NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, Ive no problem with homosexuality, though i do belive its deviant acitvity and do not support gay marriage.. and I was brought up in a religious home, however, the idea that god says its wrong is something to laugh at, at best..

God says many things are wrong yet we do them anyway, this is not to say we are all going to burn in hell.

People claiming to be propgating god's word by condeming gays forget one little thing. Yes being homosexuality can be considered a sin, the same way disprect to other people is a sin, just the same as shunning your neigbor is a sin. Religious fanatics are so focused on homosexuality but more then half of them are having premarital sex = gay sex sorry for those of you who are interpreting the bible wrong. And adultery = your one way ticket to hell (being against the top 10 comandments).. So if you have no sexual activity and are a jesus like devout follower, i suppose you can continue this type of argument, but seeing how probably less then 1% if non of those religious fanatics are infact meeting these requirements.. you have no legitmate stance

On the other hand.. Ive seen many arguments here saying being gay isn't a deviant activity.. by describing the many species in which homosexual activity can be observed.. but it is not the scope of which you should be looking, but the rate of occurance within each species.. no species is sustained if homosexual activity is the primary one.. so it is a deviant activity

Yes...but the human species doesn't have sex just to continue the species...fun does factor into it!

No, I don't think homosexuality is a sin.

On the other hand.. Ive seen many arguments here saying being gay isn't a deviant activity.. by describing the many species in which homosexual activity can be observed.. but it is not the scope of which you should be looking, but the rate of occurance within each species.. no species is sustained if homosexual activity is the primary one.. so it is a deviant activity
I suppose the big thing is, why is deviant bad?

It's not in the Ten Commandments, now, is it?

Actually, not all of those are Commandments - some are just statements.

But homosexuality isn't one of them.

It's not in the Ten Commandments, now, is it?

Actually, not all of those are Commandments - some are just statements.

But homosexuality isn't one of them.
There are other rules then the Ten Commandments.

It's not in the Ten Commandments, now, is it?

Actually, not all of those are Commandments - some are just statements.

But homosexuality isn't one of them.

Ummm...the 7th Commandment is 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'

It's not a sin, it's immoral.

The 11th commandment:

"thou shalt not follow this hypocracy"

It's not a sin, it's immoral.
Huh?
Could you explain that?

It's not a sin, it's immoral.

Please explain.

The 11th commandment:

"thou shalt not follow this hypocracy"

could be construed as blasphemy... ;)

It's a sin because it disgusts the clergy who prefer child molestation to gay sex.

Actually I was just kidding. Sort of.

It shouldn't be seen as sinful or immoral. No victimless act should.

If "God" didn't want people to be gay, he wouldn't have "created" gay people in the first place. (atheist, hence the quotation marks.)

Liking men is no more immoral than liking brunette girls. And if liking brunettes is considered immoral, there's something very wrong with the world :)

I don't really believe in sin, heaven and hell, if I believed in the Holy Scripture, i'd be a sinner. But there's something different between an ordinary crime and immorality. Just imagine, two men having sex with each other. Actually, I don't want to think of it. It's disgusting and immoral in my book. What other people think, well that's their opinion. I don't care if people are gay, as long as they don't do this "gay pride rainbow" kind of stuff and keep their sexual things for themselves, I'm not bothered. What people do with each other is their choice, but mine what I think of it.

I may blaspheme, but I enjoy it.

Whats this forums obsession with gays anyway?

Ummm...the 7th Commandment is 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'

Adultery is not homosexuality.

You mean being a deviant is a BAD thing??

Boy am I in trouble. ;)

We're allm in trouble if being a deviant is a bad thing.

Adultery is not homosexuality.

lol - yes...I'm not that stupid! But if you look at the opening post, the reference to the 10 Commandments was made in conjunction with adultery, not with gay sex directly.

Religion is dumb, don't follow it, that said...

Catholic church teaches that being homosexual is perfectly fine, it's the act of having homosexual sex that is a sin

There are other rules then the Ten Commandments.

You're right. The two that pop into mind are the two Jesus said were the most important "Love the Lord your God" and "Love thy neighbor as theyself".

You're right. The two that pop into mind are the two Jesus said were the most important "Love the Lord your God" and "Love thy neighbor as theyself".

Fanatics love throwing the name Jesus around left and right, whilst condeming and hating people....wouldn't it be great if people realized it and started actually treating others with some kindness, compassion, and respect for once?

I don't really believe in sin, heaven and hell, if I believed in the Holy Scripture, i'd be a sinner. But there's something different between an ordinary crime and immorality. Just imagine, two men having sex with each other. Actually, I don't want to think of it. It's disgusting and immoral in my book. What other people think, well that's their opinion. I don't care if people are gay, as long as they don't do this "gay pride rainbow" kind of stuff and keep their sexual things for themselves, I'm not bothered. What people do with each other is their choice, but mine what I think of it.
so it is immoral because you find it icky?

You mean being a deviant is a BAD thing??

Boy am I in trouble. ;)
Your not only deviant you are also sexy :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

so it is immoral because you find it icky?
At least s/he admits that's why s/he doesn't like it, rather than trying to formulate some sort of reason where there isn't one.

I may blaspheme, but I enjoy it.

Whats this forums obsession with gays anyway?
Thats a good question, there seems to be a ton of religious folks obsessed with gay sex.

At least s/he admits that's why s/he doesn't like it, rather than trying to formulate some sort of reason where there isn't one.
True that ... bout 90 percent of people against it if they were honest would admit that (the other 10 percent actualy buy what they are preaching rather then using it as a cover)

I suppose the big thing is, why is deviant bad?
i follow her opinion.

You're right. The two that pop into mind are the two Jesus said were the most important "Love the Lord your God" and "Love thy neighbor as theyself".
yeah, and the whole thing about no person being god, and therefore having no opinion or knowledge about what is good or bad comes to mind as well.

The Biblical (non-Commandment) prohibition was both a political and biologically motivated declaration of Man in the name of God.

Back in the days when Christianity was relatively new, the Establishment had a penchance for taking gay lovers and thus this rule was meant as a jab at such people. Note that while men are forbidden to be gay there is no such restriction in any Biblical text against women.

Also, back in those days people were afraid that gays would contribute to the extinction of humanity simply because they did not reproduce. Nowadays with a heavily populated (some would say overpopulated) world, that danger is no longer a reality. I wouldn't be surprised myself if homosexuality is in fact some sort of biological response to overpopulation and we see an above-average amount of gays born as long as the population continues to rise.

The Biblical (non-Commandment) prohibition was both a political and biologically motivated declaration of Man in the name of God.

Back in the days when Christianity was relatively new, the Establishment had a penchance for taking gay lovers and thus this rule was meant as a jab at such people. Note that while men are forbidden to be gay there is no such restriction in any Biblical text against women.

