Why are most religious against homosexuality?

UCDVet wrote: »

My point is, we shouldn't really care what ancient X culture felt about homosexuality anymore than we should care what ancient X culture felt about pedophilia.

Then we can write off every religion not founded in the last 100 years or so, right?

crockholm

How is it percieved in the non-abrahamic religions?

efb

Didn't OT prophets and Muhammad have young girl brides?

padd b1975

UCDVet wrote: »

Google has a cool feature where you can type 'define: something' and it will give you the definition.

The two concepts are very closely related. And they were both largely accepted by numerous cultures in the past.

My point is, we shouldn't really care what ancient X culture felt about homosexuality anymore than we should care what ancient X culture felt about pedophilia.

Yikes.

1ZRed

UCDVet wrote: »

Nobody said it was exactly the same thing. I certainly didn't.

The 'issue' of homosexuality should be decided on it's own merits. I've got nothing against gays. I think they should have ever single right straight people have.

But people often imply that because lots of other cultures historically thought homosexuality was cool, we should too. That's a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). And an easy way to point out how silly it is would be to use the same argument (lots of other cultures historically thought X was cool, we should too) is to use it for a value of X people don't think is cool at all.

And why shouldn't see homosexuality without a problem like so many thousands of cultures before us did? It only became wrong when organised religions conditioned society into thinking it was sick and a devious act punishable with an eternity in hell. No wonder it became such a condemnable 'sin' to people.

Give me a good, solid and logical reason why we shouldn't see it without a problem as they did, that's right, there's no reason not to.

Like pedophilia.

No, not like pedophilia.

If someone is for or against gays - they should be that way for relevant reasons....not what a bunch of cultures used to do. Likewise, if someone is for or against pedophilia they should be that way for relevant reasons....not because a bunch of cultures used to do it.

They should be against pedophilia for the one and only reason that it is non consensual and children are not developed enough mentally and physically for sex so they are vulnerable.

Again, this has absolutely no place in a discussion about two consensual adults of the same sex being discriminated against.

UCDVet

krudler wrote: »

Again what comparison is homosexuality and paedophilia? The bible advocates slavery, but hey we don't do that anymore. Because two grownups having a relationship hurts nobody, an adult having sex with a child does. comprende?

They are both sexual preferences.
They have both been culturally acceptable and culturally unacceptable.

You say that two grownups having a relationship hurts nobody, whereas an adult having sex with a child does - but that's a pretty big claim. People who are against homosexuality believe it does cause harm, whether to the participants (increased rates of disease) or to society as a whole.

Likewise, advocates of pedophilia felt that it was beneficial. Samurai warriors were encouraged to take a young male future-samurai and have a sexual relationship with him. It was believed it would strengthen the bond between them and that everyone benefited from it.

I'm not expressing an opinion on homosexuality or on pedophilia - I'm just saying we shouldn't care what ancient cultures felt about either. We should evaluate them on their own merits.

Heck, back when slavery was in favour - many people felt they were helping the slaves. They would take in 'savages' and provide them with food, shelter and introduce them to civilized living.

charlemont

Because they belong to the type of person that needs to be told how to live as a lot of them are too thick to figure it out for themselves.

1ZRed wrote: »

They should be against pedophilia for the one and only reason that it is non consensual and children are not developed enough mentally and physically for sex so they are vulnerable.

Again, this has absolutely no place in a discussion about two consensual adults of the same sex being discriminated against.

Purely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, one could say that in ancient civilizations, given the much shorter life expectancy, that pedophilia was not actually pedophilia back then, however. Females would have been encouraged to start having babies as soon as their bodies were able for it to ensure the survival of the species. I believe the point, however erroneous, that the poster was trying to make was that modern society should not be held up by the ideals of millennia ago, given how different the world is. That's fine if that's the view the poster holds across the board, and assuming they also hold the view that things can and do change for the better, than the modern day acceptance of homosexuality is a good thing, which it of course is

Thrill

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it?

The whole thing makes no sense to them.

UCDVet

COYVB wrote: »

Then we can write off every religion not founded in the last 100 years or so, right?

I'd argue we should write them all off.

