Hey Who Believves In Homosexuality because i am christain post your beliefs!!!!!!!!!

[Jedi]

it's partially choice and social influence i think...but with some i believe it's destiny.

Destiny, eh? You make it sound as if it's God-ordained and that there's nothing you can do to get out of it. I think this is rather fallacious, since it seems homosexual urges fall along the same lines as a person with a bad temper. Whether or not they are born with homosexual desires (much like a man might be born with a bad temper), it does not mean it's moral to act out upon such desires, nor does it take away the choice of the individual to act out upon them. Innate desires are not necessarily moral desires.

Even looking at the situation apart from God's decree (since Christianity clearly defines homosexuality as immoral), it seems to me that it's quite simply not the way human sexuality was intended to be. The male and female were designed to literally fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. There's a rod between the male's legs, and a hole between the female's. Coincidence? I think not. Undoubtingly, you can stick things in other places, but that doesn't mean it was designed or intended for that purpose any more than a fork was made for an electrical socket. As far as I'm concerned, it would seem that anyone who's half-decent at puzzles would see that something's not quite right with homosexuality.

 

[Jet Black]

There's a rod between the male's legs, and a hole between the female's. Coincidence?

Oh you are not seriously adheing to the "it's not natural" argument are you? hetrosexual couples get up to all sorts of stuff that "isn't natural" and probably isn't condemned either. or has "having fun with the one you love" been condemned while I wasn't looking?

 

[Jedi]

Oh you are not seriously adheing to the "it's not natural" argument are you?

Unless you have a logical problem with the argument, yep.

hetrosexual couples get up to all sorts of stuff that "isn't natural" and probably isn't condemned either.

Quite right, I knew this was coming a mile away, but I think we ought to use the "shape" of each puzzle piece to understand which are supposed to be together in a certain fashion, and which are not. Personally, I'm neutral when it comes to non-v@ginal sex between heterosexuals, since (1) I don't recall scripture ever talking about it, and (2) it is taking place between two puzzle pieces that are supposed to be together (male & female). It seems that, from here, there are two ways we could go: We could either use the puzzle pieces' shape as a guideline to understand which belong together and give the issue free reigns from there, or you could follow it in the strictest sense and condone only v@ginal intercourse. Which course you take, it would seem, is up to the individual. My case stops at the conclusion of which puzzle pieces go together, and which do not.

or has "having fun with the one you love" been condemned while I wasn't looking?

If such "fun" includes doing something immoral? Yep.

 

[Jet Black]

what is immoral about it?

I suggest you don't censor evade. I know what you are talking about.

 

[Jedi]

what is immoral about it?

I feel if I elaborate too much on this, I think we'll get drawn into an elaborate discussion concerning the nature of morality, so I'll only try to skim the surface. My primary reason is that the ultimate authority on morality, God, speaks against it. That's my basis for a moral disagreement, but there's also a basis for a rational disagreement against homosexuality, and that's what I've been talking about: Design of the puzzle pieces. These two things are what keep me from approving of homosexual sex.

I suggest you don't censor evade. I know what you are talking about.

I thought you would, but I wanted to make sure. Besides, in this instance at least, I don't think I'm using it as vulgarity, so hopefully any moderator or administrator who sees it will understand. If not, that's fine too, I suppose.

 

[Jet Black]

well I am not sure how tight they moderate it, and this discussion is a bit adult, and children might look in here....

anyway, back onto the argument. you constantly refer to the "it's not natual" argument, but then humans do an awful lot of things that are not natural for pleasure, both sexual and non sexual. where does one draw the line at unnatural things being bad?

furthermore homosexuality is not homosexual sex. the two are distinct, in the same way that hetrosexuality and heterosexual sex are different two. one is an attraction, and has nothing to do with bits and pieces, and the other is an action.

 

[tcampen]

Without getting graphic, the two pieces of the "puzzle" can in fact fit together extremely well in a number of configurations in both hetero- and homosexual situations. (Anybody familiar with human anatomy should see this.) In fact, it seems like a pretty subjective analysis by all accounts.

