Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

Hardrain

Recently through work I met a nice girl, bright, funny and a real pleasure to be around. Her being a christian came up and I told her I was an atheist, we laughed and called ourselves the odd couple. While I am against religion and all it teaches I respected her beliefs and found her working with the elderly and sick to be very admirable and selfless.

Which brings me to my point/question. My friend dropped in to give me my mobile back I had left in his house, said girl was very impressed and commented on how cute he was. When I told her he was gay something amazing happened. Her face turned into a look of rage and she preccded to go into a rant about how he was 'sick' 'disgusting' and wrong.

She become almost out of control banging on about it being against god and such like.

I found it quite disturbing that someone so bright could turn into such a bigot, why can't two people of the same sex be happy together? Do you not find it irrational to label someone who is homosexual to be happy with their choices in who they see?

Do you really base it all on the bible? Do you honestly find it a sin for people to be happy? Is the message of Christianity not to be kind, tolerant and even be happy for someone to be happy?

Turtwig

Also, can I add this question :

IF homosexuality is viewed as a sin, could I not say that because we are all born sinners, we are all, by default, sort of homosexual?

JimiTime

Sorry , but what is it you are asking? Is it, 'Is God against happiness?' or is it, 'Is God against Homosexuality?' or is it, 'Can two homosexuals be happy together?'

Turtwig

Basically, I think it is this:

Why have some Christians negative views of homosexuals, is it because of the understanding of the bible or is it from elsewhere in humanity?

PDN

No, homophobia and hatred are not based on the Bible at all. Homophobia is a cultural reaction against those who are a minority or different. You find homophobes among people of all faiths and those of none. Indeed, some of the most violent homophobia can be found among atheists. Being a homosexual in China or North Korea can earn you a spot in jail or worse. (That's not a slam against atheists - just trying to point out that homophobia is not a religious invention).

I personally find it distressing and shameful that any Christian would express hatred towards homosexuals. I have never encountered a single person who was tolerant of homosexuals and then became homophobic after their conversion to Christianity, but I wish that they would all leave that crap behind when they received Christ.

Btw, I do believe homosexual practices are sinful and incompatible with practicing Christianity, but that is a separate issue from homophobia altogether.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, can I add this question :

IF homosexuality is viewed as a sin, could I not say that because we are all born sinners, we are all, by default, sort of homosexual?

Only if you are extremely bad at logic.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

No, homophobia and hatred are not based on the Bible at all. Homophobia is a cultural reaction against those who are a minority or different. You find homophobes among people of all faiths and those of none. Indeed, some of the most violent homophobia can be found among atheists. Being a homosexual in China or North Korea can earn you a spot in jail or worse. (That's not a slam against atheists - just trying to point out that homophobia is not a religious invention).

I personally find it distressing and shameful that any Christian would express hatred towards homosexuals. I have never encountered a single person who was tolerant of homosexuals and then became homophobic after their conversion to Christianity, but I wish that they would all leave that crap behind when they received Christ.

Yeah, that's what I thought too it, *resists urge to make a dig at CC for misleading many*

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Only if you are extremely bad at logic.

I'm woeful at it:o

Hardrain

Btw, I do believe homosexual practices are sinful and incompatible with practicing Christianity, but that is a separate issue from homophobia altogether.[/quote]

Why do you find them 'sinful'

PDN

Hardrain wrote: »

Why do you find them 'sinful'

Because the teaching of the New Testament says so. Christian standards of morality are derived from biblical teaching.

robindch

Hardrain wrote: »

Do you not find it irrational to label someone who is homosexual to be happy with their choices in who they see?

I'm not christian, but your question assumes that love is more important to christians than what sociologists and anthropologists, as well as others, refer to as ritual purity, something that's a feature of many religions.

People who aren't religious, or only mildly religious, tend not to respect or understand how important these ritual purity rules are for religious people, and I reckon that this is where the disjoint's happening with your friend.

.

Hardrain

I just find that strange and find it hard to get my head around. Again Il say that I'm an atheist but I respect your faith fully. I just find it odd for someone to be condemed a sinner due to passages that are so old.

What problems would arrise is my friend wished to convert?

Do you believe people can be 'Cured' from being homosexual?

lugha

Malty_T wrote: »

Why have some Christians negative views of homosexuals, is it because of the understanding of the bible or is it from elsewhere in humanity?

I don’t think it has anything to do with Christianity or religion. Hostile attitudes to gays prevail widely. It is based on prejudice, so those who hold this view have difficulty defending it when challenged and resort to desperate arguments that humankind might die out if we all went that way or that it is somehow unnatural. I believe some appeal to the bible and the notion of absolute morality to justify their views. This is an example of the problems that arising from the fact that absolute morality is immune from questioning, which is being discussed on another thread.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, can I add this question :

IF homosexuality is viewed as a sin, could I not say that because we are all born sinners, we are all, by default, sort of homosexual?

i steal a muffin, that makes me a criminal. since i'm a criminal, i must also by default, be sort of a murderer.

hmmm......

ozzirt

It's pretty much a matter of personal perception and choices.