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it? Or are they worried for immortal souls and genuinely want to make sure they get into heaven? Why do so many world religions condemn gay people?

Christianity puts marriage across as the complementary union between a man and a woman (both different yet complementary) in a formal union before God. This was the order by which God created the world, and it's the order that God created humanity by. Christians also believe that the formal union between a man and a woman isn't just for the benefit of the couple themselves, but that the the union of a man and a woman is in order that God might be glorified, and that God might be served through it.

Christians believe that marriage is also a microcosm if you will of what the union between Jesus and the church should look like. The perfect union of Jesus with the people of God to serve Him clearly. Much in the same way as a man and a woman come before one before God, they serve Him insofar as they run a family, but they can also serve Him insofar as they can be great witnesses before Christ.

Christians believe that any union other than a marriage between a man and a woman is a distortion of what God has intended for relationships and sexual relationships within the world.

By the by it isn't just homosexuality, it is any sexual expression outside of a marriage, which would mean that Christians shouldn't engage in many things from sex in a relationship structure other than marriage, to the one night stand culture that exists in a lot of the Western world, to lusting after another woman making her a mere sex-object for your own gratification, to watching pornography and so on. Christians believe that any form of sexual expression outside of a marriage is a distortion and a perversion of what sex in it's appropriate context, a loving relationship between a man and a woman is meant to be.

In a sense homosexual activity (as opposed to whether or not people might have difficulty with same-sex attraction) is a human distortion of what God intended sexuality to me.

Many people who would hold mainline views on sexuality including quite a few pastors have struggled with homosexual attraction, but it is not the correct order for sexuality and they realise that they have a far better relationship through Jesus and that they are willing to give up anything for Him.

For example this is the pastor of a church in Oxford discussing his sexual orientation for an evangelical newspaper, and there was an article on The Gospel Coalition from another evangelical minister in the UK who also struggles with same-sex attraction discussing how he witnesses to the Gospel amongst LGBT people.

1ZRed

philologos wrote: »

In a sense homosexual activity (as opposed to whether or not people might have difficulty with same-sex attraction) is a human distortion of what God intended sexuality to be.

If god created man, and so everything about him which would include sexuality, then what the actual fuck is he bitching about? If he sees it as so wrong then it's his fuck up, and entirely his fault.

Many people who would hold mainline views on sexuality including quite a few pastors have struggled with homosexual attraction, but it is not the correct order for sexuality and they realise that they have a far better relationship through Jesus and that they are willing to give up anything for Him.

Thanks for enlightening me. Religion is a great one for that all right as it's well up to date on all matters sex and sexuality.

1ZRed wrote: »

If god created man, and so everything about him which would include sexuality, then what the actual fuck is he bitching about? If he sees it as so wrong then it's his fuck up, and entirely his fault.

That depends largely on whether you believe that sexuality is biologically determined or not. What I would say that even if people are attracted to X, Y or Z it doesn't mean that the physical act of sex with X, Y or Z is appropriate or correct. The same argument can be used in respect to people who believe that sex outside of marriage is OK, or that one night stands are OK.

Christians believe that marriage is the place for sexual expression so as a result they seek to live as God intended for them to live, and they aim to serve Him in that. Marriage isn't a selfish thing, it is an institution with wider importance from a Christian perspective. A marriage is a union between one another, but it is also a form of partnership with God Biblically.

Claiming that it is God's fault for how one decides to act is utterly bizarre.

1ZRed wrote: »

Thanks for enlightening me. Religion is a great one for that all right as it's well up to date on all matters sex and sexuality.

What do you mean by "up to date"? Is this synonymous with "agrees with you"?

Christianity isn't about whether or not it agrees with you. Christianity is about God's word to mankind. It is highly likely that many won't like it, but not liking something isn't an indication of how true it is.

philologos wrote: »

Christians believe that any form of sexual expression outside of a marriage is a distortion and a perversion of what sex in it's appropriate context, a loving relationship between a man and a woman is meant to be.