Using the puzzle analogy, I could easily argue that a very tall, large man should not have relations with a small, petite woman, because the pieces just don't fit (at least not any better than two men.) Or, people not to long ago often used an extremely similar argument to forbid interracial relationships. The list goes on and on.

I'm not advocating an "anything goes" mentality, as there is certainly sexual conduct that is plainly harmful. But homosexual acts between two consenting adults, in the privacy of the bedroom, is not among them, selective bible quoting notwithstanding.

 

[Jedi]

you constantly refer to the "it's not natual[sic]" argument, but then humans do an awful lot of things that are not natural for pleasure, both sexual and non sexual. where does one draw the line at unnatural things being bad?

Quite right, but it’s when you speak of “bad” or “good” that we must refer to morality, and in doing so, must refer to the ultimate authority concerning morality, that is, God. And the God of Christianity states homosexual sex as an abomination; an abuse of the gift of sex. It is taking something intended to be special between a husband and wife and turning into something animalistic & completely contrary to the will of God, and as such, is contrary to goodness itself.

Without getting graphic, the two pieces of the "puzzle" can in fact fit together extremely well in a number of configurations in both hetero- and homosexual situations. (Anybody familiar with human anatomy should see this.) In fact, it seems like a pretty subjective analysis by all accounts.

Again, simply because something can fit into something else (i.e. a fork into an electrical socket) does not mean that it was designed for that purpose or that it even ought to be done.

Using the puzzle analogy, I could easily argue that a very tall, large man should not have relations with a small, petite woman, because the pieces just don't fit (at least not any better than two men.)

Even further evidence that this is how it was intended to be: male & female, one part adapting to help fit with the other. To say they weren’t designed specifically for each other seems quite ludicrous.

Or, people not to long ago often used an extremely similar argument to forbid interracial relationships. The list goes on and on.

I can’t see how.

I'm not advocating an "anything goes" mentality, as there is certainly sexual conduct that is plainly harmful. But homosexual acts between two consenting adults, in the privacy of the bedroom, is not among them, selective bible quoting notwithstanding.

Not according to research done on the average homosexual lifestyle: http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm.

 

[tcampen]

"Again, simply because something can fit into something else (i.e. a fork into an electrical socket) does not mean that it was designed for that purpose or that it even ought to be done."

That argument would mean you oppose flying in an airplane, SCUBA diving, or sending astronauts to the moon, because we weren't designed to fly, breath underwater, or survive in the vacume of space. Wow, I didn't realize I was acting immorally when I went SCUBA diving in Hawaii.


"And the God of Christianity states homosexual sex as an abomination; an abuse of the gift of sex. It is taking something intended to be special between a husband and wife and turning into something animalistic & completely contrary to the will of God, and as such, is contrary to goodness itself."

It is not animalistic at all, just the opposite. Animalistic sex is solely for the purpose of procreating offspring. I really don't think any gay or lesbian sexual partners really expect to conceive a child as a result of their intimacy. Now, if you're referring to satisfying a sexual drive, then how is that different from any other human being?

In fact, many conservative Christians support purely animalistic sex. Specifically, they oppose any sexual act, even between a married couple, such as oral sex, because conception cannot occur. In other words, only sexuality that can result in conceiving a child is proper. Even Catholism opposes contraceptives for the same reason. Now who is being animalistic?

"I can't see how (the same arguments have been applied to inter-racial marriages)."

Those who opposed interracial marriage (and still do today) claim that it is unnatural for the races to mix as such, and that it is contrary to the will of God. It's crazy, but that's what they think.

 

[tcampen]

Oh, and as far as that website goes....it is a piece of ultra-right wing, narrow-minded, near hate speech diatribe. It's embarrasing to cite it as an authority for anything. Even reviewing its unsupported statistics (some of which I do believe are accurate, tho) raises the question of "So what?"

While it is true many gay men engage in high risk behavior, so do many hetero men and women without being called immoral. It is also true many gay men live in monogomous relationships and are not part of the broad brush stroke intended to paint all homosexuals as evil deviants. A gay relationship can and actually do exist such that the "harm" your refer to is no greater than with a married couple. Or does that even matter?

