Homosexuality

[Floristan]

PW--
What makes you so sure "God's design" doesn't include gays?  Don't you think it's possible that creation is a constant work in process, and that God just started the ball rolling (with Adam and Eve) and then said, "OK, let's see what you do with all this."  Free will, etc., etc.  And so there were all these possibilities from the beginning, all of which omnicient God knew, but none of which he planned -- he just let it all develop on its own.  He intervened a few times at first, but he's been conspicuously absent for the last two millenia.  I just don't understand why you people are so hung up on this one man/one woman thing.  Isn't it just possible that what God really[/b] considers important is how we treat one another, not our specific sexual behavior?  Jesus made a really[/b] big deal about there being only two commandments: love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

God has blessed my gay relationship.  You don't have to like it or believe it; it doesn't matter to me.  I believe it absolutely. 

(Oh, and thanks ever so much for the "loving warning" about my "state of sin."  Right back at you!  )  

[TheHammer]

You are kind of my idol Floristan (although I am neither homosexual nor christian ), because you combine your faith with a open-minded attitude - and you stand to it. I think, that's what it is all about: how much influence should religious doctrine have on society. Many people here have stated that they see homosexuals as "sick" or "sinners" , because of what they "learn" from the bible. But since there are "non-believers" all over the world, the "scripture" must not be taken seriously for the sake of individualism and personal development. Your views on the bible are very innovative and mind refrehing, did not think people like you existed. Thanks that you restored my "faith" in "reasonable christians".

[Floristan]

Hammer--

Thanks very much for your supportive response...I'm most appreciative!  Sometimes I feel like I'm swimming upstream in these discussions, so it's great to get positive acknowledgement for my point of view.   
 

[asyncopated]

I don't much like to throw myself into a discussion about god and much less one which has both the world god and gay in them.  Both topics get too close to the heart. 

Despite this, it is an interesting topic, and tells me more about people.  What is written here is prompted by Floristan's post, and I'm just wondering what people think.  I lot of the time, people have very different opinions, views, ideas, expectations and relationships with god.

So,  if god where an object oriented entity, what properties would you give him? 

What I mean by this is, if you were to describe how god were to you, which attributes would you give him/her? (politically correct vs. ecclesiastically correct)  and why.

For example,

If I'm not wrong Floristan says that god is both a creationist and a non-interventionist god. From the quotes "creation is a constant work in process, and that God just started the ball rolling" and "He intervened a few times at first, but he's been conspicuously absent for the last two millennia."  He probably came to these conclusions from his personal experience with god.

Other possible attributes, apart from drawing experience from your personal life, is to try and understand the bible.   Well, I'm no religious authority, but in the OT, it seems that god was rather wrathful, spiteful and angry. In the NT, god is loving, kind, just, tolerant (?), forgiving (?) man... erm god... erm being... erm entity.

Another possibility is where god derives attributes in our lives is what other people tells you think of god.  Eg. Priests, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Bush, Friends.

I guess is that, how we choose to live our lives under god (or otherwise) is largely base on how and what we think god is.  I would further venture to say that perhaps Janice's and Floristan, although they believe in the same god, see different sides of god and gives him sufficiently different attributes to justify their wildly differing opinions.

al.

[jas]

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....

I can't stand that rhyme. It's the homophobes' old standby (and no, I'm not calling you a homophobe, but spouting that sort of rubbish certainly makes you sound it).
Assuming God created people (and, personally, I don't believe anything of the sort), then why would he create two men, anyway? The two divisions of the human race are male and female and I suppose -- since one man and one woman can in turn create more people -- he didn't feel the need to create more than one of each. Just because God didn't create some bloke called "Steve" and make a candlelit meal for two for him and Adam, that doesn't automatically preclude homosexual relationships.
And if, somewhere in the bible (which I haven't read), he does forbid it, then that shows a patent lack of understanding of these people he supposedly created. Because homosexuality is something inherent in certain people. And it's in no way unnatural or some sort of mutation that God didn't put there.

... The gay movement out and out goes out to undermine Gods design surely if you regard Gods word as authoritative that muchg is 'clear'.

Rubbish. Are you saying that homosexuals can't be devout Christians? They can love any god they want, they can follow any religion they want. Why should that be dictated by their sexual preference? Saying that they are deliberately trying to undermine God's design is so incredibly close-minded. It's not them doing the undermining -- there are probably millions of homosexuals who want to go about their Christianity just as everyone else does. It's views like yours that make it difficult, not them.
I'm not trying to belittle your love of God or anything like that. But I think a lot of Christians seem unwilling to look beyond what's put right before them, in the bible.

PW--
What makes you so sure "God's design" doesn't include gays?  Don't you think it's possible that creation is a constant work in process, and that God just started the ball rolling (with Adam and Eve) and then said, "OK, let's see what you do with all this."

