NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

Because those that define sin might just like it.

You might be looking for trouble. I'm not a catholic, but i believe in no gay marriage. Why? Because that's in the scripture, who are followers to decide? People of the west always made a mochary of things, look at what they did to my roman culture...

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p

in no way does this reflect on my nation's rp'ed views---

I think the funniest thing about the anti-gay marriage groups is their assertion that allowing gay marriage would "destroy the sacred institution of marriage". It's a little challenging to understand how gay marriage would destroy it, and how marriage has not already been destroyed, with divorce rates in the USA at roughly one in two.

You might be looking for trouble. I'm not a catholic, but i believe in no gay marriage. Why? Because that's in the scripture, who are followers to decide? People of the west always made a mochary of things, look at what they did to my roman culture...

The scripture tells an individual to do MANY things that are now considered immoral and illegal in most countries of the world.

Are you implying that the scriptures were writen by someone other than the followers?

The people of the west? Did what to YOUR roman culture? If you speak of the Roman Empire, I am afraid that downfall came from within.

S t H

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p

Or if you are Christian, and not close-minded or sheep-like, it's all good!

It's a sin because a bunch of bible-thumping religious fundamentalist whack jobs have decided that they must preach to you the difference between right and wrong because you're an immoral asshole and they are the pious, perfect saint and messenger of God. :rolleyes:

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

Now that is interesting, do say more.

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

Dude, you know that marriage confers special benefits. The moment the government got involved it ceased to be a religious institution. You're the damn hypocrite.

The scripture tells an individual to do MANY things that are now considered immoral and illegal in most countries of the world.

Are you implying that the scriptures were writen by someone other than the followers?

The people of the west? Did what to YOUR roman culture? If you speak of the Roman Empire, I am afraid that downfall came from within.

S t H

No, i'm telling you that noone knows who wrote it. Si, the christian inferior from within, like some Emperors we've heard of.. It's what made Constantinople vulnerable to the muslims.. Christianity made us weak and our ancestry roman gods made us strong.

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

As told by a set of words translated at the latest in 1604.

MEH

Dude, you know that marriage confers special benefits. The moment the government got involved it ceased to be a religious institution. You're the damn hypocrite.

That's funny as i'm FOR seperation of church and state, hebrew. But in italia, we need to represent our ancestry roman culture, but not to take literally thanks to the greeks...

No, i'm telling you that noone knows who wrote it. Si, the christian inferior from within, like some Emperors we've heard of.. It's what made Constantinople vulnerable to the muslims.. Christianity made us weak and our ancestry roman gods made us strong.
Until Rome fell.

And those Roman gods, AND goddess were derived from Greek mythology.

Homhsexuality is not a sin, How can that even be said because marriage isn't just for the christian religion any more. Muslims, hindu's and just about every other religion in the world (please don't be a smartass amd go try and find a religion that does not belive in marriage) Gay marriage isn't even a question of is it a sin or not so that it can be made illegal. What makes it appear bad are all these conservative assholes who dont belive in true freedom who make it bad. Marriage shouldn't even be given to the churches antmore the only thing the church has tio do with marriages these days is the ceremonial part, all the other things are handled by the government, such as tax breaks transfer of property hospital visitation rights. Marriage should be done away with all together in church and jus tg be made into a government controoled process so we can stop supporting all these corrupt and little boy raping clergy members

You might be looking for trouble. I'm not a catholic, but i believe in no gay marriage. Why? Because that's in the scripture, who are followers to decide? People of the west always made a mochary of things, look at what they did to my roman culture...

::ahem::

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.
The issue of Sodom and Gemorrah (as I'm sure you're referring to) is not so cut-and-dried. There are many biblical scholars out there who believe that the downfall of these cities was due more to their peoples' hostility and inhospitality toward outsiders than any sexual activity.

That's the usual propaganda. I guess that's why it brought so much money in and i guess that's also why greece was a ROMAN province in the end...

Why is homosexuality a sin?

It isn't .... next question.

i'm not sure what you want to accomplish with this, other than raise thahackles of a lot of fundies and reactionaries... and maybe some hopelessly well-meaning types who "think it's a sin but respect your right to do anything as long as you leave me out of it and everyone's consenting"

first of all: being queer, whether in your gender or your sexuality, is considered sinful and frightening and wrong, because so many institutions of power are built on it. sexism, male chauvenism and patriarchy rely on men, who stay men throughout their lives, who fuck women. any deviation from that threatens those who have historically held power, and so it's unacceptable. it has nothing to do with the bible, because you can find anything you want in the bible.

also, think about all the things, like above, that get leveled at queer sexuality, then flip it around on straight people, and see how moral and reasonable it sounds:

- well, i think making babies is WRONG, and that you shouldn't ever be able to be married or be on one another's health policies or have visitiation rights if your lover gets sick, but i recognize your right to make whatever choice you want.

- i respect your choice of a straight lifestyle, as long as you and other straight people don't assume i'm straight and hit on me as though i were straight, and leave me alone about it.
don't bombard me with your straight sexuality every time i turn on the TV or look at a magazine or walk down the street. it's disgusting.

- i'm willing to accept your straightness, as long as you don't force it on anyone. if it's consensual, if no straight man never EVER rapes a straight woman, never touches her inappropriately without her consent, never makes a rude remark or an uninvited come-on. if straight people NEVER harass, assault, or sexually abuse each other, then i guess i can accept you being straight.

but i don't want to be seeing you around church, you hear?

Italia needs the roman structure, because it will soon perish...

You picked an italiano-attivista to mess with!

It isn't .... next question.
Yes it is... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7295040#post7295040) ;)

I believe in seperation of church & state, and i like to let people choose their own spirituality with respect to their government, but feeding christians to the lions was a good thing.... And how un-roman it'd be to suggest otherwise.

You picked an italiano-attivista to mess with!
Italia needs the roman structure, because it will soon perish...

Both of these are irrelevant. Unless you have something productive to say, stay out, or stay on topic.

I believe in seperation of church & state, and i like to let people choose their own spirituality with respect to their government, but feeding christians to the lions was a good thing.... And how un-roman it'd be to suggest otherwise.

Whoa! :p

Both imply the torture and broad-ness of "paganism" which usually refers to some celtic-barbarian stuff over the greatest religious belief system the world has ever known..

And i was here as IIRRAAQQII at one time. I don't know why i didn't pick this name instead.....

I believe in seperation of church & state, and i like to let people choose their own spirituality with respect to their government, but feeding christians to the lions was a good thing.... And how un-roman it'd be to suggest otherwise.

You sick sad little man

why is being gay a sin? Well someone hasnt read the bible... it was the evil city of gommoroh(something sounding like that) and sodom, where men lied with men and women lied with women, and the citys were evil, it specifically says its bad and god destroyed the cities, plus god didnt design men to lie with men, and women with women, he made women for men and men for women(men first!)

Now its definitly a sin, but not unforgivable, but you dont have someone who is actively gay as a minister or priest or whatever, because for example it aint good when someone in ministry commits adultery, so the same if they are 'being gay' like going out with their own gender at the time, sure the jewish people would stone someone who did that, but jesus preaching love and all, we would assume you arent meant to kill them now... but not all people share the view...

just my opinion, i dont think its right to hate gay people(even though in all honestly they do creep me, out well feminine men anyway...)

Yes it is... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7295040#post7295040) ;)


Yeah, well, I can't help what the average Neaderthal (read: Christian Republican) believes is a sin, now can I? :D

please ignore the neo-roman fascist troll.

also, Gwazwomp: are you honestly more threatened by effeminate men than butch women?

and i believe most conventional english translations of the word "why?" imply an answer NOT wholly reliant on truisms and citing one anonymously written thousand-year-old-book, while mis-spelling and mis-punctuating incessantly.

i.e. not "because god said so."
instead "why would god say that? what reason is there?"
and no, questioning scripture is not a sin. it's called scriptural interpretation, and anyone who uses a religious text does it. taking the most fanatical right-wing kill-everybody interpretation doesn't somehow mean you're giving a literal translation.

Both imply the torture and broad-ness of "paganism" which usually refers to some celtic-barbarian stuff over the greatest religious belief system the world has ever known..

I am not sure if I understand what the heck you are talking about, but please allow me to paraphrase:

Romans were total hotties in togas and invented nude public baths. If those damn Christians hadn't messed things up, the Greeks surely otherwise would have??? And if those pesky Christians and Greeks would just mind their own business, I would be married to a really cute man named Paolo?

Nice.

but feeding christians to the lions was a good thing....

HELL YEAH!

:D

Got any lions? I got some Christians ....

also, schohomoland is a cutie.

also, schohomoland is a cutie.

The proof is in the pudding ... and the pudding is nekkid pics!

Ok ... I don't really mean that ... I just find this thread taking a stupid turn and I am trying to hijack it.

Ufortunately, there are no tall buildings for me to crash this thread into that would have any real significance, so I have to stand here until the fuel runs out and hope I, at least, take out some trees and deer.

why is being gay a sin? Well someone hasnt read the bible... it was the evil city of gommoroh(something sounding like that) and sodom, where men lied with men and women lied with women, and the citys were evil, it specifically says its bad and god destroyed the cities, plus god didnt design men to lie with men, and women with women, he made women for men and men for women(men first!)

Now its definitly a sin, but not unforgivable, but you dont have someone who is actively gay as a minister or priest or whatever, because for example it aint good when someone in ministry commits adultery, so the same if they are 'being gay' like going out with their own gender at the time, sure the jewish people would stone someone who did that, but jesus preaching love and all, we would assume you arent meant to kill them now... but not all people share the view...

just my opinion, i dont think its right to hate gay people(even though in all honestly they do creep me, out well feminine men anyway...)


OK. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."
From Leviticus, as stated above other verses in the same book forbid a wide range of sexual activities, including having sex with a woman who is having her period. This is an indication that the passage embodies specific cultural values rather than God's law.

Do you own a bible? Read a bible? Or are you just parroting someone you thought you heard from a show you saw on channel on a program about something you sorta remember?

You say a lot of creepy things, dude. (Masculine enough?) By the way its Gomorrah, as in Sodom and Gomorrah, additionally, see relevant reply above.

Keep it real brother. Word.

ScoMo the Homo

OK. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."


Bad translation, my family friend, and that is how they want you to think.

If you look at that passage in the original language, it reads "A man cannot lie with a man as he does with a woman because it is unproductive."

One of those "WELL, DUH" things.

Sort of like the 27 passages on why you shouldn't eat pork. It will kill you! Fortunately, we now have refridgeration and can eat pork without worry!

Obviously if a man and another man have sex, it doesn't make babies ... sexy to watch, yes, but it don't make babies. We know that ... we don't need some ancient book to tell us that any more. We have evolved out of the need for an instructive deity. I think 6 billion people on the planet is enough. I don't remember a Biblical passage that said, "Go forth and further your species until there are so many of you that you can't breathe without bumping into someone else" ... but, then, I may have the wrong Bible.

also, schohomoland is a cutie.

Damn straight I am. Oops, I mean, YEAH!



Bad translation, my family friend, and that is how they want you to think.

Well, ok, I haven't really read the bible since I was in college, but I stand by my assertion that Leviticus simply is refering to cultural values from centuries ago and may have little signifigance now.

I mean really, poor poly/cotton combos.

ScoMo the Homo

P.S Keruvalia is the true cutie around here.

P.S Keruvalia is the true cutie around here.

:D Well I have the nekkid pics to prove it! *snicker*

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question
...I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I think everyone who uses the bible as their reason to sinnage just got owned. GOOD GAME bible thumpers :P!

Also, for those who think that homosexuality is such a sin (and no I personally am not a homosexual, I'm a heterosexual) then why do all those hypocritical bastards known as Catholic clergy keep RAPING LITTLE BOYS?! You tell me how SOOO many clergy men are allowed to do that, and then, MAYBE, I'll consider what you have to say against homosexuality.

Could someone please show me the verse where it says "And God looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah, and he said "Fuck this shit, those homos are going down." And verily he smited them." 'Cause I can't find it.


Oh, and it's a sin for the same reason jerking off, eating pork, wearing clothing of two materials, and not shouting loudly while being raped: God's a rat bastard :p

Homosexuality is a sin because it causes some crybabies to grovel in the dirt.
Also known as the 'Mommy make it go away' syndrome.

Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexual activity. They were destroyed because 3 angels went there and the citizens of the city were inhospitable. The angles came to visit Lot at God's behest and when they got there, they were so beautiful that the people of the city demanded that Lot share them for the orgy. That is why God destroyed the city. It all goes back to the anciet Greco-Roman idea that the only real sins were hubris and inhospitality.

That having been said, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is an allegory and there is no evidence that it ever even happened. It is not meant to be a condemnation homosexuality.

As to homosexuality being a sin, I have this to say: all the latest scientific research says the gay people are born gay, not that they choose it. If that is the case, than why would God create peope with desire to do something he felt was an abomination? Doesn't sound like benevolence to me.

"And God looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah, and he said "Fuck this shit, those homos are going down." And verily he smited them."

Good times... Good times. That there is some good shit. Funny.

:eek: :fluffle: :gundge:

Hey what happened to that crazy Italian spouting Viva Ceasar, that was wild.

GNite Gents and Ladies.

Yo Yo Yo, ScoMo the Homo

Added:

"That having been said, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is an allegory and there is no evidence that it ever even happened. It is not meant to be a condemnation homosexuality.

Escherburg, well said comments. Thank you

Escherburg is right about the destruction of the two cities.
twas more about the fact that people there took joy in their sins(all of them, not just sex) and treated each other in such a poor way.

if you are a christian who believes homosexuality is wrong, so be it. nothing wrong with that. now to turn away or reject them because of how they are, that is totally wrong.
the government should have no say in who can get 'married'.
(EDITED PART : I just wanted to say, if a church doesnt want to marry a gay couple that is well within their rights as a religious organisation, but it CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be something the government decides.)
marriage exsisted long before christianity and will long after it has vanished.
because of this fact, marriage is a social institution and not a religious one..therefor the rules that its bound by can be changed to fit the society it is in.
to make constitutional bans is a shame and everyone who votes for such a thing should be appauled at themselves.
discriminating against a minority/sect of people IN THE CONSTITUTION. so much for all men created equal.
whatever happened to civil rights in this country?
apparently it only applied to people of different races/colour.
well thats just sad.

grow up people

dogs do it
cats do it
infact most animals do it
its not a chosen lifestyle
its not like they woke up n said 'im a horny bastard who needs lots of sex, therefor ill be gay' like some fundies what you to believe. it has nothing to do with lust or being a perv. its just the chemicals in your brain. deal.

if you wanna go thru life hating people because of who they are, fine, but i think ull find your God wont think to highly of you when you are standing infront of the gate.

God loves all his children, and so should you. Let GOD be the judge of a 'sinners' fate. You fundies like to talk about not playing God, well take your own advice.

That having been said, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is an allegory and there is no evidence that it ever even happened.

*Gasp*
You're just joking, right? No evidence?! My gosh! Next thing you're going to tell me that scholars haven't found the pillar of salt that Lot's wife became :).

Does anyone wonder why God doesn't destroy cities anymore? Is he just getting lazy? Or maybe he doesn't care anymore?

Does anyone wonder why God doesn't destroy cities anymore? Is he just getting lazy? Or maybe he doesn't care anymore?

Give the big guy a break, he's been busy with Florida lately.

Why is homosexuality a sin?

Because the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination!

True, but the bible also clearly states that to test my girlfriend's loyalty to me I have to get her to drink muddy water. The bible clearly states that slaves are not only purchaseable but acceptable. The bible clearly states that if I love my kid I will beat him.

Using a literally centuries - old document to fund your views is not only ignorant and arrogant, it's laughable.


Because the couple could adopt a kid and screw up it's life!

Yeah, apparently homosexual couples are likely to screw up a kids' life, but when it comes to the guy down the road beating his kid senseless, "Oh don't worry about him, there's less and less of that happening." As long as the homosexual couple raise their child to be a good, responisible, considerate compassionate person I really don't see what the problem is.

You say that the child needs a male/female role model? Fine, I agree. But couldn't it be a teacher? Or a sports star? Or an uncle/aunt, or really anyone? If you truely feel the need to press this point and say that a kid raised without a parent of one gender will grow up terribly, then I'll have to ask you to say that in front of a single, hard working parent. You've just dissed so many of them.


Because it will destroy the sanctity of marriage!

Yeah, i've heard that argument lately. You know what? Where did that sanctity of marriage go? Because I doubt it ever existed. 300 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to go out into the Sunday market with your wife on a leash and sell her to the highest bidder. 100 years ago your wife wasn't really considered a person, just someone who's only destiny was to raise her family and not do anything else, and EVERYONE knew that the man was better and more important than she was.

And now.......

I can divorce my wife and marry another, as many times as I want. I can cheat on her, without her knowledge, and have no penalties for it. I can come home and beat my wife senseless. I can go on a game show and marry someone who I have NEVER MET in my life for the rest of my life, all for media profit. When I marry, part of her vows are to serve me for the rest of my life, promoting inequality and possibly slavery.

So where did sanctity go? No where - it never existed. What DOES exist is a societal structure on marriage. This societal structure is ever-changing - it doesn't conform to the past, it changes with the times. Which means that sooner or later we will accept homosexuality as a marriage option, because as we progress into the future it becomes more and more acceptable, and evidence of this is everywhere.


In short, to all of you homophobes.....your arguement is illogical, ignorant and hateful. Shut the fuck up.

Does anyone wonder why God doesn't destroy cities anymore? Is he just getting lazy? Or maybe he doesn't care anymore?

SMITE

VERB: Inflected forms: smote, smit·ten or smote, smit·ing, smites

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1a. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon. b. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else.
2. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows.
3a. To afflict: The population was smitten by the plague. b. To afflict retributively; chasten or chastise.
4. To affect sharply with great feeling: He was smitten by deep remorse.


Why can't we bring back the word smite??? Such a handsome and descriptive word. I smite, you smite, we all smote together.