I hate broccoli but am not normally tagged as a Broccoliphobe, yet I also detest homosexuals and people are more than happy to hang the Homophobe label on me. Which in fact I do not mind, as I feel that it is quite normal and not in the least bit derogatory.

Someone once asked me, (several persons actually). Why exactly don't you like people who admit to being, or show signs of being Homosexuals? To which my answer was:

It's a bit like my dislike of persons who pick their nose and eat it in public,... I am revolted by it. Yet if one looks at it in all honesty, mucous is a naturally occurring bodily excretion similar to saliva, we swallow pints of it daily as it flows out of the nasal cavity and down the throat, and no body thinks twice about it.

Which brings it down to a single reason. It's a disgusting and anti social habit that goes against social expectations for people who consider themselves to be somewhat "civilised", or trying to be.

PDN

Hardrain wrote: »

I just find that strange and find it hard to get my head around. Again Il say that I'm an atheist but I respect your faith fully. I just find it odd for someone to be condemed a sinner due to passages that are so old.

What problems would arrise is my friend wished to convert?

Do you believe people can be 'Cured' from being homosexual?

We are all condemned as sinners until we receive Christ (and even afterwards we are still sinners, albeit foriven sinners). Christians believe that homosexual acts are sinful just as they believe gossip or praying to a Hindu God is sinful. You (and gossips and Hindus) are, of course, free to disagree since you have a different basis for determining morality.

If your friend wished to convert then I would place no preconditions in his way whatsoever. I do believe, however, that if he experienced a genuine conversion then he would see the need to change his lifestyle.

I don't believe anyone can be cured from homosexuality because I don't believe homosexuality is an illness or condition.

We've had this debate before ad neauseam in this forum, and most non-Christians disagree with my view that homosexual acts are a choice & that nobody is born a homosexual. I see no scientific evidence for the position that homosexuality is a condition (particularly in light of the very narrow definition of 'science' as explained to me in the ID thread) and I see many indications in history and contemporary culture that indicate that homosexual acts are a choice that pretty well any guy can make under the 'right' conditions.

Hardrain

PDN wrote: »

We are all condemned as sinners until we receive Christ (and even afterwards we are still sinners, albeit foriven sinners). Christians believe that homosexual acts are sinful just as they believe gossip or praying to a Hindu God is sinful. You (and gossips and Hindus) are, of course, free to disagree since you have a different basis for determining morality.

If your friend wished to convert then I would place no preconditions in his way whatsoever. I do believe, however, that if he experienced a genuine conversion then he would see the need to change his lifestyle.

I don't believe anyone can be cured from homosexuality because I don't believe homosexuality is an illness or condition.

We've had this debate before ad neauseam in this forum, and most non-Christians disagree with my view that homosexual acts are a choice & that nobody is born a homosexual. I see no scientific evidence for the position that homosexuality is a condition (particularly in light of the very narrow definition of 'science' as explained to me in the ID thread) and I see many indications in history and contemporary culture that indicate that homosexual acts are a choice that pretty well any guy can make under the 'right' conditions.

Guess we'll just agree to disagree!

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

We've had this debate before ad neauseam in this forum, and most non-Christians disagree with my view that homosexual acts are a choice & that nobody is born a homosexual. .

As I missed that convo, I just feel I should say...

While I agree with the notion that it's possible no one is born homosexual, I disagree with the notion that it is choice chosen by all homosexuals : for some it isn't.

It's a natural process, that just happens.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

As I missed that convo, I just feel I should say...

While I agree with the notion that it's possible no one is born homosexual, I disagree with the notion that it is choice chosen by all homosexuals : for some it isn't.

It's a natural process, that just happens.

But it frequently 'just happens' as a response to societal norms and environment.

For example, large numbers of men in the US live life with no homosexual activity until they are incarcerated in prison. Then they engage in homosexual activity while in jail. Then upon release they again abstain from homosexual activity.

It was the fashion in many parts of ancient Greece for young men to take homosexual lovers for a while prior to marriage, then after marriage to refrain from homosexual activity.

Did these individuals switch between a condition of homosexuality and heterosexuality because it 'just happened'? I think it far more likely that they choose certain actions in response to their environment, the cultural norms of that environment, and being restricted from making certain other choices. But I would be interested in seeing some real hard evidence to the contrary (I'll avoid using the word 'scientific' since it is unduly narrow).

The idea of homosexuality as an identity, or a condition, is a fairly recent societal development as far as I can tell.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

But it frequently 'just happens' as a response to societal norms and environment.