Also, back in those days people were afraid that gays would contribute to the extinction of humanity simply because they did not reproduce. Nowadays with a heavily populated (some would say overpopulated) world, that danger is no longer a reality. I wouldn't be surprised myself if homosexuality is in fact some sort of biological response to overpopulation and we see an above-average amount of gays born as long as the population continues to rise.
Hmmm interesting built in “over flow” control interesting

I'd just like to say that this is a silly thread but still, a sin is a sin. No sin is worse than the other. Sin = death. Death meaning both physical and spiritual. Although ppl do do many things against the Bible, so do you, so do I, we all do, the point however is that this sin meant that we would all go to Hell. God however doesn't want that. So he provided a way.

My 2 cents worth.

How Bad a Sin is Homosexuality?

I have heard some Christians say all sin is equal and that no one sin is better or worse than another.

Odd, but hey, to each her own.

According to Leviticus 18:22,

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Also, Leviticus 20:13 says,

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It seems to me if Christians are consistent they would be calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Then again Leviticus also prohibits,

- heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),
- harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),
- eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),
- cross-breeding livestock (19:19),
- sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),
- shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),
- tattoos (19:28),
- even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),
- charging of interest on a loan (25:37),
- collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing.

However, most Christians say these laws don't apply. Why do the prohibitions agains homosexuality apply, but these others don't? I have no answer to that.

Religion is dumb, don't follow it, that said...

Catholic church teaches that being homosexual is perfectly fine, it's the act of having homosexual sex that is a sin

Allow me to say this, if religion is dumb then u are in some ways dumb because u follow the "belief" (also called a religion) that religion is dumb.

Next thing, I'm fine with ppl being homosexual. Theyshouldn't but that is their choice. Same-sex marriage however is altering the true definition of marriage which is an absolutely bad thing.

Also, just about everything we do is sin.

I have heard some Christians say all sin is equal and that no one sin is better or worse than another.

Odd, but hey, to each their own.

According to Leviticus 18:22,

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Also, Leviticus 20:13 says,

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It seems to me if Christians are consistent they would be calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Then again Leviticus also prohibits,

- heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),
- harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),
- eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),
- cross-breeding livestock (19:19),
- sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),
- shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),
- tattoos (19:28),
- even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),
- charging of interest on a loan (25:37),
- collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing.

However, most Christians say these laws don't apply. Why do the prohibitions agains homosexuality apply, but these others don't? I have no answer to that.


I never got that either

Then they come out with the new testament being binding not OT (though they were fine quoting it till someone called them on it)

Though Grave_N_Idle has fairly picked apart most of the translations

Does anyone know a solid NT reason for homosexuality as a sin? (you figure science this is the new covenant between you and your god if he still wanted it to be a sin he would specify it … otherwise it would go the way of the other Leviticus rules)

I have heard some Christians say all sin is equal and that no one sin is better or worse than another.

Odd, but hey, to each their own.

According to Leviticus 18:22,

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Also, Leviticus 20:13 says,

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It seems to me if Christians are consistent they would be calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Then again Leviticus also prohibits,

- heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),
- harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),
- eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),
- cross-breeding livestock (19:19),
- sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),
- shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),
- tattoos (19:28),
- even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),
- charging of interest on a loan (25:37),
- collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing.

However, most Christians say these laws don't apply. Why do the prohibitions agains homosexuality apply, but these others don't? I have no answer to that.

Firstly, I haven't read yet that you're not supposed to cut your hair. Secondly, the sabath day (if I recall correctly) is Sunday, not Saturday.

I'll have to have read the verses u refered t over before I can make much more of a statement.

Allow me to say this, if religion is dumb then u are in some ways dumb because u follow the "belief" (also called a religion) that religion is dumb.

Next thing, I'm fine with ppl being homosexual. Theyshouldn't but that is their choice. Same-sex marriage however is altering the true definition of marriage which is an absolutely bad thing.

Also, just about everything we do is sin.
Then what is your feelings on civial unions

(most people just want the marrige part because of the rights that come along with it such as property/hospital/insurance rights)

One of the things I find funny about calling homosexuality a sin, is that it's not a choice. At least, it wasn't a choice for me. It's like damning someone for having red hair- they can't do a thing about it.

One of the things I find funny about calling homosexuality a sin, is that it's not a choice. At least, it wasn't a choice for me. It's like damning someone for having red hair- they can't do a thing about it.
Then they bring out that stupid “it’s a fad” argument

Firstly, I haven't read yet that you're not supposed to cut your hair. Secondly, the sabath day (if I recall correctly) is Sunday, not Saturday.

Leviticus 19:27 (New American Std)

You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

As for the Sabbath day,

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. (Exodus 20:9-10)

Saturday is the seventh day (Sunday is the first).

ok pay attention

BEING gay, that is, having sexual attraction only to members of the same sex is NOT a sin.

ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY (with another person) outside the bonds of matrimony IS A SIN. gay, straight whatever.

if a gay couple is married in a denomination that allows gay marriage (and there are a few christian denominations that do) it is NOT a sin for them to have sex (with each other)

gay sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony is the same level of sin as straight sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony.

not that i give a damn about what is and is not a sin.

Does anyone know a solid NT reason for homosexuality as a sin? (you figure science this is the new covenant between you and your god if he still wanted it to be a sin he would specify it … otherwise it would go the way of the other Leviticus rules)

See the first chapter of Romans

Then they bring out that stupid “it’s a fad” argument

No, then we say "having red hair or not you can still choose to act a certain way". Now then, sin is sin, right? Since we all sin abd are of a sinful nature then we should expect that. You are the way you are because of choices. I don't have anything against homosexuals but I have something against changing definitions that would make something wrong seem right.

ok pay attention

BEING gay, that is, having sexual attraction only to members of the same sex is NOT a sin.

ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY (with another person) outside the bonds of matrimony IS A SIN. gay, straight whatever.

if a gay couple is married in a denomination that allows gay marriage (and there are a few christian denominations that do) it is NOT a sin for them to have sex (with each other)

gay sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony is the same level of sin as straight sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony.

not that i give a damn about what is and is not a sin.

why not?

Leviticus 19:27 (New American Std)

You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

As for the Sabbath day,

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. (Exodus 20:9-10)

Saturday is the seventh day (Sunday is the first).

Actually, from what I've heard it's actually Monday that's the first day. Sunday we prasie the Lord. The sabbath day is for praising the Lord. Saturaday we don't praise the Lord so I'm pretty sure it isn't the sabbath day.

See the first chapter of Romans

According to Robin Scroggs, professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary:

1) The NT church was not very concerned about homosexuality as a problem, All three instances referring to homosexuality are from preformed traditions, either Greek or Jewish. No single NT author considers the issue important enough to write his own sentence about it! The argument "against nature" is the most common form of attack on pederasty in the Greco-Roman texts. Pederasty involved forced male rape even by heterosexuals and slave boy prostitutes. It says nothing about today's loving homosexual relationships. Even in Romans 1, where Paul integrates the illustration of homosexuality into his larger theological arguments, there is no advance beyond idolatry and pagan vices of 1 Cor 6:9.

2) Female homosexuality gets even less attention appearing only in Romans 1, and here with less emphasis than male homosexuality. This is doubtlessly because little was said in the Greco-Roman world about lesbianism, and because in OT law no penalties attached to such female practices. This again suggest pederasty was the vice, not homosexuality in general. In Romans 1 Paul's language "about male homosexuality, must have had, could only have had, pederasty in mind."