Okay, you got me started. I see nothing but the bashing of people who have a geniune belief system here, and nothing but a bunch of wannabe confused college students trying to make arguments against that geniune belief system. Homosexuality is a sin (to God) because it's not what he created the human body for. First off, Eve was created for the amusement of man, not Adam2. Man and woman are different because God made them that way...
But here's the real justification for it being called a 'sin' by Christian standards. It's because you cannot procreate. God said in the Bible to 'go forth and populate the land.' You cannot do that making Love to another of the same sex. Another thing: If you don't believe in 'sins' in the first place, then why do you care? What makes you any better for bashing the beliefs of others? And worse off, where do you think you're going to bring the conversation once you make those beliefs known?? Do you think you're making your life (or any one else's) better? Think about this for a minute before you answer.

Okay, and another thing. It's not a sin to analyze biblical interpretation. It IS a sin to find passages and use them however you'd like. The passages that Endless Rehearsals thinks is clever, is really a misuse of those passages, and is taken out of context. Leviticus is in the Old Testament *much of which* was outdated with the coming of Christ in the New Testament. Not to mention the fact that it is only the *third* book in the Bible, much of which is outdated within the Old Testament itself. Most of these wannabe clever tidbits are from Leviticus, the other from Exodus. Oh, and Exodus is just after Genesis.

Another thing. It was even said that the government put itself into marriage. 'Nuff said. Marriage was sanctimonius, and still is, to most cultures and configurations of beliefs around the world. The government, on its very own, decided to make its own benefits. The government decided. Tell me where it says in our great document where the government has the freedom to decide how sanctimonius or can decide the necessary benefits of a marriage.

Last two things. Sodom and Gamorrah have nothing to do with this conversation. Don't let people interfere or blur the facts. And hypocrisy is "Pretending to be what one is not"-Webster's New World.
Hypocrisy is what a person is when they argue on the internet about something they pretend to be educated about. That is all.

Okay, you got me started. I see nothing but the bashing of people who have a geniune belief system here, and nothing but a bunch of wannabe confused college students trying to make arguments against that geniune belief system. Homosexuality is a sin (to God) because it's not what he created the human body for. First off, Eve was created for the amusement of man, not Adam2. Man and woman are different because God made them that way...
But here's the real justification for it being called a 'sin' by Christian standards. It's because you cannot procreate. God said in the Bible to 'go forth and populate the land.' You cannot do that making Love to another of the same sex. Another thing: If you don't believe in 'sins' in the first place, then why do you care? What makes you any better for bashing the beliefs of others? And worse off, where do you think you're going to bring the conversation once you make those beliefs known?? Do you think you're making your life (or any one else's) better? Think about this for a minute before you answer.


Ahem,
1) The blind intolerance espoused by a lot of christians leads to this kind of backlash. "Ye shall reap what ye have sown"

2) Its fun as hell to make the four or five posters who take this serious as hell froth at the mouth.

3) It beats the hell out of another bush/kerry thread and occupies attention for a few moments a day.

Okay, you got me started. I see nothing but the bashing of people who have a geniune belief system here, and nothing but a bunch of wannabe confused college students trying to make arguments against that geniune belief system. Homosexuality is a sin (to God) because it's not what he created the human body for. First off, Eve was created for the amusement of man, not Adam2. Man and woman are different because God made them that way...
But here's the real justification for it being called a 'sin' by Christian standards. It's because you cannot procreate. God said in the Bible to 'go forth and populate the land.' You cannot do that making Love to another of the same sex. Another thing: If you don't believe in 'sins' in the first place, then why do you care? What makes you any better for bashing the beliefs of others? And worse off, where do you think you're going to bring the conversation once you make those beliefs known?? Do you think you're making your life (or any one else's) better? Think about this for a minute before you answer.


Aside from your creationist views/anatomical form&function POV on human sexuality, you make a very good point however, there are numerous individuals and groups with such religious beliefs who go a bit further than simply caling it a sin. Various remarks include lifestyle choices, mental illness, threats to society and/or national security, higher prediliction towards sexual criminal (exploitative & predatory) behavior aka child molestation/pedophilia and on and on. Not one of these claims are supported through credible research I might add. These groups and indivduals dictate much of the collective opinion amongst Christians towards homosexuals and are thus inviting such animosity, especially when average Christians parrot such garbage.

Got a belief, fine, but don't play mean-spritied make believe to bolster another belief not shared by others or the indignation will be relentless.

It's a sin because filling your asshole with lube and getting a penis violently thrusted up and down until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a disgusting mix of semen, lube and shit pouring out your asshole, onto your bed (or public toilet floor) upon withdrawal is fucking disgusting.

Okay, you got me started. I see nothing but the bashing of people who have a geniune belief system here, and nothing but a bunch of wannabe confused college students trying to make arguments against that geniune belief system. Homosexuality is a sin (to God) because it's not what he created the human body for. First off, Eve was created for the amusement of man, not Adam2. Man and woman are different because God made them that way...
But here's the real justification for it being called a 'sin' by Christian standards. It's because you cannot procreate. God said in the Bible to 'go forth and populate the land.' You cannot do that making Love to another of the same sex. Another thing: If you don't believe in 'sins' in the first place, then why do you care? What makes you any better for bashing the beliefs of others? And worse off, where do you think you're going to bring the conversation once you make those beliefs known?? Do you think you're making your life (or any one else's) better? Think about this for a minute before you answer.

But God did create a human body for that. Just like animal bodies. Homosexuality exists naturally, and people exist for a lot of reasons - not just reproduction. Do you really think 100% of human couples need to reproduce to keep the species alive? Hell no. We've populated the land. Heterosexual and homosexual people are free to enjoy each other's bodies - it's God's gift to all of us.

It's a sin because filling your asshole with lube and getting a penis violently thrusted up and down until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a disgusting mix of semen, lube and shit pouring out your asshole, onto your bed (or public toilet floor) upon withdrawal is fucking disgusting.

You stupid shit, heterosexuals like anal sex too. And what about blowjobs? That's pretty sick, but no one seems to give a damn about that.

It's a sin because filling your asshole with lube and getting a penis violently thrusted up and down until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a disgusting mix of semen, lube and shit pouring out your asshole, onto your bed (or public toilet floor) upon withdrawal is fucking disgusting.

So lesbianism is ok.... ahhh, k. :rolleyes:

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?


Because being gay is fun and why should we have fun? For christian people all fun is sin. The good ol' Weberian work ethics says that one has to find joy in his/her life from work, and certainly not from gayness.

Be as gay as you wish but know that you'll burn in hell :mp5:

Homosexuality is a sin (to God) because it's not what he created the human body for.

He didnt create the human body to fly either, but people do that all the time.
Is flying a sin?

First off, Eve was created for the amusement of man, not Adam2. Man and woman are different because God made them that way...

I have a hard time believeing that women were created for the amusement of man. That really sounds like something a guy would say.


But here's the real justification for it being called a 'sin' by Christian standards. It's because you cannot procreate. God said in the Bible to 'go forth and populate the land.' You cannot do that making Love to another of the same sex. .

You cant procreate when masturbating either.
So, by this logic, being gay is about the same level of sin as masturbation?
Thats really not so bad.....it;s pretty harmless then.

Of course, all those fertility clinics that help people have children of thier own when one of the parents cant conceive/ is sterile, will be very unhappy to know that they condone sin.
Require it even.

Or is it that your arguements sound kinda hollow?

You stupid shit, heterosexuals like anal sex too. And what about blowjobs? That's pretty sick, but no one seems to give a damn about that.

Heterosexuals who bump rumps are still sodomites.

The penis goes in the vagina!

Heterosexuals who bump rumps are still sodomites.

The penis goes in the vagina!

Well? What about blowjobs? Putting your shlong in a person's mouth is just as gross as their end. I have never met any guy ever who wouldn't pass one up from his girlfriend or whatever. So anyone who has sex unlike you is a sodomite? Bull. We should oppress everyone then, instead of just gay people. Even if your statements were fair, gay people are still being punished for crimes hetrosexuals also commit. The whole point realistic people are making is simple. Agree or disagree with homosexuality, but don't be a cock and try to tell them what they can or can't do. That's it. Let 'em be.

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

I really can't be assed to read the whole of this thread because it's too early in the morning and I hope that I'm not repeating here what someone else has already said. Unfortunately Endless Rehearsals doesn't have the brainpower to differentiate between what constituted the old Jewish law instigated for a people, whose only experience was that of slavery and hardship, trying to start a new country and Christian law which transcends generation and is still very much appropriate.

Endless, anything you refer to that cannot be traced back to the Ten Commandments or Jesus' Teaching doesn't constitute Christian law. I'll just check through your points and make sure that covers everything. Yep. Done. And the slavery thing; there was no real generic employer/employee terminology or contract back there when they didn't have MS Word or LaTeX. So I'm fairly sure just about anything in the OT which refers to slavery can be applied to modern day working practices: pay your employee well, fire them if they do badly etc. I don't think many people have too many problems with allowing their daughters to work (not that way) these days. Please inform me of any problems with that.

Might post again when I've read more of the thread.

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p

well im a christian and im also gay but does it matter what the bible says its all about where ur happy not anyone else.....its all about u

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

What a lovely strawman you have! These seem to be the best arguments I encounter (i.e not arguments at all).

Also, other asshole.

I never said oral sex is bad and I don't find it as disgusting as you seem to.

There is a major difference between your mouth and your waste disposal unit. At least the mouth has natural lubricant. Also, the day I stop enjoying vagina is the day I kill myself.

i'm a christian so basically people would think i am against it, but really i'm not, i dont like someone being gay, just the thought of it, but i can accept it, we dont choose who we love, its not our fault who we fall in love with, and why cant a man and another man be in love?

its the bible so you must abide by it? hell my mother is a christian through and through and she doesnt support gays but she sure as hell doesnt follow every word of the bible, she tries but you cant be perfect.

a man loves a woman and thats ok with these religion bible thumpers, but why is it wrong to love someone even if it is of the same sex? i know some people that are gay, does it bother me? yes but i cant choose for them who to love and not to love, and if you try to play god thats more of a sin than being gay.

Aside from your creationist views/anatomical form&function POV on human sexuality, you make a very good point however, there are numerous individuals and groups with such religious beliefs who go a bit further than simply caling it a sin. Various remarks include lifestyle choices, mental illness, threats to society and/or national security, higher prediliction towards sexual criminal (exploitative & predatory) behavior aka child molestation/pedophilia and on and on. Not one of these claims are supported through credible research I might add. These groups and indivduals dictate much of the collective opinion amongst Christians towards homosexuals and are thus inviting such animosity, especially when average Christians parrot such garbage.

Got a belief, fine, but don't play mean-spritied make believe to bolster another belief not shared by others or the indignation will be relentless.

Yes, I have creationist views /anatomical form & function POV on human sexuality. But it IS merely a sin. Every time. Godless people are people too. I agree that many Christians bring it on themselves, but that doesn't mean you have the right to persecute Christians for that reason, or you are being hypocritic yourself. I don't play make belief, but I do have my own beliefs...You bolster your own beliefs, I just stand firm to mine. Saying that someone is 'parroting' something is a bit hypocritical in itself, as I'm sure you're purely unique by saying such a thing.


But God did create a human body for that. Just like animal bodies. Homosexuality exists naturally, and people exist for a lot of reasons - not just reproduction. Do you really think 100% of human couples need to reproduce to keep the species alive? Hell no. We've populated the land. Heterosexual and homosexual people are free to enjoy each other's bodies - it's God's gift to all of us.
We haven't overpopulated the land. (http://lifeissues.net/writers/mos/pri_01texas.html)
God's gift to all of us is Jesus. Don't try to confuse the facts or what the Bible says. Yes, 100% of couples need to reproduce, but not to keep the species alive. And you're right, God did make the human body capable of homosexuality, but he did not make it free for everybody to enjoy however one pleases. Are you saying that because he put drugs on this planet, that we're free to use them to kill other humans or to distribute to schoolchildren. Or because he made us cable of innovation that we're free to make bullets to slay each other? Or extremely efficient lasers? Or eventually quantum disruption?

Also, other asshole.

I never said oral sex is bad and I don't find it as disgusting as you seem to.

There is a major difference between your mouth and your waste disposal unit. At least the mouth has natural lubricant. Also, the day I stop enjoying vagina is the day I kill myself.

Like everything you've said, incorrect. I happen to like oral sex. No risk of pregnancy, lots of fun. My whole point, which you're missing, is that homosexuals aren't really doing anything terribly gross. You say the difference is lubricant? That's the difference between sin and lack of sin? The mouth's natural ability to take a dick well? Is this really what your faith has taught you?

Endless, anything you refer to that cannot be traced back to the Ten Commandments or Jesus' Teaching doesn't constitute Christian law. I'll just check through your points and make sure that covers everything. Yep. Done. And the slavery thing; there was no real generic employer/employee terminology or contract back there when they didn't have MS Word or LaTeX. So I'm fairly sure just about anything in the OT which refers to slavery can be applied to modern day working practices: pay your employee well, fire them if they do badly etc. I don't think many people have too many problems with allowing their daughters to work (not that way) these days. Please inform me of any problems with that.

Might post again when I've read more of the thread.

If you could for me, point to where in the ten commandments or elsewhere in the bible Jesus himself said that homosexuality was sin then please? Just a passage and edition of the bible would be fine for me.

I have a hard time believeing that women were created for the amusement of man. That really sounds like something a guy would say.

Poor baby, need a tissue? Guys are 3.5 billion of the 7 billion out there. Get over it.

You cant procreate when masturbating either.
So, by this logic, being gay is about the same level of sin as masturbation?
Thats really not so bad.....it;s pretty harmless then.

Of course, all those fertility clinics that help people have children of thier own when one of the parents cant conceive/ is sterile, will be very unhappy to know that they condone sin.
Require it even.

Or is it that your arguements sound kinda hollow?

These are considered sins by Christian standards. Nothing hollow here, just the echoes of a post by BackwoodsSquatches.

We haven't overpopulated the land. (http://lifeissues.net/writers/mos/pri_01texas.html)
God's gift to all of us is Jesus. Don't try to confuse the facts or what the Bible says. Yes, 100% of couples need to reproduce, but not to keep the species alive. And you're right, God did make the human body capable of homosexuality, but he did not make it free for everybody to enjoy however one pleases. Are you saying that because he put drugs on this planet, that we're free to use them to kill other humans or to distribute to schoolchildren. Or because he made us cable of innovation that we're free to make bullets to slay each other? Or extremely efficient lasers? Or eventually quantum disruption?

I'm going to continue to disagree with the 100% reproduction thing. Let's agree to disagree for now.

As for the drug thing:
Homosexuality harms no one and occurs naturally.
Drugs are manmade and do great harm to one's body and the person's surrounding community.

Alcohol is a drug. I enjoy it in moderation. I believe that's how God intended it. A harmless chemical I get pleasure from. If I take it too far and kill someone with my car, not so good. Bad me. Not God's fault - you're right: he gave me the choice to chose. And I abused that choice.

For homosexuality, one can abuse it. Just like heterosexuality. I think excess homosexual lust is wrong and leads to sin. Homosexuality in general is not the same thing. I think you can enjoy homosexual experiences without giving in to sin. All you have to do is show a bit of restraint in your urges - I feel the same way about straight sex. I'm straight, and I've never gone farther than oral sex regardless of the fact that I had AMPLE opprotunity to go farther. I display control. Gay couples have the same ability. Their complete and total abstenence should not be maditory. I just don't think that's fair. It's like someone telling me that I can never ever have any bodily pleasure whatsoever. I'd break that rule the minute someone created it.

Jesus didn't speak out against the laws against sodomy and the social traditions frowning upon homosexuality so it is irrelevant.

This was addressed to the knob trying to reinterperete Bible teachings.

Jesus didn't speak out against the laws against sodomy and the social traditions frowning upon homosexuality so it is irrelevant.

This was addressed to the knob trying to reinterperete Bible teachings.


Soooooo, where exactly did he speak out against the laws listed earlier in the thread? A passage and version of the bible will suffice for me. ((i frankly dont know it by heart or anything))

SMITE

VERB: Inflected forms: smote, smit·ten or smote, smit·ing, smites

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1a. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon. b. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else.
2. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows.
3a. To afflict: The population was smitten by the plague. b. To afflict retributively; chasten or chastise.
4. To affect sharply with great feeling: He was smitten by deep remorse.

Why can't we bring back the word smite??? Such a handsome and descriptive word. I smite, you smite, we all smote together.
Yeah but it's a bastard when you get 'smitten', one way or the other.

Anyway. Read all the other posts now. And it's still early in the morning. Although the general idea on these forums is to have healty debate via some good-natured mudslinging I'd like to end the threads with this type of topic. Basically because I've had enough of it. It's such a small issue I can't believe the world and the Christian church is so obsessed with it! Ok the western world at least. Just to clarify, I'll define some things according to my meagre understanding:

1) Sin: Christian belief of sin is anything that is wrong in God's eyes
2) Homosexuality: the practice of gay sex (either way)
3) Marriage: Yes the term's used by multiple religions these days. Marriage in the Christian sense is between one man and one woman. I can't define it for Islam but would point out that in some Islamic countries homosexuals get stoned in public(with rocks, not weed). In Christianity marriage is the only place for sex. Marriage, for marriage's sake, should not lead to special concessions being given by the government.
4) Temptation: ideas and urges sent by Satan to test Christians' faiths. God doesn't them. He allows Satan to do that. Don't know why.
5) Satan: big guy, red skin and horns, has trident, possible cloven hooves. And a tail. Ok, can't prove any of number 5).

Link: Temptation leads to Sin if not resisted. Sexual temptation is currently pretty big. And not resisted a hell of a lot. Homosexual temptations are exactly the same as heterosexual temptations. Homosexual Sin is exactly the same as heterosexual Sin. Sin is forgiven by God if it is truly repented by a Christian. Oh: 6) Christian: a person who truly believes that Jesus died for their sins. 'Truly believing' does not mean "cool he died and I can go do anything and be forgiven for it". Its means saying "cool he died for me, I'm now going to try as best I can to live the way he wants me to, and to say sorry (and mean it) when I screw up".