For example, large numbers of men in the US live life with no homosexual activity until they are incarcerated in prison. Then they engage in homosexual activity while in jail. Then upon release they again abstain from homosexual activity.

It was the fashion in many parts of ancient Greece for young men to take homosexual lovers for a while prior to marriage, then after marriage to refrain from homosexual activity.

Did these individuals switch between a condition of homosexuality and heterosexuality because it 'just happened'? I think it far more likely that they choose certain actions in response to their environment, the cultural norms of that environment, and being restricted from making certain other choices. But I would be interested in seeing some real hard evidence to the contrary (I'll avoid using the word 'scientific' since it is unduly narrow).

The idea of homosexuality as an identity, or a condition, is a fairly recent societal development as far as I can tell.

Yeah I'll admit there are traditions whereby male's improve their sexual performance by practicing with other males. These are of course, normally, done by choice. However, I'm just saying that not every instance of homosexuality is a chosen by person -they just happen to happen

Well, anecdotal evidence is fiddly but many gays claim they can't help it..they're just attracted to the same sex and can't explain why - it's not a choice for them.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

large numbers of men [...] young men to take homosexual lovers [...] The idea of homosexuality as an identity, or a condition, is a fairly recent societal development as far as I can tell.

This is certainly a common view amongst religious people, but the notion that homosexuality is a recently-arrived "condition" is certainly not supported by any history or evidence that I'm aware of. Quite the contrary actually.

Men -- and how could we forget our lesbian friends too -- appear to have been messing about with members of their own sex for a very long time indeed. And in recent years, it's turned out that many animals have been doing exactly the same thing too, with homosexual activity noted in many primates, dolphins, penguins and heaven knows what else.

There's nothing unnatural or recent about homosexual sex, male or female, though the arrival of formal, probably ritually-derived, prohibitions on (principally) male homosexual activity does appear to be a relatively recent evolutionary development, principally amongst the largest and most successful of the monotheistic religions.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

This is certainly a common view amongst religious people, but the notion that homosexuality is a recently-arrived "condition" is certainly not supported by any history or evidence that I'm aware of. Quite the contrary actually.

Men -- and how could we forget our lesbian friends too -- appear to have been messing about with members of their own sex for a very long time indeed. And in recent years, it's turned out that many animals have been doing exactly the same thing too, with homosexual activity noted in many primates, dolphins, penguins and heaven knows what else.

There's nothing unnatural or recent about homosexual sex, male or female, though the arrival of formal, probably ritually-derived, prohibitions on (principally) male homosexual activity does appear to be a relatively recent evolutionary development, principally amongst the largest and most successful of the monotheistic religions.

I think you're misunderstanding me (accidentally I'm sure).

I'm not saying that homosexual acts are in any way a recent development. Men have always cheerfully rogered other men, sometimes in much greater numbers than in our present culture. Animals, too, engage in homosexual activity.

What appears to be a more recent development is identifying homosexuality as a condition or even as an identity, where someone defines themself as exclusively homosexual. My own opinion is that mankind (and particularly the male of the species) are pretty well omnisexual by nature. Given the right opportunity they will happily copulate with men, women, their right hand, rubber dolls, vacuum cleaners and anything else that provides a tight fit. Without the restraints of culture or religion we are like dogs that hump cushions, legs or anything else.

Now some of us prefer one variety of sex over another (whether such preferences are nature or nurture is debatable) but everyone of us has the capacity, IMHO, to do all kinds of stuff and to live all kinds of lifestyles.

Our various cultures allow and facilitate different expressions of sexual behaviour, and the Christian church has a particular set of sexual activities which are deemed permissable, and a whole lot more that are not. If you are not a Christian then it is unlikely that you will agree completely with Christian standards of sexual morality, but I think it's lazy and inaccurate to try to label Christian views on sexuality as homophobia.

Hardrain

How would you feel about gay adoption?

PDN

Hardrain wrote: »

How would you feel about gay adoption?

I'd have no objection to adopting a gay child.

PDN

Sorry, my sense of humour can be an acquired taste. My wife has been married to me for for 23 years and she still hasn't acquired it.

My feelings about adoption are that it should always be in the best interests of the child, not the adoptive parents.

I would be OK with a same-sex couple adopting a child in Scandanavia, but not so much in Ireland. That may sound confusing or contradictory - so let me explain.

Adopted kids often have to overcome problems of identity and feeling unwanted or rejected. Therefore it can be even more damaging than for birth children when a couple splits up. Couples that are not married are, statistically speaking, more likely to split up than married couples. I would oppose adoption by any couple that are not married or in some form of pretty binding civil partnership. Since Ireland is lagging behind with such legislation for same-sex couples, that places the adopted child in a less secure environment than in a Scandanavian country where same sex marriages or civil partnerships are recognised. (I am not stereotyping here, and I know there are plenty of exceptions, but when setting policy you have to examine what criteria are statistically significant).

