Homophobia in Christianity

Acid_Violet

Hi

I've never posted here before, but am doing so out of interest and want to provoke a debate about homophobia that's apparently part of Christian doctrine.

Before I give my own opinion on homosexuality, I'd like if people would voice their own opinions and their reasons for them.

Thanks.

PDN

Acid_Violet wrote:

I've never posted here before, but am doing so out of interest and want to provoke a debate about homophobia that's apparently part of Christian doctrine.

Homophobia is formed from two Greek words: homo means the same & phobos means fear. Fear of, or hatred of, homosexuals is not part of Christian doctrine.

Biblical teaching, as interpreted by most churches, is that homosexual acts are sinful, and therefore must be avoided by church members. However, homosexual acts are only one of many activities that are considered wrong for Christians (my own denomination, for example, includes gambling, drunkenness, heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage, and gossip as similar prohibited activities). Christian doctrine actually teaches that we are to love those who engage in such activities, not to hate them.

So, homophobia is no more a part of Christian doctrine than is hating my next door neighbour because he lives with his girlfriend, or having an irrational fear of my Uncle Albert because he had one too many whiskeys again last Saturday night.

It is true that some individual Christians are homophobic - because not all of us manage to follow the high standards that we set for ourselves. However, in my experience such homophobia is cultural, not a part of Christianity per se. For example, I have never met a person who was tolerant of homosexuals and then converted to Christianity and became a homophobe. Also, the most aggressively and violently homophobic societies have tended to be those that rejected Christianity (Soviet Union, China, Cuba etc.) Cuba is an interesting case since it has the lowest percentage of Christians in Latin America but also the highest level of homophobia.

So, homphobia is not part of Christian doctrine.

JimiTime

Phobia: 1. A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus.

2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

Persoanlly I hate the term 'phobia' applied in such a way.

As a Christian,Do I disapprove of homosexual behaviour? Yes.
Do I fear it? Absolutely not. Why would I?
Personally I think 'homophobia' is a political word. A lazy word if you will.
Would I incite hate to homosexuals? No. Do I hate homosexuals? No.

As a Christian, my reasons for disaproving of homosexual behaviour is because it is against Gods moral law. In fact, with the Sodom and Gommorah scenario, he really showed what he thought about it.

Leviticus 20:13
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

And carried to the new testament.

Romans 1.26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Edit/ deleted a personal view that was not necessary.

I've heard of homosexuals saying that the scripyures are misinterpreted regarding them, I would be curious of their arguement?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So, homphobia is not part of Christian doctrine.

After the quite disappointing Keith Allen documentary about the God Hates Fags church group (Allen seemed to have little knowledge of the Bible, or where their arguments were coming from), I would love to stick you and Brain in a room with these people

But that is for another day ....

While this topic has been covered quite a bit, and I think the Christian position has been made quite clear (hate the sin, love the sinner) one question did pop into my head while watching Allen's documentary last night, when the woman of the Westborough church was listing the reasons that homosexuality is bad (other than it will send you to hell).

It got me thinking about the way some times Christians rather weakly give external reasons for why homosexuality should be considered bad (it is unnatural, it makes people sad, it spreads disease).

These needless to say don't go down very well, particularly with homosexuals.

Others seem happy to accept that homosexuality is in of itself not a bad thing, in that it is not harmful and is an act between two consenting adults.

So the question I guess is would you, or the other Christians, consider homosexuality bad in of itself, even if it wasn't considered immoral by God? Or is that the only reason? (of course you might say you don't need another one)

PDN

JimiTime wrote:

Apart from morality, my personal view is I think its unnatural. I think its obvious what is supposed to be done with ones sexual organs, so I think its against the natural order. My sister in law is a nurse in an old folks home in England. She told me that there are about 11 old Gay men she has nursed who needed what she described as an Anal Tampon, from the years of their sexual activity. If thats not your body telling you thats not right, I don't know what is:eek:
I do extend that view to hetro couples also BTW.

Although I personally am repulsed by the idea of anal sex, maybe we could keep the issues of sodomy & homosexuality separate for the purposes of this discussion? After all, Jimi. as you have pointed out some heterosexuals also engage in that practice. Also it is perfectly possible to engage in homosexual behaviour without sodomy. Finally, lesbianism is also included under the heading of homosexuality (although certain organisations, such as GLAD, seem to treat them as distinct).

philologos

JimiTime wrote:

Phobia: 1. A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus.