People of the same gender who have sex with each other are sinning. People of different gender who have sex extra-maritally are sinning. Priests who hump little boys are sinning (difference being that they are damaging the victims emotionally and physically). The church should not stop people who have homosexual urges from being priests, as long as they try not to bring the church into disrepute and do not tell their congregation lies. Homosexuals should not be allowed to 'marry' in a Christian sense. If a secular government allows homosexual marriage that is the governments concern.

If you could for me, point to where in the ten commandments or elsewhere in the bible Jesus himself said that homosexuality was sin then please? Just a passage and edition of the bible would be fine for me.
That any help Freoria? TC's are early(?) Exodus, Marriage bit very early in the Bible. At uni at the moment and I don't carry my Bible around. It's heavy. Maybe it weighs on my conscience!

this is silly. everybody knows it's a sin to stick your willy in another person's bottom. it's clearly an outhole.
now, to the truly evil business: lesbianism!

Soooooo, where exactly did he speak out against the laws listed earlier in the thread? A passage and version of the bible will suffice for me. ((i frankly dont know it by heart or anything))


Well if you are talking about that stupid letter, I would have to direct you to a theologian. There is actually alot to understand about the transition from the Old to New Testaments. There are also cultural perspectives, contextual etc.

Trust me, this forum isn't the place to get good religious information.

Well if you are talking about that stupid letter, I would have to direct you to a theologian. There is actually alot to understand about the transition from the Old to New Testaments. There are also cultural perspectives, contextual etc.

Trust me, this forum isn't the place to get good religious information.

Have you yourself gone to a theologian and asked them where he did it? Because honestly i dont KNOW a theologian. Honestly the argument that "he didnt speak out against the laws against it" really doesnt mean much. Love thy brother as you love thyself seemed to be the biggest theme in what he had to say.

(Honestly not trying to troll you just an attempt to get you to challenge and reexamine your beliefs as well as learn a bit more about them)

By man's law, abstinence between neither hetero nor homosexuals is mandatory. By God's law, it is for heterosexual because it is NOT productive. Somebody else covered that earlier. If homosexuals want to get married, and have a pastor willing to do it, the law cannot technically stop them. If they are right in doing so, that's up to God to judge...but it's also up to man what laws are are what laws are not passed in the Statehood in which he lives.

People of the same gender who have sex with each other are sinning. People of different gender who have sex extra-maritally are sinning. Priests who hump little boys are sinning (difference being that they are damaging the victims emotionally and physically). The church should not stop people who have homosexual urges from being priests, as long as they try not to bring the church into disrepute and do not tell their congregation lies. Homosexuals should not be allowed to 'marry' in a Christian sense. If a secular government allows homosexual marriage that is the governments concern.


That any help Freoria? TC's are early(?) Exodus, Marriage bit very early in the Bible. At uni at the moment and I don't carry my Bible around. It's heavy. Maybe it weighs on my conscience!

It shows me where you stand but no it doesnt answer my question at all, which was "Which passage in the ten commandments or Jesus' teachings condemns homosexuality as a sin" I do understand how heavy they can be though.

Have you yourself gone to a theologian and asked them where he did it? Because honestly i dont KNOW a theologian. Honestly the argument that "he didnt speak out against the laws against it" really doesnt mean much. Love thy brother as you love thyself seemed to be the biggest theme in what he had to say.

(Honestly not trying to troll you just an attempt to get you to challenge and reexamine your beliefs as well as learn a bit more about them)

Yes I have. The argument 'he didn't speak out against laws against sodomy' is very good because he would have if he though they were so wrong. You seem to have a poor understanding of the Bible and Christianity yourself. I constantly have my beliefs challenged and have learned alot about them.

By man's law, abstinence between neither hetero nor homosexuals is mandatory. By God's law, it is for heterosexual because it is NOT productive. Somebody else covered that earlier. If homosexuals want to get married, and have a pastor willing to do it, the law cannot technically stop them. If they are right in doing so, that's up to God to judge...but it's also up to man what laws are are what laws are not passed in the Statehood in which he lives.


This doesnt address the issue either. Ive heard a lot about old jewish law, that doesnt apply anymore cause we've moved beyond it, but the section of the bible most often quoted to justify it is basically, old jewish law. The same section used is the one about eating shellfish and cutting your hair being abomination.

Being a satanist, I don´t believe in "sins". Whatever makes you feel good is allright. BUT, how can you find "love" in a mans hairy ass?? I personally find it disgusting beyond description. Why the Hell would you bang a mans pimpled, hairy ass, when there are beautiful chicks out there with big breasts and juicy vaginas? How can a sane person choose a hairy butt over THAT? Fags are sick people who needs "treatment" (like a .44 caliber brain surgery).

Yes I have. The argument 'he didn't speak out against laws against sodomy' is very good because he would have if he though they were so wrong. You seem to have a poor understanding of the Bible and Christianity yourself. I constantly have my beliefs challenged and have learned alot about them.

Then why not give me at least some inkling as to where in the bible it should be and what parts of the translation came out different. Jesus didnt speak out against a LOT of things in the versions of the bible ive read. Many of the things he didnt speak out against would be anathema in our modern world. So why is it a good argument for homosexuality and not for the other things?

It's a sin because filling your asshole with lube and getting a penis violently thrusted up and down until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a disgusting mix of semen, lube and shit pouring out your asshole, onto your bed (or public toilet floor) upon withdrawal is fucking disgusting.
Is it any more disgusting than smearing your penis with lube and violently thrusting it in and out of a vagina until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a mix of semen, lube and vaginal lubrication pouring out of said vagina, onto your bed (or wherever you happen to do it) upon withdrawal?

Or would that just be your personal homophobia? :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

::ahem::

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

Oh this is origninal. An uneducated person insulting the biblical line on homosexuality by refering to the rest of Leviticus. Read the new testement. In the old testememt God could have killed us all and be completely justified because we had sinned. Now we have a choice because Jesus's death takes away our sin. If you accept God then he . Jesus's death means that the ritualistic law no longer applies. Only the moral law still stands, and homosexuality is part of that moral law.

[/QUOTE]
Is it any more disgusting than smearing your penis with lube and violently thrusting it in and out of a vagina until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a mix of semen, lube and vaginal lubrication pouring out of said vagina, onto your bed (or wherever you happen to do it) upon withdrawal?
[/QUOTE]

Big diffrence here, God intended sex to be a gift to the human race. Its purpose was to be enjoyed responsably and for procreation. Homosexual sex was not intended by God. If it was, then God would have created six people at the begining of the world

Oh this is origninal. An uneducated person insulting the biblical line on homosexuality by refering to the rest of Leviticus. Read the new testement. In the old testememt God could have killed us all and be completely justified because we had sinned. Now we have a choice because Jesus's death takes away our sin. If you accept God then he . Jesus's death means that the ritualistic law no longer applies. Only the moral law still stands, and homosexuality is part of that moral law.


Passages supporting this please?


Big diffrence here, God intended sex to be a gift to the human race. Its purpose was to be enjoyed responsably and for procreation. Homosexual sex was not intended by God. If it was, then God would have created six people at the begining of the world

Honestly i dont think its wise to think that man can grasp exactly what God intended. He/she/it doesnt exactly come out and say THIS IS WHAT I INTEND anywhere in the bible.

Oh this is origninal. An uneducated person insulting the biblical line on homosexuality by refering to the rest of Leviticus. Read the new testement. In the old testememt God could have killed us all and be completely justified because we had sinned. Now we have a choice because Jesus's death takes away our sin. If you accept God then he . Jesus's death means that the ritualistic law no longer applies. Only the moral law still stands, and homosexuality is part of that moral law.


Is it any more disgusting than smearing your penis with lube and violently thrusting it in and out of a vagina until it blows semen all over the inside, followed by a mix of semen, lube and vaginal lubrication pouring out of said vagina, onto your bed (or wherever you happen to do it) upon withdrawal?
[/QUOTE]

Big diffrence here, God intended sex to be a gift to the human race. Its purpose was to be enjoyed responsably and for procreation. Homosexual sex was not intended by God. If it was, then God would have created six people at the begining of the world[/QUOTE]

Big diffrence here, God intended sex to be a gift to the human race. Its purpose was to be enjoyed responsably and for procreation. Homosexual sex was not intended by God.

A gift to the human race, eh? Could you quote the bible on this one?

[QUOTE=Neo Cannen]Oh this is origninal. An uneducated person insulting the biblical line on homosexuality by refering to the rest of Leviticus. Read the new testement. In the old testememt God could have killed us all and be completely justified because we had sinned. Now we have a choice because Jesus's death takes away our sin. If you accept God then he . Jesus's death means that the ritualistic law no longer applies. Only the moral law still stands, and homosexuality is part of that moral law.

So if the old testament is out of date and is rendered void by the New Testament, does that make the fucking stupid ntheory of Creation as Null and void as the "biblical line on homosexuality"??

Read my post again. Homesexuality is part of the MORAL LAW of the old testement. This still stands into the new and beyond. And as for God given gift, at the garden of Eden he says to Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and increase in number" or something to that effect.

It's a sin because some illogical, idiotic, old, and contradictory book says so.

It shows me where you stand but no it doesnt answer my question at all, which was "Which passage in the ten commandments or Jesus' teachings condemns homosexuality as a sin" I do understand how heavy they can be though.
Good point, I didn't express that very well. For instance when Eve was created God expressed the rule (still no bible, so syntax is probably wrong) "this is the way of things. A man shall leave his mother and father and become one with his wife". Doesn't condemn homosexuality, doesn't support it. The Ten Commandments put this into context after the idea of marriage was formalized (by God, I believe) to cement this bond.

In a vague parallel, one of the Commandments says 'Do not murder'. It doesn't have small print. It doesn't go on to say 'Do not torture someone to within an inch of their life then revive them' but people would take that as read. Jesus does promote 'don't commit adultery' a few times. That's about it. The Epistles refer to homosexual offenders as being sinners, again just condemning the act.

So if the old testament is out of date and is rendered void by the New Testament, does that make the fcuking stupid theory of Creation as Null and void as the "biblical line on homosexuality"??
The Old Testament Jewish Law is rendered void, i.e. you no longer have to burn a small farm to be forgiven. As for creation, if the seven days are not taken as a standard 24 hours but elastic periods of time (let's just open a big new can of worms) evolution can fit inside the template.

Way to go guys, this thread is a bash fest against the religious. I love how some talk about open mindness towards homosexuals, but when talking about the religious, they group everyone as 'bible thumpers', and dismiss whatever they have to say.

I do believe homosexuality is a sin. Men were not meant to have sex with other men, ditto for women. The thought of two men... awww that's just disgusting.

I myself am christian, I sing in our church choir even. But people have to realize the Bible is a book of the Christian mythology, Anyone who believes that what the bible is saying word for word is true, is out of their mind. And people who say "god is against gay's" are jumping to conclusions about their wonderfully merciful god. how can such a kinda loving god who accepts, forgives at the least, everyone, including those that do not take him to be their god, hate a group of people? It doesn't make sense.

aside from a religious stand point, love is love no matter the form.

I doubt I will change anyone's mind in the matter, but there's my two cents...

Is it any more disgusting than smearing your penis with lube and violently thrusting it in and out of a vagina[...]

If lube is needed there, someone isnt good at foreplay. ;)

I believe what consenting adults do in their own time as long as it causes no harm to each other or other people is only their own business.
And, if I may say, although not religious myself, I believe that Gythric has found the true idea of Christianity, which is, is it not, forgiveness and compassion for others.

Oh this is origninal. An uneducated person insulting the biblical line on homosexuality by refering to the rest of Leviticus. Read the new testement. In the old testememt God could have killed us all and be completely justified because we had sinned. Now we have a choice because Jesus's death takes away our sin. If you accept God then he . Jesus's death means that the ritualistic law no longer applies. Only the moral law still stands, and homosexuality is part of that moral law.

Big diffrence here, God intended sex to be a gift to the human race. Its purpose was to be enjoyed responsably and for procreation. Homosexual sex was not intended by God. If it was, then God would have created six people at the begining of the world

Ok, lets have a look at this gem. You are talking about uneducated? You refer to the "old testememt", build sentences like "If you accept God then he ." and do illogical jumps like your last paragraph. If you take the bible literally and come to conclusions about sexual behaviour by looking at Genesis, that would mean that incest is mandatory. If you dont take it literally, where does the jump to "created six people" come from?
Next time you disagree with people, be a bit more humble, which btw is a christian virtue.

To answer the original question, homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so. Outside of religions there is no concept like sin. If you want to adhere to a particular religion you have to accept what it defines as sin and virtue and live by that. If you dont believe in that religion, it should not matter to you if it is a sin.

I myself am christian, I sing in our church choir even. But people have to realize the Bible is a book of the Christian mythology, Anyone who believes that what the bible is saying word for word is true, is out of their mind. And people who say "god is against gay's" are jumping to conclusions about their wonderfully merciful god. how can such a kinda loving god who accepts, forgives at the least, everyone, including those that do not take him to be their god, hate a group of people? It doesn't make sense.

aside from a religious stand point, love is love no matter the form.

I doubt I will change anyone's mind in the matter, but there's my two cents...
Do you actually read other people's viewpoints and appreciate them? Or just put forward your own? God. Hates. No. Body. God. Hates. Sin.

Ths issue is whether homosexuality is a sin, which I believe the Bible says it is. Other Christians disagree, but with real arguments. Your post doesn't constitute an argument as it is not true.

You ( Neo Cannen) refer to the "old testament", build sentences like "If you accept God then..." and do illogical jumps like your last paragraph. If you take the bible literally and come to conclusions about sexual behaviour by looking at Genesis, that would mean that incest is mandatory. If you dont take it literally, where does the jump to "created six people" come from?
Next time you disagree with people, be a bit more humble, which btw is a christian virtue.

To answer the original question, homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so. Outside of religions there is no concept like sin. If you want to adhere to a particular religion you have to accept what it defines as sin and virtue and live by that. If you dont believe in that religion, it should not matter to you if it is a sin.
I Concur. Nicely put.

However, do remember that being the only people on earth kinda forced incest. Adam and Eve and their friends, also begotten by God, Bob and Marjorie. That would have been easier to explain. But the difference has to be: two or three people, problem. 6 billion people, really not so much of a problem.

Actually, I believe the original author took the fact that Christianity classifies homosexuality as a sin for granted and asked why it is viewed as such.

These are considered sins by Christian standards.

One of the things you were referring to here was reproductive clinics. Are infertile couples longing for a child therefore sinners? If so, isn't that contradictory given that we are, according to you, here to reproduce?

One of the things you were referring to here was reproductive clinics. Are infertile couples longing for a child therefore sinners?
From a Christian PoV I'd argue that marriage is primarily to sanctify and promote the love between husband and wife. Children come as part of that. I'd also say infertile couples are being tested in quite a cruel way by Devildude.

"It's a sin because some illogical, idiotic, old, and contradictory book says so."

It makes me always happy when enlightened liberals are teaching us to be tolerant. It seems tolerance is only compulsury when talking about the smallest minorities you can imagine. A book about the social experiences of a transsexual football fan in Kurdistan fighting to be be accepted by transsexual Kurdish golf-lovers can win you a Nobel Prize in literature. A sentence about the point of view on homosexuality as seen by one of the largest religions of the world can cost you a scandal and a refusal from a position in the European Committee. I agree with that Italian minister: poor Europe!

However, do remember that being the only people on earth kinda forced incest. Adam and Eve and their friends, also begotten by God, Bob and Marjorie. That would have been easier to explain. But the difference has to be: two or three people, problem. 6 billion people, really not so much of a problem.

Schnappslant, you evil guy! You edited out all the errors i quoted from Neo Cannen in your quote! ;)

I never said that Adam and Eve had another choice. But if you refer to the first book Moses strictly for moral guidelines on sexual behaviour you must come to the conclusion that incest was intended by God. Since even the most fundamentalist, who take the Bible literally, abstain from that practice no other conclusion like the annoying "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" should be drawn. Refering to the Bible passages that really deal with homosexuality would serve the purpose better.

A sentence about the point of view on homosexuality as seen by one of the largest religions of the world can cost you a scandal and a refusal from a position in the European Committee. I agree with that Italian minister: poor Europe!


especially if you're blithering intolerant catholic dogma when being considered for a position overseeing human rights. :)

A sentence about the point of view on homosexuality as seen by one of the largest religions of the world can cost you a scandal and a refusal from a position in the European Committee. I agree with that Italian minister: poor Europe!

A politician is a secular leader, in this case even more an administrator. If Rocco Buttiglione is so boneheaded to try to enforce his religious moral views against the will of his colleagues, the majority of the EU population and stated views of the EU parliament he is not fit to be commisioner. Maybe Italy should not have nominated a candidate that beliefs a womans place is the kitchen, because God intended it this way, and similar "modern views" in the first place.

