Why Homosexuality Is Wrong

[LittleNipper]

Prove your biblegod is real.

Disraele was asked to prove the very same. He said he could prove GOD's existance in one word. "JEW"

 

[Aeris]

Homosexuality is wrong and immoral. God has stated that clearly in the Bible. To ignore this fact is to be ignorant of His teachings.

Perheps, but not everyone believes your religion, and most people who are against homosexuality use religion to prove its wrong. So all youve really proven is that people who believe fundamental christianity shouldnt act on homosexual feelings because it would be hypocritical. But as for someone who doesnt believe in your religion it doesnt matter because it doesnt hurt anyone, so really there isnt any reason that it is wrong or immoral (religious beliefs aside).

 

[quatona]

Sin is wrong. Indulgence is wrong.

Sin may be wrong in the eyes of a believer. In the eyes of a non-believer it´s a meaningless concept. If you take the path of showing that homosexuality is sin according to your religious belief and then conclude that therefore homosexuality is wrong, you may have provide a basis for a discussion with fellow believers, but to a non-believer you have merely appealed to a doctrine that they don´t consider authoritative.

Indulgence is basically giving into worldly desires.

"Worldly desires" as opposed to which desires? Being in a close union with the one you love counts as pursuing "wordly desires"? How come when heterosexuals do the same it is unwordly (or whatever the antagonist is you have in mind)?

Desire brings pain when the desire cannot be filled; the path to true happiness is the destruction of desires and emptying of the body of impure wants.

Says who? And what the heck is an impure want?
And if that is your maxime, why don´t you simply take a close look at all your worldly desires and try to destruct them - this should keep you busy for quite a while - instead of singling out the one and only worldly desire that you don´t have?
Pretty much everybody all around me are pursuing their "worldly desires" most of the time. Your concern would be way more credible, if you would spread it more equally on all those "worldly desires", instead of concentrating on a group you don´t happen to belong to.

That is pretty non-religious yet it is the root of Christian and Godly thought on the issue.

It is pseudo-spiritual mumbo jumbo, and it comes down to "homosexuality is wrong because I think it´s wrong". Your opinion is noted, I disagree.

 

[Aeris]

Have you ever thought of worshipping me instead? I'm a much nicer guy than your god sounds.

LOL although that may sound like a good idea now, is it really? If god lived on earth as a human he'd probably be killed by now... oh wait that already happened!

 

[Corey]

Disraele was asked to prove the very same. He said he could prove GOD's existance in one word. "JEW"

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

The lack of relevance stuns me.

 

[LittleNipper]

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

The lack of relevance stuns me.

Disraele's remark came well before the terror of the Third Reich. I even wonder how the Jew survived that, let alone 2000 years of wandering. Sorry, that you do not comprehend the obvious connection. There are blind men who see more.

 

[LittleNipper]

Perheps, but not everyone believes your religion, and most people who are against homosexuality use religion to prove its wrong. So all youve really proven is that people who believe fundamental christianity shouldnt act on homosexual feelings because it would be hypocritical. But as for someone who doesnt believe in your religion it doesnt matter because it doesnt hurt anyone, so really there isnt any reason that it is wrong or immoral (religious beliefs aside).

I believe it does hurt society, but I feel that people today do not care about society in general. They only care about themselves and what they want.

 

[Aeris]

I believe it does hurt society, but I feel that people today do not care about society in general. They only care about themselves and what they want.

Oh really and how does it hurt society other than by promoting acceptance of a behaviour your religion sees as immoral?

 

[quatona]

I believe it does hurt society, but I feel that people today do not care about society in general. They only care about themselves and what they want.

That´s quite a broad statement. Do you include yourself in "people"?

 

[CriticalMassKitten]

I believe it does hurt society, but I feel that people today do not care about society in general. They only care about themselves and what they want.

How does it hurt? And if so, how do you plan on "stopping it."? Stating your opinion, wanting it to not be legal for gays to have certain rights, then going home and pretending everything is okay isn't going to stop anything. If you think it's oh so wrong and detrimental to society what do you suppose you should do? Tell them all they're going to hell certainly isn't working, telling others they're going to hell doesn't seem to work either, and on top of all this you still have no reasons as to why it's bad for society. Basically, it's a problem without any apparent mental problems associated with it, no social problem except the occasional person hating us for who we are, (and who's fault is that?) and no longterm problems with society because of gays. So, what is it? Is it some big unseen enemy, like the communists during WWI? A second Red Scare, if you will?