2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

Persoanlly I hate the term 'phobia' applied in such a way.

As a Christian,Do I disapprove of homosexual behaviour? Yes.
Do I fear it? Absolutely not. Why would I?
Personally I think 'homophobia' is a political word. A lazy word if you will.
Would I incite hate to homosexuals? No. Do I hate homosexuals? No.

As a Christian, my reasons for disaproving of homosexual behaviour is because it is against Gods moral law. In fact, with the Sodom and Gommorah scenario, he really showed what he thought about it.

Leviticus 20:13
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

And carried to the new testament.

Romans 1.26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Apart from morality, my personal view is I think its unnatural. I think its obvious what is supposed to be done with ones sexual organs, so I think its against the natural order. My sister in law is a nurse in an old folks home in England. She told me that there are about 11 old Gay men she has nursed who needed what she described as an Anal Tampon, from the years of their sexual activity. If thats not your body telling you thats not right, I don't know what is:eek:
I do extend that view to hetro couples also BTW.

I've heard of homosexuals saying that the scripyures are misinterpreted regarding them, I would be curious of their arguement?

Totally agree with all of this. Exactly my stance on it.

Fallen Seraph

JimiTime wrote:

Apart from morality, my personal view is I think its unnatural. I think its obvious what is supposed to be done with ones sexual organs, so I think its against the natural order. My sister in law is a nurse in an old folks home in England. She told me that there are about 11 old Gay men she has nursed who needed what she described as an Anal Tampon, from the years of their sexual activity. If thats not your body telling you thats not right, I don't know what is:eek:
I do extend that view to hetro couples also BTW.

Going out in the sun too much can give skin cancer and sunburn; does this make enjoying a summer's day unnatural? I fail to see how the situations aren't analogous...

Moreover, if god intended homosexual anal sex to be unnatural, then it was a bit of a lack of foresight on his part to make the prostate an erogenous zone, which does kinda make it seem like something was supposed to go up there...

edit: also, apologies PDN, your post wasn't there when I hit reply

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Apart from morality, my personal view is I think its unnatural. I think its obvious what is supposed to be done with ones sexual organs, so I think its against the natural order.
...
I do extend that view to hetro couples also BTW.

You must be no fun in bed at all

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

Although I personally am repulsed by the idea of anal sex, maybe we could keep the issues of sodomy & homosexuality separate for the purposes of this discussion? After all, Jimi. as you have pointed out some heterosexuals also engage in that practice. Also it is perfectly possible to engage in homosexual behaviour without sodomy. Finally, lesbianism is also included under the heading of homosexuality (although certain organisations, such as GLAD, seem to treat them as distinct).

Indeed. i totally agree with you. Should have stuck to the remit and kept my own view to myself. The bad thing about it is that I realised that when I was originally posting, don't know why i did it. Very foolish on my part. Sorry all, I'm going to edit my original post.

BrianCalgary

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Going out in the sun too much can give skin cancer and sunburn; does this make enjoying a summer's day unnatural? I fail to see how the situations aren't analogous...

edit: also, apologies PDN, your post wasn't there when I hit reply

Out of interest do you utilize any type of sunblock when you go out and enjoy the summer days?


To the OP, PDN sums it up quite nicely my take on the subject.

And to wicknight; PDN and I would probably get tossed out as being the Devil's own, as I imagine God hates us as well for even considering embracing a homosexual and showing Christ's love to them.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

And to wicknight; PDN and I would probably get tossed out as being the Devil's own, as I imagine God hates us as well for even considering embracing a homosexual and showing Christ's love to them.

Well God seems to hate everyone in the world except for the Westborough church ... strangely enough ...

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

So the question I guess is would you, or the other Christians, consider homosexuality bad in of itself, even if it wasn't considered immoral by God? Or is that the only reason? (of course you might say you don't need another one)

It would still be adulterous.

MM

Zombrex

PDN's post raised an interesting question for me (again, PDN you are on a roll)

Is it the actual physical acts that fall under "homosexual sex", eg male on male anal sex, male on male handjobs, male on male blowjobs etc etc (I think you get the picture), or is the act of being in love with someone of the same sex considered the actual sin?

If a homosexual couple are in love each other their entire lives is that a sin in of itself?

Or is it only a sin if they engage in physical sexual practice?

And if that is the case what constitutes "physical sexual practice"?

Is holding hands with your gay partner considered immoral with the instructions of the Bible? Kissing your gay partner? Snuggling in bed?