3) The two vice lists attack very specific forms of pederasty, not homosexuality in general.

why not?
why dont i care what is and isnt a sin?
im not a religious person
and in any case, other peoples sins are only their own business.

Actually, from what I've heard it's actually Monday that's the first day. Sunday we prasie the Lord. The sabbath day is for praising the Lord. Saturaday we don't praise the Lord so I'm pretty sure it isn't the sabbath day.

You are mistaken. Christians changed their Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. Take a look at your calander. What is the first day shown?

According to Robin Scroggs, professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary:

1) The NT church was not very concerned about homosexuality as a problem, All three instances referring to homosexuality are from preformed traditions, either Greek or Jewish. No single NT author considers the issue important enough to write his own sentence about it! The argument "against nature" is the most common form of attack on pederasty in the Greco-Roman texts. Pederasty involved forced male rape even by heterosexuals and slave boy prostitutes. It says nothing about today's loving homosexual relationships. Even in Romans 1, where Paul integrates the illustration of homosexuality into his larger theological arguments, there is no advance beyond idolatry and pagan vices of 1 Cor 6:9.

2) Female homosexuality gets even less attention appearing only in Romans 1, and here with less emphasis than male homosexuality. This is doubtlessly because little was said in the Greco-Roman world about lesbianism, and because in OT law no penalties attached to such female practices. This again suggest pederasty was the vice, not homosexuality in general. In Romans 1 Paul's language "about male homosexuality, must have had, could only have had, pederasty in mind."

3) The two vice lists attack very specific forms of pederasty, not homosexuality in general.

Im not interested in debating the topic. its already been debated to death, I was just pointing out that homosexuality is dealt with in the new testament (since someone posted earlier that they thought it wasnt).

Im not interested in debating the topic. its already been debated to death, I was just pointing out that homosexuality is dealt with in the new testament (since someone posted earlier that they thought it wasnt).

I have found the easiest way to avoid debating a topic is to not post a response.

Two things that irritate me are arrogant conservatives who try to say "Bible condemns gays, so don't allow them to be gay", and arrogant liberals who try to say "Bible isn't relavant/accurate, ignore the book." True Christian messengers wouldn't focus on the sin of the individual. According to the bible, anything other than hetero-monogamous married sex is sinful.

But also, so are loads and loads of other things. And we all have done at least one of them, the only one who didn't was Jesus. Our job as Christian's isn't to go judging gay people for being gay, our job is to convert them to Christ. Pure and simple. Anyone who tries to use the bible to demean homosexuals is sinning themselves, misusing the word of God.

I don't see why people get so god damn uppity about homosexuality. Live and let live.

Homosexuality does not affect you or everyone else. What two people decide to do in their bedroom is their own damn business. Who the hell are you to tell them that who they are is wrong, immoral, and sinful?

They didn't choose to be outcasts, persecuted, and considered to be unnatural freaks of nature.

The very idea that homosexuality *could* be a sin is ludicrous. It is like stating that menstruation or sweating is a sin.

HOMOSEXUALITY is not bad everyone has thier beliefs which is right with in this democracy.

I'm a gay man and being gay in this world is hard at times.

The very idea that homosexuality *could* be a sin is ludicrous. It is like stating that menstruation or sweating is a sin.

Funny you should mention that...

Leviticus 15:19 And if a woman have an issue (menstruation), and the issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

No, then we say "having red hair or not you can still choose to act a certain way". Now then, sin is sin, right? Since we all sin abd are of a sinful nature then we should expect that. You are the way you are because of choices. I don't have anything against homosexuals but I have something against changing definitions that would make something wrong seem right.
Choose to act a certain way?
It's rather impossible to choose not to be attracted to whomever you're attracted to. And I don't see any definitions changed...

Funny you should mention that...

Leviticus 15:19 And if a woman have an issue (menstruation), and the issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Yup. Well, the people of the time thought that menstruation was punishment for sins. These days, we know its all just hormones.

No, then we say "having red hair or not you can still choose to act a certain way". Now then, sin is sin, right? Since we all sin abd are of a sinful nature then we should expect that. You are the way you are because of choices. I don't have anything against homosexuals but I have something against changing definitions that would make something wrong seem right.
Then you are only heterosexual because you choose to be so? You could consciously make a choice to be with men/women (depending on your sex)?

Then why does being with someone of the opposite sex feel so natural to you … if it is just a conscious choice?

Im not interested in debating the topic. its already been debated to death, I was just pointing out that homosexuality is dealt with in the new testament (since someone posted earlier that they thought it wasnt).
I just asked if there was a strong umbrella statement or anything of the sort (but no more ambiguous phrasing that seems to be able to be applied anyway felt necessary)

The Bible is the authority for Christians on how to lead a good life. So, it is natural that Christians would look to the Bible for guidance about homosexuality. In looking to that source what do they find?

The Bible says very little about homosexuality. In the Old Testament it is discussed in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The sin of Sodom is mentioned in Genesis 19:5, but most biblical scholars claim the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality, but rather threatening the visitors to Sodom with gang rape, which obviously contravens rules of hospitality. In the New Testament homosexuality is discussed in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

So, altogether we have approximately 8 verses that touch on homosexuality. Keep in mind that many Christians claim the Old Testament rules no longer apply and that some of these verses are unclear as to whether it is actually homosexuality being condemned, but no matter.

Eight verses.

The Bible is comprised of 31,101 verses. There are nearly 800,000 words in both the Old and New Testament and we are talking about a few dozen words dealing with homosexuality. There are three times as many verses about humility and humbleness (something more Christians would do well to practice) as there are about homosexuality. The Bible discusses goats and lambs much more frequently than gays and lesbians.

Yet, to hear many Christians talk the most important message to be found in the Bible is the condemnation of homosexuality.

Yup. Well, the people of the time thought that menstruation was punishment for sins. These days, we know its all just hormones.
Hopefully we learn more as humanity matures (if it does)

The Bible is the authority for Christians on how to lead a good life. So, it is natural that Christians would look to the Bible for guidance about homosexuality. In looking to that source what do they find?

The Bible says very little about homosexuality. In the Old Testament it is discussed in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The sin of Sodom is mentioned in Genesis 19:5, but most biblical scholars claim the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality, but rather threatening the visitors to Sodom with gang rape, which obviously contravens rules of hospitality. In the New Testament homosexuality is discussed in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11.

So, altogether we have approximately 8 verses that touch on homosexuality. Keep in mind that many Christians claim the Old Testament rules no longer apply and that some of these verses are unclear as to whether it is actually homosexuality being condemned, but no matter.

Eight verses.

The Bible is comprised of 31,101 verses. There are nearly 800,000 words in both the Old and New Testament and we are talking about a few dozen words dealing with homosexuality. There are three times as many verses about humility and humbleness (something more Christians would do well to practice) as there are about homosexuality. The Bible discusses goats and lambs much more frequently than gays and lesbians.

