God Hates Gays...

Remove all ads!

@Aldeth:

I too lead a celibate life. Oh well, there is a difference because the priest has already chosen and he has to stay away from women on the romantic level. Well, you can tell gay from straight by what you're attracted to.

Urges of attraction at the most basic level can't be chosen... it's just people's conscious choices may affect in some way what they become attracted to at the more basic level, I think, at least to some extent. Well, anyway, a consensual sexual act is always a choice. It's the choice where the problem starts. If you're a man, being attracted to a man is no more sinful than being attracted to a woman. Acting on it is a different thing, yeah.

He may have engaged in the past or been inclined that way. Or attracted to men. Or have dated men. Or... well, you need witnesses or photos for that kind of stuff and he surely isn't going to give you any.

Perhaps convents and monasteries can have the prison thing. You know, prisoners of just one gender starting to fill the gap etc. But they aren't supposed to be sexual at all, so they don't just lack the other gender. If they go the active gay route, it means they would otherwise go the active straight route and sleep with the other gender regardless of the chastity vow, and that would be bad for them, too.

@LNT:

Nawww... notice the "of but one wife" part? It says guys who can't stick to one woman shouldn't perform responsible functions in the church.

We used to have married priests and we may have them again. It's a matter of discipline more than doctrine, although it is supported by biblical passages, which are mostly Pauline prudential rules. Personally, I have no moral problem with allowing married men to be ordained (there's more of a problem with letting ordained men get married but it still can be done -- they do it even now, except they dismiss them from active service).

And chastity is required of all Catholics, not just priests. Everyone is required to be chaste within his state. I am not married, so I don't sleep with people. Someone else is married, so he sticks to one person and acts on love rather than lust. Finally the priest or monk or nun has chosen a celibate life, so, again, no sex. Except those celibate folks are out of the mating pool, so they don't get romantic, either. After all, they won't be marrying anyone. But generally speaking, everyone is supposed to be chaste.

[ September 22, 2005, 23:36: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Non Sequitor: It's important that these people are recognized for their lack of understanding.

LNT: They can't tell. I understood Celebacy to mean utter resistance to all Sexual temptation and a decision not to marry.

Aldeth: That is exactly my opinion. We all have out temptations to do things we are not supposed to do. For some, Homosexuality is a stronger temptation than for others.

NOG: I agree. Forcing someone to choose not to marry is asking for trouble. Mankind is still under the commandment to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, to replenish the earth and have joy in their posterity. As such, the desire to have sex with people of the opposite gender is natural. The Law of Chastity is in place to help us try to be better than the natural human.

Further, It seems even that the Bible opposes the practice of Celebacy. As for the part about people that live what they preach, again you hit it on the head. Hypocrites will send conflicting messages. From the pulpit, they will preach morality, but their example will tell another tale...

 

I guess I wasn't clear in my meaning. I have no doubt that the priest will know whether or not he is gay or straight. As you said, he will know what he is attracted to. I was more or less going from the standpoint of an outside observer. If the priest truly leads a celibate life, than regardless of whether he is gay or straight, there's no way any one else can determine which he is unless he chooses to divulge that information. Presumably, if a priest is celibate, then he probably would feel no compunction to make such a pronouncement unless he was directly asked, and even then, he may justify not telling anyone as he isn't acting on it, and no one is going to know otherwise anyway.

Here's another question. If we are allowing that having heterosexual sex is a natural act, then why aren't priests allowed to marry? Aren't we asking them to do something counter to human nature by remaining celibate?

 

@AFI: Sexuality is a gift from God, celibacy is the gift of oneself back to God. Or so says the Catholic teaching - you won't find that in the Talmud.

 

Agreed Rally. I too, was raised Catholic. (Although I realize the similarity in our two positions ends there, as I'm simply non-practicing, whereas you converted to a new religion.) But despite that fact, it would still appear that priests are acting against what is "human nature".

 

So what is the truth, Gnarfflinger? In your own words, please.

 

Just a heads up: this is the posting of a somewhat intoxicated agnostic/athiest...

I want to explore the issue of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God's abhorrent view of homosexuality.

The first issue that must be addressed is whether same sex attraction is an innate primal drive or something self-created through immoral fantasy followed by lack of divine grace.

It seems to be the prevailing wisdom that same sex attraction is natural to some extent. By "natural" I mean that all people have, at least at one time or another, looked upon the aspect of a person of the same sex and have had -- an albeit slight -- sexual response.

Has anyone ever not experienced this?

Based upon my own heterosexual male experience, this usually is a feeling of awkward consignment to the right of the more masculine individual's social-animal right to lead in the pursuit of females. In other situations, such as the passing-by of an obviously good-looking male, it is a feeling of inferiority coupled by a feeling of shame for the desire to seek security in the protection that an athletic animal of the same species offers.

