make you gay, so that you can fight your temptation and your sins, and that you discover my son Jesus, blabla. But then, he "looks" into the future (i.e. he is aware of it, as he is aware of everything) and "sees", oh well this guy won`t make it, he will burn in hell. Perhaps I should make it not so hard for him, so that he will realize that homosexuality s****. Or, I prove my own non-existance/cruelty (choose one) and let him as he is.

What I mean is destiny I think (or, philosophical, determinism). Everything what happens cannot happen in any other way, since it`s all "god`s plan" (or, it`s all determined by your upbringing, educational, genetical, social background as well as exterior influences), you can not act in another way.

Now, perhaps you will say "no no no, god has given us choice to seek for him and the love of Jesus" but I am still right, as long as god knows the future (what I will just assume here). He knows what we will do with our "choice", so by giving it to us, he condemns us. There is actually no difference between these concepts, it turns out the same when you think of it.

Perhaps we should start a philosophy thread...

Anyway, I hope I didn`t offend anyone, it wasn`t my intention. I admire the ability of most forum members to lead a polite and informative discussion even about the most controversial subjects. Thanks