Yet, to hear many Christians talk the most important message to be found in the Bible is the condemnation of homosexuality.


HEAR HEAR! (sheesh lots of stats in there)
Thanks always good to acquire new information

I believe that it is not a sin for women as some of us find bodies of the same gender more perfect than others. (I am a bisexual, so I can see the best of both sides.)
xxx

;)

Guffingord, when all heterosexual men and women stop going on about their sexuality, then you would be able to say that homosexuals should stop talking about their sex lives. Although personally I dislike gay pride parades and such, the rainbow is needed to give support to the many people who are closeted because they are afraid of what friends, family, and co-workers would do or say.

That said, there is over 600 admonishments to heterosexuals, and only 3 to homosexuals (Two in Leviticus and Corinthians 6:9)

Guffingord, when all heterosexual men and women stop going on about their sexuality, then you would be able to say that homosexuals should stop talking about their sex lives. Although personally I dislike gay pride parades and such, the rainbow is needed to give support to the many people who are closeted because they are afraid of what friends, family, and co-workers would do or say.

That said, there is over 600 admonishments to heterosexuals, and only 3 to homosexuals (Two in Leviticus and Corinthians 6:9)

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision."
-Lynn Lavner

I have no idea which of you is correct (if either), but I like the quote.

Choose to act a certain way?
It's rather impossible to choose not to be attracted to whomever you're attracted to. And I don't see any definitions changed...
Choose to act in a certain way means have sex with someone who's the same gender as you are. While you cannot change who you are attracted to, you can change how you act. Heterosexual men and women also have sexual desires, but they are expected not to have sex outside of marriage. If they do, that's a sin. The definition that is changed is saying something isn't sinful because the desire to do it is natural, rather than accepting that even if a desire is natural, you should still resist it to avoid taking an ACTION that is sinful.

Sinful Trivia: Did you know that Dante Alighieri, in his famous work "The Divine Comedy", put sodomites in the third ring of the seventh circle of hell for sins of violence against God, and that their punishment was to walk in a desert with fire raining down on them from the sky? Well, now you do know.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision."
-Lynn Lavner

I have no idea which of you is correct (if either), but I like the quote.
that one is good enough to become my quote

Choose to act in a certain way means have sex with someone who's the same gender as you are. While you cannot change who you are attracted to, you can change how you act. Heterosexual men and women also have sexual desires, but they are expected not to have sex outside of marriage. If they do, that's a sin.
Okay, so gays can't have sex outside of marriage.
PROBLEM ALERT!!!
They can't get married.

So are they not supposed to have sex?

The definition that is changed is saying something isn't sinful because the desire to do it is natural, rather than accepting that even if a desire is natural, you should still resist it to avoid taking an ACTION that is sinful.
Well, the action you gave doesn't apply to only homosexuals, it applies to everybody. If you'll use that to justify homosexuality as immoral, then heterosexuality is immoral too.

Also, homosexuality isn't something you *do*. It's something you *are*. So your argument kind of gets lost there.

Being a homosexual isn't a sin, but the church thinks acting on it is. But the fact is, the only why it is a sin in the Church is actual sex involving the naughty bits below the waist. Despite what anyone in the Bible Belt says anything else goes. Sorry, frequenters to Godhatesfags.com.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision."
-Lynn Lavner

I have no idea which of you is correct (if either), but I like the quote.
Homosexuality is probably a sin or immoral, but like other people have said there are many other sins that people ignore. Perhaps we should enforce manditary exercise against gluttony or any other of the major sins. I think in general that religon has problems applied on a large scale. You cant have a one size fit all and in response people create their own interpretations. That really shouldnt be happening. Instead they should create their own religon and acknowledge the differences.

Sinful Trivia: Did you know that Dante Alighieri, in his famous work "The Divine Comedy", put sodomites in the third ring of the seventh circle of hell for sins of violence against God, and that their punishment was to walk in a desert with fire raining down on them from the sky? Well, now you do know.

Actually, while Dante did put "Sodomites" in the Seventh Circle of Hell, they were separate from those who committed violence against God (represented by blasphemers). According to Dante homosexuals (who represented all forms of perversion) were sinners against Nature. Those who committed violence against God, Art, and Nature all shared the third ring of the Seventh Circle (notice how Dante, a poet, elevated art to the same level as god and nature?).

I'm not sure how much weight you want to give to fictional characters in a literary work in a discussion of the nature of sin.

Okay, so gays can't have sex outside of marriage.
PROBLEM ALERT!!!
They can't get married.

So are they not supposed to have sex?

Yes. That's about right.
Well, the action you gave doesn't apply to only homosexuals, it applies to everybody. If you'll use that to justify homosexuality as immoral, then heterosexuality is immoral too.

Also, homosexuality isn't something you *do*. It's something you *are*. So your argument kind of gets lost there.
Homosexual is indeed what you ARE just as heterosexual is what you ARE. However, in both cases, the Church (let's say Catholic Church) says taking any one of a list of actions is sinful. These include sex outside of marriage, and sex with a member of the same sex. Even though we all have an inclination to do these things, we should exercise restraint. So simply being attracted to someone is not a sin, but to engage in sexual activity with that person IS. Truthfully, heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin, just as homosexual sex of any kind is. Some people consider them the same sin, others consider them distinct.

I'm not sure how much weight you want to give to fictional characters in a literary work in a discussion of the nature of sin.
What? Some people consider God a fictional character. Can't I use Him too? :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's just a tidbit of information, not to be taken too seriously.

Yes. That's about right.
Well then, that's put me right off the Christianity ticket.

Adultery is not homosexuality.

In a biblical sense it is. The biblical definition of marriage is man and women, and so in God's eyes two men cannot be married. Since any sex outside of marriage is adultery, any sex homosexuals have comes under adultery.

It's not bad at all.

Ok, so the story goes, there are angels coming down from the heavens. And the townspeople want to have a great big orgy and rape the angels. So one person says, "Uh, no. Let's not rape angels. I'll give my daughter to be raved in the orgy as long as the angels do not get raped." So his daughter gets raped by the entire town, and the angels fly away happly ever after.

Now.....this has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. I'm pretty sure it means, lets not rape angels.

I'm pretty sure it means, lets not rape angels.
Aww...
:(
No more angel-raping?

Yes. That's about right.

Homosexual is indeed what you ARE just as heterosexual is what you ARE. However, in both cases, the Church (let's say Catholic Church) says taking any one of a list of actions is sinful. These include sex outside of marriage, and sex with a member of the same sex. Even though we all have an inclination to do these things, we should exercise restraint. So simply being attracted to someone is not a sin, but to engage in sexual activity with that person IS. Truthfully, heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin, just as homosexual sex of any kind is. Some people consider them the same sin, others consider them distinct.

