- Aug 13, 2007
- 274
- 32
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The closest to this has been on the second page, where someone stated it was a mockery of God's design for women complementing men.
This user then failed to explain why it was a mockery or why God is against other unions that are explicitly seen in nature. (I've owned gay cats before, and they've done studies with penguins and so forth.)
Most of us are well aware that the English translations of the Bible are inconclusive regarding homosexuality. That is, those of us who have taken the time to research the issue, and read multiple translations in regard to the matter. If you're one of those people who only reads one Bible that happens to say "practicing homosexual", "homosexual offender", or even "sodomite" yet in your mind you only associate the sins of Sodom with homosexuality, I'm sorry, but it's not nearly that simple. (And if you've read more of the Bible, you know Sodom was guilty of far more than mere homosexuality.)
Common conclusions are that it is not addressed at all, ("Yeshua never said anything about it,") else it was specific actions involving homosexuality that Paul condemned, or else Paul's understanding of homosexuality was limited and biased his writing: many Christians understand that the Bible must be understood in the historical context in which it was written, as stated by the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. Apart from that, many say the condemnation in Leviticus was due to ceremonial uncleanliness, and the implication is clear that Yeshua has as much a problem with gay marriage as he did with breaking the sabbath.
Yet many still read "homosexual offenders" and think, "gee, it must be an offense to be gay," or Paul writing "burned with lust for one another and turned away from what is natural" must, necessarily, mean that homosexuals are perverse people that perform wicked, obscene acts. Even in college, I know a girl, fundamentalist, nondenominational, who underlined the verse in her Bible and wrote "practicing homosexuals" in the margin, so as to make it clear to herself that it was only "practicing" homosexuals who were to burn in hell: even with a literal interpretation, something inside her told her it wasn't right for God to condemn people merely for being gay, regardless of whether they acted on it or not. (She later interprets Romans to mean that you can turn away from homosexuality as you can from adultery, so the only true homosexuals are practicing homosexuals ... a bit contradictory, but oh well.)
Of course, thinking these things require making assumptions on your part, otherwise "homosexual offender" could mean any number of things, and likewise, what is Paul calling natural? How did they burn with lust? What did they lust for? These things are not explicitly stated, so either you accept that it's unclear, or you make assumptions.
This being said, the dominant ideology -- especially here, is that God cannot stand homosexuality. Some take it a step further, that not only does God hate the sin of homosexuality, but that God will damn homosexuals to eternal damnation, unlike sinners engaging in every other sin (except that of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which Catholic doctrine says is the one unforgiveable sin -- since it requires rejecting God's forgiveness).
My question is, why? It makes no sense at all for a loving God to behave in this manner. Let me tell you my understanding of homosexuality:
Two people meet each other. They like each other. They go out with each other more regularly. They find that they really like each other. They fall in love, get married, maybe even have children.
In other words, it's identical to heterosexuality. The only difference? Instead of being fertile, they would be infertile. Just like inferile heterosexual couples, they would adopt children.
Here's the root of my confusion. God is beyond gender, right? Christ and Paul both say that in heaven there is neither male or female. Throughout the entire New Testament -- and even parts of the Old Testament -- there is an emphasis in focusing on the afterlife; and logically this makes sense, since life on Earth is over in the blink of an eye, and then you spend eternity in Heaven or hell, right? (Frankly this makes no sense to me at all, but that's what Christians are to believe.) In addition to focusing on the heavenly instead of the earthly, you are to love your neighbor as yourself, and to love God.
Why, on earth, after all of this doctrine, are you then supposed to care about what your physical body looks like? How could it possibly matter what your physical, sexual reproductive organs look like? Why would God care if they're on the outside or the inside?
To me, that's the same as telling me God doesn't want me to be with someone whose skin color is different (or rather, the same).
And so I'm asking that you explain this to me:
Let's say Leviticus condemns gay sex because it is immoral. What is it about the physical circumstances that makes it immoral? Why is God fine with a skin color difference but not a reproductive organ difference?
In Genesis 2, the author explains that heterosexual marriage occurs because God made woman from man. Where is marriage defined? Upon what evidence to we base our current definition of marriage?
Let's say two people have psychological and biological problems that cause them to like each other. Why would God find that intolerable?
The above scenarios make no logical sense to me whatsoever. Thank you for reading this entire post.