That's perfectly fine, what I don't understand is why they feel the need to go on about it to people who clearly have no interest of being members of their club? In Christianity homosexuality is banned, that's great, that means that anyone who is engaging in homosexual behaviour is, by definition, not involved in Christianity, so why do those who are involved in it care what they do? Should they change their mind and want to become members, they'll have to knock the homosexuality on the head and do whatever is needed to join the club, but if they don't want to join why bother telling them they can't?

Isn't that a bit like "this is my gang and you can't play with us because you're not included in our rules"? Unless the person wanted to play, they wouldn't care, and their predisposition towards homosexuality, in the vast majority of cases, would mean they have no intention of being in your gang.

Would it not be a bit more conducive to productivity to make sure that all the members are toeing the club guidelines instead of going "ner ner ner ner ner, you can't join because you're gay and our god will see you burn in hell". Your god can do what he likes, these people don't believe in your definition of god

philologos wrote: »

Claiming that it is God's fault for how one decides to act is utterly bizarre.

It's not quite as bizarre as you might think. I'm sure you're familiar with this, but in case you're not, if god is, as most believers believe, all knowing and all powerful, then there's no such thing as free will. For god to be all knowing, he knows what you're going to do before you do it, that means that your actions are predetermined, otherwise he wouldn't have the capacity to know before they happen.

If he is all powerful, then he has the ability to change what you will do, which again doesn't fit in with free will, because it would be him making that decision. So either he is all powerful and all knowing, and knows everything that will happen and has happened in the past, while also having the ability to change it, there is no free will, and therefore god is ultimately directly responsible for absolutely everything that happens within his created universe.

Either that or he isn't all knowing or all powerful... in which case free will certainly CAN exist, and he is more a custodian who tries to keep things on track, nudging them in the direction he'd like to see them go, but ultimately lacking the power to dictate complete direction

JupiterKid

Because religious people have a major problem with other people living their lives the way they want to and feel the need to impose their so-calked "morals" on others. It's all about control and making others miserable.

Religion - one of the greatest scourges of humanity.

lidllady

I'm going to leave this here...

This video addresses in depth all the biblical arguments that have been used against homosexuality and has over 475,000 views

Being gay and being christian are not mutully exclusive!

1ZRed

philologos wrote: »

That depends largely on whether you believe that sexuality is biologically determined or not.

It is scientific fact that sexuality is hardwired and not a choice. It's also widely accepted to be true by the vast majority too.

What I would say that even if people are attracted to X, Y or Z it doesn't mean that the physical act of sex with X, Y or Z is appropriate or correct.

Doesn't mean it's wrong either. I firmly belive that anything mutual and consenting is not wrong. If god has such a problem with sex and doing it out of marriage or only for procreation then he wouldn't have made it feel so feckin good. That's the point in doing that of he's so prudish about it?

A marriage is a union between one another, but it is also a form of partnership with God Biblically.

Ah this I agree with, "marriage is a union between one another" - no gender specifics.

But here, this is where the problems occur. You don't have a hold on marriage and what it means. It's a civil thing. It means whatever you want it to after -if you are religious, so you can't hold what you think marriage is over anyone else of different beliefs.

Claiming that it is God's fault for how one decides to act is utterly bizarre.

That's not my point. You're coming from the point of view that orientation is your own choice, it's not. The act is a choice but the primal drivers to do it is not.

So how is that fair? If God did create you along with your sexuality, then how come it's alright for a man and a woman to get married and then have sex, as it's then in wedlock, but not for two people of the same sex? -Baring in mind God created your sexuality and you can't fight or help that (as much as those closeted pastors like to think they can)

Why does he kick up such a fuss? Like, what's so different to have separate rules and praise one act, but dismiss the other? If the 'out of wedlock' issue makes all premarital sex so bad, regardless of sexuality, then surely wouldn't it make sense to say "yeah, you two lads or ladies get married and then it's grand".

That seems more sensible to me.

What do you mean by "up to date"? Is this synonymous with "agrees with you"?

No, I mean the world isn't like it was 2000 years ago. Time to catch up a bit.
I couldn't care they don't agree with me I'm just feeling curious and asking you questions.