Heterosexual promiscuity though is far more tolerated in American culture than homosexual, long-term monogamy. How do you justify this double standard? Moreover, didn't the Bible mention that God created everyone equally? The validity of Leviticus has been put to much debate as you have seen. Tell, what if right-wing groups

And please enough with the self-contradictions and the "I have nothing against gays but...". If you really had nothing against them, you'd respect the fact that they're entitled to the same rights as straight people and that they should not be treated as outcasts. Instead, you continue to irresponsibly express the kind of views that cause homophobic abuse to continue in society. Hell, your views ARE homophobic and if the US government cared as much about equality and civil rights as it claims to, you wouldn't get away with it just as (most) racists don't.

Why do people insist on reducing their religion, their faith, their mystical connection to the divine mystery of life to a tawdry discussion about who put what genitalia where? Is there really a system of belief that teaches that God’s entire reason for creating life was to see if people could successfully follow some corporeal owner’s manual and correctly insert tab “A” into slot “B?”

From what I can determine, Christians think it is okay to be gay and even to have lifelong homosexual relationships, just so long as nobody bumps uglies. However, if the body is truly just a shell, housing our true self - our spirit, our soul - then how could anyone possibly envision a God who would condemn someone to eternal suffering for how they used that body during their brief existence on this earth?

Why is it so important!?!?

:headbang: And here I'd thought people might be getting a little more rational. Here, folks, let's take a look at a few arguments I could make to a few of the things I've read here. In case anyone's wondering, I didn't make it past page 4, it got to be too much.

Is homosexuality a sin? I really don't see why loving anyone is.
Is homosexual sex a sin? No, fuck you. I'm not going to be denied sex because I don't have your sexual preference.
Is homosexuality deviant? Heehee. According to what I'm seeing, intelligence is deviant. If by "deviant" you mean "not what the majority does" then sure. If you mean it as in, say, "a perversion," again I respond with "fuck you." Ah, already I can hear peoples' unhappy responses to my post... Why must I constantly say "fuck you?" Am I unable to find a better response because I'm wrong, and homosexuality clearly is a sin? No, no, try harder. I respond with "fuck you" because if you think homosexuality or homosexual sex is evil, a sin, wrong, immoral, improper, incorrect, bad, icky, or whatever... Then you clearly do not deserve a better thought out response. You are, very simply, an idiot.

Yep, I'm gay. And yes, I've had sex with other guys. And wanna know the best part? If there is a heaven and a Hell, I'd really prefer for homosexuality to be a sin. Far better to end up in Hell with my boyfriend than in heaven with you jackasses.

Ah, one final note. Just one, to those of you against legalizing homosexual marriage. Yeah, sure, it's your religion. Sure, sure, you think your god claims it would be wrong. But, chew on this; if some crackwhore 2000+ years ago started a religion promoting homosexuality and denouncing heterosexuality, and it became the predominant religion- Well, then, our roles would be reversed. If it was illegal for you heteros to marry, I'm sure you'd be pissed too. Perhaps that gives you an understanding of my position.

I will be victorious, no matter the cost. You're no better than me, and with the exception of knowing the difference between "prejudiced jackass" and "devout citizen," I'm no better than you.

Bravo man. Now don't touch me.

My only problem with homosexual sex is that it's rather unclean, leading to the propagation of diseases, (assuming your doing anal. Oral is fine.)
If we could find some mechanical way of fixing this, there would be no problems with it.

Maybe they should make disinfectant lube...

Heterosexual promiscuity though is far more tolerated in American culture than homosexual, long-term monogamy. How do you justify this double standard? Moreover, didn't the Bible mention that God created everyone equally?
I don't see any need to justify the double standard. There shouldn't be one. Yes, everyone is created equally, and that means, from a Catholic's perspective, that everyone has an equal responsibility not to commit a sin if they can avoid it.


And please enough with the self-contradictions and the "I have nothing against gays but...". If you really had nothing against them, you'd respect the fact that they're entitled to the same rights as straight people and that they should not be treated as outcasts. Instead, you continue to irresponsibly express the kind of views that cause homophobic abuse to continue in society. Hell, your views ARE homophobic and if the US government cared as much about equality and civil rights as it claims to, you wouldn't get away with it just as (most) racists don't.
I'm sure that none of these comments are directed as me, as I never once said a word about rights. I was simply explaining a religious perspective: it has nothing at all to do with civil unions or civil marriages, or even religious unions which some churches perform (The United Church, for example). After all, there is a seperation of Church and State to consider, so religion ought not to have any effect on civil laws. If the US government cared about civil rights AT ALL it would allow me to say whatever I damn well please, as it should allow any Nazi, Fascist, Communist, or Islamic extremist to say as he or she might desire, short of encouraging people to commit crimes.
Finally, a word to the wise: I can get away with anything the US government prohibits, provided that the Federal government of Canada doesn't prohibit as well, so let's not assume who can ensure I do or do not get away with anything in particular.

Well then, that's put me right off the Christianity ticket.
Clarification: Not all Christian churches agree on everything. The Catholic Church, and I suppose most others, believe that intercourse between members of the same sex is sinful, and don't recognize same sex unions. Others, notably the United Church in Canada (Largest Protestant faith in the country), recognize all sexual orientations as valid, so long as they are monogomous, the same as heterosexual relationships.

A sin is a sin. The only way in which one sin can be worse than another is with respect to the effect it has on the sinner.

My only problem with homosexual sex is that it's rather unclean, leading to the propagation of diseases, (assuming your doing anal. Oral is fine.)
If we could find some mechanical way of fixing this, there would be no problems with it.

Maybe they should make disinfectant lube...


I take it you have never heard about this new invention? It's called a "condome". It's a rubber thingy that you slip over you erected penis prior to engaging in sex and it prevents most STD's. It's practical for hetero couples too since it reduces the risk for a woman to become pregnant. Also use it when you have anal sex with your girlfriend.

*jeeezzz*

My only problem with homosexual sex is that it's rather unclean, leading to the propagation of diseases, (assuming your doing anal. Oral is fine.)
If we could find some mechanical way of fixing this, there would be no problems with it.

Maybe they should make disinfectant lube...

Jesus, I thought they'd changed that opinion from when I was a kid.

See, back in a time we like to call the 1980s, there was this rumor. It said "Kids, don't worry about AIDS! That's a homo disease! You can only get that through butt-sex!"

Only, guess what!? We have new information today! It's called...AIDS IS A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR TAKING IT UP THE ASS OR IN THE MOUTH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A DISEASE!!!

That applies for women too.

You see, kids, when a man, loves a woman, physically, behind a bar, their fluids exchange. Now, let's say that our man, let's call him John Dong, has a nasty case of Syphilus. Dong has sex with our woman, let's call her Betty Knockers, and doesn't wear a condom.

Dong just had a good chance of giving Knockers' syphilus. Not because they were having butt-sex, but because he had a disease!

Man...you kids today...you gotta get edumacated.

How bad a sin is homosexuality?

Well, if you read the parts of the bible that actually deal with homosexuality for context as opposed to simply quoting the single passage, you will see what accompanys homosexuality in terms of sinfulness as well as the punishment for such an act.

The result, homosexuality according to Laviticus is the rough equivalent of eating a cheeseburger.

The same section of Laviticus that declairs homosexuality immoral also deals with the immoral actions of eating the milk and meat of an animal on the same plate. What is the punishment for such a vile act you might ask? Death by stoning? Condemnation by God himself?