Exactly.

Jas

[pianowelsh]

I am saying that if you are a christian (meaning one who is in active relationship with christ - being saved through his atonning sacrifice) that you will not continue on in sin and God says its sin to be with a man as you would with a woman - hes very clear. I am not surprised you find the adam:eve adam:steve thing annoying but God knew what he was doing and he meant it when he created eve from adam and not just another replica man as he could have done if he had chosen in his infinite wisdom to do.  gods wisdom is infinite and as the bible says he in all ways identifed with our infirmities (isaiha?55) this means that he understands perfectly every single temptation that is known to man - yet he is totally without Sin. It is not me that calls it sin but God the opinion is not mine its what scripture says and scripture itself substanciates that it is the express word of God. The bible is also very clear about making Gods in your own image (or picking and choosing - say i think God is like this or I think God wouldnt do that  - essentially limiting God) God has revealled his will to us through his word and if he says he doesnt like sin he means it. I should also say that the bible doesnt speak of creation as ongoing in anyway. It was six days then God judged the earth in flood (because of their Sin) and his remenant who were obedient started over - knowing that God does what he promises. God is going to judge the world again - this time with fire and he will come in person to bring home those who are his. Sin has an eternal consequence - Look to Christ and Live. One of the greatest enditements in scripture is 'and they did what was right in their own eyes' - those of you who know scripture will know what follows those who dont you could read it.
Have a great Easter and spend some time exploring the Love that God has for you in christ.

[Floristan]

The things I think are misguided about the fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality are so numerous and detailed that it would require a book to discuss them all.

I would simply guide the interested reader to the following website, which contains a full discussion of the subject from the liberal Christian point of view:

www.bridges-across.org

Happy Easter, all!

[pianowelsh]

I have to ask is a Christian view that is not biblical really a christian view? How can someone say that follows christ  - thats God but i dont agree with what you say here! -it dosent make sense.

[paris]

i have just one question:
if is normal to be gay, why then two women (or two man) can't give birth?!    i'm confused...

[Torp]

i have just one question:
if is normal to be gay, why then two women (or two man) can't give birth?!    i'm confused...

Often in heterosexual relationships the couple is unable to conceive and give birth.  Is that a sign from god that they weren't meant to be together or that they are somehow an abomination in his/her sight?

Your question presupposes that the sole purpose for a relationship is to procreate, ala "be fruitful and multiply."  Funny though, if we take that last quote to its logical conclusion then the concept of matrimonial monogamy seems counterproductive.

Jef

[timothy42b]

I have to ask is a Christian view that is not biblical really a christian view? How can someone say that follows christ  - thats God but i dont agree with what you say here! -it dosent make sense.

What you are saying is that anybody who does not have your particular extremely literal and simplistic interpretation of the Bible is not Christian. 

Most of the world's Christians, including me, would not agree.

[Skeptopotamus]

As a gay male and an atheist, I believe that sexuality is completely divorced from morality. What is morality? I believe that morality began when primitive man began to form societies. Those who stole meat from others had to be punished because they were infringing upon another's survival instinct. As societies grew, morality became more vague, but if one looks at what we generally call "wrong," one will find that it always has to do with deprving someone of something - murder (life), theft (property - originally food), rape (generally of women by men - instinct to protect women who were originally seen as property). Therefore, although I do not believe in an absolute morality, I realize that a societal morality exists and that sexuality has nothing to do with it. The concept that homosexuality or just sexuality in general is wrong is another blessing for which we can thank the Christian religion.

ditto.  yay for gay aethiests =P

Horowitz was gay.  so was tchaikovsky, and pretty much every single modern composer too, including barber.

[Skeptopotamus]

Charles Griffes, Henry Cowell, Harry Partch, Marc Blitzstein, Samuel Barber, Paul Bowles, Gian Carlo Menotti, David Diamond, Ben Weber, John Cage, Lou Harrison, Ned Rorem, Pauline Olivieros, William Flanagan, David Del Tredici, and John Corigliano, aaron copland, virgil thomas and leonard berstein were all gay.  These are just the american composers.  I will research more later ^^

[SteinwayTony]

ditto.  yay for gay aethiests =P

Horowitz was gay.  so was tchaikovsky, and pretty much every single modern composer too, including barber.

It's tough being gay when you have a wife. 

Horowitz was bisexual.

[Skeptopotamus]

damn i have been misinformed.


well bi is close!  sorry

[lfischer]

There are all sorts of rumours on the subject, most of which are sparked by the contents of the Gnostic Gospels, but was Jesus gay?

