What are your views on homosexuality?

I didn't vote in the poll as it was too simplistic and open to misinterpretation.

I believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with practicing Christianity (as are a host of other things such as worshipping idols, consulting fortune tellers and horoscopes etc). However, if non-Christians want to indulge in such practices then that is their business and I wouldn't dream of judging them or trying to force them to observe the practices of a religion that they don't even subscribe to.

I believe many Christians are hypocritical in that they act as if homosexuality were somehow a worse sin than all others. For example, I met one Christian who was delighted that Brokeback Mountain didn't win the best movie Oscar because "it was about homosexuality" - yet the movie that did win (Crash) was about violence, racism, sexual assault, theft etc.

I am totally opposed to any ideology that attempts to turn homosexuals into (in the words of the OP) "the most outcast people in society". For this reason I am especially opposed to officially Islamic or atheist regimes that, in modern times, have provided the most extreme examples of homophobia.

PDN wrote: »

I believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with practicing Christianity (as are a host of other things such as worshipping idols, consulting fortune tellers and horoscopes etc).
...
I am totally opposed to any ideology that attempts to turn homosexuals into (in the words of the OP) "the most outcast people in society". For this reason I am especially opposed to officially Islamic or atheist regimes that, in modern times, have provided the most extreme examples of homophobia.

Surely then you are opposed to Christianity, which you say teaches that homosexual acts are "incompatible" with practicing Christianity. You are basically saying that a practicing homosexual cannot be a practicing Christian. What is that if not casting out homosexuals from your religion?

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Another idiotic poll. Why is this stuff tolerated?

"Tolerated"? :eek:

Make the poll public and watch for what way Jesus votes. Couldn't be simpler.

Jesus also drew in the lepers, but he didn't let them remain lepers, he cured them.

No need for an outcry, just making a subtle point.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel.

Right after identifying homosexuals as those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” THe Apostle Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

No one, including the regimes PDN is "opposed to" gives a hoot about a homosexual who doesn't practice or want to practice homosexual acts.

The "atheist regimes" who persecuted homosexuals persecuted practicing homosexuals.

Christianity doesn't allow practicing homosexuals either, as you say the person has to "repent" If they don't repent they aren't saved. They must admit that what they feel is wrong, that acting on this feeling is wrong.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Gay, straight, bi, purple, the Christian teaching is we're all fallen sinners in need of repentance, bottom line.

No, actually the Christian teaching is that it is good that a heterosexual couple love each other, get married and then have non-sinful sex all they like, where as homosexual couple don't, can't, and never will be able to.

So please don't pretend that Christianity views heterosexuals the same as homosexuals.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Would God judge a non subscriber? It's not a trick question - just interested in what the bible says on that matter

The Bible says non-believers will be judged for their sins. While such sins may include homosexual acts, they also include lying, willful unbelief, idolatry, paying cash to avoid VAT on invoices, breaking the speed limit etc. I find it strange how these discussions speak about 'homosexuals' as if that one part of their behaviour were their defining characteristic.

aren't you saying here that you are opposed to at least some of Christianitys teachings? It was my understanding that homosexuals were outcasts in Christianity?

The OP spoke about outcasts in society, not in the church. Those who don't wish to adhere to Christian doctrine and practice voluntarily remove themselves from the Church - nothing to do with outcasts. For example, if you wish to be a Muslim then you have chosen a path that is incompatible with Christianity - that in no way means anyone is treating you as an outcast. Those who don't wish to be part of the Christian faith are (or at least should be in any civilised nation) full members of society, so I don't really see your point.

PDN wrote: »

Those who don't wish to adhere to Christian doctrine and practice voluntarily remove themselves from the Church - nothing to do with outcasts.

Fair point, and another of those spaces where I think atheists have to have a coherent engagement with religion.

However, I think the issue with homosexual acts does require some more detail in its consideration. I think that's simply because it seems not to have any intrinsic harm attached to it - unlike robbing, speeding or so forth. Also, for some, it seems to be a perfectly natural consequence of who they are. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of homosexuality being something that needs to be cured (and, in a context of population pressure, could actually be a damn good thing for the planet).

Hence, hopefully without offending anyone (as I'm just trying to make a point), its rather like a ban on eating McVities Digestives. They might be the only biscuit I've any interest in eating. I might even feel a strong compulsion to pick up a particular pack of them and devour it. Ignoring the compulsion might cause me great pain. Yet, all about me, I might see others permitted to spend their lives eating as many Jaffa Cakes as they like, so long as they stick to the same brand.

And its not immediately like, say, why someone might be born with a disability that limits their choices. There's no obvious disability in being gay. In the final event, I know the answer might be 'yes, but its in the book, so McVities Digestives are just out'. But it strikes me that a person might actually display the kind of values we associate with the Christian ideal - honesty, concern for others, and so forth - without their orientation impacting one way or the other.

