nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

WesternNight

eightyfish wrote: »

Original sin.

Well yes, I know...but I was kind of hoping (in vain, probably) that he could justify how such a sweeping statement could be so easily accepted as fact.

Zombrex

WesternNight wrote: »

Well yes, I know...but I was kind of hoping (in vain, probably) that he could justify how such a sweeping statement could be so easily accepted as fact.

It is quite off topic for this thread, if every Christian thread turned into "How do you know Christianity is true" debate we would never get anything done around here (we get things done around here!?!?!)

Read the links in his signature, Jakkass has explained many times why he is a believer.

WesternNight

Wicknight wrote: »

It is quite off topic for this thread, if every Christian thread turned into "How do you know Christianity is true" debate we would never get anything done around here (we get things done around here!?!?!)

Read the links in his signature, Jakkass has explained many times why he is a believer.

Yeah, I know...apologies.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Hmm, and yet you persist in coming into the Christianity forum to make a song and dance about this and tell us how wrong we are,

As I mentioned above, if religious people refrained from making a public song and dance about what gay men (and women) do in private, then I can't imagine anybody bothering to make a song and dance in response to what christians think about homosexuals in the privacy of their own minds.

The musical starts with your side, and when your side stops singing, dancing and indulging itself, we'll stop too -- it's quite easy really

PDN wrote: »

I think Iris Robinson is a nut and that her views on this, as with most subjects, are intrinsically disordered.

That's the second time we agree in two days. We excel ourselves!

PDN wrote: »

a) Yes, I think it constitutes homophobia.

Three!

PDN wrote: »

b) I would rather she aired them publicly, so everyone can see what she is, than that she thought such stuff and kept quiet and pretended to be a reasonable human being.

And upon the same grounds, you'd be happy for -- say -- a senior public figure who hated Romanian people to air their views in Belfast too? Or do you believe that they should keep quiet and pretend to be a reasonable person?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

As I mentioned above, if religious people refrained from making a public song and dance about what gay men (and women) do in private, then I can't imagine anybody bothering to make a song and dance in response to what christians think about homosexuals in the privacy of their own minds.

I don't think you're being fair there Robin. In my experience Christians rarely initiate discussion about homosexuality (although when they do it tends to get well-publicised). I have found that it is much more frequent for non-Christians (well, more anti-Christians actually) to initiate the debate in order to air their stereotypes about what Christians actually believe.

However, such debates give us the opportunity to clarify what we actually do believe. So now Obni, who previously thought we were homophobes, has now come to realise that Jakkass and me are actually eloquent, compassionate, tolerant and admirable homophobes. Such is life.

And upon the same grounds, you'd be happy for -- say -- a senior public figure who hated Romanian people to air their views in Belfast too? Or do you believe that they should keep quiet and pretend to be a reasonable person?

That's a good point. I wouldn't be happy about it, because I know that it would likely result in violence against the Romanians living in Belfast. Neither would I be happy about such a person passing muster for beiung respectable. I would like their views to be exposed in a way that would make them a figure of mockery and end their political career, and in a way that would not endanger anyone.

And that is how I would see Iris Robinson's nonsense. Having lived in (and been beaten up in) Belfast myself I don't think the kind of people who take Iris Robinson seriously are the kind of people who commit violence. Neither do I think her comments were seriously likely to endanger anyone. If I'm wrong about this, and believe it or not it has been known for me to be wrong, then I would certainly take a different view of the matter.

Splendour

elekid wrote: »

Absolutely.

I've no doubt that most christians are trying to do good and have no intention of causing harm to others, but giving sexually confused and vulnerable young people the message that to act on their natural feelings would be sinful seems horrifically cruel and harmful to me, yet that's the message being given. Spreading the message that those who commit homosexual acts are sinners, results in homophobia, even if it is indirect.

Nonsense. This would mean that Christians have a phobia with alot of people (including ourselves...) i.e. gossipers, adulterers, liars, cheats etc...

Having said that, I think alot of atheists (and some Christians) homophobic thinking possibly stems from generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins.

elekid

Splendour wrote: »

Nonsense. This would mean that Christians have a phobia with alot of people (including ourselves...) i.e. gossipers, adulterers, liars, cheats etc...

I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league. (By which of course I mean consenting gay adults who are not commiting adultery, lying, cheating or gossiping. They're not murderers, rapists or thieves. They don't even have any outstanding parking tickets! Their only "sin" in the context of my point is having sex with each other. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out given the topic of this thread but there ya go)

Go around saying that a certain group are "sinners" because of what they do, especially if many in society view you as a moral authority, and you make it easier for prejudices to exist against that group. The "generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins" that you refer to is a perfect example.

PDN

elekid wrote: »

I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league.