A politician is a secular leader, in this case even more an administrator. If Rocco Buttiglione is so boneheaded to try to enforce his religious moral views against the will of his colleagues, the majority of the EU population and stated views of the EU parliament he is not fit to be commisioner. Maybe Italy should not have nominated a candidate that beliefs a womans place is the kitchen, because God intended it this way, and similar "modern views" in the first place.
I think that are his personal opinions. That would not even have anything to do with his commission post. I see it as a discrimination against Mr. Buttiglione that his private believes about certain issue - which many people in Europe share anyway - can be seen as an obstacle to a public posts which has not even anything to do with those issues. That is not even part of his job as commissioner. Therefore I see here the work of an intolerant group of the political left and the dictatorship of the political correctness (of the left) at work who try to force the people how to think about certain issues.
The result of this "dictatorship" of the PC is Mr. Berlusconi (gratulations to him) and - even more extreme - Mr. Fortuyn (dead now) in the Neterlands), Mr. Le Pen in France, Mr. Haider in Austria and the UKIP in the UK. Also other countries had simular developments.
And this intolerance of the political left and the dictators of political correctness - as we see in the case of Mr. Buttiglione - is the cause of many negative developments in Europe. Then they shouldn´t wonder that right-wing populists are winning if they have not even the slightest tolerance against christian democrats, right-wing conservatives or other right-wingers.

what exactly is it you're looking for?

would you like to be granted the exact same rights as heterosexual (married) couples, without actually labelling it "marriage"? e.g. would some sort of formalised legal concubination, conferring all the same rights to gay couples who adopt this institution suffice?

or would you rather like to be "married" in the traditional sense. i mean, would you like to be able to marry in the same fashion as heterosexuals now can?

i'm just asking because i'm curious... a lot of young people i know do not even want to get married anymore, but prefer to live together in a formalised manner, which in my country is possible (even though the rights conferred are not totally identical)

Homosexuality is wrong because it's gay.

what exactly is it you're looking for?

would you like to be granted the exact same rights as heterosexual (married) couples, without actually labelling it "marriage"? e.g. would some sort of formalised legal concubination, conferring all the same rights to gay couples who adopt this institution suffice?

or would you rather like to be "married" in the traditional sense. i mean, would you like to be able to marry in the same fashion as heterosexuals now can?

i'm just asking because i'm curious... a lot of young people i know do not even want to get married anymore, but prefer to live together in a formalised manner, which in my country is possible (even though the rights conferred are not totally identical)
personally, i don't want a "marriage," because the insitution of marriage has such a disgusting history; i wouldn't want to dirty my union with using the word "marriage." i want a civil union...for my HETEROSEXUAL union.

It's not. This is a messed up interpretation of the Bible, and the major Christian factions around the world cannot bear to admit they are wrong. It's easier to simply oppress gays.

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo
It's not a sin, it's deviant behavior. It's nothing but dogma from religious people about being a sin. It's a way to express bigotry and hatred in general for anyone who doesn't look like and believe exactly what they do. Based on the Bible, I don't see anywhere where Jesus would have persecuted homosexuals, or anyone else. He was most harsh with his disciples who weren't completely given to his word. They all gave up everything they had, even their lives. That is not the situation modern Christians would exemplify.

Being a satanist, I don´t believe in "sins". Whatever makes you feel good is allright. BUT, how can you find "love" in a mans hairy ass?? I personally find it disgusting beyond description.That's your problem, not necessarily that of practitioners of anal sex. As a satanist I would have thought that you would get this. I suggest you try not to think about it.

If lube is needed there, someone isnt good at foreplay. ;)I'm not speaking from personal experience here, but women to vary when it comes to lubrication.

Homosexuality is wrong because it's gay.Uh, 'k. Just what is wrong with being gay anyway?

"It's a sin because some illogical, idiotic, old, and contradictory book says so."

It makes me always happy when enlightened liberals are teaching us to be tolerant. It seems tolerance is only compulsury when talking about the smallest minorities you can imagine. A book about the social experiences of a transsexual football fan in Kurdistan fighting to be be accepted by transsexual Kurdish golf-lovers can win you a Nobel Prize in literature. A sentence about the point of view on homosexuality as seen by one of the largest religions of the world can cost you a scandal and a refusal from a position in the European Committee. I agree with that Italian minister: poor Europe!

So in other words, when you voice your opinion it's freedom of speech, and when a liberal does so it's intollerance? Gotcha.

its a sin because ALL sex outside of marriage is a sin.

if you belong to a denomination that allows marriage between people of the same gender, then sex within that marriage cannot be a sin.

the ACT is the sin not the desire. it is judged the same way that heterosexual sex is judged. if you have sex with a person of the other gender without being married to that person YOU ARE A SINNER.

as a christian, one should always keep the words of JESUS in mind. judge not lest ye be judged. why worry about the speck in your neighbors eye when there is a log in yours? let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

so no matter what else jesus may or may not have thought, what he SAYS is that you should pay attention to your OWN sins and when you have perfected yourself THEN you can worry about other people's sins.

until then you have a christian DUTY to treat everyone as if they were jesus himself. that is the basis on which YOU will be judged.

I think that are his personal opinions. That would not even have anything to do with his commission post.

I guess that you followed the discussion about why his personal oppinions matter? Because he himself said that he would not make any decision that is in contrast to his beliefs. That would have a lot to do with his position as commisioner and would make him unbearable.
But of course it is all just a liberal conspiracy... :rolleyes:

::ahem::

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

Without exact information like this, we wouldn't be great people that we are today. Thanks for the very informative post. :)

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin...?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

The purely scriptural basis for Christian condemnation of homosexuality is located in Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?


I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say by this statement. are you saying that people condemn homosexuals by scripture but don't abide by scripture themselves? If so, it's not a terribly relevent point, as the old saying goes two wrongs don't make a right.

Moral people have an obligation to oppose the institutionalising of immorality, but at the same time it is not our right to tell people they are going to hell. Do you have the authority to send someone there? Condemn the sin, not the doer of it.

I guess that you followed the discussion about why his personal oppinions matter? Because he himself said that he would not make any decision that is in contrast to his beliefs. That would have a lot to do with his position as commisioner and would make him unbearable.
But of course it is all just a liberal conspiracy... :rolleyes:
It is a conspiracy theory of the policitical left (PC dictators). Do you think that he doesn´t get support in Italy? Or Poland? Or in future maybe in Turkey for his positions? The commission has to represent Europe. And that also means to have tolerance for other opinions. Mr. Butiglione clearly said that he would always act according to the law and to the treaties of the EC even if he may disagree to certain aspects of them in his personal opinion. I may not like certain laws either. But I have of course to respect them. But I don´t have to like them. The same is the case for Mr. Butiglione. Why are there people in our continent who are not able to have this limitted of tolerance towards Mr. Butiglione???

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?


It is just a sin for those Reps that have a very retarded revisionist view of the bible. I think that the party with most latent gays is the republican party.

and in response to the post by Endless Rehearsals...

All of that is based off the Mosaic law, which was fulfilled and replaced with a higher law (see ST Matthew chapter 5) at the time Christ, and therefore not aplicable to Christianity.

One of the things you were referring to here was reproductive clinics. Are infertile couples longing for a child therefore sinners? If so, isn't that contradictory given that we are, according to you, here to reproduce?
Infertility is for God to decide, and yes, it's still a sin when they go about it this way. Anything that causes or brings about sin is a sin itself according to Roman Catholic Biblical laws. Should this be an infertility clinic that careful extricates seminal fluid (and probably rather painfully) other than masturbation, then I personally see no problem with it. If a couple is trying to have babies, there is nothing wrong with trying. The means of going about it is what you must watch carefully.

This doesnt address the issue either. Ive heard a lot about old jewish law, that doesnt apply anymore cause we've moved beyond it, but the section of the bible most often quoted to justify it is basically, old jewish law. The same section used is the one about eating shellfish and cutting your hair being abomination.

So if the old testament is out of date and is rendered void by the New Testament, does that make the fucking stupid ntheory of Creation as Null and void as the "biblical line on homosexuality"??

Your only defense refers to shellfish and haircuts every time. Certain parts of the old testament are voided by the new testament. There are parts to the old testament that we base principles on currently. And 'stupid ntheory of Creation.' Just listen to yourself...you can hardly spell and are calling this theory, which is equally as justified scientifically as Micro or Macroevolution, 'fucking stupid.' Thanks for the laugh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm
The study this refers to was faked by homosexual doctors and supporters of gay rights and pushed through to this point by the media. This is a premier example of the media lying to make its point. This study is legendary in Christian in-grounds.

Certain parts of the old testament are voided by the new testament. There are parts to the old testament that we base principles on currently.

Specifically the only part of the old testament that is voided by the new is the Mosaic law. Everything else, such as the ten commandments, is still valid.

I seriously recommend you all to check this site out which goes into great detail over what exactly is meant by Leviticus:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

Too much to go into here, but a lot of it deals with what exactly the translation means, and in what context. Some view it to mean that the act (ie male-male anal intercourse) is ritually impure (NOT a sin), as it necessarily involved one man taking a subservient (i.e female) role, which violated the strict code of a man's status in the Jewish world at that time.
Another postulates that since the original phrasing is 'lay with a man as with a woman', it is refering to a hetrosexual male using a male as a substitute (since a truly gay man wouldn't lay with a woman ever). So it refers to het sluts who aren't too fussy about where they put it, not gay men. As the section is within the chapter also dealing with Beastiality and incest, this has some credence.
There's also the postulation that it simply refers to not doing it WHERE a woman lays, as the matrimonial bed was viewed as highly sacred.
At the beginning of the chapter that includes this passage, Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure.

It's important to note that the Jewish word 'toevah' which was used in Leviticus 18:22 has been translated as 'abomination', but a more accurate translation is 'ritually unclean'. If they wanted to be more definite in stating it as a sin, they would have used 'zimah'.

I found a site weeks ago (but didn't bookmark it sorry) that had an indepth analysis over the original wording in St Paul's letter to the Corinthians. As I said, I can't find it now. Sorry.
It had to do with the original wording which was "porniea malakoi arsenokoitai". 'Porniea' means a man who is (basically) a slut. Whether a fanny rat or arse king, it doesn't say.
'Malakoi' seems to mean a boy prostitute.
The last one's made up word by St Paul apparently. It's made up of two words, and seems to mean those who use them, or procure them.
So together, it seems to imply it is more to do with men who are using rent boys (the emphasis on 'boys') and the slave dealers who procure the young boys for them, not Homoseuality per se.

Before anyone says "You can't interpret God's word to your own liking!", have a look at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Which details how the Old testament was written and compiled by several ppl, which implies they were interpreting God's word to their own liking.

its a sin because ALL sex outside of marriage is a sin.

if you belong to a denomination that allows marriage between people of the same gender, then sex within that marriage cannot be a sin.

the ACT is the sin not the desire. it is judged the same way that heterosexual sex is judged. if you have sex with a person of the other gender without being married to that person YOU ARE A SINNER.

as a christian, one should always keep the words of JESUS in mind. judge not lest ye be judged. why worry about the speck in your neighbors eye when there is a log in yours? let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

so no matter what else jesus may or may not have thought, what he SAYS is that you should pay attention to your OWN sins and when you have perfected yourself THEN you can worry about other people's sins.

until then you have a christian DUTY to treat everyone as if they were jesus himself. that is the basis on which YOU will be judged.


If sex outside of marriage is a sin, then the world is full of sinners. Well most of them. I'm one of the few that only had sex in marriage and for the purpose of procreation as it was intended for.

In the way I interprit the bible, sex is to be used for procreation, any other use appears to be a sin. Yet, keep in mind, that most people use it for pleasure and are obsessed by it. In such they are addicted to sex, and thus it becomes more of a mental illness of addiction for most people.

The anus was not designed for sex, it was designed for output of human waste. Going in the wrong way causes damage, apparently. The "Creator" forbid the use of sex with the anus, because it was not designed for sex. Hardly anyone listens to the "Creator" anyway, and sexually put square pegs into round holes so to speak.

As far as sin goes, everyone is a sinner, all have sinned except for the "Creator", no exceptions. Jesus said that only God is good.

So therefore people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Yes, judge not, least ye be judged, and remove that log from your eye before removing the splinter from someone else's eye.

Yet Jesus said something else, and while there are those who do not believe Jesus is God or the Son of God, etc, they can at least agree to his philosophy:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love one another as I have loved you. Be at peace with all people.

So as an open-minded Christian, who follows Jesus, but not always the Church (which uses guilt a lot and Psychologically that isn't healthy), I have to turn things around like so:

If Homosexual Marriage was allowed but not Hetrosexual Marriage, wouldn't I want to be able to marry as a Hetrosexual just as the Homosexuals do, only to a woman rather than another man?

This is called putting yourself in someone else's shoes, or maybe reversing the situation and see it from someone else's point of view.

The answer then would be "yes", which would also be "yes" for Homosexual Marriage too.

Even if my Religion forbids it, and I don't believe in it myself, in order to be fair, and follow the Philosophy that Jesus taught, we should use Love and not Hate. Did Jesus say to hate people or love people? When he said to be at peace with all people, to love one another, to do unto others, did he also say "Except Homosexuals"?

Thus I ignore my Religion, Church, personal viewpoints I have and be objective, see the view from the other group's point of view, and decide to allow same sex marriage. I do this as Jesus taught me, to use love not hate, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, to be at peace with all people. At the time, the Temple disagreed with Jesus, just as the current Curch disagrees with Jesus apparently. In this regard is why Jesus said he came to bring conflict with people, to set family member verses family member, because he knew his words would bring about this kind of conflict because Jesus was trying to change the world for good reasons. To forgive sins, and to tell us that not to worry about someone else's sins, but worry about our own sins. The Catholic Church needs a reform and needs to re-examine exactly what Jesus said and what Jesus said over-rides the Old Testiment in some cases. Like when he forgave the woman for adultry, instead of letting people stone her to death.

I hope this makes sense, I may not be right here, it is how I interprit the words Jesus used and how he said to treat other people.

is ritually impure (NOT a sin)
These are opposites. Impurity is a sin. Period.

If sex outside of marriage is a sin, then the world is full of sinners.
You don't suppose! So THAT's why forgiveness is necessary!

It also says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind... shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Effeminate has reference a man that behaves as a woman in a homosexual relationship (once again refering specifically to the act of soddomy).

whereas 'abusers of themselves with mankind' referes to the homosexual the takes the male role in a homosexual relationship.

Interperet it as you will, it's fairly clear to me what it means. "Be not decived."

Even if my Religion forbids it, and I don't believe in it myself, in order to be fair, and follow the Philosophy that Jesus taught, we should use Love and not Hate. Did Jesus say to hate people or love people? When he said to be at peace with all people, to love one another, to do unto others, did he also say "Except Homosexuals"?
No one should hate homosexuals. Hatred and Intolerance are not what this thread are about. It's why homosexuality is a sin. If the writer of this thread, or the people arguing their points about homosexuality, think that the idea of 'sin' is outdated, then why ask? Being an admitted sinner myself, I struggle not to. The only hope I have (as well as any one else has), is to recognize and disallow sin in it's entirity and walk the best path you can to where you want to go.
Matthew Ch. 7 Vs.13-14.

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

Your post contains almost the exact same things that were said by the great Oscar Wilde.

The study this refers to was faked by homosexual doctors and supporters of gay rights and pushed through to this point by the media. This is a premier example of the media lying to make its point. This study is legendary in Christian in-grounds.

And you of course can name non-partisan sources for that, right? Let me put it this way, "Christian in-grounds" might have an interest, but not the scientific standing to refute the theory. Which is why the original researchers are slandered. And now, please show me something that discredits the original theory with scientific arguments. But of course you will weasel out of this... :rolleyes:

These are opposites. Impurity is a sin. Period.
NO, because if you read ALL my post (and the sites I took it from) you'd see that there's two words: 'toevah' and 'zimah'. Toevah means impurity and uncleanliness. Zimah means sin. Toevah was the one used in Leviticus. so the implication is that it wasn't viewed as a sin, merely as an impure action, like touching a menstrating woman, eating pork or picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

I have no problem with saying this...I'm gay! ^^ :fluffle: I think people, well, close-minded people who can't except that shouldn't really press their beliefs on people and sat that being gay is a sin. Now, I don't know this for sure because I'm a Wiccan, but doesn't being a Christian mean excepting all? :confused:

it isn't a sin. what is, or should be, a sin is denying someone their rights to be who they are and enjoy the fruits of said choices (no pun intended)

It's a sin because some illogical, idiotic, old, and contradictory book says so.

That is the most arragont, self absorbed, self ritghtious and just plain stupid thing I have ever heard. Have you actually read the bible, please give an example of this contridiction. Dont give all the old leviticus law ones, Ive already explained that. The only reasons for them was that in the Old Testement, God could have destroyed us all and been perfectly jusified, because we had sinned. The only reason for those laws were either practical or to keep the Isralites in line and the ones that keep the Isralites in line are MORAL LAWS, which if you read the old testement, you will find that the refeance to homosexuality is amoung them. As for the Bible being illogical, idiotic, old and contridictory, old maybe but have you read the WHOLE THING. If not then I sujest you retract your statement.

and in response to the post by Endless Rehearsals...

All of that is based off the Mosaic law, which was fulfilled and replaced with a higher law (see ST Matthew chapter 5) at the time Christ, and therefore not aplicable to Christianity.

Check again, Homosexuality is in the section on MORAL LAW and that equals sin. MORAL LAW still stands.

I hope this makes sense, I may not be right here, it is how I interprit the words Jesus used and how he said to treat other people.

D 268:

That was an interesting and thoughtful answer. Thank you. As the originator of this thread I most certainly applaud your candor and forthrightness.

I appreciate your ability to articulate the differences in our opinions. You respectly answered my question and considerately accounted that my views, as different as they are from yours, deserve to be heard. I hope you know, I have heard yours and will consider them carefully.

Best regards,
ScoMo

[note: edited for grammatical errors]

That is the most arragont, self absorbed, self ritghtious and just plain stupid thing I have ever heard. Have you actually read the bible, please give an example of this contridiction. Dont give all the old leviticus law ones, Ive already explained that. The only reasons for them was that in the Old Testement, God could have destroyed us all and been perfectly jusified, because we had sinned. The only reason for those laws were either practical or to keep the Isralites in line and the ones that keep the Isralites in line are MORAL LAWS, which if you read the old testement, you will find that the refeance to homosexuality is amoung them. As for the Bible being illogical, idiotic, old and contridictory, old maybe but have you read the WHOLE THING. If not then I sujest you retract your statement.

I was SO waiting for this :p


Yes, I have read the Bible. I used to be a christian. I've read it more then most christians I know, in fact. Contradictions?

Let's start off with a nice one: What was created first, people or animals? Male or female? Gen.1: 25-27 clearly states that animals come first, and that man and women were created together. But in Gen.2: 18-22, it says man came first, then animals, then women. Wtf, mate?