I'd be quite amused if he was, because it would seriously undermine fundamentist-Christian homophobes who use the Bible as their justification for their homohobia.
Included in the Bible are all sorts of references to the disciple John "whom Jesus loved". Whats that supposed to mean? It is surely just the same as "love your neighbour," but it is mentioned quite a lot.

[janice]

There are all sorts of rumours on the subject, most of which are sparked by the contents of the Gnostic Gospels, but was Jesus gay?

No he could not have been gay, because if he had been gay, then he would have lived contrary to his own teaching, living life sort of like "do as I say, not as I do".  If Jesus did indeed live life as a homosexual, then he would not be the perfect Son of God.  If Jesus had not lived a life which was without sin, then he could not have been the God's perfect sacrafice for sins.  If he was not God's perfect sacrafice for sins, then Christianity is senseless and Jesus knew it.  YET, Jesus chose to be nailed to a cross. Yet, God found Jesus to be the perfect sacrafice, so He raised Jesus from the dead.  If Jesus were not perfect, God would not have raised him from the dead.  Back to your original question--was Jesus gay?  The logical conclusion is "no, he was not".

I'd be quite amused if he was, because it would seriously undermine fundamentist-Christian homophobes...

Whoa!  I am a "fundamentalist" Christian and I am not a homophobe.  Even though I feel that homosexuality is wrong,  that does not make me a homophobe.  There is a difference here.

use the Bible as their justification for their homohobia.
 

Remember, the definition of homophobia is not the mere agreement that it is wrong, but rather an irrational fear of or belief about homosexuals.  Big difference.  Therefore, Christians point to the Bible as a basis for their belief that homosexuality is wrong, period.

John "whom Jesus loved". Whats that supposed to mean? 

It means just what it says it means.  Maybe it is you who is "reading into" it.

   

[lfischer]

Don't worry, I'm not reading into it. I understand fully that he was almost certainly not gay, and that his love for John was as a friend or even brother.
I must confess my aim in posting that previous message was to get an interesting reaction from a Christian, in the most harmless way possible. We both agree that Jesus's "love" for John can be read both ways, and this is entirely my point. Just about anything in the Bible (or most other holy books for that matter) can be interpreted to take almost any stance on the related matter.
When he context is homosexuality, the Bible nowhere states that homosexual orientation is wrong, even it does condemn homosexual activity. This is where I disagree with you on the possibility of Jesus being homosexual. He could still have been the Son of God and a homosexual at the same time, as long as he did not practise homosexual acts. Also I do not enjoy entertaining the idea that his perfection could be complete because he was heterosexual. I don't believe myself that Jesus was gay, but there is alwasy the possibility.

Whoa! I am a "fundamentalist" Christian and I am not a homophobe. Even though I feel that homosexuality is wrong, that does not make me a homophobe. There is a difference here.

I am terribly sorry if I have caused any offence by this, and assuredly, I did not mean to do so. I did not mean at all to suggest that fundamentalist Christians were all homophobic, but more to define the group of people that would be undermined by the prospect of Jesus being a homosexual. That particular group of people being those who are both homophobic and fundamantalist Christians.
As to the definition of homophobia, I understand fully the correct meaning. I just assumed that people would comprehend that I meant "fearful of homosexuals or homosexuality." This ties in to my specification of the group that I was describing above.
To avoid confusion, I shall simply state that by "fundamentalist Christian homophobes" I mean "any fundamentalist Christian that condemns and has a disliking for homosexuals." I have a serious gripe with that lot, because they also tend to be the same ones who discredit evolution theory etc...

[janice]

I am terribly sorry if I have caused any offence by this, and assuredly, I did not mean to do so.

No worries!! 

  because they also tend to be the same ones who discredit evolution theory etc... 

I'm not a homophobe--but I do feel that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God-- and I DO discredit evolutionary theory.  But there's a thread on that

[Daevren]

No he could not have been gay, because if he had been gay, then he would have lived contrary to his own teaching, living life sort of like "do as I say, not as I do".  If Jesus did indeed live life as a homosexual, then he would not be the perfect Son of God.  If Jesus had not lived a life which was without sin, then he could not have been the God's perfect sacrafice for sins.  If he was not God's perfect sacrafice for sins, then Christianity is senseless and Jesus knew it.  YET, Jesus chose to be nailed to a cross.

Jesus might have very well been a homosexual. Jesus being perfect, he isn't and he wasn't supposed to be. He was a human. That was the point of the story, to show that a human could live a live like god wanted, that an imperfect human could be gods 'perfect' son.

Christianity not being perfect.... uuh... like Jesus ever wanted something like christianity. Isn't that what he did all his life? Attack the Jewish religious order and question their authority?

[timothy42b]

One of the most beautiful definitions of a loving relationship is the familiar passage from Ruth read at traditional weddings. 