Also, in societies with a higher acceptance of same-sex couples, kids in such homes are much less likely to be bullied. I dread to think what it would be like trying to grow up and go to school in many parts of Ireland while having a home with same-sex parents. I would also be opposed to Christian couples adopting children in Afghanistan or China!

I know this may seem heartless or rough on same sex couples - but the child's interests must be paramount (for similar reasons I would be opposed to single people adopting children). I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to adopt.

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

Did these individuals switch between a condition of homosexuality and heterosexuality because it 'just happened'?

Having sex with men doesn't make you a homosexual, if thats all thats available go for it, you can still be perfectly straight as in sexually attracted to women while engaging in whatever acts you have the opportunity to engage in.

As you said yourself people will get giggy with anything but I've yet to hear anyone being labelled a hooversexual.

chozometroid

MooseJam wrote: »

As you said yourself people will get giggy with anything but I've yet to hear anyone being labelled a hooversexual.

There aren't enough of them, that's all, because they all end up going to the E.R. and leaving with a lump of dead tissue.

Ickle Magoo

I think it depends on your definition of homosexual as well. If it means someone engaging in sexual activity with a member of the same sex then it can - and often is - labelled as some kind of lascivious lifestyle choice.

If you recognise some people grow up and only fancy/are turned on by members of the same sex then it becomes a more interesting debate.

Splendour

Hardrain wrote: »

Recently through work I met a nice girl, bright, funny and a real pleasure to be around. Her being a christian came up and I told her I was an atheist, we laughed and called ourselves the odd couple. While I am against religion and all it teaches I respected her beliefs and found her working with the elderly and sick to be very admirable and selfless.

Which brings me to my point/question. My friend dropped in to give me my mobile back I had left in his house, said girl was very impressed and commented on how cute he was. When I told her he was gay something amazing happened. Her face turned into a look of rage and she preccded to go into a rant about how he was 'sick' 'disgusting' and wrong.

She become almost out of control banging on about it being against god and such like.

I found it quite disturbing that someone so bright could turn into such a bigot, why can't two people of the same sex be happy together? Do you not find it irrational to label someone who is homosexual to be happy with their choices in who they see?

Do you really base it all on the bible? Do you honestly find it a sin for people to be happy? Is the message of Christianity not to be kind, tolerant and even be happy for someone to be happy?

I find it strange that some Christians have this attitude toward homosexuality but tbh, I think this is something inherent within themselves regardless of beliefs as there are many athiests who would also have this attitude.

If you'd said to your lady friend that this guy was living with his girlfriend I wonder would there have been such an adverse reaction?

Splendour

Malty_T wrote: »

While I agree with the notion that it's possible no one is born homosexual,

I believe that some are take the homosexual road due to lifestyle and conditioning, but I also believe that some people are born homosexual. I grew up with a guy who, from a very early age, had homosexual tendencies. As children this was quite obvious to us and the poor guy was given an awful time by local bullies. Why would anyone choose this lifestyle?

If the whole world fell with Adam, then homosexuality is not a great surprise really is it?

lugha

PDN wrote: »

Couples that are not married are, statistically speaking, more likely to split up than married couples.

Slightly spurious use of statistics there. Gay couples cannot marry so you need to find another way to assess how enduring their relationships are.

PDN wrote: »

Also, in societies with a higher acceptance of same-sex couples, kids in such homes are much less likely to be bullied. I dread to think what it would be like trying to grow up and go to school in many parts of Ireland while having a home with same-sex parents.

Undoubtedly true, but you would have to question the ethics of denying a gay couple the right to adopt for this reason. You could make a similar argument for people in some societies who are mixed race or mixed religion or who in some way are “unacceptably” different. Indulging the prejudices of such societies is hardly commendable. But of course on the other hand you have another ethical problem if you contemplate compromising the well being of a child in seeking to face down such prejudices.

marc_cerebis

Going back to the original post, why does christianity hate homosexuality?, there's a very simple reason that has nothing to do with anything as prosaic as sin, it's all about increasing the indoctrinated base.

This is common across most religions, which also have in common the impetus to "spread the word" by passing on the meme to not just people in "uncivilised" parts of the world, but also their own children. And the more children the better.

Gay people do not perform the basic duty of reproducing, and creating new members of the religion, therefore each religion demonises those "non-contributing" members of their flocks.

All the big religions go as far as prohibiting even masturbation as being a sinful waste of sperm, which should rightfully be used in the service of god by being dedicated to making babies, which in turn will be infected by the meme of that religion. That's the self-propogating force behind all religions.

