What are your views on homosexuality?

Ekancone

Excuse me for my limited understanding of Christs teachings, but am i wrong in thinking that one of the central tenets of his beliefs were that the most outcast people in society are the ones who should be drawn in the closest? In that sense, why is it that some sections of christianity have such strong viewpoints on the matter of gays?

Private poll to follow.

Bob in Belfast

It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
That's what the bible says, me personally i couldn't care less.

philologos

I'm not sure what to vote to be honest with you.

It's not being gay which is the sin. It is acting upon lustful desires to another man which is the issue.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure what to vote to be honest with you.

It's not being gay which is the sin. It is acting upon lustful desires to another man which is the issue.

Well what if it was regarded as an act of love.

AckwelFoley

the poll itself is probable offensive to some.

To be for something or against somthing implies making a decision where the result would warrent action.

I personally dont give a bollox what ones sexual preference is... its none of my business.

Ekancone

snyper wrote: »

the poll itself is probable offensive to some.

To be for something or against somthing implies making a decision where the result would warrent action.

I personally dont give a bollox what ones sexual preference is... its none of my business.

Well i am merely trying to assess the views of Christians and what i regard as a fairly paradoxical standpoint. (Unless im wrong in my interpretation) I dont think the poll implies direct action, merely a personal belief.

Latchy

Being gay is one thing and i have met and know many gay people .It's the ' i should be treated special cuz i'm gay that use to bug me ' maybe not so much these days , so what i dont care otherwise .

robindch

daithifleming wrote:

why is it that some sections of christianity have such strong viewpoints on the matter of gays?

I believe there's a plausible explanation for this, but it's more suited to the A+A forum than here.

Stance

Live and let live , we are all Gods children .

PDN

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.

philologos

I agree with PDN, it would have been a lot more effective if the question was "are homosexual acts compatible with Christianity?" as opposed to are you against homosexuality.

Run_to_da_hills

I didnt vote on this issue either and would agree with PDN that Homosexual acts are imcompatible with Christianity and that they are no greater an offense to God as unbelief, idol worship, stealing and lying. Benny Sin and Fred Phelps have no right to stir hatred by singling out homosexual acts as a greater offense to God than others.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

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.

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

PDN wrote:

.... 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.

It's off topic but I don't understand your views here on the movie 'Crash'. It wasn't glorifying it's subject matter, it was criticising it.

PDN wrote:

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".

..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?

PDN wrote:

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.

I agree, and would add that most relgions if not all make provisions for their subscribers activities and behaviour without the consent from any authority other than the one they all claim exclusivity for.

Zombrex

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

Another idiotic poll. Why is this stuff tolerated?

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Another idiotic poll. Why is this stuff tolerated?

"Tolerated"? :eek:

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Well what if it was regarded as an act of love.

I imagine you will find few Christians on this forum who believe such an act is possible

Interesting question for the Christians, can a man and another man love each other in the same way that a husband and wife love each other, and can sex between them be an act of this love, not an act of "lust"

Hagar

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

Ekancone

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Another idiotic poll. Why is this stuff tolerated?

All i see is ducking and diving, why not debate the question i posed? Jesus said those who the most outcast in society should be drawn in the closest, did he not? Why not homosexuals?

Hagar

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

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).

Zombrex

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.

AckwelFoley

Hagar wrote: »

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

ftw.


Separate men from the.. erm boys.

robindch

Hagar wrote: »

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

Um, why didn't he simply stop leprosy altogether?

neuro-praxis

daithifleming wrote: »

All i see is ducking and diving, why not debate the question i posed? Jesus said those who the most outcast in society should be drawn in the closest, did he not? Why not homosexuals?

Yawn. I'd love your quote on this.

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

Zombrex

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.

JimiTime

The key is repentance.

Is Adultery sinful to Christ? Yes! Can an adulterer repent and be Christian? Yes! He would need to find christ and accept him, then repent from his sinful ways.

Is fornication sinful to Christ? Yes! Can a fornicator repent and be Christian? Yes! He would need to find christ and accept him, then repent from his sinful ways.

Is Stealing sinful to Christ? Yes! Can a robber repent and be Christian? Yes! He would need to find christ and accept him, then repent from his sinful ways.

Is Idolatry sinful to Christ? Yes! Can an idolatrer repent and be Christian? Yes! He would need to find christ and accept him, then repent from his sinful ways.

Is homosexuality sinful to Christ? Yes! Can a homosexual repent and be Christian? Yes! He would need to find christ and accept him, then repent from his sinful ways.

Its that simple! One can argue against the bible as authoritive, but cannot argue about what it says. Homosexuality is just a topic that has come to the fore, and people have a huge bee in their bonnet about it, from both sides that is. At the end of the day, we have been given our guidelines, they are there to be accepted or rejected. One thing is clear though, we are not authorised to hate or kill or mame etc, those who are sinning. Those who do, like the Phelps, are acting without regard for Christs teachings.

PDN

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.

floydmoon1

i believe homosexuality is a sin the same way as stealing,cursing murder is a sin.As we are all sinners and have fallen short of the Glory Of God we need to accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and repent everyday for our sins.I dont agree in the hatred alot of so called christians have against homosexuals.If you are christian you have to live your life like Jesus and show this love to others.

Schuhart

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

Schuhart wrote: »

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.

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. Others might make a similar point about polygamy or polyandry.

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.

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.

Schuhart

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.

Ekancone

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

PDN

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?

Ekancone

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?