These are genuine questions btw, I would be interested in how the Christians here who view "homosexuality" as immoral actually define what falls under "homosexuality" in the first place.

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

It would still be adulterous.

MM

Not sure what definition of adultery you mean. My common understanding of adultery is one person cheating on a spouse with another, but I understand it can mean different things.

If you just mean "sex outside of a marriage", then the question simply comes around back on itself, since sex before marriage is only bad because it says it is a sin the Bible, I cannot see any reason sex before marriage is bad in of itself (as with homosexuality it is an adult choice between consenting persons)

robindch

Homosexuality? Fine by me. It's entirely somebody else's business who they want to love and who they want to have sex with. I don't disapprove of homosexuality any more than I disapprove of people eating celery (spit, spit) or people loving people with warts on their noses if that's what they like to do. And it would be good if others will view my love interests as I view theirs – none of each other’s business.

I do find it disingenuous of religious people to claim that they can disapprove of whatever homosexual action they choose, then claim that this doesn't influence their attitude to homosexuals, or that it doesn't tacitly encourage homophobia in others etc - it shows an unconvincing ignorance of human nature. Here's something from news in the last day or two about the atmosphere of homophobia which almost resulted in bombing and murder - Bomber Arrested at Jerusalem Gay Parade. I haven't seen any rabbis condemn the alleged bomber yet, and it would be nice to see some fairly vigorous condemnation by the religious of the act, as well as the homophobic atmosphere which led to it.

WRT religion's concern for homosexuality, that's a more interesting story and not one that the OP mentioned, but I’ll give my opinion anyway. Which is that religions thrive as cultural entities by a number of interesting strategies, one of which is to develop ingroups which are usually members of the religion concerned, and outgroups which include members of other religions, gays, atheists and so on. Knowing who to trust and who not to trust is difficult at best and religion makes this choice easy by marking up these ingroups and outgroups. Anyhow, one of the most common outgroups used by religions for this purpose is male homosexuals (lesbians are largely ignored) as most males tend to find male homosexual sex disgusting, and males generally control religion. You could describe disapproval of homosexuality as something that everybody can agree upon without much argument. The fact that the bible condemns homosexuality and people are happy to continue to do this today with no more self-justification than that an old book says that you should murder homosexuals, shows that the motivation remains as strong now as it was when the bible was written.

Mono-ideological states like Cuba (less so now than before) and Russia (increasingly so), use homosexuality in pretty much the same way as religions do. And, of course, having the masses get excited about homosexuals does distract them from other concerns like who's running the country, if they're doing an honest job of it or if they're making out like bandits. You could say it's an excellent and reliable tool for political distraction.

Fallen Seraph

BrianCalgary wrote:

Out of interest do you utilize any type of sunblock when you go out and enjoy the summer days?

Well yes; but I'm afraid I don't see where you're going with the analogy...

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Well yes; but I'm afraid I don't see where you're going with the analogy...

Homosexuals should wear condoms .... or a Bible ... ?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Is it the actual physical acts that fall under "homosexual sex", eg male on male anal sex, male on male handjobs, male on male blowjobs etc etc (I think you get the picture), or is the act of being in love with someone of the same sex considered the actual sin?

If a homosexual couple are in love each other their entire lives is that a sin in of itself?

Or is it only a sin if they engage in physical sexual practice?

And if that is the case what constitutes "physical sexual practice"?

Is holding hands with your gay partner considered immoral with the instructions of the Bible? Kissing your gay partner? Snuggling in bed?

These are genuine questions btw, I would be interested in how the Christians here who view "homosexuality" as immoral actually define what falls under "homosexuality" in the first place.

I think it would definitely be physical practices that are viewed as sin.

Despite the Clintonesque tendency to narrow 'sex' down to actual penetrative intercourse, I would include a lot of the practices you mention in your first paragraph as being incompatible with Christianity if they occur between two men, two women, or indeed between an unmarried man and woman.

The New Testament speaks against what is, in the Greek, called pornea (hence our word pornography - literally writing about pornea). Pornea is translated as 'fornication' which actually captures the sense of the word very well. Fornication comes from the Latin fornix (archway) and refers to the practices Roman prostitutes engaged in with their clients in the darkened archways of the city. Such practices would the kind of stuff you've mentioned.

