Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

I agree with Death Rabbit that animals are not relevent, since we, the human beigns, have a greater intellect than any other. We have a right to choose. We have freedom. And that is precisly my point. Wether it's natural or not, it's a moot point. We have the intellectual power to overcome nature's barriers. What was intended by nature is no longer relevant in this day and age. And BTW, chev, what has rape got to do with anything? With homosexuality, we're talking about two consenting adults...

I know you said that not all homosexuals were abused as kids, but I don't see the correlation between abuse and homosexuality. Did you have a proof of some kind, or is it a supposition? (And there is no malice here, I'm not trying to argue with you. I really want to know if there is proof)

While I appalaud you for your open-mindness, why would they have to be hidden? (Unless you're talking about sex... ) To follow the same logic, wouldn't every couple (homo and hetero) would have to be in privacy while nobody else was looking to "get together", like kiss or makeout?

 

Exactly. I don't think there's much more to say on the matter, really.

 

Tangentially -- I thought that the "real" reason of the destruction of Sodom was because of its denizens' inhospitality toward God's people? I don't really think that homosexuality -- just like in most religions -- is given that much emphasis (probably because it just wasn't an issue then).

 

I think there is. Why should homosexuality be hidden in a basement, locked behind a cellar door? Why do you care if you see two guys kissing in the street? Why is it different than seeing a girl you're absolutly not interested in kissing another guy?

And BTW, for those who think homosexuality is recent, it's not. Unless of course you consider greek and roman times recent of course, where homosexuality was widely reckonized.

 

Abuse can lead to anything. I have a friend who was abused as a child and now he's a heterosexual doctor, I have another who was abused and she's a heterosexual archetect... So abuse can lead to becoming a doctor or archetect?

I'd say homosexuality stems from a combination of multiple events/experiences in a person's life rather than just "Bob had <this> happen to him so now he's gay."

To be quite honest nobody understands fully how homosexuality comes about. There is evidence of it being genetic but then there are those who have become homosexual in the later stages of their lives disproving that genetics is the only cause of homosexuality.

 

Sorry Beren, I misread your post. You said that people could do more harmful thing than for two men to get together in privacy while nobody else is looking. I thought you meant that two men together SHOULD be in private while nobody else is looking. Sorry, so much work, so little sleep...

 

Hmm, I didn't get that impression - but I might read it again just to be sure...

*goes to read*

Hmm, still not getting that impression:

Well if God sent them to destroy it they must have already had that intention in mind when they rocked up - before the people stated their intent to rape the angels...

Aha - just found this in the bit preceeding that:

So yeah - God went down to see what the unrighteous (i.e. gay) people were up to, and when he found that they were - in fact - all raging homosexuals, blew the place up.

 

man, God's a self-righteous S.O.B, ain't he?

 

I totally disagree with this. Here in the states they have the exact same basic rights as everyone else. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. As to civil unions, they are not a basic right. But, even if they are, here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts we can do one better as we have homosexual marriage. For those desperate for the title of "civil union" I recommend Vermont as I believe they were the first in the union to have such a thing.

If I had to pick the crowd that causes the most trouble trying to inform/instruct it would without a doubt be the homosexuals. Have you ever heard of a "religious conservative pride" march/parade? I didn't think so.

Well you know what they say about opinions and *******s. Mrs. Snook always uses the same argument with me. Somehow, when my opinion doesn't agree with hers, I am wrong and a jerk.

Last time I checked being physically assaulted was a crime and it didn't seem to matter if you were gay or not.

There are just as many people who praise as revile homosexuals. We have many homosexual politicians here in Massachusetts. Religious leaders will never get along with homosexuals due to their conflicting standpoints. I was also never aware that the elderly were anti-homosexual. I always figured they had no idea what it meant.

 

The problem is that a lot of gays want more than equal rights, they want special rights. I find the Gay Pride parade to be as lame as the Orange March. Your gay? Who cares.

The Catholic Church and various Protestant sects used to give gays a hard time, but those days are long gone, so get over it!

 

Marches/parades are for oppressed minority groups, and 'religious conservatives' certainly don't qualify for that. But they do hold demonstrations just like everyone else.

I'd hardly call the only state in the US to legalize gay marriage a good cross-section, but rather one end of the spectrum. I daresay your experiences are far from the norm.

 

They still have no good democratic reason for preventing homosexuals from having civil-unions. They simply wish the ability to "marry" the person they love and be allowed to adopt children. Till they are granted the same rights as a regular heterosexual couple then I can't see them demanding more than equal rights.

As for the gay marches, almost every religious group is allowed to have marches whenever they want it and it's not limited to religion, religious groups are also allowed to go knocking from door to door trying to convert people to their ideals and that's far more 'in your face' than any gay activity to date.