(Meme is an idea, almost in the form of a virus, that passes from person to person)

nayorleck114

Hardrain wrote: »

Recently through work I met a nice girl, bright, funny and a real pleasure to be around. Her being a christian came up and I told her I was an atheist, we laughed and called ourselves the odd couple. While I am against religion and all it teaches I respected her beliefs and found her working with the elderly and sick to be very admirable and selfless.

Which brings me to my point/question. My friend dropped in to give me my mobile back I had left in his house, said girl was very impressed and commented on how cute he was. When I told her he was gay something amazing happened. Her face turned into a look of rage and she preccded to go into a rant about how he was 'sick' 'disgusting' and wrong.

She become almost out of control banging on about it being against god and such like.

I found it quite disturbing that someone so bright could turn into such a bigot, why can't two people of the same sex be happy together? Do you not find it irrational to label someone who is homosexual to be happy with their choices in who they see?

Do you really base it all on the bible? Do you honestly find it a sin for people to be happy? Is the message of Christianity not to be kind, tolerant and even be happy for someone to be happy?

Even the Catholic Church does not teach that Gays are "'sick' 'disgusting' and wrong". (the condemn the sin and not the sinner) Not that I am saying gays are sinners just the fact that the church does not pass judgement on a person like this. Society needs to open up to them, its part of humanity, there have always been gay people. You will always have the religous crackpot, but a true Catholic should never criticise or belittle a gay person, they should respect the person for who they are. The Catholic stance on Homosexuality is a hard one, but its a view and thats it. The Girl you know should have kept her opinions to herself, For sure she does not speak for true Christians.

If a Guy is gay, let him be out and open, for Gods sack, better than living in a closet and trying (and failing) to meet a standard.

The Church also teachs "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. "

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

Also, in societies with a higher acceptance of same-sex couples, kids in such homes are much less likely to be bullied. I dread to think what it would be like trying to grow up and go to school in many parts of Ireland while having a home with same-sex parents.

It's interesting you should say this - I remember an article I read a few years ago - can't remember the details, but if you feel like going on a research binge (which I'm sure is just what you want to do on a Sunday afternoon) it was in the Irish Times Magazine within the last two or three years. It was about a lesbian couple living in Galway(?), one of whom had a son, and they brought him up through the Irish education system.

One thing that surprised me about the article was that the couple had been completely open about their relationship, and as a result had formed close bonds with the whole community - particularly with other couples who had aspects to their own relationships they weren't usually public about. (Divorce, etc.)

IIRC, their son did get picked on a little, verbally, at school, but took it well and made good friends. I think he was doing his leaving cert when the article was written, preparing to study law.

I'm sure that this wouldn't be the case invariably, but it is interesting to me how this one case had completely the opposite result from what I'd have expected, especially (as you say) in Ireland.

Fanny Cradock

marc_cerebis wrote: »

Going back to the original post, why does christianity hate homosexuality?, there's a very simple reason that has nothing to do with anything as prosaic as sin, it's all about increasing the indoctrinated base.

This is common across most religions, which also have in common the impetus to "spread the word" by passing on the meme to not just people in "uncivilised" parts of the world, but also their own children. And the more children the better.

Gay people do not perform the basic duty of reproducing, and creating new members of the religion, therefore each religion demonises those "non-contributing" members of their flocks.

All the big religions go as far as prohibiting even masturbation as being a sinful waste of sperm, which should rightfully be used in the service of god by being dedicated to making babies, which in turn will be infected by the meme of that religion. That's the self-propogating force behind all religions.

(Meme is an idea, almost in the form of a virus, that passes from person to person)

The meme is a concept. Assuming it exists - and I would contend that it explains little beyond what "teaching" already explains - no one knows what it looks like or where it is to be found. Therefore, I'm not sure where attributing homophobia within religion to memes (while ignoring the secular equivalent) gets us.

PDN

marc_cerebis wrote: »

Going back to the original post, why does christianity hate homosexuality?, there's a very simple reason that has nothing to do with anything as prosaic as sin, it's all about increasing the indoctrinated base.

This is common across most religions, which also have in common the impetus to "spread the word" by passing on the meme to not just people in "uncivilised" parts of the world, but also their own children. And the more children the better.

Gay people do not perform the basic duty of reproducing, and creating new members of the religion, therefore each religion demonises those "non-contributing" members of their flocks.

All the big religions go as far as prohibiting even masturbation as being a sinful waste of sperm, which should rightfully be used in the service of god by being dedicated to making babies, which in turn will be infected by the meme of that religion. That's the self-propogating force behind all religions.

(Meme is an idea, almost in the form of a virus, that passes from person to person)

Congratulations! You have managed the awesome feat of asking a question which contains a false premise, and then answering your own question with an incorrect answer. It usually takes people years of posting in the BCP thread before their brains get scrambled enough to do that - but you've managed it as a newbie to boards.ie with only 7 posts to your name. I am impressed!