I do appreciate your point that same sex acts are not the only sin that we are told we will be judged for, and that the faith does not stand or fall on this one point. But it still strikes me as needing a degree of explanation beyond that needed to explain why, for the sake of argument, adultery is wrong.

PDN wrote: »

I would draw a parallel with idolatry. Worshipping a statue seems to be a fairly innocuous and inoffensive practice - yet the Bible is very specific that such behaviour is incompatible with Christianity.

But surely that is just calling on people to worship the right god. Worshipping a statute suggests I'm not. This is only relevant to the homosexuality issue in the broadest sense - that a Christian must do everything that's in the book.

PDN wrote: »

Others might make a similar point about polygamy or polyandry.

Indeed they might - but I rather think the problem is just in the shock value. Its hard to think of an argument against it if all of the parties mutually consent. tbh, my favourite example of the limits of 'consenting adults' as a principle in moral conduct is whether someone should be allowed to consent to be eaten. I haven't found anyone (yet) who is comfortable with that idea - but I equally haven't heard an objective argument against it.

PDN wrote: »

Christians are called upon to adhere to the standards of behaviour as outlined in the Bible. God does not, in my opinion, owe us explanations for His requirements.

At the end of the day, I totally understand that and have no expectation beyond that. Its just a lot of the stuff regarding standards of behaviour seems understandable and reasonably coherent. If you are treating others as you'd wish to be treated, then you certainly will not rob them or injure them and you will be faithful to your spouse. But this ban does not make intuitive sense.

I know we can simply say 'here it is in black and white'. But is the faith not meant to be understandable to the human mind?

PDN wrote: »

There are many things that you can look at and ask, "Sure, where's the harm in it?" In fact I believe a serpent may once have said something similar about the fruit (no pun intended) of a certain tree.

I'm sure its a much broader topic, but to be honest I'm not actually clear about what that whole tree of knowledge thing was supposed to be about - so I can't tell if it does explain things in this space.

daithifleming wrote: »

So being gay is a sin, even though they are born that way?

You have a new scientific discovery to share with us?

My understanding is that the presence of certain genes may slightly increase a person's predisposition toward homosexuality - but that the majority of those who possess the so-called 'gay gene' are actually heterosexual.

Please do correct me, preferably with some credible links, if I am misinformed on this. Or maybe you want to have the old nature-v-nurture argument?

daithifleming wrote: »

No scientific discovery, its just the homosexual people i know and have discussed the matter of their sexuality with them have told me that they have always been attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex. They tell me that they couldn't be straight even if they tried. Are you saying they are liars?

I'm saying that their subjective opinions hardly qualify as evidence of something that they don't remember (the moment they were born).

I've met Muslims who claim that they were born Muslims and couldn't be anything else if they tried. Do you think they were liars? Is it not more likely that they are mistaken?

daithifleming wrote: »

So people who are gay are simply mistaken?

They may be mistaken if they make a claim (that they were born that way) without any objective evidence for it. I have met gay people who asserted that their sexuality was a lifestyle choice. They may be correct or they may be mistaken.

I may be wrong about this, but you do seem to be looking for some kind of tabloid headline response rather than understanding Christians' stance toward homosexuality. Sorry to disappoint.

PDN wrote: »

I would draw a parallel with idolatry. Worshipping a statue seems to be a fairly innocuous and inoffensive practice - yet the Bible is very specific that such behaviour is incompatible with Christianity.

Does it have to be a statue to be idolatory ?, when I was younger I had a cool poster of Bruce Lee which I worshipped, was the first and last thing I saw each day, man that Bruce Lee was a legend.

PDN wrote: »

They may be mistaken if they make a claim (that they were born that way) without any objective evidence for it. I have met gay people who asserted that their sexuality was a lifestyle choice. They may be correct or they may be mistaken.

I may be wrong about this, but you do seem to be looking for some kind of tabloid headline response rather than understanding Christians' stance toward homosexuality. Sorry to disappoint.

If it was demonstrated to you that homosexuality in homosepians was caused by genetic interactions (as has been demonstrated in other animals) would it matter to you or would you still consider it just as much a sin as you do now?

PDN wrote: »

I am using an extreme example to show that it is a logical fallacy to argue that being born with a propensity toward any given behaviour must mean that such behaviour is morally acceptable).

Well that wasn't really the point of the argument that homosexuals are born that way. It isn't to say that being born this way makes it moral. As you say a paedophilia may be born that way, or a psychopath, but that doesn't justify their actions as moral.

The point was more the issue of why God would create homosexual humans simply to ban the practice as being against his grand design. After all that seems to be the only reason homosexual is consider immoral by your religion, that it goes against the way God wants men and women to interact with each other (it doesn't harm people in the way sexual abuse, or violence would). So if God's grand design is that only male and females should ever have sexual relations with each other, then why create 10% of the population as homosexuals?