The other practices you refer to (holding hands, kissing, snuggling in bed) would, IMHO, depend on cultural mores and expectations of where they will lead. For example, it is common for heterosexual men in Ghana to walk on the street and hold hands, and in Eastern Europe men often greet each other with a kiss, sometimes on the lips (remember the famous photo of Brezhnev & Honnecker?). I, as a Western European, find these habits exruciatingly embarrassing when I visit these places, but there is no inherent moral/immoral connotation. However, I visit other countries where simply to shake a woman's hand would be interpreted as a sexual advance. This is one area where Christianity shows amazing cultural adaptation, possibly because we believe that there is a divine core to our faith, which can be 'dressed' in different cultural clothes. Some other religions, say Islam, seem more inclined to export one cultural expression and enforce it worldwide as the only one acceptable before God.

PDN

PDN wrote:

This is one area where Christianity shows amazing cultural adaptation

What? All that from the word "fornication"?

Son Goku

Can I ask why is it bad? I've heard something about it contradicting the natural order or something similar?
Is the "natural order" a by-word for God's intent for the world? If so why did God intend the world to be hetero-normative? (If the last one is unanswerable that's okay).

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The other practices you refer to (holding hands, kissing, snuggling in bed) would, IMHO, depend on cultural mores and expectations of where they will lead.

Well say they didn't lead anywhere, but they did act as an expression of love between two men or two women, who stay together say for the rest of their lives.

The point I'm not really getting is why the act itself is consider that bad, when as you say heterosexual people do it as well?

To me it would seem to be more the meaning behind the act. But you seem to be saying that if two homosexual people are in love with each other that is fine so long as they don't engage in sexual acts with each other. That logic seems to go against the justification for why homosexuality is a sin in the first place, that God does not mean for two men or two women to love each other.

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly is the reason behind all this, or at least how you view the logic behind it all

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

But you seem to be saying that if two homosexual people are in love with each other that is fine so long as they don't engage in sexual acts with each other. That logic seems to go against the justification for why homosexuality is a sin in the first place, that God does not mean for two men or two women to love each other.

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly is the reason behind all this, or at least how you view the logic behind it all

I don't see that as the justification at all. The issue here is sexuality. Christians view sexuality as a gift from God that should be enjoyed only within the confines of marriage. Marriage is a lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman that is supposed to illustrate and portray the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5). Sexuality is a way of cementing this partnership and of giving pleasure to your marriage partner.

Sexual behaviour that occurs outside of such a marriage covenant, in my opinion, cheapens sexuality by making it a vehicle more of gratification. This applies equally to heterosexual acts outside of marriage as to homosexual acts.

I see nothing wrong in two men, or two women, loving each other (in a non-erotic way). I mentioned in another thread about female Salvation Army Officers who sometimes spend a lifetime of partnership together in ministry. They live in the same house, take holidays together, and even set up house together as companions when they retire - but all in a non-sexual context.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well God seems to hate everyone in the world except for the Westborough church ... strangely enough ...

For once, Wicknight, you are spot on with your coments.

Apparently the Westboro people picketted Jerry Falwell's funeral because he was too nice to gays! They also released a song entitled, "God Hates the World".

Read all about it from the 'fair and balanced' (cough!) news channel: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273313,00.html

BrianCalgary

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Well yes; but I'm afraid I don't see where you're going with the analogy...

The point is, that you recognize th edanger of the sun's rays and adequately protect yourself. My mother used to lather me up with it and I hated it. I lathered my kids and they hated it.

Yet our parents and I both were doing it out of love and concern for our childrens well being.

God as our father in Heaven has communicated to us dangerous lifestyles and choices. Sexual immorality, stealing, killing, gluttony, drunkeness are all part of the list of poor life choices that lead to potential low quality of life.

Yet we as His children fight Him kicking and screeaming on a bunch of them, because we want to do it.

Fallen Seraph

BrianCalgary wrote:

The point is, that you recognize th edanger of the sun's rays and adequately protect yourself. My mother used to lather me up with it and I hated it. I lathered my kids and they hated it.

Yet our parents and I both were doing it out of love and concern for our childrens well being.

God as our father in Heaven has communicated to us dangerous lifestyles and choices. Sexual immorality, stealing, killing, gluttony, drunkeness are all part of the list of poor life choices that lead to potential low quality of life.

Yet we as His children fight Him kicking and screeaming on a bunch of them, because we want to do it.