So consenting adults having sex with each other in private is not in the same league as adultery? That's strange, I always thought adultery was consenting adults (albeit ones that are married to someone else) having sex with each other in private.

Do you see the nonsense we get when people start using weasel words and parrotting the same old tired phrases?

elekid

PDN wrote: »

So consenting adults having sex with each other in private is not in the same league as adultery? That's strange, I always thought adultery was consenting adults (albeit ones that are married to someone else) having sex with each other in private.

Do you see the nonsense we get when people start using weasel words and parrotting the same old tired phrases?

Consenting adults having sex and adultery are two similar but different things. What's your point in relation to mine?

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you didn't understand something in my previous post so I've edited it in the hope you'll get my point this time. Otherwise your post comes across as being the very same nonsense as what you were accusing me of.

philologos

elekid wrote: »

I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league. (By which of course I mean consenting adults who are not commiting adultery, lying, cheating or gossiping. Not murderers, rapists or thieves. They don't even parking tickets! Their only "sin" is having sex with each other. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out given the topic of this thread but there ya go)

That is the difference between your morality, and ours. We believe that sex outside of marriage to be a sin on moral grounds. You do not.

Irrespective of whether or not most people agree, Christians hold to a Biblical rather than a worldly standard concerning ethics generally.

elekid wrote: »

Go around saying that a certain group are "sinners" because of what they do, especially if many in society view you as a moral authority, and you make it easier for prejudices to exist against that group. The "generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins" that you refer to is a perfect example.

Do we say that a certain group are sinners?:

Romans 3:23 wrote:

since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Psalm 14:3 wrote:

They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good, no, not one.

Psalm 53:1 wrote:

Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they commit abominable acts;
there is no one who does good.

Where does this give credence to just one group being sinners?

Splendour

elekid wrote: »

I never said it was homophobia, I said it results in homophobia and can cause harm to people, regardless of the original intentions. I think most people, christian or not, would agree that gossiping, commiting adultery, lying and cheating are immoral. Consenting adults having sex with each other in private are not in the same league. (By which of course I mean consenting gay adults who are not commiting adultery, lying, cheating or gossiping. They're not murderers, rapists or thieves. They don't even have any outstanding parking tickets! Their only "sin" in the context of my point is having sex with each other. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out given the topic of this thread but there ya go)

Go around saying that a certain group are "sinners" because of what they do, especially if many in society view you as a moral authority, and you make it easier for prejudices to exist against that group. The "generations of so called 'Christian teaching' whereby people were taught that homosexuality is a step above other sins" that you refer to is a perfect example.

Now you are doing what our 'Christian' friends did when they put homosexuality above other sins. They took it on themselves to decide what sins are worse than others. You are making a judgement on what is and isn't moral. There are plenty of non Christians who would disagree with you on your moral ethics.

Can I point out here again that we are all sinners, be we homosexual, hetrosexual bisexual or 'whatever takes your fancy' sexual!

wolfsbane

elekid wrote: »

Absolutely.

I've no doubt that most christians are trying to do good and have no intention of causing harm to others, but giving sexually confused and vulnerable young people the message that to act on their natural feelings would be sinful seems horrifically cruel and harmful to me, yet that's the message being given. Spreading the message that those who commit homosexual acts are sinners, results in homophobia, even if it is indirect.

Yes, it all comes down to what is a sin and what's not. I'm sure you would approve of young people being told their desire to beat-up a different racial group is sinful. They might naturally feel antagonistic to these foreigners with their strange ways, but their attitude and conduct need condemned - even if it seems horrifically cruel and harmful of me to do so. Why, I might give them a guilt-complex!

So the issue is whether homosexuality is sinful or not - nothing to do with how natural it seems or how harsh our condemnation seems.

The Bible makes it plain that homosexuality is a sin, so the Christian must treat it as such in his words and action.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The other side of that argument -

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

Also see

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

The argument is just a smokescreen - for Romans 1 spells out in no uncertain terms the sinfulness of homosexuality:
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

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).

Homosexuality has been legal in China since 1997 and was removed as an illness in 2001. According to DPR Korea's site oddly enough

DPRK recognizes that many individuals are born with homosexuality as a genetic trait and treats them with due respect.

So it's good to see Chinas views on homosexuality changing slowly but surely. Just as christianity's is to. Leviticus the book in the bible which has more direct quotes from God than any other, instructs the Christian not to lie with a man as with a woman, but it also prohibits men from shaving their beards, eating prawns and Bats (because they are birds!) and offers advice on how best to keep their slaves among other nonsence. Leviticus is also the source of the Jehova’s Witnesses’ belief that you should not accept blood transfusions because it is an abomination to eat blood. (black pudding out the window too!)
So just as these laws have been conviently dropped along the way except for a minority of orthodox practitioners so too will it's view on homosexual acts.