 

[foolsparade]

I agree using that website as authority regarding, Psychological and medical conditions or non- conditions is rediculous. The American Psychological Association alone has 132,000 members why not use them?

"Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments."

Why not the American Medical Association?

"AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed to help homosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation."

The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation."

They:
expressed concern about harassment of gay and lesbian youth
condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or no effectiveness
describe transformational ministries as representing only one part of Christianity -- those faith groups which view homosexuality as outside God's will, and incompatible with Christianity. They cite other denominations as supporting equal rights, and protection against discrimination, for gays and lesbians.

 

[Jedi]

That argument would mean you oppose flying in an airplane, SCUBA diving, or sending astronauts to the moon, because we weren't designed to fly, breath underwater, or survive in the vacume of space. Wow, I didn't realize I was acting immorally when I went SCUBA diving in Hawaii.

This is a flawed analogy, since it completely omits the potential of the mind to invent. If we were only creatures with bodies and not minds, this should be quite right, however, that’s simply not the case. It is by the mind that we are able to do these things; it is well within the mind’s capability to enable us to do so.

This does not counter the very obvious fact that men’s sexual organ is designed in direct accordance to the female’s. We have on one hand the sexual organ in the shape of a rod, and we have on the other hand a sexual organ in the shape of a hole that is able to contract or expand to better fit an entering rod. I find it impossible to believe that such an obvious match is mere coincidence.

It is not animalistic at all, just the opposite. Animalistic sex is solely for the purpose of procreating offspring. I really don't think any gay or lesbian sexual partners really expect to conceive a child as a result of their intimacy. Now, if you're referring to satisfying a sexual drive, then how is that different from any other human being?

Animalistic is giving in to whatever desire you have at the time. I don’t think that when a dog starts humping my leg, it is doing so solely because it wants to procreate. It has an itch, and so it scratches. This is how the animal world works. I speak of “animalistic” to refer to the state of some being looking out for what it wants for itself with no regard to moral conduct.

In fact, many conservative Christians support purely animalistic sex. Specifically, they oppose any sexual act, even between a married couple, such as oral sex, because conception cannot occur. In other words, only sexuality that can result in conceiving a child is proper. Even Catholism opposes contraceptives for the same reason. Now who is being animalistic?

Again, you’re throwing up a straw man. Animals don’t think to themselves “Well, it’s that time of year again. I suppose I have to drag myself out there among the other animals and ravage a female so that our species can continue.” Like I said before, they have an itch, and so they scratch. Your interpretation and use of “animalistic” is extremely fallacious.

Oh, and as far as that website goes....it is a piece of ultra-right wing, narrow-minded, near hate speech diatribe.

Sorry, but this will not do. It’s nothing more than the logic fallacy of ad hominem, and perhaps an appeal to spite. Please try again.

A gay relationship can and actually do exist such that the "harm" your refer to is no greater than with a married couple. Or does that even matter?

Considering that such relationships are relatively few and far between when compared to heterosexual ones, it seems you’re just grasping at straws.

I agree using that website as authority regarding, Psychological and medical conditions or non- conditions is rediculous.

Want to join in on the ad hominem parade?

The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.

This is still a topic of debate in the medical & psychological fields today, but even if this were true, it is irrelevant. A person can also be born with a bad temper, but that is no excuse to act out on it any time they choose. Again, innate desires are not necessarily moral desires.

describe transformational ministries as representing only one part of Christianity -- those faith groups which view homosexuality as outside God's will, and incompatible with Christianity. They cite other denominations as supporting equal rights, and protection against discrimination, for gays and lesbians.

This is a different line of debate all in itself, one I’ve participated in with other people for quite some time. Those who claim that the Bible’s condemnation against homosexuality is strictly cultural usually omit numerous key verses, or try to make scripture say what it most certainly does not say. Both in the Old and New Testament, homosexual acts are very clearly condemned.