Truth be told I'm still a little confused, but as a request was made to not be discussing the topic that (I think) is at hand; it's perhaps just best left there.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Sexual behaviour that occurs outside of such a marriage covenant, in my opinion, cheapens sexuality by making it a vehicle more of gratification. This applies equally to heterosexual acts outside of marriage as to homosexual acts.

Well yes but since homosexuals cannot legally get married (in this country at least) that doesn't really apply. If homosexuals could get married I'm sure some of them would agree with you, that sex before the life long commitment of marriage cheapens the act. But since they cannot marry, even in a life long commitment, the act may not be cheapened just because it is sex outside marriage.

How do you feel about homosexuals having sexual intercourse within a legal marriage where that marriage is recognised as legal. Or where it is not, sex within a marriage like relationship, a life long commitment to love one another?

PDN wrote:

I see nothing wrong in two men, or two women, loving each other (in a non-erotic way).

What about a romantic way?

I know heterosexual married couples, particularly older couples, who for them sex has simply gone out of the relationship, they are not long sexual active, or at the least very rarely. But they would still have the kind of romantic love between each other that a young married couple would have.

Do you think that a homosexual couple having this sort of romantic love for each other is ok, so long as they don't have sexual intercourse. Surely if they have the same love as a heterosexual married couple, the same commitment to each other, then sex between them is ok?

Also do you think they should be allowed to marry in the same way that a heterosexual couple can, allowed to demonstrate that they do have the level of love and commitment to each other that a heterosexual couple has, and therefore be allowed to have sexual intercourse within the stable commitment of marriage?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sexual immorality, stealing, killing, gluttony, drunkeness are all part of the list of poor life choices that lead to potential low quality of life.

Is homosexuality included in that?

I suppose the same questions I asked PDN would go to you Brain.

In a homosexual romantic relationship between two men committed to each other and in love with each other, is sexual relations ok?

If the couple cannot get married one can't really say that their sexual relations is cheapened or degraded because they are doing it outside of marriage, since they cannot get married in the first place. They might if they could. In fact they may be far more committed to each other than a married couple, yet they cannot express this commitment because of the current law of the country they are in.

In such a relationship does the justifications here against homosexual sex or fornication in general, that it cheapens the gift of sex, that sex is supposed to be special between two people committed to each other, not apply?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well yes but since homosexuals cannot legally get married (in this country at least) that doesn't really apply. If homosexuals could get married I'm sure some of them would agree with you, that sex before the life long commitment of marriage cheapens the act. But since they cannot marry, even in a life long commitment, the act may not be cheapened just because it is sex outside marriage.

How do you feel about homosexuals having sexual intercourse within a legal marriage where that marriage is recognised as legal. Or where it is not, sex within a marriage like relationship, a life long commitment to love one another?

As someone who seeks to base his morality on Scripture, I would personally see marriage as something ordained by God for a man and a woman. Again, on Scriptural grounds, I believe homosexual acts to be wrong even if the State redefines marriage.

However, I am fully aware that such reasoning will cut no ice with those who reject the Bible as a guide for morality - but, then again, this thread is in the context of Christianity and what is acceptable within the Church.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

As someone who seeks to base his morality on Scripture, I would personally see marriage as something ordained by God for a man and a woman. Again, on Scriptural grounds, I believe homosexual acts to be wrong even if the State redefines marriage.

Ok. But can you understand the problem with that.

Firstly why do you think homosexual acts are wrong, as in what is the rational for that (I know it says so in the Bible, but why does it say so in the Bible)?

You seem to be saying that the Bible says that fornication, including homosexuality, is a cheapening of sex to the level of simple gratification, rather than an expression of love between two committed people who have committed to each other for life under God.

But the Bible also says that a homosexual couple, who may love each other as much as any heterosexual couple, cannot get married to each other no matter what, in the same way that a heterosexual couple can. Therefore they are never given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have the same commitment to each other as a heterosexual couple who can get married at will. You will always view sex between then as cheap fornication because they cannot get married.

It is a lose lose situation, a Catch-22.

If they have sexual relations, even if they are as in love as any heterosexual couple, it is considered fornication and a cheapening of sex because it is outside of marriage. Sex is supposed to be a gift that one gives their partner as an expression of pure love and commitment, and this pure love is demonstrated by a marriage, a commitment, between two people.

But they also are not allowed to marry, to demonstrate to the rest of the world and to God that they are committed to each other and with to unify in a life long union based on love.

Its all very well saying that that is your morality, but the question is ultimately Is that fair?