I think the two evolutionary benefits of homosexual attraction are evident: The first is the sexual intercourse, with females, made more likely by the proximity to a sexually attractive male; the second is the animal security offered by proximity to a male whom is gifted with athleticism/intelligence.

So let us try to graft a divine abhorrence upon our natural inclinations towards same sex attraction.

It would seem, at least according to Judeo/Christian/Islamic dogma, that God abhors our natural predilections.

Why would He do such a thing?

Perhaps he does not agree with our desire for by-proxy sexual activity; this seems unfair considering his ordering of the universe in such a way as to insure the continuation of the most sexually active individual's hereditary lineage. Does He not want humans to advance towards a "moral" majority?

Perhaps he does not agree with our desire to seek protection from predators, or perhaps he does not agree with our need to flock toward intelligent leaders. This again seems unfair considering the manner in which He has ordered the universe.

The conclusion from this line of reasoning is that God does not seek morality from all men, but rather select repression of their natural sexual desires from a few individuals.

Or perhaps he desires select sexual repression from all individuals? But then why the ordering of the universe in the manner He has done? Is He sadistic? Could He not have done it differently? Does He desire to see a minority condemned based upon their overly expressed natural desires?

The repression of homosexuality -- by religions -- I see as a competely personal phenomenom, expressed religiously, that is quite different from my own personal view of divinity.

All people recognize sexual urges as ever present. I find my girlfriend sexually provacative in ways only my dreams can sometimes fully describe: She has dark hair, dark eyes; sometimes she has a womanly lust demanding equal contribution, and at other times, she is demure and girlish, requiring me to be the proprietor of initiative and domain; and yet, despite her femininity, I cannot help but be attracted to other women. I also cannot help but acknowledge the masculine qualities other men possess.

Am I a sinner? No. I say I am human.

I think the persecution of homosexuals is not something divine, but rather a projection, made by religious individuals, of their own ever present desires to fault upon their responsibilities which all humans possess. Where I acknowledge my attraction towards individuals whom I do not love, the religious persecutionist sees the homosexual as the embodiment of infidelity, by way of sexual indulgence. Where I see my own desire to submit to non-sexual laziness, such as not showing up to class or work, the religious persecutionist sees the homosexual as someone who has submitted to moral laziness by not combating their natural predilections on a daily basis. They project their own natural faults upon the homosexual.

The homosexual is the embodiment of their potential failure to meet their own daily ever present responsibilities, both moral and otherwise, represented by the ever present quality of sexual attraction.

Luckily for me, I have no such divine whip cracker demanding I behave outside of which I have been made for. Luckily for me, I feel free to elucidate my homosexuality, because I know, tomorrow night, if I decide to take my girlfriend from behind, and if I am ferocious, she will bite my thumb, and if I am paced and gentle, she will suck on it.

 

LNT, LNT, again you're seeking it where it isn't. Look, it's not about repressing the homosexual urge any more than the whole morality in sexual matters is about repressing sexual urges. What sometimes eludes those who attack the judeochristian stance on homosexuality is that sex is never something healthy and natural to enjoy for people who are not in marriage. As for marriage, it was set up and decided by Genesis, with countless references ever after. One man, one woman, uniting into one. You could even argue that the image of God is made more accurate by it being a male and a female. Whatever marriage is about, homosexual union doesn't meet it. The sexual activity itself is against nature, as shown above, which also contributes. And here you have it.

God has nothing against you seeking protection of mighty leaders (didn't He set up judges and kings for Israel?) or improving your chances of finding a good woman to marry, or whatever else it is. It's just that not every means of achieving that goal you come up with is equally good as the rest, and the goal doesn't justify the means. The way you conduct that argument, you could say that the fifth prevents you from being happy because you can't get rid of someone you don't like (instead of e.g. arbitration) or the seventh because it forbids you from taking something that isn't yours (although you could go to greater lengths and buy it or make a similar object).

 

Hmm...I certainly am wordy when I drink...

Back on Terra Firma...

I just want to warn you Chev, and this is just my own personal opinion of course, but marriage may not be what you think it is going to be.

Become one...?

What does that mean?

Such romanticism seems to place quite a burden upon a mate; expecting the impossible from someone is going to lead to personal disappointment and a sense of failure in the other.

But I have never been married...

And hey, aiming high generally leads to landing on higher ground than the person whom never glances up...

[ September 24, 2005, 20:24: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Yulaw, I'll start with the position that homosexuality is a temptation, just as the temptation to engage in heterosexual sex with an inappropriate partner. This means that they aren't freaks or sub-humans, but they are people like us. The difference is in which temptation they face.

Remember that from a Christian standpoint, all sex outside of legal and lawful marriage is a greivous sin. Therefore one should not look more favourably on those that fornicate or commit adultery as those that have homosexual relations. Rapists, pedophiles are different because they often harm their partner, but a homosexual is the same as an adulterer or fornicator.