Lets have some fun with Proverbs. Chapter 26, to be specific. Verse 4 is simple; don't answer a fool according to his follow. Then verse 5 says that you SHOULD answer a fool according to his follow. Eh?

Jesus told his disciples to go out into the world. What should they take with them? Mt. 10:10 and Lk. 9:3 both have Jesus telling them to go even without shoes or a staff. But that crazy Mark bugger wrote down that Jesus wanted them to have shoes and a staff in chapter 6, verses 8-9.

Divorce has always been an issue. And it's no wonder why. Mk.10:11 and Lk.16:18 say that divorce is never, ever allowed. But that crazy Matthew. Mt.5:32 and Mt.19:9 tell us that it's ok to have a divorce if the spouse is unfaithful. Wait, what's this? What you say, 1 Cor.7:15? If the wife is an unbeliever and simply leaves, that's alright? Well, I'm glad-what, MORE? Yep, Dt.24:1-2 states that a man can leave his wife...because. Oh, sorry, the reason is because he wants to. RIght. Don't wanna cause any CONFUSION there.

That wacky Jude. Doesn't he know Enoch was the sixth decendent from Adam, not the seventh? I mean, it's clear in Gen.5:3-18, 1 Chr.1:1-2, and Lk.3:37-38 that he was. Where does he get off saying, in his 14th chapter, that he was the seventh?! Really now.




That enough?




Real question: have YOU read the whole thing? How can you believe in such a cruel and abusive god?

"Belief in a cruel god makes cruel men."

"Why is homosexuality a sin? "

Because certain people put an incredible amount of faith in a few lines in a book written many, many years ago by people of questionable sanity that has been translated and retranslated many, many times by people of equally questionable sanity.

Simply - because that is what I believe - as do many other people. Christianity, Judaism and Islam will all tell you that.

Thank God we have one sane government left in Western Europe - Italy that is...

I was SO waiting for this :p


Yes, I have read the Bible. I used to be a christian. I've read it more then most christians I know, in fact. Contradictions?

Let's start off with a nice one: What was created first, people or animals? Male or female? Gen.1: 25-27 clearly states that animals come first, and that man and women were created together. But in Gen.2: 18-22, it says man came first, then animals, then women. Wtf, mate?

Lets have some fun with Proverbs. Chapter 26, to be specific. Verse 4 is simple; don't answer a fool according to his follow. Then verse 5 says that you SHOULD answer a fool according to his follow. Eh?

Jesus told his disciples to go out into the world. What should they take with them? Mt. 10:10 and Lk. 9:3 both have Jesus telling them to go even without shoes or a staff. But that crazy Mark bugger wrote down that Jesus wanted them to have shoes and a staff in chapter 6, verses 8-9.

Divorce has always been an issue. And it's no wonder why. Mk.10:11 and Lk.16:18 say that divorce is never, ever allowed. But that crazy Matthew. Mt.5:32 and Mt.19:9 tell us that it's ok to have a divorce if the spouse is unfaithful. Wait, what's this? What you say, 1 Cor.7:15? If the wife is an unbeliever and simply leaves, that's alright? Well, I'm glad-what, MORE? Yep, Dt.24:1-2 states that a man can leave his wife...because. Oh, sorry, the reason is because he wants to. RIght. Don't wanna cause any CONFUSION there.

That wacky Jude. Doesn't he know Enoch was the sixth decendent from Adam, not the seventh? I mean, it's clear in Gen.5:3-18, 1 Chr.1:1-2, and Lk.3:37-38 that he was. Where does he get off saying, in his 14th chapter, that he was the seventh?! Really now.




That enough?




Real question: have YOU read the whole thing? How can you believe in such a cruel and abusive god?

"Belief in a cruel god makes cruel men."

Oh please. At least three of your examples are insignificent and not at all important to the long term message of the bible. Who cares who was made first, all have sinned.As for the divorce one, I dont know enough about it to be clear but I believe personally that God hates sin. If someone has been adultrous then thats sin. You should do your best to forgive them, but I am under no illusions that it would be extremely difficult to say the least. No human would think any less of you if you did divorce them, God's opinion, I dont know, Im not God. And a question, where is God either cruel or abusive. He could have destroied us all in the old testement and not be wrong as we have sinned. He didnt. And he sent the most wonderous gift of love to save us all. His son. Would you send your son to a certian death to save anybody. And as for basic mistakes well it was written over a long period and by HUMANS. Humans make basic errors but the essential message is there. John 3:16 is that essential message.

Ditto that lot. At least Goed's good for comedy value.

God detests divorce. Pretty sure most people who get one hate it too. Especially Ray Parlour. Poor guy.

It has always been perplexing as to why homosexuality is a sin. Just looking at the Christian bible and the christian view, they feel that God created everything. So wouldn't it stand to reason that if God created everything, that would include homosexuals. In creating homosexuals, then that would mean they were are part of God like everything else (including the angelic and demonic images). In as such, to condemn them as sinful would be a crime against God since he supposedly created everything. You can say it's a sin because it's not natural etc.... but regardless, according to christian faith, everything comes from God, good..bad..otherwise so in theory, nothing can be sinful because everything is of God including all the good and bad stuff.

And if anyone says that something isn't from God, then that would mean that God is NOT the sole creator which invalidates the bible which means it is suddenly unreliable for christians. Everything is either from God or not. And if something is from God, then we should accept it and move on. Just remember, God created Satan too according to christian belief so when it's said satan is the cause of all evil...well, I think you get the hint.

Frankly, if there is a God, i don't think he will care where you cram your genitals. It's petty and foolish to dwell on.

Homosexuality is a sin because the God of the old testament said so, and a guy that goes around killing people with floods and plagues and stuff because he doesn't like them is the type of person who would make up a crazy rule like that.

Umm. BEcause Homosexuals can't procreate?

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

Just so you know what the Catholic Church believes, they say that it is NOT a sin to be homosexual but it is a sin to have homosexual sex of any kind.

Umm. BEcause Homosexuals can't procreate?

And I suppose every time you have sex, it's purely to produce another child?

Right...

And I suppose every time you have sex, it's purely to produce another child?

Right...

Plus, the world has plenty of people, there's no shortage of procreation. Even if a few people don't reproduce, the world population is still going to skyrocket.

To switch the onus of proof, those advocating the moral freedom to be homosexual,one of the primary arguments used is the presumptuous question of "what is wrong with it?"This question is very presumptuous. It assumes and prescribes a whole base for morality in the first place without ever describing it. What then is your basis for anything being right or wrong? What makes anything wrong, since homosexuality isn't wrong? Is anything right at all with anything or wrong at all with anything? If one is arguing that homesexuality is not wrong, then there must besome reasons as to why it is right, if so what are they, and on what basis? The argument is a skewing, placing the burden of proof on those arguing against homosexuality where as propenents for homosexuality do not give convincing arguments for the moral correctness of it. In some sense, each person presupposes a certain set of morality, the question then lies to as which one is the most consistent with itself and reality. Those prescribing to this type of morality have no strong basis. Morality then is turned into being purely based on some type of prescriptivism, pragmatisim, or is merely preference. To those who advocate homosexuality, please give me your reasons in arguing for it, not simply the argument against the opposing postion. To try and refute one position by no means supports yours. The onus lies on both sides. So, step up and show by positive argumentation what is right with homosexuality, since that is your position.

Well, the scripture has its flaws. I mean, Lucifer was cast out for attempting one coup. Its been 7000 years and he's still there, and by our laws, any sentence lasting that long and inflicting that much pain (remember that Satan hates it down there) would be unconstitutional. Does that mean that our laws are sacraligeous. If God is so merciful, why doesn't he give his right hand man the option?
As for Gay rights, it hurts no one but the immortal (so called, anyway) souls of the practicianors, so why do Christians have so many problems? Are they that obsessed with "saving" people? If so, why don't they deal with the commandment infractions first and go to prisons to lecture criminals? Its probably because gays are easier to persecute.
Oh, and I have read the research of a very well respected sociopsychologist, my grandfather, John B. Calhoun of NIH (for those who read kids books, NIMH would be based on him, but he didn't make superrats or use chemicals). His work indicates that homosexuality is a social effect of overpopulation, a way to stop the increase. Gays are saving the world.
Lastly, there was a bit about Christians contributing to the downfall of Rome. That is an interesting theory, since I myself believe that Pharaoh Atenhotep, a monotheist, began the downfall of Egypt. Maybe more gods are better.

First, in order to show that it is ultimately a contradiction, you must show the exactness and correctness of the text, which you yourself most likely deny. So the fact that there are "contradictions" may stem from the fact that there are errors. To assume a contradiciton means that each statement is completely 100% correct to the original. So in stating there are contradictions you most likely undermine your own disbelief in its faultiness because you have to assume the correctnes of the text.

Next, in order to show that something fully contradicts is to show that there is no way the two may be harmonized, which you have not done. You have taken apparent contradictions, out of there context. Which leads to my next point in the horrible hermneutic you apply to the biblical texts. You do not consider authorial intent, and historical and grammatical contexts of these texts.

In short, your faulty attempts of trying to show contradictions fall utterly short.

Is anyone there or going to respond to my previous posts?

I'll be back later. :D

Workies!

Infidus
"...but regardless, according to christian faith, everything comes from God, good..bad..otherwise so in theory, nothing can be sinful because everything is of God including all the good and bad stuff."

Poor poor argumentation. So from that logic are we to send the parents of murderers to prison as well since they "created" them? This is what you are saying: source equals fault. The bible recognizes the responsibility of each individual before God. The theology of the bible does not teach God as the orginator of evil, since evil is that opposite of God. To say that God orignates evil is much akin to saying light created darkness. Did it? many people take darkness to be antithetical to light, when in actually reality it isn't.Darkness is the absence of light. Just as Cold is the absence of heat. If it weren't, then why can't we descend below absolute zero in chemistry and physics? your claim as God being the originator of sin contradicts the very defintion of one who is a good moral God. Sin is the very thing that opposes God. Thus God creating something against his own character is not possible. Your argument self destructs. The guilt lies upon man, not God.

Next, In reading Genesis 1, one sees that the world is created in a perfect state, thus God did not create or originate Sin. Man choose that path for himself, not God. Also, your characterization of Christianity is incorrect. It may be the way you understand it, but authentic Christianity does not teach in accordance with what you say it does. James 1 clearly states that there is no badness in God, nor does anything bad come from or out of Him and His character.

It has always been perplexing as to why homosexuality is a sin. Just looking at the Christian bible and the christian view, they feel that God created everything. So wouldn't it stand to reason that if God created everything, that would include homosexuals. In creating homosexuals, then that would mean they were are part of God like everything else (including the angelic and demonic images). In as such, to condemn them as sinful would be a crime against God since he supposedly created everything. You can say it's a sin because it's not natural etc.... but regardless, according to christian faith, everything comes from God, good..bad..otherwise so in theory, nothing can be sinful because everything is of God including all the good and bad stuff.

And if anyone says that something isn't from God, then that would mean that God is NOT the sole creator which invalidates the bible which means it is suddenly unreliable for christians. Everything is either from God or not. And if something is from God, then we should accept it and move on. Just remember, God created Satan too according to christian belief so when it's said satan is the cause of all evil...well, I think you get the hint.

Frankly, if there is a God, i don't think he will care where you cram your genitals. It's petty and foolish to dwell on.

By your logic, God also created viruses, parasites and all the other nasty things of the world. The world went down the pan for one reason and one reason only SIN.

Poor poor argumentation. So from that logic are we to send the parents of murderers to prison as well since they "created" them? This is what you are saying: source equals fault. The bible recognizes the responsibility of each individual before God. The theology of the bible does not teach God as the orginator of evil, since evil is that opposite of God. To say that God orignates evil is much akin to saying light created darkness. Did it? many people take darkness to be antithetical to light, when in actually reality it isn't.Darkness is the absence of light. Just as Cold is the absence of heat. If it weren't, then why can't we descend below absolute zero in chemistry and physics? your claim as God being the originator of sin contradicts the very defintion of one who is a good moral God. Sin is the very thing that opposes God. Thus God creating something against his own character is not possible. Your argument self destructs. The guilt lies upon man, not God.

Next, In reading Genesis 1, one sees that the world is created in a perfect state, thus God did not create or originate Sin. Man choose that path for himself, not God. Also, your characterization of Christianity is incorrect. It may be the way you understand it, but authentic Christianity does not teach in accordance with what you say it does.
I would just like to interject here, with the usual disclaimer that I am not a biblical scholar by any means.

According to the bible, god is both omnipotent and omnicient, yes?

In that case, the "parents of the murderer" anaolgy is incorrect. The parents did not know with absolute certainty that their child would commit murder. Nor (one hopes) did they raise the child knowing (again, with absolute certainty) that their methods would raise a killer. In the case of god, having omnicience dictates that god did, in fact, know what would happen. To use the example of satan, god therefore knew from the moment he decided to create lucifer, that he was creating something that would rebel against him. Therefore, he knew that he was creating (what was to become) evil, and proceeded regardless.

In the case of man, the choice came to include free will, if one believes in that. Supposing that to be the case, god also knew that his creations would sin against him; had he not given them free will, there would have been no sin. Thus, the sins of humankind came directly of this action, all the while god knowing full well what he was doing. If one does not believe in free will, then really, I have to question whether the concept of "sin" means anything to begin with.

Therefore, as it occurs to me, if god is both omnipotent and omnicient, then god did, indeed, create sin and evil, willfully.

To those who advocate homosexuality, please give me your reasons in arguing for it, not simply the argument against the opposing postion. To try and refute one position by no means supports yours. The onus lies on both sides. So, step up and show by positive argumentation what is right with homosexuality, since that is your position.

To start out, generally people argue against people with oppressive views (hence desegregation). More often than not, arguments were against the concept of blacks being lesser, inferior, and subject to less accomadations as a result (besides just the human rights aspect). But I'll humor you.

1. There is no scientific evidenct to support that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice and is therefore reversible by force of will and/or therapy. This suggests that homosexuals are simply not going to be attracted to people of the opposite gender and will not be capable of fulfilling relationships with those of oppostie genders. The stage in life (according to Psychologist Erik Erikson) around the early twenties to late twenties is called "Intimacy vs. Isolation." In this stage, human beings need to form some kind of intimate relationship or risk being stifled in this phase of life and feel completely isolated. There is evidence to support that feelings of isolation lead to feelings of anxiety or depression. I feel that forcing that kind of isolation on people causes dammage to their persons and should be stopped.

2. If they're not harming anyone, what's the bloody difference? Despite what particular people's beliefs may be, there is no evidence to support that homosexual people are more likely to be sexual predators than heterosexual people. This suggests that homosexuality is not a deviant form of behavior but rather a result of biochemical attraction.

3. I don't feel that it is my place (or anyone else's) to tell someone who they can and cannot love based on gender. It is akin to telling white people that they could not marry people of other races. Simply put, we decided awhile ago that racism was bad because the differences between people were cultural and did not necessarily denote lesser or greater humanity. I don't see why it's such a long leap to find out the same thing about homosexuality.

4. Humans are doing quite well as a species, and homosexuality does not pose a significant threat to the overall population growth of the world. We're 6 billion strong and counting. Some homosexuals here and there are not a threat to the propagation of the species.

5. It is not the place of any religion to dictate what the entire world's populus is permitted to do because not everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs. Let what is right for an individual determine what is right for an individual and not force a large, arbitrary compliance on people who do not feel the same way. If your choices do not infringe on the rights or well-being of others, they are yours to make.

By your logic, God also created viruses, parasites and all the other nasty things of the world. The world went down the pan for one reason and one reason only SIN.

But there's still the fact that all that stuff is still there. No matter what you want to blame it on, you still have to deal with the viruses and parasites and homosexuals and all the other "nasty things." We're here to stay, whether you like it or not.

Wrong. This is a false understanding of those two doctrines and the decree of God. For if you were to follow that line of thought, it would me that God is not moral at all, and the whole system would selfdestruct. As far as the parent muderer, it was simply an analogy. All analogies are weak to some extent. It was used more for the purpose of analogy. God omnipotence does not tie into the causality of evil. Also, God's will is both permissive and efficacious,meaning in His divine will and power he allows for choice and for responisbility of individual parties.

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

Actually, if you read a little further in you will find where Isiah says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of inhospitality and uncharitable behavior. Jesus even quotes the prophet in the NT.

To Riven Dell:

1. False appeal to authority
2. "If they're not harming anyone, what's the bloody difference?" False presumption and faulty argumentation.
3. Sheer prescriptivism and individualism
4. Faulty interpretation of evidence
5. Sheer presciptivsim

Thes are your logical fallacies. You still have provided no basis for positve argumentation or morality.

First, in order to show that it is ultimately a contradiction, you must show the exactness and correctness of the text, which you yourself most likely deny. So the fact that there are "contradictions" may stem from the fact that there are errors. To assume a contradiciton means that each statement is completely 100% correct to the original. So in stating there are contradictions you most likely undermine your own disbelief in its faultiness because you have to assume the correctnes of the text.

Next, in order to show that something fully contradicts is to show that there is no way the two may be harmonized, which you have not done. You have taken apparent contradictions, out of there context. Which leads to my next point in the horrible hermneutic you apply to the biblical texts. You do not consider authorial intent, and historical and grammatical contexts of these texts.

In short, your faulty attempts of trying to show contradictions fall utterly short.

If people are going to base their moral decisions on a document that is, without a doubt (according to you), flawed either through mistranslation, typographical error, or inconsistency, it is their business. If they are going to impose the beliefs and morals written in the same flawed book on others, though, those others are well within their rights to fight it. Contradictions or errors, the book isn't going to be perfect. If it is imperfect, than there is room for alternate thinking, and using "the bible says it's a sin, so we can't do it" as an argument carries no weight.