Surely the reason homosexuality is considered bad is that it is fornication, sexual relations outside of marriage. Is the answer to that not so simply let homosexual people get married, allow them to demonstrate to the wider world that they have the same level of commitment and love for each other as a heterosexual couple does.

If the ultimately point of all this is LOVE, then what purpose does it serve to deny a homosexual couple the opportunity to express that love in the same way a married heterosexual couple can?

Acid_Violet

PDN wrote:

I see nothing wrong in two men, or two women, loving each other (in a non-erotic way).

You don't love your wife the same way you love your kids or best friend, or dog even. The love of which you're speaking I interpret as basically platonic love (and I think this is backed up by the women in the Salvation army reference.) So homosexuals aren't allowed to experience anything beyond platonic love? I wouldn't even define the love between a man and a woman as 'erotic' because it's much deeper than that and brings on a whole new set of emotions. Who's to say it's not the same for people of the same sex?

philologos

Acid_Violet wrote:

You don't love your wife the same way you love your kids or best friend, or dog even. The love of which you're speaking I interpret as basically platonic love (and I think this is backed up by the women in the Salvation army reference.) So homosexuals aren't allowed to experience anything beyond platonic love? I wouldn't even define the love between a man and a woman as 'erotic' because it's much deeper than that and brings on a whole new set of emotions. Who's to say it's not the same for people of the same sex?

That is what we've been telling you in this thread and the other one in the A&A forum. It's not permissable under God.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

That is what we've been telling you in this thread and the other one in the A&A forum. It's not permissable under God.

Yes but the question is why?

The justifications given against homosexuality is that it is a form of fornication, and fornication is bad (umm kay ) because it cheapens sex, which is supposed to be a gift to give your partner when you have committed to a life long relationship based on love and companionship.

We now seem to have established that that justification doesn't make much sense in the case of homosexuality because homosexuals cannot get married, and therefore can never demonstrate that they have made that commitment, even if they have. Therefore to say that homosexuality is wrong because it is fornication doesn't make sense.

So we are back to square one, what is the reason homosexuality is considered bad?

philologos

It was God's intention for sex to be something special to be shared by man and woman and to be used as a means of reproduction. I don't think homosexuality falls into any of that.

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

It was God's intention for sex to be something special to be shared by man and woman and to be used as a means of reproduction. I don't think homosexuality falls into any of that.

And god told you this? Had a little chat in you ear, did he Gareth ? It's amazing how emphatically people talk about gods intentions. People talking about absolute certainties when it comes to faith I think are missing the point. You're a kid, what do you know about life and love and the real world, to be basing your homophobic attitude on? Nothing.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It was God's intention for sex to be something special to be shared by man and woman and to be used as a means of reproduction. I don't think homosexuality falls into any of that.

Certainly not the second (a means of reproduction) but then I would imagine than most Christians would have no issue at all with either an infertile man or woman getting married. They cannot produce children, yet I don't think anyone would argue that they shouldn't have sex if they are married.

As for something special shared between two people in love, that applies as much to a homosexual couple as it does to a heterosexual couple does it not? Unless one believes that a homosexual couple cannot be as in love as a heterosexual couple, which again I don't think anyone here would believe that.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

So we are back to square one, what is the reason homosexuality is considered bad?

"I think it's yucky so it must be wrong"

I don't think you'll get any more

Asiaprod

Boston wrote:

And god told you this? Had a little chat in you ear, did he Gareth ? It's amazing how emphatically people talk about gods intentions. People talking about absolute certainties when it comes to faith I think are missing the point. You're a kid, what do you know about life and love and the real world, to be basing your homophobic attitude on? Nothing.

Boston, you are out of order here. I trust this is the end of it?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Certainly not the second (a means of reproduction) but then I would imagine than most Christians would have no issue at all with either an infertile man or woman getting married. They cannot produce children, yet I don't think anyone would argue that they shouldn't have sex if they are married.

Because thats the way it was intended to be. Marriage as a sacrament is when two people come together under God to become one.

Genesis 2:24 wrote:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife, and they become one.

As for both bluewolf and Boston and their respective posts:

bluewolf wrote:

"I think it's yucky so it must be wrong"

I don't think you'll get any more

Firstly bluewolf, I respect your world view so you should respect mine. It's the very least of what I ask and from now on it will be the basis of whether or not I will reply to your posts.