I think it will go the same way as the rest of the bibles dafter laws...‘If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.

(what happens if you happen to touch said woman in the evening?)

The Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behavior. There are perhaps half a dozen brief references to it in all. In terms of emphasis, it is a minor concern-in contrast, for example, to economic injustice. So why does the issue seem so important to the modern Christian? My guess is because it's another idea that is on the way out.

philologos

studiorat wrote: »

So it's good to see Chinas views on homosexuality changing slowly but surely. Just as christianity's is to. Leviticus the book in the bible which has more direct quotes from God than any other, instructs the Christian not to lie with a man as with a woman, but it also prohibits men from shaving their beards, eating prawns and Bats (because they are birds!) and offers advice on how best to keep their slaves among other nonsence. Leviticus is also the source of the Jehova’s Witnesses’ belief that you should not accept blood transfusions because it is an abomination to eat blood. (black pudding out the window too!)

Leviticus is valid where it deals with moral laws. Legal and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 23:23 wrote:

‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.

As for kosher eating, Jesus Christ also fulfilled this in the Scriptures.

Mark 7:18-23 wrote:

He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’

Interestingly you ignore that homosexuality is forbidden in both testaments. When Jesus refers to "fornication" in Mark chapter 7, he is affirming the previous scriptures on sexual morality of the Torah. (Leviticus 18, Deuteronomy 22, Exodus 22:16-17)

Part of being a Christian is living as Jesus aimed to live, this also includes interpreting the Jewish scriptures as Jesus would have interpreted them.

The question is those people who are attempting to change the Christian standpoint on sexuality, are they doing so on the merit of God or on the merit of their own will?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly you ignore that homosexuality is forbidden in both testaments. When Jesus refers to "fornication" in Mark chapter 7, he is affirming the previous scriptures on sexual morality of the Torah. (Leviticus 18, Deuteronomy 22, Exodus 22:16-17)

Part of being a Christian is living as Jesus aimed to live, this also includes interpreting the Jewish scriptures as Jesus would have interpreted them.

The question is those people who are attempting to change the Christian standpoint on sexuality, are they doing so on the merit of God or on the merit of their own will?

As far as I understand it, Jesus Himself never made any comments about homosexuality, infact I know I'm going to be shot to pieces here but weren't suggestions made before that Jesus Himself could have been Gay or Bisexual?.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

As far as I understand it, Jesus Himself never made any comments about homosexuality, infact I know I'm going to be shot to pieces here but weren't suggestions made before that Jesus Himself could have been Gay or Bisexual?.

That's true, it's precisely because Jesus didn't elaborate upon it that I can't determine that He had no issue with sexual immorality. Infact his inference to fornication in that Scripture is Jesus commanding people to live their lives according to God's standard for sexuality as defined in the Scriptures.

Where Jesus elaborated on divorce, He did so by speech. Where Jesus elaborated on anger, He did so by speech. The same is the case for lustfulness and adultery. In all these things where He found that people had been lacking He spoke out about it.

If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.

So by that would it be unfair to assume that if he didn't speak about it; he saw no issue with it?

Also, you may have missed it but I also asked the question

His Maltiness wrote:

infact I know I'm going to be shot to pieces here but weren't suggestions made before that Jesus Himself could have been Gay or Bisexual?.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.

If Jesus didn't talk about sex, then frankly, he must have been the only preacher in history not to.

It's far more likely that either contemporaneous authors didn't write down what Jesus said about sex, or else, what they did write was subsequently edited out by people who had more sympathy for Paul's distinctly unenlightened views.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

If Jesus didn't talk about sex, then frankly, he must have been the only preacher in history not to...

Jesus did talk about sex. What he did not do is elaborate on what he thought about every orientation

PDN

robindch wrote: »

It's far more likely that either contemporaneous authors didn't write down what Jesus said about sex, or else, what they did write was subsequently edited out by people who had more sympathy for Paul's distinctly unenlightened views.

Thank you for that bit of 100% biased supposition based on zero evidence. It pretty well confirms my opinion of how some atheists think and why they post in this forum.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Jakkass wrote:

If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.

It's far more likely that either contemporaneous authors didn't write down what Jesus said about sex, or else, what they did write was subsequently edited out by people who had more sympathy for Paul's distinctly unenlightened views.

Thank you for that bit of 100% biased supposition based on zero evidence. It pretty well confirms my opinion of how some atheists think and why they post in this forum.

None of the gospels contain direct quotations from Jesus on the topic of sex (see here, for example), so the options are that either (a) Jesus did say something and it was either (1) not written down, or (b) it was written down, but subsequently removed, or (b) Jesus really didn't say anything about sex (in which case, as a religious preacher, he would have been pretty much unique in choosing not to talk about it).