"Thou shalt not kill." So what about Matthew Shepherd? He was homosexual (and therefore a sinner), but if "Thou shalt not kill" than his attackers (Christians, I might add) were also sinners. Which sin is greater? Homosexuality or murder? If it's murder, than all sin is not equal and we then have to parse out "big sins" from "little sins" and start creating a sin hierarchy based on this book that is flawed (in whatever way and for whatever reason). You seem to have a very logical brain, but you seem to lack reason.

Wrong. This is a false understanding of those two doctrines and the decree of God. For if you were to follow that line of thought, it would me that God is not moral at all, and the whole system would selfdestruct. As far as the parent muderer, it was simply an analogy. All analogies are weak to some extent. It was used more for the purpose of analogy. God omnipotence does not tie into the causality of evil. Also, God's will is both permissive and efficacious,meaning in His divine will and power he allows for choice and for responisbility of individual parties.
If morality itself is based upon god, then god cannot logically be moral. It's like saying Jesus was christian; he wasn't, christianity was based upon him and his teachings. Now, if everything god does is moral, then what is morality to god? Nothing. God, rather, dictates morality to others; becomes the template. If he is a vengeful god, then vengefulness is part of that template, and becomes a part of morality. If he is a loving, forgiving god, that vengefulness is not part of the template, nor a part of morality. Also, considering the viewpoint that god is in all things, god must logically be in even those things that struggle against him; to do such means he must be amoral. What I'm arguing here, is essentially that, if you want to come right down to it and have an omnipotent, omnicient god, that god is above morality, which is a concept that only carries meaning to lesser beings. It doesn't mean the system falls apart; it IS the system. Nothing else could work; if god was a moral being, that would imply something higher than god to which god was aspiring, or which was laying down a moral code for god to follow.

To switch the onus of proof, those advocating the moral freedom to be homosexual,one of the primary arguments used is the presumptuous question of "what is wrong with it?"This question is very presumptuous. It assumes and prescribes a whole base for morality in the first place without ever describing it. What then is your basis for anything being right or wrong? What makes anything wrong, since homosexuality isn't wrong? Is anything right at all with anything or wrong at all with anything? If one is arguing that homesexuality is not wrong, then there must besome reasons as to why it is right, if so what are they, and on what basis? The argument is a skewing, placing the burden of proof on those arguing against homosexuality where as propenents for homosexuality do not give convincing arguments for the moral correctness of it. In some sense, each person presupposes a certain set of morality, the question then lies to as which one is the most consistent with itself and reality. Those prescribing to this type of morality have no strong basis. Morality then is turned into being purely based on some type of prescriptivism, pragmatisim, or is merely preference. To those who advocate homosexuality, please give me your reasons in arguing for it, not simply the argument against the opposing postion. To try and refute one position by no means supports yours. The onus lies on both sides. So, step up and show by positive argumentation what is right with homosexuality, since that is your position.

It feels good, and it does not harm you. You do not have the right to not be offended.

I think that's all the argumentation needed.

To start out, generally people argue against people with oppressive views (hence desegregation). More often than not, arguments were against the concept of blacks being lesser, inferior, and subject to less accomadations as a result (besides just the human rights aspect). But I'll humor you.

1. There is no scientific evidenct to support that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice and is therefore reversible by force of will and/or therapy. This suggests that homosexuals are simply not going to be attracted to people of the opposite gender and will not be capable of fulfilling relationships with those of oppostie genders. The stage in life (according to Psychologist Erik Erikson) around the early twenties to late twenties is called "Intimacy vs. Isolation." In this stage, human beings need to form some kind of intimate relationship or risk being stifled in this phase of life and feel completely isolated. There is evidence to support that feelings of isolation lead to feelings of anxiety or depression. I feel that forcing that kind of isolation on people causes dammage to their persons and should be stopped.

2. If they're not harming anyone, what's the bloody difference? Despite what particular people's beliefs may be, there is no evidence to support that homosexual people are more likely to be sexual predators than heterosexual people. This suggests that homosexuality is not a deviant form of behavior but rather a result of biochemical attraction.

3. I don't feel that it is my place (or anyone else's) to tell someone who they can and cannot love based on gender. It is akin to telling white people that they could not marry people of other races. Simply put, we decided awhile ago that racism was bad because the differences between people were cultural and did not necessarily denote lesser or greater humanity. I don't see why it's such a long leap to find out the same thing about homosexuality.

4. Humans are doing quite well as a species, and homosexuality does not pose a significant threat to the overall population growth of the world. We're 6 billion strong and counting. Some homosexuals here and there are not a threat to the propagation of the species.

5. It is not the place of any religion to dictate what the entire world's populus is permitted to do because not everyone subscribes to the same religious beliefs. Let what is right for an individual determine what is right for an individual and not force a large, arbitrary compliance on people who do not feel the same way. If your choices do not infringe on the rights or well-being of others, they are yours to make.

Ok, I'll go to my one by one mode again

Point 1
There is also a lack of proof to say that it is genetic or that it is some kind of psycological disorder. No one can say for definite one way or the other. I myself believe it to not be a personal choice but to be a temptation to sin like any other, which humans can resist and therefore it is not genetic or something that cannot be delt with

Point 2
Refering back to point one partly. It is not part of any bio chemical attraction. Female feromones are designed to attract male and vice versa. There is no evidence to sujest that there is a chemical attraction. And there is serious harm involved with homosexuality see here

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And dont respond untill you have read the whole site

Point 3
Racesim and homosexuality are diffrent things. One is a chance of birth, the other is not. Homosexuality is not some kind of culture diffrence and there is a massive leap between anti-racisim and anti-homophobia. Homosexuality is diffrent to race.

Point 4
I have no problem with that.

Point 5
Ok, so you like everything else about Chrisitanity execpt this, this and this. Thats not hypocritcal in the slightest.

It feels good, and it does not harm you. You do not have the right to not be offended.

I think that's all the argumentation needed.

Its not what God wanted. You might say "Neither are murders, rapes, war, disease etc" and all the other nasty things of the world. And we agree. God did not want this, its sin.

Well, the scripture has its flaws. I mean, Lucifer was cast out for attempting one coup.
Yes, and if he tried that in America, he would be hanged for high treason.

Its been 7000 years and he's still there, and by our laws, any sentence lasting that long and inflicting that much pain (remember that Satan hates it down there) would be unconstitutional.
Satan isn't in Hell. He walks the earth (Job 1), he can go wherever he wants. He only gets thrown into Hell in the Second Coming. And no one said Satan hated it down there, all he hates is man.

Does that mean that our laws are sacraligeous.
No. We're not legislating punishments for angels and the destroyers of the universe.

If God is so merciful, why doesn't he give his right hand man the option?
His right hand man is, and always was, the Metatron. God also knows that Satan isn't going to suddenly shape up (the whole all-knowing thing), so He keeps Satan banished.

As for Gay rights, it hurts no one but the immortal (so called, anyway) souls of the practicianors, so why do Christians have so many problems? Are they that obsessed with "saving" people? If so, why don't they deal with the commandment infractions first and go to prisons to lecture criminals? Its probably because gays are easier to persecute.
Oh, and I have read the research of a very well respected sociopsychologist, my grandfather, John B. Calhoun of NIH (for those who read kids books, NIMH would be based on him, but he didn't make superrats or use chemicals). His work indicates that homosexuality is a social effect of overpopulation, a way to stop the increase. Gays are saving the world.
Actually, it's completely the opposite. The people most likely to be gay are people who had exceptionally fertile mothers, indicating they are the product of a populational increase mechanism. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html

Lastly, there was a bit about Christians contributing to the downfall of Rome. That is an interesting theory, since I myself believe that Pharaoh Atenhotep, a monotheist, began the downfall of Egypt. Maybe more gods are better.
Everyone knows that Roman Emperors went crazy from the lead piping in the aqueducts.

[Homosexuality] is not what God wanted.

Interesting. I thought God was supposed to have loved humanity - surely, therefore, what he wants is their happiness, not them living a false, unhappy life?

Bit cruel if he suddenly decides he'd rather have that.

Interesting. I thought God was supposed to have loved humanity - surely, therefore, what he wants is their happiness, not them living a false, unhappy life?

Bit cruel if he suddenly decides he'd rather have that.
He doesn't want our happiness. That's why there are diseases, wars, and death. He wants us to love Him, and loyalty, He doesn't use earth to make us happy, that's what the afterlife is for. Pedophiles love little children, is it fair to deny them happiness and force them to live a false, unhappy life?

Its not what God wanted.

So you know the mind of God?

Of course that's assuming God exists.

"If people are going to base their moral decisions on a document that is, without a doubt (according to you), flawed either through mistranslation, typographical error, or inconsistency, it is their business. If they are going to impose the beliefs and morals written in the same flawed book on others, though, those others are well within their rights to fight it. Contradictions or errors, the book isn't going to be perfect. If it is imperfect, than there is room for alternate thinking, and using "the bible says it's a sin, so we can't do it" as an argument carries no weight."

A very good critique, nonetheless, thought you miss the point of my argument. I was showing and explaining the traing of thought of trying to prove contradicitons in the biblicals texts. I was not at all dealing with its purity or accuracy. Even today amony police reports of incidente there are varying accounts of the same instance which harmonize. If you want to get into the argument concerning the text and its purity, we can do that. We can get into the greek and latin manuscript evidence if you would like. The New Testament is among the best preserved ancient texts. The argument is completely different from my previous one. In my previous argument i showed the absurdity of proving contradictons. The argument for the textual basis of the new testament is a completely different argument. Also, it seems you streamline many different components or arguments into one proposition.

And, one last thing, if you could explain the difference between reason and logical i would love to hear that.

Interesting. I thought God was supposed to have loved humanity - surely, therefore, what he wants is their happiness, not them living a false, unhappy life?
Bit cruel if he suddenly decides he'd rather have that.

He didnt decide we should live cruel unhappy lives. We did. Humans chose to sin and chose to rebel against God at the garden of Eden. Tell any human she/he cant do something, odds are they will want to do it. Its only SIN that has made the world as bad as it is

Ok, I'll go to my one by one mode again
Point 1
There is also a lack of proof to say that it is genetic or that it is some kind of psycological disorder. No one can say for definite one way or the other. I myself believe it to not be a personal choice but to be a temptation to sin like any other, which humans can resist and therefore it is not genetic or something that cannot be delt with

untrue. there is ample evidence suggesting that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by genetics, but that it cannot be 100% genetic in origin. if you want, i can go into detail about that evidence, but i don't want to bore anybody so i won't give details unless somebody is interested.

Point 2
Refering back to point one partly. It is not part of any bio chemical attraction. Female feromones are designed to attract male and vice versa. There is no evidence to sujest that there is a chemical attraction.

untrue; there is inconclusive evidence about human response to pheromones in general.


And there is serious harm involved with homosexuality see here

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

unfortunately, most of the information on that site is simply incorrect, though they dress it up in scientific language to make it seem more believable. i counted roughly 5 factual errors in the first page of the first topic, and i am being kind when i say "errors"...given that it is a Catholic site, i don't think they are mistakes at all, but are more likely flat out falsifications.

the rest of the page is no better, by my rough scan. for one thing, lesbians have the LOWEST rates of STD transmition, but that site claims they have higher rates than heterosexuals. also, the dangers of promiscuity have nothing to do with homosexuality, since those dangers apply equally to heterosexuals. further, the site fails to address the fact that women are more likely to contract STDs if they engage in anal sex than men are. you really need to use sources that don't have "catholic education" in the title, if you are trying to get solid data.


Point 3
Racesim and homosexuality are diffrent things. One is a chance of birth, the other is not. Homosexuality is not some kind of culture diffrence and there is a massive leap between anti-racisim and anti-homophobia. Homosexuality is diffrent to race.

sexuality is, in part, determined by genetics, and the expression of sexuality is almost entirely determined by environment during early childhood development. i would say that one's final sexuality is about as much an accident of birth as one's race, over all.

So you know the mind of God?

Of course that's assuming God exists.

I can work it out from his word (the bible)

"It feels good, and it does not harm you. You do not have the right to not be offended.

I think that's all the argumentation needed. "

If i dont have that right, then what rights do i have?
You provide no basis for your arguments either of needing no argumentation, which is made on a claim which you dont support.

Check again, Homosexuality is in the section on MORAL LAW and that equals sin. MORAL LAW still stands.

read my post again and you will realise that's exactly what I said

untrue. there is ample evidence suggesting that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by genetics, but that it cannot be 100% genetic in origin. if you want, i can go into detail about that evidence, but i don't want to bore anybody so i won't give details unless somebody is interested.
There is a genetic basis to everything; certain people are genetically predisposed to becoming alcoholics, to lying, to exercising or being lazy. But every trait that has a component of choice can be influenced and ultimately changed to one way or another.

untrue; there is inconclusive evidence about human response to pheromones in general.
Actually, the human receptor for phermones is almost completely atrophied, it's very unlikely that humans will ever have a phermonal response. So I agree with you on this.

untrue. there is ample evidence suggesting that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by genetics, but that it cannot be 100% genetic in origin. if you want, i can go into detail about that evidence, but i don't want to bore anybody so i won't give details unless somebody is interested.

untrue; there is inconclusive evidence about human response to pheromones in general.


unfortunately, most of the information on that site is simply incorrect, though they dress it up in scientific language to make it seem more believable. i counted roughly 5 factual errors in the first page of the first topic, and i am being kind when i say "errors"...given that it is a Catholic site, i don't think they are mistakes at all, but are more likely flat out falsifications.

the rest of the page is no better, by my rough scan. for one thing, lesbians have the LOWEST rates of STD transmition, but that site claims they have higher rates than heterosexuals. also, the dangers of promiscuity have nothing to do with homosexuality, since those dangers apply equally to heterosexuals. further, the site fails to address the fact that women are more likely to contract STDs if they engage in anal sex than men are. you really need to use sources that don't have "catholic education" in the title, if you are trying to get solid data.


sexuality is, in part, determined by genetics, and the expression of sexuality is almost entirely determined by environment during early childhood development. i would say that one's final sexuality is about as much an accident of birth as one's race, over all.

We only just completed the human genome project, there is no evidence to sujest that it is down to genetics. We barely know what every gene does, how can we know if there is such thing as a "Gay gene". And read the site again, properely. And if I were to use the same infomation of a BMA web page, would you contridict it so readly? If you want another site, check this one out

http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

Its not like I want to go round killing all the gays I can find. I dont hate them. I hate what they are doing and what they are thinking but I dont hate the person. Thanks to Jesus the person is disinguishable from the sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Simple but effective

I have no problem with saying this...I'm gay! ^^ :fluffle: I think people, well, close-minded people who can't except that shouldn't really press their beliefs on people and sat that being gay is a sin. Now, I don't know this for sure because I'm a Wiccan, but doesn't being a Christian mean excepting all? :confused:

It means treating others as you would like to be treated. I treat homosexuals no different than I treat other people, I have a few friends that are homosexual, that doesn't mean I condone the practice however. you can accept people without accepting their lifestyles.

To Riven Dell:

1. False appeal to authority

No, actually, I examined scientific research on the topic for a thesis several years ago. I didn't appeal to authority but to science. Second, I cited a real research scientist who performed extensive and legitimate studies on the development of humans. If you are stubborn enough to assert that it's all bunk, than you simply won't look at any point of view but your own. Thus your arguments are nullified.

2. "If they're not harming anyone, what's the bloody difference?" False presumption and faulty argumentation.

Wrong. One of the premise of law and order in the United States is that nobody else's activities and rights should cause harm to others. The "not harming anyone" argument is not a presumption, it is a fact. I doubt that any of us heterosexuals have been directly harmed by someone simply because of their sexual preferences. I can be harmed by second-hand smoke, pollution from vehicles, and violent criminals, but the fact that the guy sitting next to me on the bus is a homosexual does me no real harm. It does not shorten my lifespan or pose me any form of threat. Therefore, my argumentation stands. It is the right of the people to partake in activities that to them seem most fit, so long as it does not injur or endanger others who do not choose to participate in said activities. That, to me, is a valid argument.

3. Sheer prescriptivism and individualism

Actually, the idea that I should have the right to choose what other people do with their lives is based in my morality. Subjective, sure, but all morality is subjective. My morality, in this case, is based on the rights of individuals (as you call it, individualism). The existence of an individualistic thought or argument does not nullify the veracity of said argument.

4. Faulty interpretation of evidence

Wrong. As a species, our numbers are increasing not decreasing. As one of the concerns is humanity and our ability to survive as a species, the argument stands based on current population figures. I am not interpreting numbers, just using them as examples to support that homosexuality does not pose a threat to our continued existence as a species.

5. Sheer presciptivsim

You say that a lot. It means nothing if you are unwilling or unable to present your own argument against my points. Pointing a finger and calling it "presciptivsim" does no harm to the arguments I have already put forward. You seem to think that by saying, "that's a subjective argument" it completely negates my thinking. You couldn't be more wrong. We clearly think differently, but until you start pulling out the numbers and scientific evidence to argue against my previously stated points, your accusations mean nothing. I stated that I do not feel it is the place of any one religion to impose its beliefs on everyone. Clearly you disagree with me and feel that there should be one religion for the whole world. Wake up and smell the coffee. People believe different things, even within Christianity. Who gets to decide what is right?

Thes are your logical fallacies. You still have provided no basis for positve argumentation or morality.

As I have just pointed out, it is you who have provided no substance.

"It feels good, and it does not harm you. You do not have the right to not be offended.

I think that's all the argumentation needed. "

If i dont have that right, then what rights do i have?
You provide no basis for your arguments either of needing no argumentation, which is made on a claim which you dont support.

The bible outlaws loads of things which most people think its good to outlaw, eg stealing, killing etc. Yet there are somethings which people seem to debate. Why? If you accept part of the bible as right then why not the rest?

not sure but i once heard that the main reason the old testament condemns homosexual acts is that they were used in worship of false gods such as baal...interestingly the scripture only speaks of man on man as punishable by death..no reference to women on women....the bible does clearly describe marriage as man and woman tho...thanx

The bible outlaws loads of things which most people think its good to outlaw, eg stealing, killing etc. Yet there are somethings which people seem to debate. Why? If you accept part of the bible as right then why not the rest?
because my disagreement with stealing and killing has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible prohibits them. i don't accept that stealing and killing are wrong because the Bible says so, and most people in the world are right there with me.