Boston wrote:

And god told you this? Had a little chat in you ear, did he Gareth ? It's amazing how emphatically people talk about gods intentions. People talking about absolute certainties when it comes to faith I think are missing the point. You're a kid, what do you know about life and love and the real world, to be basing your homophobic attitude on? Nothing.

As for you Boston. I think your attitude needs a recheck. Just because you don't believe in God, and just because you don't believe the Bible to be true, doesn't mean you have the right to patronise me. Also, last time I checked 18 is the age when you are legally regarded as an adult, and I would like to be regarded as such on this forum or any other forum I join.

It seems you've found the answer to "Why you should respect other beliefs?". The answer is you don't and won't obviously.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Because thats the way it was intended to be.

Not if the intention is to produce children, which is why I thought you were claiming.

Jakkass wrote:

Marriage as a sacrament is when two people come together under God to become one.

And the justification as to why two homosexual people, deeply in love, cannot do this is ... ?

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly bluewolf, I respect your world view so you should respect mine. It's the very least of what I ask and from now on it will be the basis of whether or not I will reply to your posts.

Bluewolf was responding to my slight frustration over the fact that I seem to only be getting contradictory non-answers over this subject.

Marriage is for two people who love each other, yet two homosexual people who love each other cannot get married.

Marriage is for producing children therefore homosexuals who cannot produce children should not get married, yet two heterosexual people who cannot produce children can still get married

Sex is a gift for within marriage as an expression of love, yet two homosexual people who love each other cannot get married and therefore cannot share this gift.

Do you understand the problems here.

Do you agree with your god that homosexuality is wrong? Or do you simply follow the ruling because it is made by your god?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Not if the intention is to produce children, which is why I thought you were claiming.



And the justification as to why two homosexual people, deeply in love, cannot do this is ... ?


Bluewolf was responding to my slight frustration over the fact that I seem to only be getting contradictory non-answers over this subject.

Marriage is for two people who love each other, yet two homosexual people who love each other cannot get married.

Marriage is for producing children therefore homosexuals who cannot produce children should not get married, yet two heterosexual people who cannot produce children can still get married

Sex is a gift for within marriage as an expression of love, yet two homosexual people who love each other cannot get married and therefore cannot share this gift.

Do you understand the problems here.

Do you agree with your god that homosexuality is wrong? Or do you simply follow the ruling because it is made by your god?

Excuse me I left out the all important a. I meant a man and woman, not man and woman. Hopefully that will put it into context.

Jakkass wrote:

It was God's intention for sex to be something special to be shared by a man and woman and to be used as a means of reproduction. I don't think homosexuality falls into any of that..

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Excuse me I left out the all important a. I meant a man and woman, not man and woman. Hopefully that will put it into context.

Ok but that still doesn't explain why, and it does kind high light the arbatary nature of inserting in "between a man and woman"

I mean, what does that actually change?

What is different between the love of a man and woman and the love of a homosexual couple (man/man or woman/woman)?

Surely at the end of the day love is love?

Does Christianity mean to teach that a homosexual man cannot really love another man in the same way that a heterosexual man can love a woman? I hope not, since you guys are a religion that is supposed to be all about the love

Medin

Wicknight wrote:

Ok but that still doesn't explain why, and it does kind high light the arbatary nature of inserting in "between a man and woman"

I mean, what does that actually change?

What is different between the love of a man and woman and the love of a homosexual couple (man/man or woman/woman)?

Surely at the end of the day love is love?

Does Christianity mean to teach that a homosexual man cannot really love another man in the same way that a heterosexual man can love a woman? I hope not, since you guys are a religion that is supposed to be all about the love

he he I like that "all about love" he he

the_syco

My take on it is that the Church deosn't like anyone ****ing around outside marraige. Heck, they think its a sin if an unmarried hetrosexual couple get it on. Likewise, gays don't get an exemption: they **** around outside marraige, its a sin.

Now here's where it gets complex: a hetrosexual couple can get married, and thus its no longer a sin, but until the gay couple gets married, it'll be "sinfull" for them to get it on.

As for change, the rules were made 2000 years ago, so don't expect change overnight.

Boston

Asiaprod wrote:

Boston, you are out of order here. I trust this is the end of it?

If I've stepped out of line, feel free to PM where. I'm not saying I haven't just that I don't post here so I'm uncertain of the etiquette.