Hardly, you must simply be purified by a Rabbi before appearing at the temple.

So next time you see homosexuality as immoral, wrong, and unnatural; according to the Bible, so is eating a cheeseburger.

I don't see any need to justify the double standard. There shouldn't be one. Yes, everyone is created equally, and that means, from a Catholic's perspective, that everyone has an equal responsibility not to commit a sin if they can avoid it.


I'm sure that none of these comments are directed as me, as I never once said a word about rights. I was simply explaining a religious perspective: it has nothing at all to do with civil unions or civil marriages, or even religious unions which some churches perform (The United Church, for example). After all, there is a seperation of Church and State to consider, so religion ought not to have any effect on civil laws. If the US government cared about civil rights AT ALL it would allow me to say whatever I damn well please, as it should allow any Nazi, Fascist, Communist, or Islamic extremist to say as he or she might desire, short of encouraging people to commit crimes.
Finally, a word to the wise: I can get away with anything the US government prohibits, provided that the Federal government of Canada doesn't prohibit as well, so let's not assume who can ensure I do or do not get away with anything in particular.

Uh...until recently, the US government DID allow anyone to say whatever he or she wanted (as long as you didn't direcly instigate an attack or assault on someone).

Look, people. If we're on the subject of gay marriage, then we need to get one thing straight:

If someone wants to marry in a religious organization, and they say no, then fine. Too bad. Appeal to the Pope or the Space Pope or the Giant Orange Dishwasher in Heaven, or whoever you crazy kids worship these days.

But, when a homosexual couple ask the government for a union, then they should be allowed. Anything less is an infringement of their rights.

Man...you kids...

Sinful Trivia: Did you know that Dante Alighieri, in his famous work "The Divine Comedy", put sodomites in the third ring of the seventh circle of hell for sins of violence against God, and that their punishment was to walk in a desert with fire raining down on them from the sky? Well, now you do know.

Because you know, Dante spoke to god. Much like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

My only problem with homosexual sex is that it's rather unclean, leading to the propagation of diseases, (assuming your doing anal. Oral is fine.)
If we could find some mechanical way of fixing this, there would be no problems with it.

Maybe they should make disinfectant lube...


My only problem with heterosexual sex is that it's rather unclean, leading the propgatation of diseases (assuming your doing vaginal. Oral is fine)
If we could find some mechanical way of fixing this, there would be no problems with it.

Seriously dude(tte). I mean come on? Do heterosexuals not spread disease with intercourse? If its not possible to be gross, why do they make douches?

Actually, while Dante did put "Sodomites" in the Seventh Circle of Hell, they were separate from those who committed violence against God (represented by blasphemers). According to Dante homosexuals (who represented all forms of perversion) were sinners against Nature. Those who committed violence against God, Art, and Nature all shared the third ring of the Seventh Circle (notice how Dante, a poet, elevated art to the same level as god and nature?).

I'm not sure how much weight you want to give to fictional characters in a literary work in a discussion of the nature of sin.


Furthermore, Dante's work was a political piece, not a treatise on where in hell people went when they died. Hell, he put a group of people outside of hell and not in heaven, the neutrals, which had no place in Christian ideology.

I don't see any need to justify the double standard. There shouldn't be one. Yes, everyone is created equally, and that means, from a Catholic's perspective, that everyone has an equal responsibility not to commit a sin if they can avoid it.


I'm sure that none of these comments are directed as me, as I never once said a word about rights. I was simply explaining a religious perspective: it has nothing at all to do with civil unions or civil marriages, or even religious unions which some churches perform (The United Church, for example). After all, there is a seperation of Church and State to consider, so religion ought not to have any effect on civil laws. If the US government cared about civil rights AT ALL it would allow me to say whatever I damn well please, as it should allow any Nazi, Fascist, Communist, or Islamic extremist to say as he or she might desire, short of encouraging people to commit crimes.
Finally, a word to the wise: I can get away with anything the US government prohibits, provided that the Federal government of Canada doesn't prohibit as well, so let's not assume who can ensure I do or do not get away with anything in particular.


If all Christians were able to separate their religion from civil government as well as you, we wouldn't be having a problem. Thank you.

Furthermore, Dante's work was a political piece, not a treatise on where in hell people went when they died. Hell, he put a group of people outside of hell and not in heaven, the neutrals, which had no place in Christian ideology.
Not to mention there were a number of popes pretty deep inside of hell...

there is a part of the bible that said gays were stoned.

Of course its a sin. It hinders the human species and threatening to it.

If everyone was gay then there would be no reproduction and everyone would die.

Jesus, I thought they'd changed that opinion from when I was a kid.

See, back in a time we like to call the 1980s, there was this rumor. It said "Kids, don't worry about AIDS! That's a homo disease! You can only get that through butt-sex!"

Only, guess what!? We have new information today! It's called...AIDS IS A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR TAKING IT UP THE ASS OR IN THE MOUTH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A DISEASE!!!

That applies for women too.

You see, kids, when a man, loves a woman, physically, behind a bar, their fluids exchange. Now, let's say that our man, let's call him John Dong, has a nasty case of Syphilus. Dong has sex with our woman, let's call her Betty Knockers, and doesn't wear a condom.

Dong just had a good chance of giving Knockers' syphilus. Not because they were having butt-sex, but because he had a disease!

Man...you kids today...you gotta get edumacated.
I am aware that not only gay people get aids. However, I am also aware that among Gays, AIDS is three times as common as among straights. My guess would be that due to the inherant discomfort of wearing a condom, most gay couples forego them, thinking they're mostly used to keep women from getting pregnant.

The presence of blood due to the tearing in the tissue of the anus is one of the biggest factors of STDs becoming more transmittable. And while I don't know a lot about condoms, I know that they wern't made to deal with blood.

Also to blame is the culture of anonymous sex within the gay community. (Note that I'm not saying all gay people have annonymous sex, just that a good portion do, and many of them partner up also with the ones that don't, and thus pass on their diseases. I know a gay guy who has nine partners, off and on (or at least, so he claims) and were one of them to contract a disease, they would likely all catch it.

there is a part of the bible that said gays were stoned.

Of course its a sin. It hinders the human species and threatening to it.

If everyone was gay then there would be no reproduction and everyone would die.
If everyone were infertile, then there would be no reproduction. Does this make infertility a sin? Do infertile people "hinders the human species and threatening to it." to use your own inept words?

there is a part of the bible that said gays were stoned.

Of course its a sin. It hinders the human species and threatening to it.

If everyone was gay then there would be no reproduction and everyone would die.

Actually, if it hindered the species then it would probably not have been as sustained as it has in our species (and in many many other mammalian specieis). Further, everyone isn't gay, now are they. Nor is the race in any change of EVERYONE becoming gay. You couldn't do it could you?

Oh, and even *IF* we all could become gay, it doesn't mean we couldn't reproduce--gay men and women are STILL fertile you know. We aren't shooting blanks.

It's not in the Ten Commandments, now, is it?

Actually, not all of those are Commandments - some are just statements.