Wrong. One of the premise of law and order in the United States is that nobody else's activities and rights should cause harm to others. The "not harming anyone" argument is not a presumption, it is a fact. I doubt that any of us heterosexuals have been directly harmed by someone simply because of their sexual preferences. I can be harmed by second-hand smoke, pollution from vehicles, and violent criminals, but the fact that the guy sitting next to me on the bus is a homosexual does me no real harm. It does not shorten my lifespan or pose me any form of threat. Therefore, my argumentation stands. It is the right of the people to partake in activities that to them seem most fit, so long as it does not injur or endanger others who do not choose to participate in said activities. That, to me, is a valid argument.

Were not debating US law here, were debating GOD's law. GOD created the world, GOD created us with an idea in mind. That we should not sin, but we did and we rebeled against him. Anything that is not part of his original plan is sin. Therefore homosexuality is sin.

not sure but i once heard that the main reason the old testament condemns homosexual acts is that they were used in worship of false gods such as baal...interestingly the scripture only speaks of man on man as punishable by death..no reference to women on women....the bible does clearly describe marriage as man and woman tho...thanx
Man...is...neuter....UNLESS SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY STATES THEY ARE ONLY REFERRING TO PEOPLE WITH A Y CHROMOSOME THEN MAN MEANS ANYONE!

Were not debating US law here, were debating GOD's law. GOD created the world, GOD created us with an idea in mind. That we should not sin, but we did and we rebeled against him. Anything that is not part of his original plan is sin. Therefore homosexuality is sin.
your God says homosexuality is a sin. many other Gods don't. why should we care what your God says, and why should we use him as our standard for sin?

Man...is...neuter....UNLESS SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY STATES THEY ARE ONLY REFERRING TO PEOPLE WITH A Y CHROMOSOME THEN MAN MEANS ANYONE!
actually, the pronouns used in the passages in question in the original translation of the Bible were exclusively masculine. just because "man" is gender neutral in English doesn't mean a damn thing...remember, the Bible wasn't written in English.

"many other Gods don't"

Such as? (and the opening arguement was "Why is homosexuality a sin" and sin to my knowlege is a Christian term)

"many other Gods don't"

Such as?
the Episcopalians next door to me worship a God who has no objection to homosexuality. one of my best friends is a gay Jew. the god of the Wiccans doesn't object to homosexuality, that i know of, nor do most Pagan gods. the Greek gods engaged in homosexual acts together and with mortals, so they probably didn't have a problem with it. traditional Japanese spiritualism had no prohibition against homosexuality.

want me to continue?

actually, the pronouns used in the passages in question in the original translation of the Bible were exclusively masculine. just because "man" is gender neutral in English doesn't mean a damn thing...remember, the Bible wasn't written in English.
It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and others. And from what I've read on the matter, the pronouns are meant to be neutral.

It also says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind... shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Effeminate has reference a man that behaves as a woman in a homosexual relationship (once again refering specifically to the act of soddomy).

whereas 'abusers of themselves with mankind' referes to the homosexual the takes the male role in a homosexual relationship.

Interperet it as you will, it's fairly clear to me what it means. "Be not decived."
So what we just go "Old Testament" to persecute others and call ourselves Christian when it's convenient? If you're a Christian it's the New Testament.
Be you not deceived hater.

I can work it out from his word (the bible)

You assume that your book is the true word of a supposed almighty?

"It feels good, and it does not harm you. You do not have the right to not be offended.

I think that's all the argumentation needed. "

If i dont have that right, then what rights do i have?


If you do have the right to not be offended, then so do I, and you and half the idiots on this forum should be imprisoned because if it.

So no, you do not have the right to not be offended.


You provide no basis for your arguments either of needing no argumentation, which is made on a claim which you dont support.

It feels good, and it does not hurt you (or anyone else for that matter). Why should I require any further explanation?

And I think that's all the argumentation that is needed. You know - my opinion. Not something I'm attempting to pass off as fact which is what half the people opposing gay marriage seem to do with their bibles.

You assume that your book is the true word of a supposed almighty?
no we don't assume..we know..thanx

its a sin because ALL sex outside of marriage is a sin.

if you belong to a denomination that allows marriage between people of the same gender, then sex within that marriage cannot be a sin.

the ACT is the sin not the desire. it is judged the same way that heterosexual sex is judged. if you have sex with a person of the other gender without being married to that person YOU ARE A SINNER.

as a christian, one should always keep the words of JESUS in mind. judge not lest ye be judged. why worry about the speck in your neighbors eye when there is a log in yours? let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

so no matter what else jesus may or may not have thought, what he SAYS is that you should pay attention to your OWN sins and when you have perfected yourself THEN you can worry about other people's sins.

until then you have a christian DUTY to treat everyone as if they were jesus himself. that is the basis on which YOU will be judged.

I pretty much agree with this, whatever a person's faith is, spirituality is an internal thing. In fact that is the only area we really have power over. Nobody can right all the wrongs or perceived wrongs in the world, it's an impossible task and antithetical to spiritual growth.

It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and others. And from what I've read on the matter, the pronouns are meant to be neutral.
in much of the book, yes. in the passages in question, no.

in fact, even reading English translations makes it clear that either a) only male homosexuality is condemned or b) no homosexuality is condemned at all:

example of A:
in Leviticus 18:22, the direct translation of the prohibition is "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman." in 20:13 you get: "V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam," or "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." if "man" refers to both men and women in this case, then neither of these make the slightest bit of sense.

example of B:
in the story of Sodom, there is ambiguity in the original translation as to whether the rapacious mob at Lot's doorstep was composed of all males, or if it was composed of ALL the people of the wicked town. if it was all male, then clearly the story is only an example of God condemning MALE homosexuality. if the mob was mixed in gender, then the story obviously can't be condemning homosexuality...especially since Lot offers his daughters to the mob, and God saves Lot; if the mob included women, and Lot offered them his daughters, and God saved Lot, then God would be sending the message that homosexuality is okay.

Its not what God wanted. You might say "Neither are murders, rapes, war, disease etc" and all the other nasty things of the world. And we agree. God did not want this, its sin.

Not everyone prays to the same god. Not everyone believes in god. Different things work for different people.

I'd answer to your other post, but I'm off to work now.

The bible outlaws loads of things which most people think its good to outlaw, eg stealing, killing etc. Yet there are somethings which people seem to debate. Why? If you accept part of the bible as right then why not the rest?

False argument. This assumes that I even accept part of the bible, and that the bible doesn't just happen to agree with me in part.

no we don't assume..we know..thanx

Oh, you know. Well that makes it all better. Talk about unsubstantiated arguments and passing off opinion as fact...

I'm not sure why many Christians consider homosexuality to be such an abomination.

Sure, there are those who say,"It's evil becuase the Bible says so!".

However, if they're so keen on following regulations set in the Bible, then why not follow all of them?

There are passages in the Bible that include things like this:

You should not work on the Sabbath Day.
If a woman is raped, she should marry the man who raped her.
Adulterers must be stoned.

There are more odd little laws, but I don't feel like listing them all.

My point is this: I know not a single Christian who advocates all of those principles I listed above, yet SO many "born-agains" love to bitch about homosexuality.

I think many Christians just obverve the laws that it is convenient for them to observe.

dogs do it
cats do it
infact most animals do it
its not a chosen lifestyle
its not like they woke up n said 'im a horny bastard who needs lots of sex, therefor ill be gay' like some fundies what you to believe. it has nothing to do with lust or being a perv. its just the chemicals in your brain. deal.


That actually isn't true. Only animals with an ability to "think" at a certain level have been found to engage in homosexual acts. Because of that it would seem that thinking is a prerequisite of homosexuality, therefore it is in fact a choice. Whether or not homosexuals believe that is not a choice they made is one thing, I think counseling may be able to correct those thoughts.


I think people tend to condemn homosexuals because of basic instinct. When you break everything down to its most basic level peoples only purposes are to eat, sleep, breath and reproduce being the big one. People instinctively feel that homosexuals are wasting resources that could be theirs and that is where the hate comes from at its most basic form.

This is funny.

I list contradictions, and the first person says "They don't matter, they arn't part of the big picture." You missed the point, buddy.

Second guy says that the bible was either mistranslated or that, in short, it was flawed.


That was my POINT.


The holy book for christianity is flawed. That's what I was saying. That's the point behind finding contradictions.

I remain by my answer:

Homosexuality is not a universal sin, it's a sin because one religion says it's a sin. The validity of this religion is up to you. So, homosexuality isn't a sin in the broad sense; only in the christian sense.

Oh, you know. Well that makes it all better. Talk about unsubstantiated arguments and passing off opinion as fact...
by saying it isnt are you not doing the same...prove to me God is non-existant....i'll be waiting..thanx

That actually isn't true. Only animals with an ability to "think" at a certain level have been found to engage in homosexual acts. Because of that it would seem that thinking is a prerequisite of homosexuality, therefore it is in fact a choice. Whether or not homosexuals believe that is not a choice they made is one thing, I think counseling may be able to correct those thoughts.

dead wrong. many animals that lack brain structures required for consciousness have been documented engaging in homosexual behavior. numerous song birds, flamingos, penguins, and other birds frequently engage in homosexual or group sex, and there is no chance that these animals "think" by our definitions. frogs, turtles, fish, walrus, mountain zebras, goats, giraffes, kangaroos, and several dozen documented species of insects all show homosexual behavior.

of course, many animals with "thought" also show homosexual behavior, like dolphins and chimps, but homosexuality is not by any means restricted to "thinking" animals.


I think people tend to condemn homosexuals because of basic instinct. When you break everything down to its most basic level peoples only purposes are to eat, sleep, breath and reproduce being the big one. People instinctively feel that homosexuals are wasting resources that could be theirs and that is where the hate comes from at its most basic form.
unfortunately, if people think that production of infants is the determination of reproductive success then they are also dead wrong. homosexuality has been proven to be evolutionarily advantageous, and will increase the reproductive fitness of an individual in a variety of possible ways. just because the average homophobe doesn't understand how selection and evolution work doesn't make for a convincing argument :).

"Because of that it would seem that thinking is a prerequisite of homosexuality, therefore it is in fact a choice."

I disagree, and if you have any valid reason as to why someone would CHOOSE to be homosexual, I'd love to hear it.

Think logically about how the difficulties gays face. If they could *choose* to become hetero and eradicate those difficulties, don't you think they would?

They don't choose their homosexuality anymore than straight people choose their heterosexuality. It just happens to them.

Some people like chocolate, others like vanilla. The chocolate fans can't force themselves into liking vanilla, and vice versa.

NO, because if you read ALL my post (and the sites I took it from) you'd see that there's two words: 'toevah' and 'zimah'. Toevah means impurity and uncleanliness. Zimah means sin. Toevah was the one used in Leviticus. so the implication is that it wasn't viewed as a sin, merely as an impure action, like touching a menstrating woman, eating pork or picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
Creating impurity IS a sin. THAT IS what sin is. Sin=Impurity. No exceptions.


And you of course can name non-partisan sources for that, right? Let me put it this way, "Christian in-grounds" might have an interest, but not the scientific standing to refute the theory. Which is why the original researchers are slandered. And now, please show me something that discredits the original theory with scientific arguments. But of course you will weasel out of this...
Wow, 'weasel out of this.' That's pretty quaint. You apparently didn't even read the article. Re-read it, specifically the part about Inheritance Theory. Also, under the heading 'Bigger Picture' you would see that it says, "It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution." I don't need scientific backup...It's homosexual 'research' that's lacking.

If you want to learn about the Catholic stand and defense against homosexuality, go here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo13.htm and here, http://www.secondspring.co.uk/archive/melina.htm

I'm a Catholic by choice, AND I am all for same-sex relationships. It is a fierce struggle to advocate this in the Catholic scene, because of the stigma this kind of relationship carries. But I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I've talked to many people about this, and it was also thoroughly discussed in my theology class. All it boils down to, my professor confessed, is human choice. Because there is really no concrete reason as of now NOT to be an active homosexual, and there is strong proof that being a homosexual doesn't deter one from being spiritually mature. In fact, there is a growing number of couples who have succeeded in establishing a relationship that even surpasses most successful long-term heterosexual marriages. And that's telling. Kids who grow up in a homosexual environment aren't at all different from kids who grow up in strictly heterosexual communities. Both have the same opportunities, given similar conditions, and equal potential to accept each other's lifestyle and be open-minded.

By the way, if you want to cite Bible evidence against homosexuality, I think that there is no concrete evidence against homosexuality per se, but perhaps some (for I am only recalling by memory here) against homosexual acts. The Sodom story is entirely ambiguous. In fact, I believe that it deals with inhospitality rather than homosexuality. For further reference on this, check out the URLs at the start of my message.

If sex outside of marriage is a sin, then the world is full of sinners. Well most of them. I'm one of the few that only had sex in marriage and for the purpose of procreation as it was intended for.

In the way I interprit the bible, sex is to be used for procreation, any other use appears to be a sin. Yet, keep in mind, that most people use it for pleasure and are obsessed by it. In such they are addicted to sex, and thus it becomes more of a mental illness of addiction for most people.

The anus was not designed for sex, it was designed for output of human waste. Going in the wrong way causes damage, apparently. The "Creator" forbid the use of sex with the anus, because it was not designed for sex. Hardly anyone listens to the "Creator" anyway, and sexually put square pegs into round holes so to speak.
<SNIP>

I hope this makes sense, I may not be right here, it is how I interprit the words Jesus used and how he said to treat other people.

yes your post made good sense, i've only left in the parts that i have (slight) disagreement with

my point WAS that we all do sexual sins. very few people in this modern age have never had sex outside the bond of matrimony. their sin is equal to the sin of homosexual sex but no one rags on them for it or denies them civil/marital rights because of it.

if non-procreation sex is a sin, then we ALL must be sinners. surely as a married man you have not limited your sexual activity to only those times when you tried to procreate. even the catholic church allows for natural family planning. i dont have verses to quote but im pretty sure you are wrong in your assessment that married sex is only for procreation and that any other sex is a sin. but we all have our own interpretations.

so i guess it goes without saying that you think that ALL non penis-in-vagina sex is a sin, no matter who is doing it. no oral sex, no anal sex, no other alternatives. and it doesnt matter if its man and wife or man and man doing it. i was going to point out that homosexual sex never has to include anal sex but i assume that wouldnt change your point.

the rest of your post made good sense to me. (i think. now that i removed the good parts i wish i hadnt)

Pure and Simple Homosexuality is a sin a demonic Evil ppl aren't born gay no, they make the decison to be gay it is aImoral it is against God and God's word Homosexuality needs to be taken care of either YOU do it or the country should I am a christian and whoever agrees with me had WOKEN UP and if you haven't YOU SHOULD TOO! :sniper:

Pure and Simple Homosexuality is a sin a demonic Evil ppl aren't born gay no, they make the decison to be gay it is aImoral it is against God and God's word Homosexuality needs to be taken care of either YOU do it or the country should I am a christian and whoever agrees with me had WOKEN UP and if you haven't YOU SHOULD TOO! :sniper:
has anybody else noticed the odd correlation between homophobia and poor grammar accompanied by the "snipe" emote? are the homophobes unaware of how ignorant and foolish they appear? do they not realize how much they hurt their own position, by coming across as little more than dimwitted 12 year olds?

has anybody else noticed the odd correlation between homophobia and poor grammar accompanied by the "snipe" emote? are the homophobes unaware of how ignorant and foolish they appear? do they not realize how much they hurt their own position, by coming across as little more than dimwitted 12 year olds?

I think the real question is: how do we know they ARN'T dimwitted 12 year olds?

I got pretty sick after reading the first couple pages so I just stopped to make a response.
This is a key sticking point: Homosexuality is a choice. Even if there are genetic tendencies towards homosexuality (unproven), it is still within your concious decision to act upon those inclinations.
Now, in Christianity (and maybe in other religions, I don't know), homosexuality is a sin. Catholic priests that abuse children are sinning. Not only are there those sections in Leviticus prohibiting it, in the New Testament sexual perversion is strongly condemned. If you happened to actually read the entire Bible and make the connections, you would realize that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and that we are no longer bound by certain things. Eating pork and the like is not disallowed, because there was no longer any need to set the Jews apart from the people around them.

Now, the debate must come to whether or not Christianity is true or not. If it is, homosexuality is wrong, and if it isn't, and no other reasons exist to prohibit it, homosexuality is all right.
The debate over Christianity has spanned the ages, and I would gladly debate it in another forum thread.

I think the real question is: how do we know they ARN'T dimwitted 12 year olds?
I hope my 17 year-old viewpoint is articulate and well-thought out enough for you.

by saying it isnt are you not doing the same...prove to me God is non-existant....i'll be waiting..thanx

I don't need to. By being gay I am not infringing on you one jot. I may be offending you but.. well, we've already discussed that.

However by denying me the the full and complete legal recognition of a long term partnership should I choose to take one, you are most certainly infringing on me. It is you who has to prove the existance of your reason for giving your hatred and fear a legal force. So you have to prove that your imaginary father figure exists.

I'll be waiting. Thanks.

I don't need to. By being gay I am not infringing on you one jot. I may be offending you but.. well, we've already discussed that.

However by denying me the the full and complete legal recognition of a long term partnership should I choose to take one, you are most certainly infringing on me. It is you who has to prove the existance of your reason for giving your hatred and fear a legal force. So you have to prove that your imaginary father figure exists.