Jakkass: Just because I don't follow your particular stance on religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in god, Jesus, or the bible. As for patronising, you know nothing about the people you condemn or how they live their life, in fact I haven't seen much insight in homosexuality on this thread from anyone, but you know it's wrong, cause like, sex is for women and men, in a marriage. How handy for you that that's the way it works, it's almost as if your twisting religion into something that covers up you own bigoted and backwards attitudes*.

*Jakkass posted over on the LGB forum recently, my opinion of him is based on those posts.

robindch

Jakkass wrote:

It was God's intention for sex to be something special to be shared by man and woman and to be used as a means of reproduction.

I think it needs to be pointed out that "it is your belief that it is god's intention for sex to be etc, etc...".

You may understand other people's incomprehension of your position a bit better if you bear in mind that some of the people you're discussing this with do not accept that you are in direct contact with the creator of the universe, and do not accept that you are in a position to speak authoritatively on his behalf.

philologos

Boston wrote:

Jakkass: Just because I don't follow your particular stance on religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in god, Jesus, or the bible. As for patronising, you know nothing about the people you condemn or how they live their life, in fact I haven't seen much insight in homosexuality on this thread from anyone, but you know it's wrong, cause like, sex is for women and men, in a marriage. How handy for you that that's the way it works, it's almost as if your twisting religion into something that covers up you own bigoted and backwards attitudes*.

*Jakkass posted over on the LGB forum recently, my opinion of him is based on those posts.

Feel free to get a Bible and read it for yourself. It says it in it. If you think I've been twisting religion, I'm sorry but you're wrong. It's written there, like every other command etc. If I'm twisting religion, how come other Christian users hold pretty much the same view on this forum? However I must point this out, committing an act of homosexuality, is no more a sin than stealing, etc etc. Also, homosexuals are fine, it's the act of homosexuality that is against God's wishes. I'm sorry if you have a problem with my religion or it's views on certain things, but don't blame me for twisting something when I clearly haven't.

philologos

robindch wrote:

I think it needs to be pointed out that "it is your belief that it is god's intention for sex to be etc, etc...".

You may understand other people's incomprehension of your position a bit better if you bear in mind that some of the people you're discussing this with do not accept that you are in direct contact with the creator of the universe, and do not accept that you are in a position to speak authoritatively on his behalf.

Perhaps I should have phrased that differently, apologies.

Medin

Bottom like folks - are Christians allowed to be homosexuals or not? YES or NO?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly bluewolf, I respect your world view so you should respect mine. It's the very least of what I ask and from now on it will be the basis of whether or not I will reply to your posts.

You've made it very clear in the past that you refuse to even understand my "world view", let alone "respect" it. And I wasn't addressing you in the post in the first place. And even if I did respect yours, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Bottom like folks - are Christians allowed to be homosexuals or not? YES or NO?

No because paul said so when he was advising some people. Clearly we don't need to hear from jesus on the subject

Boston

Jakkass wrote:

Feel free to get a Bible and read it for yourself. It says it in it. If you think I've been twisting religion, I'm sorry but you're wrong. It's written there, like every other command etc. If I'm twisting religion, how come other Christian users hold pretty much the same view on this forum?

I know its in the bible, so are lots and lots of other rules. In fact theres quiet a few with regards to hetrosexual relationships. YOu would want to live a pious life to obey all of them, and even that would be impossible due to the contradictions. So yea, people pick what they want from the bible as being the most important beliefs, and then use those rules/command to support whatever world view they have. In your case homophobia.

However I must point this out, committing an act of homosexuality, is no more a sin than stealing, etc etc.

How generous of you. Stealing harms someone else, homosexuality affects only those who you their god given free will to take part. But yea, homosexual acts are no more a sin then heterosexuals ones that don't fall into the narrow definition of whats ok.

Also, homosexuals are fine, it's the act of homosexuality that is against God's wishes. I'm sorry if you have a problem with my religion or it's views on certain things, but don't blame me for twisting something when I clearly haven't.

Since when are only acts Sins? Thoughts can be sins as well. I recall confessing many an indecent thought to a priest as a kid. Lusting after you neighbours wife ring a bell. Cousin of mine went to a strict catholic school where they where thought to beat themselves every time he had an indecent thought. So yea, you pick and choose what you personally feel is "gods laws" and ignore the rest.

Boston

Medin wrote:

Bottom like folks - are Christians allowed to be homosexuals or not? YES or NO?

Get back to me with the answer about that wrt islam on the islam forum. You'll find a thread there in the last few pages.