"Whither thou goest, there ....."  Etc. 

And it is a same sex relationship, Ruth and Naomi. 

What I did not know until I looked it up is that the same sex relationship of David and Jonathan, with all the references to their love, may have actually been a marriage.  Saul comments that if David marries his daughter, he would be a son-in-law for the second time. 

Of course, an apologist is going to read those verses in another way.  But that doesn't prove their interpretation is the only one. 

[beethoartok]

I think that people should have the basic human right to live the way that they want to. Personally, I have nothing against homosexual people- it's probably because my generation seems pretty open minded.

[Lance Morrison]

my dad married my mom......then six years ago realized he was gay. of course he had known it all along, but he just had denied it and not faced it. it took me a while to accept that my father was gay, but I have, and now we are all much better off. I'm not going to get into the religious/moral debate.....but just thought I'd say that I support everyone in their quest to find happiness in life

[vences5]

Are there any logical arguments against Homosexuality that would prove it to be harmful or morally wrong?(From Ex-athiest.com)

I know of no logical arguments that would condemn homosexuality as immoral, outside of the existence of a god who declares it to be immoral. However, I also know of no logical arguments that would condemn any action as being immoral, including murder or rape.

To clarify, man can only give his unsupported opinion that any given action is 'moral' or 'immoral', hence, the evidence for moral relativism that is found when one examines moral codes of different cultures and different individuals. One culture finds it morally acceptable to sacrifice its children to its god; another finds the same thing reprehensible. One individual sees nothing morally wrong in eating the meat of an animal; another views the human carnivore as primitive and barbaric. Morality, without the concept of God, can only be subjective opinion.   

Secular Humanism teaches that any action, which involves the voluntary consent of two or more individuals, should be accepted as long as it does not violate 'the rights' of any other individual(s). However, this definition fails to weigh the rights of the individual against the welfare of society as a whole.

For example, the individual in the U.S. is granted the right of free speech, but he is not allowed to shout 'fire!' in a theater, unless there is a fire. He is not allowed to jeopardize national security by revealing secrets to which he may have access. If he is a teacher, he  is not allowed to initiate prayer in a public school, because the non-endorsement of religion by the government takes precedence over the rights of an individual's free speech.

There are other impositions that are legally allowed to be made upon individuals without their consent.  For example, in matters of national security, the government has the right to impose a draft, without the consent of the individual. It is the law, in some states, that an individual has to wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet,not only for their own safety, but to keep insurance rates low for the welfare of others.

Therefore, exceptions to secular humanism's definition of morality exclude those actions that speak for the welfare of society, and that place that welfare above the rights of the individual.

This begs the question, "Is the acceptance and practice of homosexuality by society, harmful to society?"

 Now there may be some evidence that open homosexuality that comes about when a society embraces it, results in a more violent sexuality, or higher violence in general, among its people. For example, (and not saying that all homosexuals are into this), there seems to be a correlation between homosexuality and sadomasochism. There may also be indication that females and children in an openly homosexual society would be treated poorly. Studies have demonstrated that the homosexual lifestyle is more promiscuous than its heterosexual counterpart. It would appear, on the surface, that children would learn to relate better to both genders if they are raised by both genders. But this is all speculation; the truth is, we really don't know how widespread acceptance and practice of homosexuality would influence society.

A common pro-homosexuality argument is that because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral.  However, there is more evidence that the criminal mind is genetic than there is for the homosexual mind. When we apply the same reasoning, we would then have to approve of criminal behaviour because it appears to occur naturally in some individuals. Likewise, gluttony and alcoholism are attributed to the physiology of the individual, yet we don’t see people who have the predisposition to overeat, or get drunk, demanding that society embrace these ills. All of us are born with the propensity to sin, albeit in different ways.

There is overwhelming evidence that sexuality is due more to societal influence than genetic programming. Historians have estimated that almost all of the men in Sparta engaged in homosexual relationships, compared to the estimate of less than 10% in cultures that consider the activity taboo. Percentages of homosexuality vary widely from culture to culture. This is not what we would expect to see, if homosexual attraction within the human species was genetic. Even within the life of an individual,  sexual attraction may make itself known as a choice, not as a preprogrammed instinct.  A person can alternate between same sex and opposite sex unions. In short, our sexual preferences may be more liquid than some would care to admit. As our own society continues to promote same sex unions, I’ve no doubt that we will see more people opting for them.

 There is also some evidence that men who don’t emotionally connect with their fathers, drift into sexual relationships with other men in an attempt to get that connection that they had always craved. When this happens, the man’s actions are futile, because no surrogate lover can take the place of the man’s father. The homosexual finds himself left unfulfilled, still craving that connection that no other man, but his father, can establish. If this is an underlying cause of homosexuality, then we do a great injustice to the homosexual when we designate homosexuality as normal behaviour, for which no treatment need be sought. By refusing to recognize homosexuality as a symptom of a deeper, underlying cause, we are, in effect, sentencing the homosexual to a life of dissatisfaction.