They're proud of who they are, they're still being oppressed of not physically but by people denying them to be able to do things that are honestly none of the people who are denying's business - such as civil unions or adopting children. You might as well ban a particular sexual position...

 

Aikanaro --

Try this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish_views

(In the verses you quote I'm not seeing any direct reference to homosexuality anyway.)

 

Part of why the states and our laws are so great is because we as citizens have the power to lobby for the modification of those laws. If enough people agree with that arguement, the laws change. That's all gay couples are trying to do. Inter-racial marriages were illegal in most of the country half a century ago, but people take them for granted how. So will it (hopefully) be for gay civil unions.

I will grant that your views are probably shaped very greatly by the fact that you are a conservative living in argueably the most liberal state in the union, and as such I know how obnoxious liberal activists can get. But part of the "small mindedness" of your earlier statement is attributed to the fact that the rest of us don't live in Massachusettes, and how you didn't seem to take that into account when saying gays are the most pain-in-the-ass group. In Texas, for example, you're about ten times more likely to see some idiot with a homemade "GOD HATES FAGS" poster than you are an idiot with a "WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER!" poster. Or that you seem to think ALL gays are like the jerk activists who are clearly annoying you, when they actually represent a small (if annoyingly vocal) minority.

The vast majority of gays simply want to get on with their lives and not be discriminated against. If they are in a permenant, committed relationship, they want the right to have that union legally recognised and enjoy similar spousal benefits under the law as straight married couples do. I wouldn't call that special treatment, I'd call that fair and equal treatment. You might too if you'd put yourself in their shoes for five minutes.

HA! Clearly, you don't spend much time in the south or in Utah.

You want conservative pride parades? How about 17 bible channels on cable? How about Pat Robertson and James Dobson and their (literally) millions of devotees? How about lawmakers like Rick Santorum trying to write biblical passages into the constitution and do away with separation of church and state, making us essentially a Christian theocracy? Dobson just had a "Focus on the Family" conference that was covered on C-SPAN, for god's sake.

EDIT - I realize that you're Jewish, Snook, and that those I listed above are Christians. But the point still stands that religious conservatives have NO trouble whatsoever getting their viewpoints heard by an enormous audience. That's hardly the case with gays.

There are conservative pride parades - figuratively and literally - all around in this country on a regular basis. Such expressions of religious conservative pride may not be common in Boston, but I assure you they're just hunky dory in most of the rest of the US. Start swinging a dead cat, you'll locate a few.

Awe, dry your eyes. I never said you were wrong and a jerk, and certainly not because I disagreed with you. I don't know your relationship (you brought it up), but maybe she gets mad at you not for your disagreement, but for you lack of empathy with those of opposite opinion. Has that occured to you?

If you honestly think that religious conservatives in the United States don't believe they're intitled to rewrite laws as they see fit so that everyone has to live according to their moral code - personal and religous values of others be damned - or that they aren't the ones most often shoving their own beliefs in everyone's face, then I urge you to spend a little more time among them, listen to them speak, and take a good hard look at the candidates Bush's "base" are supporting all over the country, not just in Massachusettes. Your apparant failure to look beyond your own borders is what made the above statement small-minded, not because it isn't true.

[ October 04, 2006, 00:17: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Sure, there are annoying homosexuals just like there are annoying heterosexuals. But that in itself does not make homosexuality evil. Don't tar the quiet majority with the same brush as the vocal minority.

Actually, this means I agree with what Death Rabbit just said.

 

Man did this one ever take off when I missed a day…

But seeing as he was a prophet, and thus a servant of God, his letters to the ancient churches in Rome and Corinth DO count as the word of God.

To Jesus, Sin was personal, as is repentance. There were cases where he interjected on behalf of publicans and harlots, offering forgiveness if they would forsake their sins. To extend this, homosexuals can be forgiven is they will likewise forsake their sins.

You don’t further the plan of God because your chosen companion must be of the opposite gender.

That is not the issue. The issue is that it is a sin. Sin does not provide lasting happiness.

The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and the covenants made when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

Are these things truly contradictions? Are the differing things said really mutually exclusive? Until you can PROVE that these are mutually exclusive, then I’ll ignore that comment in the future. Besides, the Old and New Testament do not contradict on the topic of Homosexuality.

I actually agree with you on this one DR. I think that this discussion applies more to humans.

Forgiveness can be attained through repentance, but repentance required that the sin involved is forsaken.

But if Homosexuality is not genetic or God-given as they suggest, then their argument falls down. I think that Christian doctrine on the subject teaches that it is a temptation, which is the province of Satan.