But homosexuality isn't one of them.
:rolleyes:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.- Leviticus 18:22
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 18:29
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them Leviticus 18:13

Proclamations of Monks:

The Heretical Monks have pondered upon the weighty question of "How Bad a Sin is Homosexuality"?

They have decided that according to the ancient Hebrews of the Old Testament, this sin was bad.....well, very bad,... well, in fact one scholar recalled using the word abomination.

But after further research, they learned that in fact no ancient Hebrews are alive at the present time. It is their firm belief that the relevant text has no jurisdiction.

However, the Monks are not those to ignore precedence entirely. A very wise rabbi by the name of Jeshua ben Joseph, aka Jesus, was quoted as saying "Love your neighbor as yourself...". The Monks find these words very wise, indeed. The Monks have no neighboring homosexuals, but if they had, they would certainly invite them over for tea.

So sayeth the Heretics.

I am aware that not only gay people get aids. However, I am also aware that among Gays, AIDS is three times as common as among straights. My guess would be that due to the inherant discomfort of wearing a condom, most gay couples forego them, thinking they're mostly used to keep women from getting pregnant.

The presence of blood due to the tearing in the tissue of the anus is one of the biggest factors of STDs becoming more transmittable. And while I don't know a lot about condoms, I know that they wern't made to deal with blood.

Also to blame is the culture of anonymous sex within the gay community. (Note that I'm not saying all gay people have annonymous sex, just that a good portion do, and many of them partner up also with the ones that don't, and thus pass on their diseases. I know a gay guy who has nine partners, off and on (or at least, so he claims) and were one of them to contract a disease, they would likely all catch it.


You don't know a lot about gay people do you. A whole hell of a lot of us have never had anal sex--and aren't likely to do it. I haven't. Of the many gay guys I know, only on has had it.

Further, do you think that maybe HIV looks more prevalent in homosexuals because probably half or more of us are still in hiding fearing retribution, attacks, etc. from our family and friends who are have been brain washed to think we are evil abominations who are cause of all the worlds disease and that we must be destroyed?

Wow, didn't realize I had that much pent up anger. Nothing personal with that here. . . appreciate being able to release it though.

:rolleyes:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.- Leviticus 18:22
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 18:29
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them Leviticus 18:13

Gee, I don't remember those being in any of the ten commandments. And if you want to use Leviticus, then I hope you aren't wearing a cotton-poly blend or eating a cheesburge or touching women during their period.

Cause guess what honey. . .yousa going to hell with me!

there is a part of the bible that said gays were stoned.
Really?
Hrm, I have gay friends, and their eyes aren't all red...
And they don't keep saying "duuuude"...
And their short-term memory seems fine.

Oh wait, you meant a different kind of "stoned", didn't you?

You don't know a lot about gay people do you. A whole hell of a lot of us have never had anal sex--and aren't likely to do it. I haven't. Of the many gay guys I know, only on has had it.

Further, do you think that maybe HIV looks more prevalent in homosexuals because probably half or more of us are still in hiding fearing retribution, attacks, etc. from our family and friends who are have been brain washed to think we are evil abominations who are cause of all the worlds disease and that we must be destroyed?

Wow, didn't realize I had that much pent up anger. Nothing personal with that here. . . appreciate being able to release it though.

(assuming your doing anal. Oral is fine.)

I never said anything against gays, though I suppose I worded my post improperly. I said "Homosexual sex" When I meant "Anal sex" I apologize for that. Also, why would contracting AIDS cause a gay person to come out?

And I have met a few gay people, and I've never heard of a gay guy going completely without anal sex.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.- Leviticus 18:22
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 18:29
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them Leviticus 18:13
"'When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. -Leviticus 19:9
"'You shall keep my statutes. "'You shall not crossbreed different kinds of animals. "'you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; "'neither shall there come upon on you a garment made of two kinds of material. -Leviticus 19:19
Look! I can quote scripture too! Doesn't mean anything, though!

:rolleyes:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.- Leviticus 18:22
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 18:29
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them Leviticus 18:13

So maybe Christians should be calling for the death penalty for homosexuals, if they are going to be consistent. Leviticus also prohibits,

- heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),
- harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),
- eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),
- cross-breeding livestock (19:19),
- sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),
- shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),
- tattoos (19:28),
- even a mildly disabled person from becoming a priest (21:18),
- charging of interest on a loan (25:37),
- collecting firewood on Saturday to prevent your family from freezing.

I never said anything against gays, though I suppose I worded my post improperly. I said "Homosexual sex" When I meant "Anal sex" I apologize for that.

And I have met a few gay people, and I've never heard of a gay guy going completely without anal sex.


We're all good. . . hopefully you took no offense from me. I get angry, but I try to not let it be personal (except for the hypocritical State of the Union we had tonight. . . . "guiding ideal of liberty for all" my ass--that IS personal). However, you do now know one gay man who has gone completely without anal sex. Not saying I always will--but you can be sure that I will wait until I am in a committed long term (preferably life-long) relationship. I won't call it marriage, it might offend the delicate sensbilities of some of the less intelligent folks on here--you not including in that of course :)

:headbang: And here I'd thought people might be getting a little more rational. Here, folks, let's take a look at a few arguments I could make to a few of the things I've read here. In case anyone's wondering, I didn't make it past page 4, it got to be too much.

Is homosexuality a sin? I really don't see why loving anyone is.
Is homosexual sex a sin? No, fuck you. I'm not going to be denied sex because I don't have your sexual preference.
Is homosexuality deviant? Heehee. According to what I'm seeing, intelligence is deviant. If by "deviant" you mean "not what the majority does" then sure. If you mean it as in, say, "a perversion," again I respond with "fuck you." Ah, already I can hear peoples' unhappy responses to my post... Why must I constantly say "fuck you?" Am I unable to find a better response because I'm wrong, and homosexuality clearly is a sin? No, no, try harder. I respond with "fuck you" because if you think homosexuality or homosexual sex is evil, a sin, wrong, immoral, improper, incorrect, bad, icky, or whatever... Then you clearly do not deserve a better thought out response. You are, very simply, an idiot.

Yep, I'm gay. And yes, I've had sex with other guys. And wanna know the best part? If there is a heaven and a Hell, I'd really prefer for homosexuality to be a sin. Far better to end up in Hell with my boyfriend than in heaven with you jackasses.

Ah, one final note. Just one, to those of you against legalizing homosexual marriage. Yeah, sure, it's your religion. Sure, sure, you think your god claims it would be wrong. But, chew on this; if some crackwhore 2000+ years ago started a religion promoting homosexuality and denouncing heterosexuality, and it became the predominant religion- Well, then, our roles would be reversed. If it was illegal for you heteros to marry, I'm sure you'd be pissed too. Perhaps that gives you an understanding of my position.