I'll be waiting. Thanks.
in no way do your actions offend me..the actually affect me not at all..if you would look up my other posts you will see i am not denying you any kind of legal union except the term marriage which implies a religious connotation...and to twist my religous beliefs to accept a gay marriage would be wrong..but to tell me what i do and do not know is crap...

oh and i fear you not one "jot" ..thanx

I got pretty sick after reading the first couple pages so I just stopped to make a response.
This is a key sticking point: Homosexuality is a choice. Even if there are genetic tendencies towards homosexuality (unproven), it is still within your concious decision to act upon those inclinations.
Now, in Christianity (and maybe in other religions, I don't know), homosexuality is a sin. Catholic priests that abuse children are sinning. Not only are there those sections in Leviticus prohibiting it, in the New Testament sexual perversion is strongly condemned. If you happened to actually read the entire Bible and make the connections, you would realize that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and that we are no longer bound by certain things. Eating pork and the like is not disallowed, because there was no longer any need to set the Jews apart from the people around them.

Now, the debate must come to whether or not Christianity is true or not. If it is, homosexuality is wrong, and if it isn't, and no other reasons exist to prohibit it, homosexuality is all right.
The debate over Christianity has spanned the ages, and I would gladly debate it in another forum thread.

So because Christianity say so, it must be?
What about Buddhism?


As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.


Perhaps Buddhism is not a real religion?

Note, this is not the complete text. However even on reading the full text (available by following the link), I think I've still ripped the Christian idea of my being an "abomination" a new one.

That's my opinion, by the way. I'm not trying to pass it off as fact, unlike half the bible-wielding drones here.

no offence to religous ppl (mabey a little(:p jk) but i think that religon causes more hard that good actually religon isnt the problem its the people wisting it to thre own ways the curch useto have a place where the priest would have sex but some pope or bishop changed that so now it is a sin and alot of things that are "immoral" now werent "immoral" then... :D

in no way do your actions offend me..the actually affect me not at all..if you would look up my other posts you will see i am not denying you any kind of legal union except the term marriage which implies a religious connotation...and to twist my religous beliefs to accept a gay marriage would be wrong..but to tell me what i do and do not know is crap...


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


Tell me where in that definition religion is involved.

Because I don't see it.

Law, yes. Religion.. uhm.. nope.

Tell me where in that definition religion is involved.
well, it's right there in the part where...or, no, it's under...well, it's...hey, screw you! God did so make marriage!! he did SO!!! it's religious, it is is is!!!

I got pretty sick after reading the first couple pages so I just stopped to make a response.
This is a key sticking point: Homosexuality is a choice. Even if there are genetic tendencies towards homosexuality (unproven), it is still within your concious decision to act upon those inclinations.
Now, in Christianity (and maybe in other religions, I don't know), homosexuality is a sin. Catholic priests that abuse children are sinning. Not only are there those sections in Leviticus prohibiting it, in the New Testament sexual perversion is strongly condemned. If you happened to actually read the entire Bible and make the connections, you would realize that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and that we are no longer bound by certain things. Eating pork and the like is not disallowed, because there was no longer any need to set the Jews apart from the people around them.

Now, the debate must come to whether or not Christianity is true or not. If it is, homosexuality is wrong, and if it isn't, and no other reasons exist to prohibit it, homosexuality is all right.
The debate over Christianity has spanned the ages, and I would gladly debate it in another forum thread.


And if it is a personal choice, why should it matter what you think? What right have you to enforce your own moral values on someone else?

you all want to persecute my religion so badly...but please please dont persecute our religion of gayness..thats bad...
and dont post no silly stuff like your religion persecutes me...cuz as far as i know God hasn't struck you dead yet...its people that persecute you...and those people will continue whether religion is here or not...i personally have no problem unless you are of the prissy sort and i cant stand a prissy woman much less a prissy man...but i still wouldn't persecute you ..i would just avoid you

The PRP must be removed from power.you all want to persecute my religion so badly...but please please dont persecute our religion of gayness..thats bad...
and dont post no silly stuff like your religion persecutes me...cuz as far as i know God hasn't struck you dead yet...its people that persecute you...and those people will continue whether religion is here or not...i personally have no problem unless you are of the prissy sort and i cant stand a prissy woman much less a prissy man...but i still wouldn't persecute you ..i would just avoid you

Out of curiousity, how is allowing gay marriage persecuting your religion? I don't think anybody wants to require your religion to perform gay wedding ceremonies....

please half the post on this threat are attacking religion...or calling people drones or nazis for expressing their religious beliefs...i have yet to call anyone here queer or fag because of there gaydom

please half the post on this threat are attacking religion...or calling people drones or nazis for expressing their religious beliefs...i have yet to call anyone here queer or fag because of there gaydom

I don't call people drones for expressing their religious beliefs.

I call people drones for being like drones. Drones, in this context, are unmanned vehicles, such as aircraft or ships, that fly by remote control. They have no internal guidance systems and rely completely on external signals to operate. Without the external guidance, they would simply fall out of the sky.

I have yet to call anyone anything simply because of their religion. If I regarded all Christians as drones then that would include my parents, and somebody else I'm on first name terms with: the local vicar.

I will attack anything that is a danger to me, and if that includes fundamentalist fascist idiots with no brains or soul of their own, then so be it.

So because Christianity say so, it must be?
What about Buddhism?

Perhaps Buddhism is not a real religion?

Note, this is not the complete text. However even on reading the full text (available by following the link), I think I've still ripped the Christian idea of my being an "abomination" a new one.

That's my opinion, by the way. I'm not trying to pass it off as fact, unlike half the bible-wielding drones here.
Some things are true and some are not.
If Christianity is right, Buddhism is wrong.
You shouldn't attempt to criticize me for contradicting another religion, you should attempt to disprove my own, if you can.

The study this refers to was faked by homosexual doctors and supporters of gay rights and pushed through to this point by the media. This is a premier example of the media lying to make its point. This study is legendary in Christian in-grounds."Faked"? That is a very serious charge: do you have any evidence to back it up? Criticize the article title if you want; the article makes it quite clear that the findings were not conclusive.

So therefore people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Yes, judge not, least ye be judged, and remove that log from your eye before removing the splinter from someone else's eye.Judging is sometimes appropriate, glass houses notwithstanding.

Love one another as I have loved you. Be at peace with all people.And this I think we should strive towards, though conflict is occasionally appropriate.

... tell us that not to worry about someone else's sins, but worry about our own sins.And as a general principle I like this one.

He could have destroied us all in the old testement and not be wrong as we have sinned.Now this drives me nuts. Yes, all of us old enough to be writing on this forum have wronged others. That does not mean we deserve death. If the bible says otherwise, the bible is wrong. And if a father tells his children that they deserve death because of the ordinary wrongs people do in the course of a life, than that father, loving or not, is abusive and his children would be well advised to divorce themselves from him. This may not be practical depending on circumstances, but such a father does not deserve love and respect.

To switch the onus of proof, those advocating the moral freedom to be homosexual,one of the primary arguments used is the presumptuous question of "what is wrong with it?"This question is very presumptuous. It assumes and prescribes a whole base for morality in the first place without ever describing it."An it harm none do as ye will". A rather popular philosophy, though usually not expressed that way.

So, step up and show by positive argumentation what is right with homosexuality, since that is your position.As it is immutable (at least at the current state of our knowledge), it's pretty pointless to argue whether it is moral. One might as well argue about the morality of left-handedness. Now, with regards to "the" "lifestyle", I'm all for people loving each other, and if they choose to honor and support each other so much the better. To love and to be loved in return is a goodness. And if they pleasure each other carnally, that's a bonus.

And if it is a personal choice, why should it matter what you think? What right have you to enforce your own moral values on someone else?
Since I care about others, I should do my best not to let them do bad things. I am not sure what my position is on legislating it just yet, but if it is wrong, I should try to show people the problem and fix it.

Some things are true and some are not.
If Christianity is right, Buddhism is wrong.
You shouldn't attempt to criticize me for contradicting another religion, you should attempt to disprove my own, if you can.

First off no religion on earth can be "disproven" its a Belief system in things unmeasureable by current science. Where the conversation seeeeeems to go is why does YOUR belief system get to interfere with people who dont beleive the same way you do?

Now this drives me nuts. Yes, all of us old enough to be writing on this forum have wronged others. That does not mean we deserve death. If the bible says otherwise, the bible is wrong. And if a father tells his children that they deserve death because of the ordinary wrongs people do in the course of a life, than that father, loving or not, is abusive and his children would be well advised to divorce themselves from him. This may not be practical depending on circumstances, but such a father does not deserve love and respect.

Yes it does mean we deserve death. Mankind is obviously a horrible, sinful species. Look at all the tragedy throughout history that has resulted from the evil things men do to each other. We all do awful things. We all deserve complete eradication.
The question is, who can provide a spiritual answer to why we are not destroyed?

First off no religion on earth can be "disproven" its a Belief system in things unmeasureable by current science. Where the conversation seeeeeems to go is why does YOUR belief system get to interfere with people who dont beleive the same way you do?
You can disprove a belief system by pointing out self-contradiction and fallacies in it. If it has no fallacies, then either it is true or you do not know enough. You can prove a belief system by disproving all other belief systems that contradict it.
I 'interfere' with the lives of others because I care. I don't want everyone to go to hell. I want people to live good lives. Therefore I will attempt to steer them away from sin and evangelize them regarding the truth.

It's a sin because the Christians can't hear themselves praying over the sound of all the buttfucking going on around the world. :D

You can disprove a belief system by pointing out self-contradiction and fallacies in it. If it has no fallacies, then either it is true or you do not know enough. You can prove a belief system by disproving all other belief systems that contradict it.
I 'interfere' with the lives of others because I care. I don't want everyone to go to hell. I want people to live good lives. Therefore I will attempt to steer them away from sin and evangelize them regarding the truth.

Seriously, then you cant expect to have a right to get pissy, when people whove told you they want nothing to do with your belief system and get the heck out of their lives now grow irate that you wont leave em the hell alone.
(not speaking for myself personally, just those i KNOW have been badgered by evangelicals over the years)

Seriously, then you cant expect to have a right to get pissy, when people whove told you they want nothing to do with your belief system and get the heck out of their lives now grow irate that you wont leave em the hell alone.
(not speaking for myself personally, just those i KNOW have been badgered by evangelicals over the years)
I don't whine because people are stupid and do not listen. If there are those who do, then they are not acting in accordance with what they preach and are thus hypocrites. However, I must still point out that if you see a person that you believe will suffer eternal torment unless they believe in Jesus as their personal Savior, wouldn't you keep on pestering and bothering them in an attempt to persuade them of your views?

The PRP must be removed from power.
I 'interfere' with the lives of others because I care. I don't want everyone to go to hell. I want people to live good lives. Therefore I will attempt to steer them away from sin and evangelize them regarding the truth.

If all gay people and all other people that agree with my positions, generally speaking, are going to hell, then I'd rather go to hell with them then be alone in heaven with a bunch of people that I couldn't stand.

As Jean-Paul Sarte said, "Hell is other people."

Yes it does mean we deserve death. Mankind is obviously a horrible, sinful species. Look at all the tragedy throughout history that has resulted from the evil things men do to each other. We all do awful things. We all deserve complete eradication.
The question is, who can provide a spiritual answer to why we are not destroyed?

Wow, you're pessimistic.

That's really a key point on many western religions. "You are shit-but God makes it all better!"

...sounds a bit like a cult, really...

I don't whine because people are stupid and do not listen. If there are those who do, then they are not acting in accordance with what they preach and are thus hypocrites. However, I must still point out that if you see a person that you believe will suffer eternal torment unless they believe in Jesus as their personal Savior, wouldn't you keep on pestering and bothering them in an attempt to persuade them of your views?

Here's something you might want to memorize:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=no

The PRP must be removed from power.

If all gay people and all other people that agree with my positions, generally speaking, are going to hell, then I'd rather go to hell with them then be alone in heaven with a bunch of people that I couldn't stand.

As Jean-Paul Sarte said, "Hell is other people."
This viewpoint demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the concepts of heaven and hell.
You do not want to go to hell. Ever. Bad bad bad bad place. Words cannot adequately describe how awful it is.
You do want to go to heaven. Yes. Good good good place. Words cannot describe how wonderful it is.
People will act completely different after death anyway. You might not even be allowed to see other people in hell.

Goober you are a very sad person indeed you are probably the only person on earth apart from Pychopaths and Satan worshippers that would even CONSIDER going to hell rather than going to heaven homosexuals are very sick indeed either they are disgusting and an abomination homosexuality is equivelent to pedophilia and noone like a pedophile but there is good new GOD FORGIVES only to those who help themselves and STOP RIGHT now

Wow, you're pessimistic.

That's really a key point on many western religions. "You are shit-but God makes it all better!"

...sounds a bit like a cult, really...

Life ain't all parties and roses.
What would really be pessimistic would be to say that God would give us what we deserve and not bother making a plan to save any of us.
God made us perfect. We ruin it. God provides a way out.
Not as sad as you thought it was now is it?

This viewpoint demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the concepts of heaven and hell.
You do not want to go to hell. Ever. Bad bad bad bad place. Words cannot adequately describe how awful it is.
You do want to go to heaven. Yes. Good good good place. Words cannot describe how wonderful it is.
People will act completely different after death anyway. You might not even be allowed to see other people in hell.
Nah--Goober is right. If my option is to go to hell with my gay friends or go to hell with a bunch of self-righteous prigs and a god who would actually punish people for all eternity for being who they were born to be, then hell it is. I don't need a god like that, and I don't need to be around people like that.

The PRP must be removed from power.
Goober you are a very sad person indeed you are probably the only person on earth apart from Pychopaths and Satan worshippers that would even CONSIDER going to hell rather than going to heaven homosexuals are very sick indeed either they are disgusting and an abomination homosexuality is equivelent to pedophilia and noone like a pedophile but there is good new GOD FORGIVES only to those who help themselves and STOP RIGHT now

Yay, I always knew I was special! ^^

Seriously though, I'm not exactly sure how homosexuality (defined by Wikipedia as "a sexual orientation characterized by sexual desire or romantic love exclusively, or almost exclusively, for people who are identified as being of the same sex", and which I have no problem with) and pedophilia (defined by Wikipedia as "the primary sexual attraction toward prepubescent children", and which I wrote a UN resolution about back in July 2003) are equivalent.

This viewpoint demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the concepts of heaven and hell.
You do not want to go to hell. Ever. Bad bad bad bad place. Words cannot adequately describe how awful it is.
You do want to go to heaven. Yes. Good good good place. Words cannot describe how wonderful it is.
People will act completely different after death anyway. You might not even be allowed to see other people in hell.

How do you know that? Have you ever been there? I really don't know how you can demonstrate the existence of any kind of afterlife given the total lack of evidence for or against said afterlife.

Nah--Goober is right. If my option is to go to hell with my gay friends or go to hell with a bunch of self-righteous prigs and a god who would actually punish people for all eternity for being who they were born to be, then hell it is. I don't need a god like that, and I don't need to be around people like that.
Oh no! There is such a thing as Justice and people get punished for doing wrong! Personal responsibility exists!
Even if there is an inclination (unproven), there is no compulsion. Homosexuality IS A CHOICE.
The self-righteous prigs will probably be heading to hell too.

"The question is not 'How could God, being Who He is, send anyone to Hell?' Rather, it is 'How could God, being Who He is, save any from Hell?'
-Thomas Watson

The PRP must be removed from power.
Homosexuality IS A CHOICE.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

*returns to IRC to chat with his friends, both gay and straight*

Oh no! There is such a thing as Justice and people get punished for doing wrong! Personal responsibility exists!
Even if there is an inclination (unproven), there is no compulsion. Homosexuality IS A CHOICE.
The self-righteous prigs will probably be heading to hell too.

"The question is not 'How could God, being Who He is, send anyone to Hell?' Rather, it is 'How could God, being Who He is, save any from Hell?'
-Thomas Watson
Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is--it's an inborn, innate drive. You might as well ask a homosexual to stop breathing as to stop being gay.

Goober you are a very sad person indeed you are probably the only person on earth apart from Pychopaths and Satan worshippers that would even CONSIDER going to hell rather than going to heaven homosexuals are very sick indeed either they are disgusting and an abomination homosexuality is equivelent to pedophilia and noone like a pedophile but there is good new GOD FORGIVES only to those who help themselves and STOP RIGHT now

you my friend are the very epitome of righteousness that is enough to gag a maggot. You are clearly ignorant of all the studies that show 97% of pedophiles are heterosexual. But, hey, who cares about facts when you're espousing your interpretation of what God says.

The kind of intolerance and disrespect you display is in no way reflective of the love of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you might actually want to read the New Testament. You are the kind of Christian that makes me want to run as far away from Christianity as I can.

Being gay is no more of a choice than being straight is. Living as a gay person is no more a lifestyle than living as a straight person. Both were created in the image of God. And why that frightens you is a mystery to me.

I will pray for you.

The PRP must be removed from power.
How do you know that? Have you ever been there? I really don't know how you can demonstrate the existence of any kind of afterlife given the total lack of evidence for or against said afterlife.
If we are operating upon the assumption that homosexuality is wrong and people get sent to hell for doing wrong, then you do not want to be homosexual and go to hell.
If you want proof of the afterlife, you will either have to experience it yourself or prove correct a religion that includes an afterlife.
I am a Christian. Therefore, I believe in Heaven and Hell. If you want to debate the merits of Christianity, fine. Start up a new thread and I will be there (If I don't have to go to bed first).
Just do not say 'Hey, I want to go to hell because all my friends will be there!' If you do not believe in it then don't substantiate its existence by wishing to go there. If you believe in a different version, I don't know of any 'hell' that is a good place.

I just have to say that Homo-Sexuality is completely accepted by me. Anyone who thinks it is evil is not in their right mind, but it does fall under the freedom of choice and expression to think that way, so I guess what I'm trying to say is, to each his/her own.

The PRP must be removed from power.
If we are operating upon the assumption that homosexuality is wrong....

That's where you and I differ - I consider that a completely invalid assumption. The notion that God (if one exists) would punish somebody for being who they are seems completely contradictory to the notion of a loving, caring God that most religions, including Christianity, espouse.