 We can only question why God condemns homosexuality. If the issues mentioned in the above paragraph prove true, then we have to admit that a society’s embrace of homosexuality may have undesirable consequences that may adversely affect the family and the mindset that we have toward each other.

The only compelling reason to not engage in homosexuality, as far as I am concerned, is if one believes and loves the Christian god, they would want to refrain from doing that which He condemns.

[Nightscape]

Morality, without the concept of God, can only be subjective opinion.

But isn't the God of every culture subject to its customs?  Every culture in history has had it's own God or Gods that were subjected to the particular views and beliefs of that culture.  In that regard, God is universally subjective to whatever one wants to believe of him.   

This begs the question, "Is the acceptance and practice of homosexuality by society, harmful to society?"

 Now there may be some evidence that open homosexuality that comes about when a society embraces it, results in a more violent sexuality, or higher violence in general, among its people. For example, (and not saying that all homosexuals are into this), there seems to be a correlation between homosexuality and sadomasochism. There may also be indication that females and children in an openly homosexual society would be treated poorly. Studies have demonstrated that the homosexual lifestyle is more promiscuous than its heterosexual counterpart. It would appear, on the surface, that children would learn to relate better to both genders if they are raised by both genders. But this is all speculation; the truth is, we really don't know how widespread acceptance and practice of homosexuality would influence society.

What are these "studies" you speak of?  Promiscuous behavior is not limited to homosexuals; in fact, almost 99% of the promiscuous activity I see on television, the media, as well as the gossip I hear on a daily basis involves heterosexuals.  There is also a correlation between heterosexuality and sadomaschism....

Again, no credible studies I know of say that children raised by loving homosexual couples fare worse than children raised by loving heterosexual couples.  Let's not forget that the concept of the nuclear family has not been around forever - yet people managed to survive and live fulfilling lives long before its widespread acceptance in the 20th century.

A common pro-homosexuality argument is that because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral.  However, there is more evidence that the criminal mind is genetic than there is for the homosexual mind. When we apply the same reasoning, we would then have to approve of criminal behaviour because it appears to occur naturally in some individuals. Likewise, gluttony and alcoholism are attributed to the physiology of the individual, yet we don’t see people who have the predisposition to overeat, or get drunk, demanding that society embrace these ills. All of us are born with the propensity to sin, albeit in different ways.

But the key difference here is that homosexuality is not a crime and is not damaging to society.  Murder, theft, etc is illegal because it causes obvious damage to society - we make these activities illegal to protect our own well-being.  And homosexuality is not considered a disorder by the APA, it is considered a normal variant of sexual behaviour.

There is overwhelming evidence that sexuality is due more to societal influence than genetic programming. Historians have estimated that almost all of the men in Sparta engaged in homosexual relationships, compared to the estimate of less than 10% in cultures that consider the activity taboo. Percentages of homosexuality vary widely from culture to culture. This is not what we would expect to see, if homosexual attraction within the human species was genetic.

Again, how do you explain those 10% in socities that condemn homosexuality?  This would point to genetic factors.  After all, why would such a large number of individuals subject themselves to that kind of hostility?  It is true that societal influence can affect one's sexual activities - this is obvious in cases where a homosexual admits to hiding his sexuality and pretending to be heterosexual in order to fit in.  But I think that homosexuality orginates not as a conscious choice, but it is quality that you are born with.  You may pretend to hide your sexuality - but homosexuality is an orientation, not an activity.

There is also some evidence that men who don’t emotionally connect with their fathers, drift into sexual relationships with other men in an attempt to get that connection that they had always craved. When this happens, the man’s actions are futile, because no surrogate lover can take the place of the man’s father. The homosexual finds himself left unfulfilled, still craving that connection that no other man, but his father, can establish. If this is an underlying cause of homosexuality, then we do a great injustice to the homosexual when we designate homosexuality as normal behaviour, for which no treatment need be sought. By refusing to recognize homosexuality as a symptom of a deeper, underlying cause, we are, in effect, sentencing the homosexual to a life of dissatisfaction.

There are plenty of gay men who have perfectly fine relationships with their fathers - and often those who don't attribute their break with their father over disagreement about their sexuality.  This would suggest that attitudes about homosexuality caused the rift, not that the rift caused the homosexuality.

We can only question why God condemns homosexuality. If the issues mentioned in the above paragraph prove true, then we have to admit that a society’s embrace of homosexuality may have undesirable consequences that may adversely affect the family and the mindset that we have toward each other.