 

[Durango]

Sitting here sipping my coffee after dinner this evening when my thoughts drifted back to a time about ten years ago.I was sitting at the same dinner table, enjoying my after dinner coffee, waiting for Little Durango to finish his broccoli.You see back then, Little Durango wasn’t much of a vegetable eater, in fact he isn’t much better today!Anyway, Little Durango, didn’t want to finish that broccoli that night and Mrs. Durango wouldn’t let him have his dessert unless he did. (I have to say right here, Mrs. Durango wasn’t trying to be mean, she had genuine concern for his well being since he was such a poor eater).Anyway he tried everything to get away without having to eat the broccoli . . .“I don’t like broccoli, it’s disgusting, all I like is the meat and potatoes” he said . . .“You need your vegetables in order to get your vitamins so you can grow big and strong someday.” said Mrs. Durango. “I think I’m allergic to it or something, it’s going to make me sick if I eat it” . . .Finally he said, “I’m full, I can’t eat anymore”Mrs. Durango said “OK, you may be excused then” . . .Then, Little Durango asked, “You mean I don’t have to eat the broccoli?”“No, you don’t.” Mrs. Durango replied.“Good, can I have my dessert now?” asked Little Durango.“No, you can’t” said Mrs. Durango, “you didn’t do as you were told”.“I can’t have dessert? That’s not fair.” said Little Durango as he left the table.Well, I got to thinking about that little episode tonight and it reminded me of how it is here on this thread.It reminded of those living in the sinful state of homosexuality and fornication . . .They come up with excuse after excuse for the lifestyle they live . . .Denying faith in the Lord …And refusing to heed the Word of God . . .Yet, they seek the same reward as those who have trusted their faith to the Lord and Savior. . .and then they sit back and complain about how unfair it is that they “can’t have dessert”.Just a thought over coffee!Durango

 

[wblastyn]

Homosexuality?
Although I am not a Christian, I really don't care for it. I do think that it is disturbing, yet I do see it as not being purposely sought after by those who are homosexuals.

Who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn't do. If people want to display their love for each other in public then fine, no one is forcing you to look at them.

The reason you find it disturbing is because of the society you've been brought up in and because you are heterosexual. Homosexuals find heterosexual sex disturbing too. Gay Prides are a spit in the face of a homophobic society, and I'm glad it annoys you, that's probably what they're intended to do.

 

[wblastyn]

The male and female were designed to literally fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. There's a rod between the male's legs, and a hole between the female's. Coincidence? I think not.

You have a hole for your mouth and for your back passage. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[wblastyn]

This is a different line of debate all in itself, one I’ve participated in with other people for quite some time. Those who claim that the Bible’s condemnation against homosexuality is strictly cultural usually omit numerous key verses, or try to make scripture say what it most certainly does not say. Both in the Old and New Testament, homosexual acts are very clearly condemned.

Obviously it isn't clear if people can interpret scripture in a way that does not condemn homosexuality.

Where does the bible condemn homosexuality?

 

[wblastyn]

For some reason i can't type out long posts, so read this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

 

[Kyubi-no-Youko]

"Man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman. Is it an abomination."

Does this mean it's OK to do it standing up?

Sorry...couldn't resist.



Anyway. I hate to disappoint most of you, but homosexuality is not a choice. Sexuality is innate. Always has been and chances are it always will be.

Gender confusion and homosexuality are NOT one and same. Not that the paths never cross, of course. Nothing comes from the 'gender specific toys' thing. What defines 'girl' toy or a 'boy' toy or a neutral toy?

And it is not environmental or learned. One cannot teach a child or anyone to be homosexual or heterosexual if they are not. There are some sickos that will convince heterosexuals to have same sex intercourse...just as there are sickos who will convince homosexuals to have heterosexual sex or..whatever...

There may even be homosexual phases that people grow out of or psuedo-homosexuality. For some it may be a full out choice. However, the rest of us were born homosexual.

Homosexual acts do not make a person homosexual.

I would seriously like to know how you came to the conclusion that it's a choice. I know this is a christian site, but can anyone give me a 'God said so' (which, by the way, he didn't)

The argument I think is. "One would not naturally do something wrong", which is flawed.

It just amazes me how many heterosexuals presume themselves to me experts on homosexuals.

We're just normal people...living among you. wua ha ha.