 

[LittleNipper]

Oh really and how does it hurt society other than by promoting acceptance of a behaviour your religion sees as immoral?

It underminds real caring and sharing. It reduces love to mere behavior patterns. It is self-centered/servicing and not family devoted. It corrupts by enticing and influencing the youth to try & perform the once unthinkable & unimaginable. It discredits common decency and belittles those that abhor public exhibitionism. It is an afront to children by attempting to turn such into adults far before it is their time.

 

[Corey]

Disraele's remark came well before the terror of the Third Reich. I even wonder how the Jew survived that, let alone 2000 years of wandering. Sorry, that you do not comprehend the obvious connection. There are blind men who see more.

You keep saying something, but all I'm hearing is "butter-flavored towel" and "plaid monkey."

Note for the comically impaired: What you're saying makes about as much sense as those phrases. For a challenge of "Prove your biblegod is real," it makes absolutely no sense to say "Jew."

 

[LittleNipper]

That´s quite a broad statement. Do you include yourself in "people"?

I care what people think. I try to set a good example both publicly and I try hard privately.

 

[LittleNipper]

How does it hurt? And if so, how do you plan on "stopping it."? Stating your opinion, wanting it to not be legal for gays to have certain rights, then going home and pretending everything is okay isn't going to stop anything. If you think it's oh so wrong and detrimental to society what do you suppose you should do? Tell them all they're going to hell certainly isn't working, telling others they're going to hell doesn't seem to work either, and on top of all this you still have no reasons as to why it's bad for society. Basically, it's a problem without any apparent mental problems associated with it, no social problem except the occasional person hating us for who we are, (and who's fault is that?) and no longterm problems with society because of gays. So, what is it? Is it some big unseen enemy, like the communists during WWI? A second Red Scare, if you will?

I set an example for others and when asked, I give my christian opinion and try to provide reasons why. I can do no more than that.

 

[CriticalMassKitten]

It underminds real caring and sharing. It reduces love to mere behavior patterns. It is self-centered/servicing and not family devoted. It corrupts by enticing and influencing the youth to try & perform the once unthinkable & unimaginable. It discredits common decency and belittles those that abhor public exhibitionism. It is an afront to children by attempting to turn such into adults far before it is their time.

So, these are the "problems" you think it causes? You never mentioned problems, you mentioned your opinion on the matter. Do you think I ride around in the Gay Van all day, follow school buses, and tell the kids to "get in the van," then drive away with alot of jazz hands, rainbows, and Judy Garland? No, not really. Or is it more like, you think that telling kids different people shouldn't be hated is a problem? Do you abhor that children are told to be accepting in school? I'm actually curious on this one, as to how gay people are after all the children.

And how exactly am I "self-centered" simply by loving someone of the same sex? By loving someone I am after my own personal gain? I'm guessing you're saying that there's no such thing as love between two of the same sex. See, I was taught that everyone was different, and love is love, and there's no changing that. As long as both parties have the capability to agree on the love, what is the problem? Maybe other people should be taught this way, but I guess that would spread the "gay agenda."

 

[quatona]

I care what people think. I try to set a good example both publicly and I try hard privately.

Well, apparently sometimes people try hard and yet don´t come across that way.

 

[quatona]

It underminds real caring and sharing.

You would have to explain how caring and sharing is impossible in homosexual couples. I guess the obscure explanation is somewhere hidden in the "real".

It reduces love to mere behavior patterns.

How so?

It is self-centered/servicing

How so?

and not family devoted.

I am unmarried and don´t have children. I am not family devoted. Are you going to expand your judgement about homosexuality on me?

It corrupts by enticing and influencing the youth to try & perform the once unthinkable & unimaginable.

That´s merely a circular argument.

It discredits common decency and belittles those that abhor public exhibitionism.

Please explain how a homosexual partnership discredits public decency and what it has to do with exhibiotionism.

It is an afront to children by attempting to turn such into adults far before it is their time.

Err, what?

 

[BigBadWlf]

So what is the proper set of values that people should have during their life? Just pretend all of the above comes from the basis that we desire to be the most efficient and well grounded society morally, thinking that unnecessary sexual desires and other passions are harmful to the society as a whole.