The only compelling reason to not engage in homosexuality, as far as I am concerned, is if one believes and loves the Christian god, they would want to refrain from doing that which He condemns.

Indeed, the Bible does condemn homosexuality along with a host of other behaviours.  But I think the reason for this is more obvious than you might think.  If you look at the other activities prohibited in the Old Testament (like eating shrimp, mixing fibers, etc) and consider the time period in which the Bible is written, it becomes clear that these restrictions served a practical purpose in those times - in the case of the shrimp, to protect people from diseases that these animals carry when cooked improperly (alas modern medicine and cooking techniques were unknown then) and as for homosexuality, one would think this was to prevent people from converting to other nearby faiths which were not as strict with homosexuality and used such behaviours in their pagan rituals.  So really these restrictions are nothing more than an early attempt at societal control - to cloak the masses so they could be easily manipulated without insubordination.  I'm not saying the writers of the Bible had malcontent, I'm sure they wanted to help their society.  But what I'm saying is that such outdated laws clearly no longer apply in the modern world.  It's too bad the Bible was immune to the effects of the Age of Enlightenment.

[i_m_robot]

It's all subjective

there is no absolute

why argue it?

[Nightscape]

It's all subjective

there is no absolute

why argue it?

But there is fact and speculation.  It is my duty to separate the two.  And your comment is cleary speculation.

Furthermore, what is subjective is not truth, but our own feelings about truth.  Truth is truth; how we perceive it individualy is what is subjective about it.  I try to perceive truth as close to reality as I can using logic and reason.... others simply let their vehement emotions guide thier thoughts.

[i_m_robot]

others simply let their vehement emotions guide thier thoughts

Speculation, no?

Perhaps it is thought that guides emotions...those underlying whispers one feels before they are hearded within our minds

What is true for one not being true for all is the essence of truth as no mind can comprehend it in its truest form.

A fact is merely a proven (to what ever extent it can be proven) speculation, because a speculation has yet to be proven does not mean it cannot be fact.


Is a truth perceived through logic and reason less subjective than perceive through emotion?

In the end no matter how much one tries to see the truth as it is, it is always changed by our perceptions.

The only truth self knows of is the truth that surrounds self every day...

Its is unattainable

 

[Nightscape]

Why may I ask are you changing the subject?  Perhaps to avoid the topic at hand?  It is easy to play the nihilism card and cop out of a meaningful discussion....

[i_m_robot]

Why may I ask are you changing the subject?  Perhaps to avoid the topic at hand?  It is easy to play the nihilism card and cop out of a meaningful discussion....

What do you think about this controversial subject?Do you think it is morally wrong, or do you believe that everyone is entitled to love whom they choose?

It's all subjective

But there is fact and speculation.  It is my duty to separate the two.  And your comment is cleary speculation.

Furthermore, what is subjective is not truth, but our own feelings about truth.  Truth is truth; how we perceive it individualy is what is subjective about it.  I try to perceive truth as close to reality as I can using logic and reason.... others simply let their vehement emotions guide thier thoughts.

 

[Nightscape]

*Sigh* 

Well, at least I tried.

Although I am curious as to why you have taken your actions.... perhaps you are an Imposter or an Evil Clown?

Regardless, you have attempted in vain to drown out my well-thought out criticism with your pseudophilosophical ramblings... and for what purpose?  Is it an attempt to descredit my beliefs about homosexuality?  Are you saying we should all just give up and die?  Or that I shouldn't argue and just settle for whatever may or may not subjectively please me?

But I guess it doesn't really matter.  Because you'll just either ignore this, or respond to it with another pithy saying, knowing that you're more enlightened than I am.

[i_m_robot]

self never speaks of being more enlightened -self hates the word

this and "pet peeve"

that site is a bad influence

self's not pseudophilosphical and self does not ramble

self only answer the question you ask to the best of self knowledge

It is easy to play the nihilism card and cop out of a meaningful discussion....

self does not like this comment

not nihilistic

just saying that self opinion on this issue is that all opinions on this issue are subjective

then a question is asked

why argue

you call this speculation and say you wish to find a great truth

there is nothing philisophical about saying that once something enters the human mind it stripped of the truth in order to be comprehended and thus the truth cannot truely be obtained

this is fact? perhaps, perhaps not?

but it is self's well thought out criticism

perhaps you are an Imposter or an Evil Clown?

imposter describes self's actions a bit (it's stupid to use file share without anonymizers)

but there are better matches

[i_m_robot]

now if you will allow self

here are some of self ramblings on the subject

they are not definite facts but opinion and thoughts

Homosexuality exists because of the sun. It supported life. From life emerged the brain. The brain gave birth to choice and the lack of choice. It is currently being debated which of these two if the factor that most affects whether a person is homosexual or not.