PDN

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?

Ekancone

So people who are gay are simply mistaken?

PDN

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.

Schuhart

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.

Is whether they are correct or not material to what you are saying? I take it that what you are saying is, whether homosexuality is determined at birth or a lifestyle choice, sex acts between people of the same gender are prohibited.

I know this puts us at risk of the tabloid discussion that we want to avoid - and I understand your position is that it is by no means clear that this is determined at birth and that people in other circumstances claim to be born with features that we would more likely feel was a choice they were making. However, if homosexual acts are simply prohibited regardless of why people might want to engage in them, I think it is fair to establish this.

MooseJam

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.

Run_to_da_hills

MooseJam wrote: »

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.

Back in the 70ies he was every kids hero, I went as far as to visit his grave near Seattle in 1991!.

Zombrex

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?

Húrin

I find the Christian attitude that homosexuality is no worse than other sins, that all humans suffer from sin and that Christ died for all of the sins - and hence forgiveness - to be admirable. I find that most people cannot fathom why homosexual sex is a sin at all, especially when done in the context of a loving relationship?

kelly1

daithifleming wrote: »

All i see is ducking and diving, why not debate the question i posed? Jesus said those who the most outcast in society should be drawn in the closest, did he not? Why not homosexuals?

I think it really depends on whether the person in question is willing to change their lifestyle. The homosexual who attends and organizes public parades etc and promotes the homosexual lifestyle and is impenitent should be shunned.

On the other hand, a homosexual who realizes the error of his or her ways and repents of any sins of impurity, should be welcomed. They should be encouraged to live according to God's will which means living chastely.

God bless,
Noel.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Is whether they are correct or not material to what you are saying? I take it that what you are saying is, whether homosexuality is determined at birth or a lifestyle choice, sex acts between people of the same gender are prohibited.

No, I don't think it really makes much difference whether homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture, but I have this annoying habit (to some) of challenging people when they make unsubstantiated statements - one of which is the assumption that homosexuals are born gay.

If that is ever demonstrated to be true, then I don't see how it is relevant to whether homosexual acts should be considered compatible with Christianity or not.

After all, what if it were demonstrated that people are born withe paedophiliac tendencies. Would that make paedophilia morally acceptable? (In case some trollish moron attempts to accuse me of equating homosexuality with paedophilia, I am not. 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).

Zombrex

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?

Pompey Magnus

What exactly is the Christian solution for a man who is attracted to another man and does not find women sexually attractive at all? Ignore his feelings and marry a woman who he isn't attracted to and have a family? That can mess up an awful lot of lives if it doesn't work out. Or else he could live alone and miss out on having a meaningful relationship with anyone, thereby only ruining his own life. What exactly do you suggest?

stevejazzx

Thousands of years ago homosexuality was seen as a vice, a corruption of the flesh over the mind, this is why it is a sin in christianity. As time progress into the 21st century the genectic and envoiromental factors involved in deciding sexual orientation will become clearer rendering existing christian doctrine on the matter as complete tosh.

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

What exactly is the Christian solution for a man who is attracted to another man and does not find women sexually attractive at all? Ignore his feelings and marry a woman who he isn't attracted to and have a family? That can mess up an awful lot of lives if it doesn't work out. Or else he could live alone and miss out on having a meaningful relationship with anyone, thereby only ruining his own life. What exactly do you suggest?

The latter I would imagine. Be alone, without love (or at least romantic love) or the joy of having sex with someone you love, for your entire life. And then die. But at least you get into heaven.

And remember, God loves you ...

Pompey Magnus

stevejazzx wrote: »

Thousands of years ago homosexuality was seen as a vice, a corruption of the flesh over the mind, this is why it is a sin in christianity.

I wonder if it originated out from a good reason, thousands of years ago the issue of tribal survival was important and the need to keep children coming was critical to this. Homosexuality means no children being born from otherwise healthy members of the community and these people could perhaps have been seen as using resources with no return to the group, resources which could otherwise be put to better use.

Another possibility might be the fear of the parent that their genes might not be passed onto through their homosexual children and so the taboo was born and with it the eternal punishment from God as a means of preventing it.

stevejazzx

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I wonder if it originated out from a good reason, thousands of years ago the issue of tribal survival was important and the need to keep children coming was critical to this. Homosexuality means no children being born from otherwise healthy members of the community and these people could perhaps have been seen as using resources with no return to the group, resources which could otherwise be put to better use.

Another possibility might be the fear of the parent that their genes might not be passed onto through their homosexual children and so the taboo was born and with it the eternal punishment from God as a means of preventing it.

With the Darwinian imperatvie being hetrosexual reproduction I don't imagine that homosexuality was ever a treat to the continuation of a tribe but I see your point. I think the idea of homosexuality in pre enlightended times couldn't have been fully understood, so with that in mind it was only with the lessening of ignorance that man started to pass judgment on such activity. Usually what happens though is that the mistakes and preconceptions of our forefathers are corrected as time moves forward and as our understanding increases. Religons however tried to set in stone certain opinions about human nature, which from a modern viewpoint simply don't hold up, in fact they are embarrasing. The attempt to reconcile such doctrines into modern thinking (by PDN and kelly1 for example) produces two results:

1. A fundamnetalist attitude where everything must resolve to christian teaching

2. A theological reevaluation of the doctrine in an attempt to get it to fit with modern understanding without comprimising it's meaning. This is obviously a very tricky feat. It is compartmentalisation of the highest order.