A truly moral society would reject prejudice and discrimination against a minority so it is you who is on the outside of such a society

There is no basis for racial discrimination in the Bible.

Racists disagree

And they happily site biblical passages to justify their prejudices just like site biblical passages to justify your prejudices.

 

[BigBadWlf]

It seems to me that the only "danger" to Christianity is really to the Biblical literalism practiced by fundamentalists. Literalism is caught in a trap of its own making -- it declared that the Bible is inerrant and unchanging, and the Bible hates homosexual sex. Now adherents of literalism are finding themselves defending an increasingly untenable belief, but they have to -- they've set themselves up to believe that anything that challenges any aspect of their interpretation, no matter how small, could shatter everything. It's kinda like those people who insist that they never make a mistake, but when confronted with evidence of a mistake will get really defensive and hostile about it.

The worst thing about literalism is how deceptively easy it seems. Just take the words at face value, no need to do the hard work of learning about the context, translations, and stuff like that. Wonder if that's the main reason literalism has caught on so well in the 150 or so years the interpretation's been around. Unfortunately, literalism does take a lot of work -- maybe even more than the time-honored contextual Bible study -- because adherents have to resort to all kinds of complicated rationalizations to justify their beliefs. For example:

This justification is a good example of how literalism isn't really all that literal at all, despite what its adherents say. Literalists focus on the fact that Eve was female, and interpret this as some kind of divine mandate that marriage only consists of one man and one woman. But there's no passage that actually literally defines marriage.

For a minute, let's assume that Adam and Eve actually existed, instead of having the beginning of Genesis being allegorical. If there were only two people in the world, they'd have to be opposite genders in order to continue the human race. But now there are so many people that we are not in danger of dying out due to a decline in birth rates; indeed, we have fulfilled the divine mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Instead, I think that people who want to study the beginning of Genesis as a guide to marriage should look at Genesis 2:18, which says that it is not good for man to be alone. This is key -- we need a spouse -- or, to use the archaic word "helpmeet" -- because it is not good to be alone. One would think this would trump gender. If you cannot truly connect with someone of the opposite sex but you can with someone of the same sex, why should you be forced to be alone?

I can agree with this. So we need to go ahead and remove these silly bans on same-sex marriage. It seems kinda hypocritical to me for people to condemn homosexuality as adultery for occurring outside of marriage, yet deny people the means to get married -- especially when so many want to.

[Note: I'm gonna snip out parts of the OP because they're just variations on the above themes of "homosexuality is bad because I think marriage is only between a man and woman" and "homosexual sex is bad because the people who do it aren't married", points I've discussed above.]

Yeah. Heaven forbid we actually study the Bible on our own and think for ourselves. We should just keep on mindlessly repeating the same tired old arguments condemning homosexuality that were fed to us, no matter how flawed those arguments may be.

Wow. Kudos to you for admitting that homosexuality isn't a choice. You've got potential.

But not all people are called to celibacy. Even the apostle Paul knew this -- he wrote that it is better to marry than to be celibate and burn with passion. (I Cor. 7:9). If someone wishes to have sex, it doesn't sound like they would be a good candidate for celibacy -- they'd be distracted by their sex drive. On the other hand, if they could satisfy their desires with a spouse they could concentrate better on doing God's work and be more effective. This was Paul's point, yet for some odd reason some Christians oppose same-sex marriage.

Something I've never understood -- because nobody's been able to answer me -- is exactly what it is about same-sex marriage that some people think is so offensive to God? As I've explained above, there is no definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman only, so that can't be it. Plus, if homosexuals were allowed to marry each other, it would no longer be adultery, since adultery can only occur if the people having sex are not married to each other.

Granted, a lot of Christians appear to find homosexuality icky. And I can understand that -- it's strange to them, and it's easy to not like something that is so different. But instead of trying to actually get to be friends with gay people and learning that they're actually not boogeymen (and boogeywomen), it seems many Christians just want to run away and attribute their hangups to God instead. Very sad.

What is really interesting is how those most firmly entrenched in the literalist camp are the first people to reject a literal reading of the bible on this topic.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Homosexuality is wrong and immoral. God has stated that clearly in the Bible. To ignore this fact is to be ignorant of His teachings.

Actually its not stated at all…clearly or otherwise.