Firstly, Christianity doesn't hate homosexuality.

Secondly, if viewing homosexual acts as sin was due to reproductivity then Christianity would happily embrace those who get married and procreate, but also indulge in homosexual acts on the side. At the same time Christianity would condemn anyone who chose the path of celibacy. Since this is obviously not the case, your answer to your own question is facile and specious.

wolfsbane

Yes, I too think this girl's reaction was OTT.

She would be right to express some level of disapproval, as we all do at theft, bullying, lying, or any of the many sins we encounter frequently, for homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Christian.

But since it is an offence against God rather than me, I leave it between them and God. I express my disgust at a degrading behaviour, but I don't treat it like sins that do harm to the innocent. In a way it calls forth as much pity as disgust, for the homosexual is degrading himself. I grieve for their folly and seek to point them away from its consequences.

Where I do enter confrontation with homosexuals is when they seek to impose their culture on me: to force me to say their behaviour is not sinful.

Euro_Kraut

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, my sense of humour can be an acquired taste. My wife has been married to me for for 23 years and she still hasn't acquired it.

My feelings about adoption are that it should always be in the best interests of the child, not the adoptive parents.

I would be OK with a same-sex couple adopting a child in Scandanavia, but not so much in Ireland. That may sound confusing or contradictory - so let me explain.

Adopted kids often have to overcome problems of identity and feeling unwanted or rejected. Therefore it can be even more damaging than for birth children when a couple splits up. Couples that are not married are, statistically speaking, more likely to split up than married couples. I would oppose adoption by any couple that are not married or in some form of pretty binding civil partnership. Since Ireland is lagging behind with such legislation for same-sex couples, that places the adopted child in a less secure environment than in a Scandanavian country where same sex marriages or civil partnerships are recognised. (I am not stereotyping here, and I know there are plenty of exceptions, but when setting policy you have to examine what criteria are statistically significant).

Also, in societies with a higher acceptance of same-sex couples, kids in such homes are much less likely to be bullied. I dread to think what it would be like trying to grow up and go to school in many parts of Ireland while having a home with same-sex parents. I would also be opposed to Christian couples adopting children in Afghanistan or China!

I know this may seem heartless or rough on same sex couples - but the child's interests must be paramount (for similar reasons I would be opposed to single people adopting children). I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to adopt.

You are simply trying to rationalise your own prejudices there. You are saying that adopted kids from same sex couple will have a hard time in school in Ireland so they should not be allowed to adopt.

They will only have a hard time if they have grown up in households where they were told that there was something wrong with homosexuality. You are saying that because there are some people out there like yourself how have a problem with homosexuality, homosexuals should be denied adoption rights.

We could equally apply you logic to immigrants. Should a black couple have the right to adopt a white child? Some children will come from households where this will be frowned upon. They may be bullied consequently. According to your logic above we should not allow that in Ireland due to

Social policy should not be determined by bullies in national school. You are using young bullies as a proxy from your own intolerance. You are transferring your own prejudices on to them.

PDN

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

You are simply trying to rationalise your own prejudices there. You are saying that adopted kids from same sex couple will have a hard time in school in Ireland so they should not be allowed to adopt.

They will only have a hard time if they have grown up in households where they were told that there was something wrong with homosexuality. You are saying that because there are some people out there like yourself how have a problem with homosexuality, homosexuals should be denied adoption rights.

We could equally apply you logic to immigrants. Should a black couple have the right to adopt a white child? Some children will come from households where this will be frowned upon. They may be bullied consequently. According to your logic above we should not allow that in Ireland due to

Social policy should not be determined by bullies in national school. You are using young bullies as a proxy from your own intolerance. You are transferring your own prejudices on to them.

So I'm prejudiced against gays in Ireland but not against gays in Scandanavia? I also said that for the same reason I would be opposed to Christians in Afghanistan or China adopting children - so that must mean I'm prejudiced against Christians too?

Maybe you should try thinking a bit more before you make ill-informed and irrational judgements against other people.

Hardrain

wolfsbane wrote: »

In a way it calls forth as much pity as disgust, for the homosexual is degrading himself. I grieve for their folly and seek to point them away from its consequences.

Where I do enter confrontation with homosexuals is when they seek to impose their culture on me: to force me to say their behaviour is not sinful.

Disgusting bigoted post. I really wonder do you live in the real world.

marc_cerebis

PDN wrote: »

Congratulations! You have managed the awesome feat of asking a question which contains a false premise, and then answering your own question with an incorrect answer. It usually takes people years of posting in the BCP thread before their brains get scrambled enough to do that - but you've managed it as a newbie to boards.ie with only 7 posts to your name. I am impressed!

Firstly, Christianity doesn't hate homosexuality.