Homosexuality exists in nature.

God created man/nature and created rules for man to live by.

People debate over whether these are actually God's rules or rules made by man to keep order.

The bible is has many truths

but the bible is also subject to constand editing

so where does the truth on this subject come from

perhaps nature is the best example as it can be almost clearly seen

or perhaps one should try to reach a higher level of example

enlightenment perhaps

but if one should reach enlightenment what makes this answer better than the one give by nature ?

[vences5]

Oh goodness, I can already hear the bible bashers romping in...

[i_m_robot]

unfortunately, my friend, they are already here

[i_m_robot]

seriously - if i believed in god - and those were 'his' rules, and 'he' said gay people were 'wrong' .....

yes....lets say 'god' created us all- he created homosexuals too...now isnt this a conundrum?

amusing conversation with god :

gay person praying to god: i cant help it, but ive always felt an attraction towards people of my own sex

god: hmmmm, you a homo?

gay: i guess you could call me that

god: oh , well you are wrong, you are a sinner, you will go to hell, sorry thats just the way it is

gay: why is it this way?

god: look, i make the rules around here : gays=sinners

gay:wait a second, didnt you create the heaven and the earth, and MANKIND in your own image?

god: well yes

gay: and i guess youre the one that made me gay, right?

god: ehhh i felt like it, seemed fun at the time

gay:WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO PLAY GOD LIKE THAT?!?!

god:ummmmm, i am god - i can do whatever i like

gay: right.....so you made me...and im gay..and im wrong for being gay?

god: yes

gay:riiiiiiiiiiight, so arent you being a little hypocritical?

god: well ,maybe, but i dont give a ***, youre the one going to hell! HAHA!

gay:oh crap.....

-------------------------------

YES this is the way i see it - if 'god' exists, and 'god' did all this..

my conclusion is - 'god' is a hypocritical, stupid, bigheaded JERK

this conversation however can be had with every other sin as well

a sin in self's opinion is dwelling on any idea too long

some ideas take a long time to affect people

but the inevitable result of dwelling is action

self's thoughts (or ramblings)

[c18cont]

Isn't it easier to just be asexual? (I am just a little bit serious....)

John Cont

[anony]

Morality has nothing to do with sexual orientation -- unless one willingly subjects oneself to a code of morality in which certain orientions are immoral. Even if morals were involved, it means little in general because there are as many codes of morality as there are sects of religions and philosophies. To be immoral in the eyes of some could easily be honorable in the eyes of others. For the opponents of homosexuality to claim it immoral because it is "unnatural" or simply because the act is offensive to them is akin to claiming that, for instance, being a vegetarian is immoral because humans have historically or "naturally" ingested meat in order to survive, or because vegetables don't taste very good for non-vegetarians. Such claims are merely subjective viewpoints and personal preferences.

In the end, we, as members of the natural world, whether hetero- or homo-sexual, are subject to resistance in our struggle for existence; inter-personal relationships, sexual or otherwise, often encounter animosity from those who do not approve of them for whatever reasons. Assuming one does not succumb to the opposition, one can, by definition, love anyone as one chooses.

Personally, I would suggest any homosexual individuals, those who are certain they could never be heterosexual, to abandon philosophies which are clearly not compatible with their lifestyle, maybe considering in the process that religions, dogmas, even laws, are likely invented by heterosexual men who have little or no ethical consideration or respect for non-heterosexuals.

[SirSteinway]

Yes, it does say in the Bible that men are not supposed to have sex with men and women are not supposed to have sex with women.  Homosexual relations are sinful!  But, I completely disagree with the attitude that many "Christians" take about this issue.  Homosexuals should not be hated or discriminated against!  God loves homosexuals just as much as he loves heterosexuals.  Homosexuality is a sin, but so is telling a lie or coveting your friend's car.  ALL sin is equal in the eyes of God.  Jesus would have treated homosexuals with love and compassion.  As a Christian, I pray everyday that I will do the same. 

[trunks]

I see no controversy here. Neither do I see anything more morally attached to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality.

Yes I am Christian. But I am not religious at all. Christianity is no religion. It is LIFE. It is all about how one lives out one's life. It is about one life influencing other lives.

I hate dogma, as I have always. For those religious people who feel that they are in the right position to pass judgment, or even to act God - you are dogmatizing the Bible. You are using the Bible as a tool for your own prejudice.

And STOP tampering with my life! 

[Siberian Husky]

I see no controversy here. Neither do I see anything more morally attached to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality.

Yes I am Christian. But I am not religious at all. Christianity is no religion. It is LIFE. It is all about how one lives out one's life. It is about one life influencing other lives.