While you might find two of these three options uncomfortable, the absence is certainly interesting and worth some speculation which rises above the catty.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

None of the gospels contain direct quotations from Jesus on the topic of sex

Really?

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32) (Also quoted in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18)

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' " (Matthew 15:19-20) (Also quoted in Mark 7:21-22)

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:8-9)

"Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matthew 19:18-19) (Also quoted in Luke 18:20)

the absence is certainly interesting and worth some speculation which rises above the catty.

The absence, like your speculation, exists only in your own head. I don't think it's catty to point that fact out.

The fact is, Robin, that you have no idea whatsoever what Jesus taught about homosexuality. Therefore to say that it is 'more likely' that his teaching was ommitted in preference to the more 'unenlightened' views of Paul is without any foundation whatsoever.

You are doing what you have a habit of doing. You think of the explanation that will prove the most unpalatable to Christians and on that basis alone, without a single shred of supporting evidence (indeed in this case you ignore the evidence and make a totally false statement about a non-existent absence of Jesus teaching about sex), you post it on here with the sole and express intent of riling the natives. That is trolling pure and simple, and I find it disappointing that a moderator of one forum chooses to behave that way in another forum. It does you, or your cause, no credit whatsoever.

amen

Because the teaching of the New Testament says so

could you tell me where?

PDN

amen wrote: »

could you tell me where?

Where what?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

robindch wrote:

None of the gospels contain direct quotations from Jesus on the topic of sex

Really?

Yep, really!

While the quotes you provided -- which are included, btw, in the page I linked to above -- certainly do refer to sex, the gospels do not contain any direct quotes from Jesus on the topic we were discussing, which was homosexuality alone. Hence my comment.

PDN wrote: »

The fact is, Robin, that you have no idea whatsoever what Jesus taught about homosexuality. Therefore to say that it is 'more likely' that his teaching was ommitted in preference to the more 'unenlightened' views of Paul is without any foundation whatsoever.

Given that Jesus preached in Matthew 22:37-40 that, above all other rules, people should love god and love each other as much as themselves, I'm inclined to suspect that Jesus valued love above the preaching of the moral depravity of homosexuality. In this, Jesus would have appeared radical within the confines of the jewish tradition of which he was a part. And Jesus certainly was radical in many respects, so it seems at least plausible that he maintained radical views here too.

As above, we have three options to consider when we note that Jesus doesn't address homosexuality. These are that he (a) did not talk about it, so there was nothing to record; (b) did talk about it, but didn't have it recorded, (c) did talk about it, had it recorded, but subsequently removed.

(a) seems unlikely, given that most religious preachers discuss homosexuality at some point during their careers. Which leaves either (b) and (c) as the most likely options.

PDN wrote: »

You are doing what you have a habit of doing. You think of the explanation that will prove the most unpalatable to Christians and on that basis alone, without a single shred of supporting evidence [...] you post it on here with the sole and express intent of riling the natives. That is trolling pure and simple, and I find it disappointing that a moderator of one forum chooses to behave that way in another forum. It does you, or your cause, no credit whatsoever.

I certainly do not post here with the sole or express "intent of riling the natives" and I'm a touch disappointed that you misinterpret me so badly.

You're entirely free to disagree or not with the evidence-based view I presented above, and I'm sure it would make for an interesting debate. Either way, it would certainly be more polite and probably make for a more enjoyable experience all around if you would aim for the argument rather than the messenger

uncleoswald

Jakkass wrote: »

Leviticus is valid where it deals with moral laws. Legal and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

it's precisely because Jesus didn't elaborate upon it that I can't determine that He had no issue with sexual immorality.

Forgive my ignorance, I am not all that knowledgeable on the subject. But are you basically saying that because Jesus didn't comment directly on homosexuality, what is written in the OT in Leviticus is still valid but since he did contradict (may not be the right word) what is in the OT with regard to ceremonial laws and food that what is in written in the OT on these matters can be disregarded?

Sealclubber

God hates gays, he told me last night in a dream.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, your not the first to post such rib-tickling witticisms. I let your first regrettable post slide, but I now see that the puerile crud needs to be corked. So, you have two choices:

1) Stick by the charter;
2) Bugger off.

Sealclubber

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, your not the first to post such rib-tickling witticisms. I let your first regrettable post slide, but I now see that the puerile crud needs to be corked. So, you have two choices:

1) Stick by the charter;
2) Bugger off.

Ouch, slap on the wrist. Fair enough. Could one of the religious among you explain to me why a dude having sex with another dude is sinful, and why it's anyone else's business when they're not harming anyone. And "because Jesus said so" isn't really what I'm looking for, I really want to know what people find so fundamentally repulsive about it.