Secondly, if viewing homosexual acts as sin was due to reproductivity then Christianity would happily embrace those who get married and procreate, but also indulge in homosexual acts on the side. At the same time Christianity would condemn anyone who chose the path of celibacy. Since this is obviously not the case, your answer to your own question is facile and specious.

I wasn't aware there was a certain number of posts I had to reach before it was ok to put forward a premise that you found disagreeable. I do appreciate you pointing that out to me, makes me feel all welcome and warm on this forum. It's the kind of tolerance I would expect from someone who has wilfully blinded themselves to the failings of their religion.

I fully accept that you as a christian, you may not condemn homosexuality, christianity (in pretty much all of its institutionalised forms) does.

And as regards your point about people getting married and having homosexual affairs on the side ... now who's proving my point? That is exactly what generations of men (and women) have done in order to fit the accepted norm.

And it wasn't my question, as I am sure you are well aware, as you commented on this thread early on.

Euro_Kraut

PDN wrote: »

So I'm prejudiced against gays in Ireland but not against gays in Scandanavia? I also said that for the same reason I would be opposed to Christians in Afghanistan or China adopting children - so that must mean I'm prejudiced against Christians too?

Maybe you should try thinking a bit more before you make ill-informed and irrational judgements against other people.

I thought plenty about it. I think as a moderator you should not get so personal.

I raised valid points. You chose to ignore them and come back with personal abuse instead. Bad form.

PDN

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I thought plenty about it. I think as a moderator you should not get so personal.

I raised valid points. You chose to ignore them and come back with personal abuse instead. Bad form.

No, you got personal when you falsely accused me of prejudices instead of addressing the actual issues in my post. Now you start accusing me of personal abuse because I point out what you were doing.

If you want to discuss the issues here then feel free to post away. If you're trying to pick a fight, or wanting to discuss how a moderator should behave then you'll be out of here faster than your feet can touch the ground. The choice is yours.

PDN

marc_cerebis wrote: »

I wasn't aware there was a certain number of posts I had to reach before it was ok to put forward a premise that you found disagreeable. I do appreciate you pointing that out to me, makes me feel all welcome and warm on this forum. It's the kind of tolerance I would expect from someone who has wilfully blinded themselves to the failings of their religion.

Disagreeing with you, albeit in a mildly humorous form, hardly constitutes intolerance. Welcome to the internet!

Accusing me of being wilfully blind might make you feel better, but it doesn't alter the failings of your previous post. Christianity teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and therefore incompatible with Christian faith and practice - but that is hardly hatred. Would you say that Jews hate bacon?

And as regards your point about people getting married and having homosexual affairs on the side ... now who's proving my point? That is exactly what generations of men (and women) have done in order to fit the accepted norm.

Time to accuse me of intolerance again, because I'm going to disagree with you again. What I said certainly doesn't prove your point, because such behaviour is seen as sinful and wrong by the church.

In fact most Christians would see the guy with lots of kids and yet indulging in a gay affair as being much more reprehensible than someone who only indulges in gay sex. At least the second person isn't being a total scumbag, whereas the first person is cheating on a wife, breaking his marriage vows, and lying to his children

Christianity maintains the same teaching on homosexual acts whether or not the person is exclusively homosexual in their activity or whether they also father twenty children as well. So to argue that its all about reproduction is illogical and simply wrong.

And it wasn't my question, as I am sure you are well aware, as you commented on this thread early on.

Actually it was your question. The original poster (Hardrain) commented on the behaviour of an individual and asked if this was typical of Christianity and if such attitudes were supported by the Bible. In doing so they demonstrated how non-believers can ask questions on this forum, express disagreement with the Christian position if they choose, but at least make a genuine attempt to understand us and to avoid inaccurate and sweeping generalisations.

Hardrain's question was a good one and well expressed, and it received a polite answer. Yours was a poor one and badly expressed, and you answered it yourself with an equally poor answer.

In this forum we welcome non-believers who are prepared to ask questions, enter into dialogue, and express their disagreements in a way that is consistent with the Charter. We don't welcome those who come in spoiling for a fight and making false accusations and sweeping generalisations against the faith. You would be wise to take note.

Euro_Kraut

PDN wrote: »

No, you got personal when you falsely accused me of prejudices instead of addressing the actual issues in my post. Now you start accusing me of personal abuse because I point out what you were doing.

You have already stated that homosexuality is sinful. That is a prejudice. Now please address the points in my post.

If you want to discuss the issues here then feel free to post away. If you're trying to pick a fight, or wanting to discuss how a moderator should behave then you'll be out of here faster than your feet can touch the ground. The choice is yours.

I don't think its appropriate to be threatening me like that.

PDN

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I don't think its appropriate to be threatening me like that.

Sigh. You were warned.

philologos

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

You have already stated that homosexuality is sinful. That is a prejudice. Now please address the points in my post.