Sin is sin, and cannot be condoned. This does not mean that God hates sinners, but simply that he doesn't condone what they do. I remember in the New Testament, Jesus commanded the Scribes and Pharisees that the one among them who was without sin should cast the first stone at an adulteress. I understand this to mean that we have enough to worry about with our own sins and need not condemn another for their sins.

So basically:

1: They are no different from us.

2: It is not them, but their sins that are offensive to God.

3: Our sins are no more palatable to God.

Therefore: we have more things to be concerned about than bashing one particulat group of sinners...

 

LNT:
I think the basic fact (belief) you are missing is that we do not live in a world solely of God's design. We are fallen people living in a fallen world. This means that what God designed to work perfectly doesn't anymore. It also means that human nature is not neccesarily good. Just because it is natural does not mean God approves of it.
Also, yes, you are a sinner. We all are. That's part of being human.
Gnarf:
You got it.

 

From Chev:

And then from Gnarff:

I can understand that at a base level, especially when talking Christian beliefs, that sin is sin, and that no sin is "better" or "worse" than any other sin. In practice however, society views them as very different things and I see many Christians prioritizing some sins as being worse than others.

First an obvious example: Both lying and murder are sins, but almost everyone would agree that murder is the far more grevious sin (whether or not that is true of Christian dogma).

I think a similar line is drawn from society's standpoint in sexual relations outside of marriage taken generally, and even within Christian concepts taken specifically. Most Christians would agree that all of the following are bad: premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual sex. Now on one level, they may all be sins, but to say they are all equally bad, seems to me to be ignoring some very real fact-of-life issues.

Many Christians get up in arms about homosexual sex, but I don't see them giving the same lectures about people committing adultery. I certainly don't see them campaigning against the star high school quarterback banging the hottest cheerleader in the back of his car. The point being is that both of you may be sincere in what you are saying, but I do not think that you are speaking for society at large, or even of most Christians in particular.

What you preach is all sex outside of marriage is bad. What we on the outside see in practice (and I'm not just talking about Gnarff and chev specifically here, but Christians in general) is that there is definitely a heirarchical categorization of sins. From what you see, it certainly appears that the order is homosexual sex is the worst, followed by adultery, followed by premarital sex. While none of them are viewed as good, it certianly seems that the quarterback-cheerleader pairing is most certainly "less bad" than the other two.

Basically, there definitely seems to me that there exists in society a rather large anti-gay group, and that most of these people would also categorize themselves as Christians. I don't see similarly sized "anti-adultery" groups, or "Parents Against Teenagers Having Sex" groups, so that's why I say the letter of the Christian law seems to be used differently in practice than in concept.

 

Actually, most sects that I know of tend to discourage heterosexual sex outside of marriage -- I know for a fact mine does, and my understanding of Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran and Greek orthodox theology is that they too believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. There is certainly no pastor or preacher I've ever seen who advocates the football star "banging the cheerleader".

People admit it happens, but acknowledging the existence of a behaviour is much different from encouraging or condoning it.

 

Sins are equal in the sense that they are all sins and all to be avoided. Doesn't mean they are all of equal gravity. However, the gravity of a sin is decided not only by the material act but also by the level of consent and knowledge of the sinner.

Right. And I don't like that, either.

Correct.

There is some true in that, but you must remember that homosexual intercourse always includes premarital sex. It's premarital sex with same gender sex added on top of it. Between adultery and homosexual intercourse, I think there would be much controversy between theologians. I would probably rate adultery as worse, provided none of the participants in homosexual intercourse is married. Many theologians seem to be oblivious to it, but in my oh so humble opinion, there is a lot of difference between a person suffering from SSA and trying to build a relationship based on love and a person who seeks new thrills after casual sex has stopped bringing much fun (as a prelude to children and animals, perhaps), the same way as there must be a difference between a relationship that goes astray and one night stands. Even if I think some theologians would argue that one night stands are better than concubinage. Once upon a time, a girl asked if there was no difference if she slept with her boyfriend or banged the whole football team and that's a question theologians had better answer.

There is much truth in what you say and I believe we would do a good job ranting together in a Catholic forum every now and then. Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that homosexual sex is only as bad as premarital heterosexual sex. On the material level (the act alone), it seems to be worse. However, I don't want to go too far into the level of consent and knowledge, since I'm no judge of that and I don't know what is in the hearts of men. At least not fully and not certainly.

 

And I'm not denying that. My point was if all premarital sex is bad, why is homosexual sex treated as if it is worse?