I will be victorious, no matter the cost. You're no better than me, and with the exception of knowing the difference between "prejudiced jackass" and "devout citizen," I'm no better than you.
i understand your anger but we're only talking about SIN. its a religious concept involving the breaking of religious rules. different religions have different sins on their lists.

if sex outside of marriage is a sin its a sin why get worried about it unless you are a devout member of a sect that wont let you get married? who cares about the rest of them?

think about it.... orthodox jews arent allowed to flip a light switch on saturday without it being a sin. if you arent an orthodox jew, why would you care?

its only when people try to take their definition of sin as the basis of making LAWS that it matters. and, as you so passionately pointed out, those ideas are falling by the wayside and you will be victorious.

as we come to realize that gay people arent "them" we become more and more upset that they dont get the same rights as "us". our friends, neighbors, brothers, daughters all deserve the same rights as anyone else and before long we wont stand for them being discriminated against.

why are you arguing if its a sin or not... if your religion beleives its a sin.. its a sin... regraudless of the 10 commandments... the pope has said its a sin... so its a sin.... the arguement should be wether or not the state can procecute something because a religion does... hopefully people think no since we want seperation from church and state and with so many cultures living within a state... what is a "sin" in one religion is not a "sin" in others.... secondly .. the way you are using the word deviant is subject to individual interpretation... meaning what the church says to be deviant... and what you say to be deviant... and what i say to be deviant could all be different things

We're all good. . . hopefully you took no offense from me. I get angry, but I try to not let it be personal (except for the hypocritical State of the Union we had tonight. . . . "guiding ideal of liberty for all" my ass--that IS personal). However, you do now know one gay man who has gone completely without anal sex. Not saying I always will--but you can be sure that I will wait until I am in a committed long term (preferably life-long) relationship. I won't call it marriage, it might offend the delicate sensbilities of some of the less intelligent folks on here--you not including in that of course
no problem. I was needlessly ambiguous. Also let me say that I would have suggested condoms as a solution, but disinfectant lube sounded funnier. Really it was meant as a joke. Don't worry, I didn't get offended, cause I realized you were pissed at what you thought I was saying, and that wasn't what I was saying.

My only problem with homosexual sex is that it's rather unclean, leading to the propagation of diseases, (assuming your doing anal. Oral is fine.)
If we could find some mechanical way of fixing this, there would be no problems with it.

Maybe they should make disinfectant lube...


Firstly, do you have any idea how many germs are in the human mouth? Your dog's mouth is cleaner. (no comments about beastiality, please!)

All sex is inherently dirty (in a germ exchanging way).
How many people always have a shower before having sex?
You might wash your hands after going to the toilet, but do you wash your bits? And you want someone to put that in their mouth?

Girls get taught (well, I did) to wipe from front to back to avoid cross contamination. I apply the same rule to sex, anything that's been in the backdoor isn't allowed in the front, and certainly not in my mouth, until it has been cleaned.

Anal sex isn't any more dirty than going to the toilet, unless of course you want it to be, in that case you deserve every disease you get.

Consensual sex isn't a sin by my moral code, no matter what the gender or number of the participants or what orifices are used. But if you've made a commitment to someone that you're only going to have sex with them, then sex with anyone else is a sin.
Where I come from (New Zealand) same sex civil unions are now legal! as is prostitution.

People keep going on about how same sex couples can't procreate, and so shouldn't be allowed to marry. Infertile heterosexual couples can't procreate either, should they be denied marriage too?

Firstly, do you have any idea how many germs are in the human mouth? Your dog's mouth is cleaner. (no comments about beastiality, please!)

All sex is inherently dirty (in a germ exchanging way).
How many people always have a shower before having sex?
You might wash your hands after going to the toilet, but do you wash your bits? And you want someone to put that in their mouth?

Girls get taught (well, I did) to wipe from front to back to avoid cross contamination. I apply the same rule to sex, anything that's been in the backdoor isn't allowed in the front, and certainly not in my mouth, until it has been cleaned.

Anal sex isn't any more dirty than going to the toilet, unless of course you want it to be, in that case you deserve every disease you get.
Anal sex is more likely to transfer diseases because of the presence of blood. The anus gets little tears in it, and sometimes so does the penis, leading to exchange of blood, or at the least the presence of one man's semen in anothers blood. Also, like you said, cross contamination, being that one person's penis is going into another's ass, that would BE cross contamination.

While I would advocate washing before and after sexual activity, I don't see that happening with a lot of people, gay or straight.

Since when is love a sin?

[QUOTE=Damnation and Hellfire
People keep going on about how same sex couples can't procreate, and so shouldn't be allowed to marry. Infertile heterosexual couples can't procreate either, should they be denied marriage too?[/QUOTE]

Right, by applying the same standard to all people, we should outlaw marriage after menopause as well.

My only problem with homosexual sex is that it's rather unclean, leading to the propagation of diseases, (assuming your doing anal. Oral is fine.)
If we could find some mechanical way of fixing this, there would be no problems with it.

Maybe they should make disinfectant lube...


There exists already a mechanical way: it's called condom.

We've been over that thoroughly. Move on.

First, I shall state a statistic I'm quite fond of. And yes, idiots, it's true. 80% of all HIV infections result from heterosexual intercourse. Ha, haha, ha. Now, onward.

I think I am being misinterpreted. I do not want equal rights. I am very much tired of idiocy reigning... But, that's a different branch of the same subject. Regarding equal rights; I think that the time for that has come and gone. I want superior rights. I am not content with sitting around, attending peace rallies, and hoping people come to their senses. I want them to experience what I have. In lieu of this, however, I have decided that the role of psychotic vengeance-seeker is not to my liking; I just want to live my life. And I will. I fully intend to get married, whether it's legal or not. Whether it's sanctioned or not. Whether anyone is willing to marry he and I or not.

If I have to, I will threaten a priest until he gives in and marries my boyfriend and I. I will have sex with whom I want, assuming they consent, and if anyone objects they can go crawl off and die. I'm sure it will be argued that I'm being violent, irrational... I'm sure if any government official read this, they'd claim it was a threat and that I should be locked up.

Amusing thing is, I used to be a government official. But that also is another story for another time. For now, back to my whining. If anyone attempts to keep me from having at least the same rights as them, they will fail. If I am not going to be treated like a human being, then I hardly have anything to lose by fighting this any way possible. The point of this rambling is that I have no intention, henceforth, of caring whether or not I have equal rights. Because I do have equal rights. The second I don't, someone's going to regret it, and it won't be me.

If I have to, I will threaten a priest until he gives in and marries my boyfriend and I. I will have sex with whom I want, assuming they consent, and if anyone objects they can go crawl off and die. I'm sure it will be argued that I'm being violent, irrational... I'm sure if any government official read this, they'd claim it was a threat and that I should be locked up.

There are priests willing to marry you. It's just the state getting in the way and saying "ThAt's WRonG!!!!1shift1."

I want superior rights.
Careful... your giving the homophobes ammunition.

"Let those without sin cast the first stone"

If God or Allah or Yahwe or whatever you believe in thinks that homosexual acts are sinfull then the almight being will deal with it in due time, Its his/hers/its job not yours. You can be against it thats fine by me but just keep quiet, if you are wrong then nothing happenes and if you are right then you can laugh at them as they burn for eternity in hell.

That being said i personally do NOT think it is sinfull so please no flaming