Agreed, but I can’t get off that easily. For years, we, the Christians were satisfied with the status quo, and thus could mind our own business. Then, when some groups came forward to challenge society, advocating changes that we could not support, we had to speak in defense of our faith.

But what if the majority find such modifications offensive?

I agree, but not the way you want me to. It would be simpler if we all believed the same thing. But since that is not the case, we speak up to defend what we believe.

When the “homos” see fit to parade their sinful lives in our face and demand that we change our laws to accommodate their desires, it’s hard to be sympathetic. I don’t think it is just to hunt and kill them, but I don’t feel obliged to agree with their cause.

I understand that too. But in the case of my religion, we believe that people are happier when they get with God’s program.

Jude 1:7 claims that among the sins of Sodom and Gamorrah was the Lustful pursuit of “Strange Flesh”, or in today’s language, gay sex.

Thank you. I can go one further and say that there is a legal precedent supporting the traditional definition of marriage—polygamy. Polygamy remains a crime under US law, and every prosecution for polygamy is an affirmation of the traditional definition of marriage, specifically one man and one woman.

As a Mormon, I have attended such an event, but not specifically a “Mormon Pride” parade. Every year in Palmyra New York, the site of the Hill Cummorah the Church puts on a pageant depicting the events of the Book of Mormon. It’s actually a big production, attended by thousands every year. It’s not ridiculous like the Gay Pride festivities however…

And as a Hate crime, it carries a lengthier sentence.

In the US, approximately 51% of the people voted for a party that did not support this cause, some of the politicians in that party actually opposing that position. The people have spoken. Try again in 2008.

But they aren’t trying to tell you that you don’t have the right to refuse their teachings. The Gay rights lobby wants not only these rights, but the power to stifle the opposition.

 

How about this: I've never seen homosexuals going around blowing up things which they don't agree with (say - maybe those conservative churches that are trying to marginalise them?) - but how about the conservative Christians who go around blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors?

I think that's causing a lot more trouble than the homosexuals offending your sensibilities while trying to get their point across...


Oaz: Hmm, the Bible says a few things on what the cause was actually (though I think that the Jewish view that you linked is being a bit revisionist - ignoring the bits that it doesn't like.

Just found this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/sodom.html

So - maybe a combination of things? Homosexuality certainly seems to be in there though as one of the factors leading to God wanting to blow everything up...

 

Aikanaro:

Maybe, but the general point I am trying to stress is that homosexuality probably didn't have a huge place in the Old Testament (or as I would guess, the New Testament, the Qu'ran...). No doubt the authors of the OT books were more concerned with their history (as it were), their religion vs. other religions (apostasy wasn't uncommon throughout Jewsish history), the authority and power of their God, etc., etc.

So I would guess that from at least the Jewish perspective, it is maybe more of an idea of God punishing the enemies of His people rather than just smiting guys who like ass.

(Interestingly enough, someone in class today mentioned that a term for homosexuality, at least in Western History, didn't really emerge until the dawn of the Renaissance. I think this is discounting stuff like the pederasty of the Greeks and Romans.)

Also -- regarding homosexuals being violent: well, keep in mind that the population of GLBT's is drastically less than conservative Christians. Also, you seem to be comparing people who make a lifestyle choice vs. people who are following certain tenets and beliefs. These two aren't the same things (although they are inextricably linked).

If you had a gay analgoue of Malcolm X, for example, you might see more forceful forms of protesting treatment of GLBT's -- but of course blacks in the US have had a much worse history of being marginalized. And you can't conclude that the actions of several conservative Christians set the bar for conservative Christians in general; I know plenty of such people who wouldn't physically/verbally abuse GLBT's (but it would probably be an issue for them when they vote). If you choose to think about abortionist killings and the like when you think about Christians -- well, how broad/applicable is that view?

[ October 04, 2006, 08:45: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

"Go prove a negative" is becoming almost a refrain with you.

Then the majority are discriminating within their rights. Doing a wrong the right way, I suppose.

Before someone jumps on this, it's true. Of course, it would also be simpler if we were all one collective mind instead of individuals, or if there were no such thing as race, or short and tall, or anything else that distinguished us from another. Simpler doesn't always mean better...

Not quite. Polygamy affirms only that marriage belongs to exactly two people...not that they have to be opposite genders. It doesn't have to be that narrow.

Well, I can't say for myself, since I don't know the Book of Mormon, but depending on the events, some might say that your pageant is just as ridiculous (if not moreso) than a Gay Pride Parade.

Just to clarify, since you omitted it, you have to prove that they did it BECAUSE the victim was gay in order for it to be a hate crime.