I hate dogma, as I have always. For those religious people who feel that they are in the right position to pass judgment, or even to act God - you are dogmatizing the Bible. You are using the Bible as a tool for your own prejudice.

And STOP tampering with my life! 

i honor your non-elitist "religious" (using quotations beacuse of your statements regarding christianigty as a life) perspectives..its a relief to know not every religious believer  isnt fixated on self righteousness

[i_m_robot]

I see no controversy here. Neither do I see anything more morally attached to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality.

Yes I am Christian. But I am not religious at all. Christianity is no religion. It is LIFE. It is all about how one lives out one's life. It is about one life influencing other lives.

I hate dogma, as I have always. For those religious people who feel that they are in the right position to pass judgment, or even to act God - you are dogmatizing the Bible. You are using the Bible as a tool for your own prejudice.

And STOP tampering with my life! 

 

self believes that when a man assumes to know the real intention of god

they have only succeeded in creating god in their own image

[Torp]

self believes that when a man assumes to know the real intention of god

they have only succeeded in creating god in their own image

Or, put another way....you surely know that you have created god in your own image when he hates all the same people you do.

[pianojems]

I am a Christian and am taught by the bible to love all people . That does not mean that you have to like or approve of what they do. I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin, but then so is lying, cheating, stealing, swearing and many more. I have many homosexual friends and I am not afraid of them or disrespect them just like I will not hate my friends who lie steal etc. I also disagree that it is just what we are and not a choice. It is not a choice what color our skin/hair/eyes are but it is our choice who we have sex with and what actions we perform. Anything that is a verb is our choice. It is our responsibility to live good honest/moral lives and set an example to our peers but also future generations. So I agree if some Christians hate gays then that is a sin too. We have to love all people and if we care for them help them on the right path. On the other hand it also just as ok for anyone and Christian people to have their opinions against homosexuality as are people for it. I think it is really rude and hateful to judge Christians because they believe something is right/wrong. I am just expressing my opinion and truly don't mean to upset anyone if any. I love all people and all of you!
God Bless!

[Nightscape]

Or, put another way....you surely know that you have created god in your own image when he hates all the same people you do.

That's a really good point!

[Torp]

That's a really good point!

I wish I could claim credit for it.  Actually, I wish I could provide the credit.  It's one of those ideas that has always stuck with me, but I can't remember from whom I originally heard it.

[c18cont]

It disturbs me that we must continue to use organized religion to condemn or justify..., In particular for sexual mo'res and folkways....let it be in the public domain....

In fact, sex is not necessary and it will not destroy or build you or determine if you are "more" or "less" by taking part or abstaining...what DOES matter is how you view these two opposite approaches, and how you view your own sexuality...

However, one thing is certain; too great an emphasis on any part of your life MAY deduct its' cost from the rest of your life...and I believe sex is in fact: ..over-rated, oversought,  over-stressed, over the edge, over-done...etc..etc..and an interference at times to higher accomplishment and success...Sublimation remember, resulted in some of the GREATEST works of human endevour...

...Roughly..."All things in Moderation"....(?)..(who?...can't remember who said it...Bernhard?

John Cont)

[timothy42b]

I am a Christian and am taught by the bible to love all people . That does not mean that you have to like or approve of what they do. I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin,

<snip>

No, I don't think you do.  Let me suggest you (and most people who share your opinion) are misunderstanding their own motives.

I think you are personally repulsed by the idea of gay sex. 

As am I.

You have chosen to say you think it is a sin.  I do not do so.  I am also Christian, but I can't find anything wrong with a committed, caring, monogamous relationship of any type.  I believe the Gospels not only allow but require gay marriage, gay ministers, etc.  I believe the church, my church, is in grave error in not fully extending our sacraments and worship to gay people.  I believe our human relationships are a mirror for our relationship with our God, and our marriages blessed by the church are the highest expression of that relationship, and cannot be denied to gay couples.

And yet, though I firmly believe this, I continue to be grossed out by the idea of two guys having sex. 

Well, that's my problem.  I'm not going to punish 5 - 10% of the world just because I have a personal distaste, and I'm not going to go through my Bible trying to justify calling it a sin.  It's not a sin, that just doesn't pass the common sense test.  The only thing Biblical that might make it sinful is not being married - and whose fault is that?  Humans continue to refuse to allow gay marriage, and if humans changed their mind about that one little element gay relationships could cease to be called "sinful." 

And we could get on with fulfilling God's purpose.

And I'd still find sex between guys distasteful.  But that doesn't make it wrong. 

[Floristan]

Great post, Tim.  I'm glad to know there are rational Christians out there who understand the difference between elevating a personal distaste to the level of sin and then using it to oppress people...and doing the right thing...indeed, the Christian thing.  Would there were more like you!  Maybe there are, and we're just hearing from them!