Any sexual relations outside of marriage are deemed to be sinful in Christianity. It's by no means a special case. This is the moral standard that is put forward in the Christian faith for the most part.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I don't think its appropriate to be threatening me like that.

In fairness, if people are going to start a thread claiming that we have a "horrible attitude" towards homosexuals because we merely disagree with the ethics of homosexual acts that is their agenda.

Turtwig

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

You have already stated that homosexuality is sinful. That is a prejudice. Now please address the points in my post.

Actually, according to Christian Doctrine it's a sin, so I'm not sure if you can actually classify it as prejudice. This has confused me a bit, Christians know that God's word is absolute so from that point of view it isn't prejudice.
Yet to someone like Euro it clearly is prejudice because well s/he sees nothing wrong with homosexuality at all.
A conflict that clearly need a resolution...

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding me (accidentally I'm sure).

Not so much accidentally, as perhaps inevitably, since your original post was ambiguous -- no doubt accidentally.

PDN wrote: »

I'm not saying that homosexual acts are in any way a recent development. Men have always cheerfully rogered other men, sometimes in much greater numbers than in our present culture. Animals, too, engage in homosexual activity.

We agree -- hallelujah!

PDN wrote: »

What appears to be a more recent development is identifying homosexuality as a condition or even as an identity, where someone defines themself as exclusively homosexual.

Men and women have "identified" themselves (in the many ways you can choose to interpret this) as homosexual for a very long time indeed. Though certainly not where the monotheistic religions held sway, since it was frequently life-threatening to do so. But in those times and places where it was safe to do so, people did. The Ancient Greeks rejoiced in male homosexuality and Plato gave it top billing in his magnificent Symposium and records suggest that it was common in ancient India, China, Thailand and many other places.

PDN wrote: »

My own opinion is that mankind (and particularly the male of the species) are pretty well omnisexual by nature. Given the right opportunity they will happily copulate with men, women, their right hand, rubber dolls, vacuum cleaners and anything else that provides a tight fit.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the fun to be had with a vacuum cleaner.

However, your implication that one can consciously choose whom one finds sexually attractive is not seriously supported by any facts that I'm aware of. In simple terms, most research suggests quite the opposite, that humans are genetically predisposed to find males and females separately sexually attractive in separate continuums -- think of two sliders, one for attraction to males, and one for attraction to females -- with few people 100% heterosexual, and few 100% homosexual.

PDN wrote: »

Our various cultures allow and facilitate different expressions of sexual behaviour, and the Christian church has a particular set of sexual activities which are deemed permissable, and a whole lot more that are not.

Jesus is famously silent on male and female homosexuality, and if one is going to ignore the nasty stuff in Leviticus, then the rules on who can sleep with whom come not from Jesus, but from the many and various interpretations of Paul's decidedly ambiguous prose.

And even allowing the most arm-waving of interpretations, Paul can't really bring himself to say exactly what's permitted and what's not. His prose reminds me of that splendidly orotund, not to say tumescent, document on human sexuality produced by the Vatican some years back which rambles on for seventy or so pages about what's in and what's out, so to speak, without once mentioning a body part, or specifying what can and cannot be done with it.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The meme is a concept. Assuming it exists - and I would contend that it explains little beyond what "teaching" already explains - no one knows what it looks like or where it is to be found.

Hmmm... you've been reading that frightful Alistair McGrath again? Contrary to what McG appears in all sincerity, to think, memes have been defined, categorized and documented at book-length by quite a few people.

There's also a certain richly enjoyable irony in McG suggestion that memes don't exist because nobody knows what they look like, nor where they're to be found, when one recalls that he continually forgets to apply the same existential requirements to the deity he believes exists.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Therefore, I'm not sure where attributing homophobia within religion to memes (while ignoring the secular equivalent) gets us.

Have a read of marc_cerebis's post again if you didn't get it the first time -- the point is that by evolving a prohibition against homosexuality a religion can provide itself with a selective advantage over religions which don't evolve the prohibition. And as with the spread throughout the population of a beneficial genetic adaption, a memetic mutation that provides a selective advantage to a religion will tend to spread over time at the expense of religions which don't include the adaption.

BTW, Marc could have added that defining a small non-reproducing section of society as an outgroup will tend to reinforce the ingroup bonding that's a part of most religions, thereby producing a group-level selective advantage over religions that don't have the prohibition.

One can certainly appreciate the elegant solution that evolution has developed, even if one heartily detests the human misery it causes.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

In fairness, if people are going to start a thread claiming that we have a "horrible attitude" towards homosexuals because we merely disagree with the ethics of homosexual acts that is their agenda.

Im sure you have pondered that labelling homosexuality a "sin" could likely lead to bigotry, ignorance and hatred.

Teaching fragile gullible (kids) minds that it is a sin causes hurt on many levels. But such is the "word of god"