 

[Ben johnson]

It occurs to me that no one will be convinced here of homosexuality's innateness or learnedness. For it truly is a condition "of the heart". From a Christian perspective, HS is no worse than a whole number of other lifestyles. But that's just it, isn't it --- "FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE".

I happen to be Christian. And I believe in a real, thinking, feeling, fully sentient GOD. Thus I shall not have to convince you of "this or that" --- I only need to lead you to HIM, and let GOD take care of YOU. I do believe God considers HS wrong --- but I strongly seek for you to understand that God ACCEPTS YOU, and LOVES YOU UNCONDITIONALLY! And if God DOES view HS as wrong, then the Creator of the Universe WILL show you a way out.

You see, if you do not FIRST BELIEVE in God, then what purpose do the discussions and debates serve? Absent God, WHAT STANDARDS or ABSOLUTES exist? To deal with Spiritual/moral issues, seems to me more like the novice fireman aiming the fire-hose at the leaping FLAMES; the captain charges forward, and redirects the nozzle to the HEART of the fire..

Does that make sense?



(At the same time, because I believe HS IS learned behavior, and against God's view, I hope you'll respect my involvement in politics against teaching young and impressionable school-children that "it's OK", or legalizing HS marriage, etcetera. Such is my right of participation in my government...)

 

[Jedi]

Who are you to tell people what they should and shouldn't do.

The same assertion could be applied to policemen arresting a thief, or a mother telling her child that it must eat its vegetables. Furthermore, it is not by my authority that I say someone ought not to do something, but rather, the basis of morality: God.

If people want to display their love for each other in public then fine, no one is forcing you to look at them.

Actually, that’s not true. What do you think indecent public exposure is all about? The “no one is forcing you to look at them” philosophy could also be applied to people who wanted to walk around naked in public or worse.

The reason you find it disturbing is because of the society you've been brought up in and because you are heterosexual.

Wrong again. According to scripture, God finds it disturbing too and he transcends all cultures. The reason I don’t like homosexual acts is not because it doesn’t suit my personal fancy, but because I believe it to be morally and objectively wrong.

Homosexuals find heterosexual sex disturbing too.

I still think such people need psychological help, or perhaps they’re just saying that to get back at heterosexuals. It is like a man who was born with a bad temper viewing those who have self-control as “disturbing.”

You have a hole for your mouth and for your back passage. Coincidence? I think not.

I’ve already addressed this. Funny how you missed that part. Again, simply because something can fit someone doesn’t mean that it was intended to or even that it ought to any more than a fork should be placed into an electrical socket. Your assertion is completely flawed, since you are not talking about the same “pieces” of the body fitting together. You have a male and female, and their genitals are designed specifically for each other: a rod & hole. To overlook this is pure folly; it is very clear they were designed for one another, the male for the female and the female for the male. The reason homosexuals must resort to other tactics is because of lack of compatibility.

Obviously it isn't clear if people can interpret scripture in a way that does not condemn homosexuality.

No, because people will resort to very stupid tactics in order to justify their sin.

Where does the bible condemn homosexuality?

I’ll use the NASB for this, since it’s the version that is the most “word for word.”

Homosexuals are listed among the condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and again in 1 Timothy 1:10. Then there is, of course, Leviticus 18:22 speaking against gay sex. Romans 1:26-27 also speaks against homosexual acts by saying, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Here homosexual sex is labeled clearly as “unnatural” when compared to the “natural function” or the natural order of things (Heterosexuality).

Anyway. I hate to disappoint most of you, but homosexuality is not a choice. Sexuality is innate. Always has been and chances are it always will be.

There are homosexuals who would disagree with you on that. But beside this topic, which is still in debate, it is irrelevant. Once again, innate desires are not necessarily moral desires. Simply because someone was born with some homosexual urges is no more an excuse to act out upon them than a man who was born with a bad temper acting out on his anger simply because “This is the way I was born.”

Homosexual acts do not make a person homosexual.

And stealing something doesn’t make a person a thief. I suppose you could also be bi, but that's both heterosexual and homosexual urges compiled into one. Instead of being neither, you're both.