Chev, that's the sticking point for me. The fact that it seems worse. On the actual material level, despite what Christian dogma dictates, it seems like the homosexual act is treated with far more gravity than the pre-marital heterosexual sex. So it only stands to reason then that homosexual sex is frowned up for more than just being sex outside of marriage. It seems to me, that even if homosexual marriage were to become legal, it sill wouldn't remove the "sin" associated with homosexual actions from the Christian point of view, and not just because the Christian Church wouldn't recognize the marriage.

Plus, like you said it's compounding multiple sins. Pre-marital sex is one sin, and homosexual sex is another sin. Just based on that alone, it certainly suggests that there is something beyond pre-marital sex that is viewed as inherently bad. (Of course, we could take it a step further in that we could have homosexual sex when one of the partners is lawfully married, and go for the sinful sex triumverate.)

We can quote Leviticus all we'd like, but the fact remains that most of Catholic (and most Christian denominations as far as I'm aware) teachings are based on Christ's teachings - i.e., the New Testament. In fact, that's the basis of the entire religion. As the name implies the penultimate definition of being "Christian" is to believe in the divinity of Christ. It seems like some backwater Old Testament Leviticus reference is not reason enough to frown upon homosexual sex. There are many equally obscure Old Testament references that don't get nearly as much screen time for the very reason they are obscure and generally found to be of less importance (not to say they are unimportant).

Which brings us back to the same point: That the primary reason homosexual sex is bad is because it is by definition pre-marital sex. And yet the fact that it seems worse suggests there is more to it than that.

 

If they make it legal, people will probably eventually get used to it, although such a process will take a lot of time.

Yes, of course. First, the fact that there can never be marriage between the partners. You can even be allowed to marry your own aunt or niece. You can be allowed to marry despite being ordained (think about the chance, but yes, you can), but you can't marry a person of the same gender. Not any more than you could marry your own parent or child. Next, there is the problem of unnatural sexual practice and yes, strange sexual preferences are frowned upon up to the point of potentially making marriage invalid from beginning if one of the partners (heterosexual) prefers to have his or her sex in some strange way.

It's not any more backwater than the ban on pre- or extramarital sex.

Well, you could say the same about incest. Or necrophilia. Or whatever. There are sexual preferences that won't find fruition within the boundaries of Christian marriage. The fact they won't makes it something more than just premarital sex with someone you could theoretically marry. It's already a problem if you are in a relationship with someone you can't marry because it's building a vain relationship that is banned from fruition from the very beginning. NOTE: Some Catholics will supply this argument when you talk to them about homosexual unions. Nonetheless, they will eagerly dismiss this very same argument when you start talking to them about non-exclusive dating and romantic relationships, as I have.

 

At least that makes sense. Granted, it's not a reason that is going to convince anyone who is not Catholic, but at least it is a sensible reason beyond saying, "Homosexual sex is bad because pre-marital sex is bad." You can say that while you don't approve of the football star banging the cheerleader, at least the possibility of them getting married and setting things right exists.

I don't have any problem understanding why these examples are viewed upon far more unfavorably than pre-marital sex - it's because they are all also illegal. I mean hell, we may as well throw in child molestation and rape in that list as well. All are illegal, and no matter how religious or un-religious someone is, most also hold the belief that things that are against the law are bad.

 

Remember that they are worse also in the religious laws and it's not like a secular statute can define what's a worse sin. From a religious point of view, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not in the country you're in -- notwithstanding the general command to obey the law and be a good citizen.

 

Actually, I think the best evidence in the Old Testament against homosexual unioins is in Genesis. I mean who is this Leviticus guy anyway? Is he considered a prophet? I've never anything about his life other than something of what he wrote got into the Old Testament.

But Genesis on the other hand shows at least the intention of God that man and woman be together. Of course this brings forth another interesting question: How many people did God create directly, as opposed to people being born from two parents. As I remember, Adam and Eve had Kane and Abel. God then provided wives for them. Of course, with incest having always been viewed as bad, it seems like God would have had to continue to provide more people of a given sex for quite some time before a large enough population was established to avoid incest taboos.

At least you seem to have come around to admitting that homosexual sex is worse than pre-marital or extra-marital sex according to Christian dogma. It is yet to be seen if Gnarff will come around too.

 

I don't remember the exact passage about Kane and Abel and their wives, but I remember Saint Augustine said God's allowance for incest ended when it wasn't necessary for survival, i.e. when there were other options than the closest relatives.

It does seem so to me, although you will find clergy and theologians claiming otherwise. But having sex with someone you can't marry must be worse than having sex with someone you can. Of course, we could reduce homosexual sex to sex with someone you can't marry (like with an impediment), but it won't deal away with the act not being natural. It's possible that in certain cases of heterosexual and homosexual unmarried couples the sin is equally grave, but here we would have to delve into consent and knowledge and we can never be sure of those. Today's "affirmation" and "rights" make much room for ignorance and consent may also be affected. Still, I believe making homosexual and heterosexual sex without marriage equal is going too far. So you've got me there.