COYVB wrote: »

That's perfectly fine, what I don't understand is why they feel the need to go on about it to people who clearly have no interest of being members of their club? In Christianity homosexuality is banned, that's great, that means that anyone who is engaging in homosexual behaviour is, by definition, not involved in Christianity, so why do those who are involved in it care what they do? Should they change their mind and want to become members, they'll have to knock the homosexuality on the head and do whatever is needed to join the club, but if they don't want to join why bother telling them they can't?

I don't feel the need to go on about it at all. In fact on the specific issue of homosexuality I don't discuss it much. I find that most atheists and agnostics who want to talk about the Gospel bring it up. They bring it up first much as the OP has brought it up first.

The simple fact of the matter is that Christians live according to Christian standards because we believe that God's way is the right way to live.

What I do make a key point of is accepting Jesus Christ as Lord, and Saviour of mankind. Namely that Jesus stood in our place on the cross so that we can be forgiven. The wonderful news that no matter who you are, no matter what you have done if you repent and accept Jesus you can be saved.

That's all people.

COYVB wrote: »

Isn't that a bit like "this is my gang and you can't play with us because you're not included in our rules"? Unless the person wanted to play, they wouldn't care, and their predisposition towards homosexuality, in the vast majority of cases, would mean they have no intention of being in your gang.

No, it's like saying the Gospel is good news for all including LGBT people provided all turn away from sin and accept the Gospel.

COYVB wrote: »

Would it not be a bit more conducive to productivity to make sure that all the members are toeing the club guidelines instead of going "ner ner ner ner ner, you can't join because you're gay and our god will see you burn in hell". Your god can do what he likes, these people don't believe in your definition of god

I don't believe that gay people will automatically burn in hell.
I don't believe automatically that any other demographic will either.
I don't gloat at the idea of people going to hell. I find it deeply tragic, and saddening actually. I don't want anyone to go there, even my worst enemy.

You evidently don't understand what Bible believing Christians actually believe in respect to this subject.

In fact I long that all people would be saved and turn to Jesus as Lord irrespective of sexual inclination.

You don't know what my definition of God (although it isn't my definition, it's about God's definition of Himself as revealed in Scripture) is clearly, so why are you ranting about it?

Probably because they were fond of the idea of inducing shame... for other reasons.
An easy way to do this is to make you feel shame for any sexual "perversions".

Note that I use the word perversions as homosexuality would have fallen into that category then.

1ZRed wrote: »

It is scientific fact that sexuality is hardwired and not a choice. It's also widely accepted to be true by the vast majority too.

Every time this has come up. I've asked what reason do you believe in this what genetic evidence is there to believe that it is biologically hardwired. There's very little from what I've seen to back it up.

I'll retract my claim if I am wrong.

1ZRed wrote: »

Doesn't mean it's wrong either. I firmly belive that anything mutual and consenting is not wrong. If god has such a problem with sex and doing it out of marriage or only for procreation then he wouldn't have made it feel so feckin good. That's the point in doing that of he's so prudish about it?

God doesn't have a problem with sex. From the context of marriage it is wholly good. What I am saying is that God created sex for a reason, and for a purpose, namely within a loving marriage between a man and a woman.

This argument is poor though. One could argue that rape makes them feel good, does that mean that it is good? One could argue that theft makes them feel good, does that mean that it is good?

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah this I agree with, "marriage is a union between one another" - no gender specifics.

I mentioned that marriage from a Christian perspective (which is what I am talking about) is the union between a man and a woman, and it is also a partnership with God, namely that the marriage will serve Him and glorify Him in wider society as a microcosm of what God's relationship with mankind looks like.

1ZRed wrote: »

But here, this is where the problems occur. You don't have a hold on marriage and what it means. It's a civil thing. It means whatever you want it to after -if you are religious, so you can't hold what you think marriage is over anyone else of different beliefs.

I'm not talking about law. I don't really care how mankind distorts marriage for their own purposes. They can define it as they wish, but it doesn't mean that it is a true perspective of marriage.

Irrespective of what government says that a same sex union is a marriage, I don't believe it. I believe that God's model for marriage is far better than anything the secular world or secular government can provide.

As a Christian, I live by God's word. Others can reject this. Ultimately I do believe that Jesus one day will return to judge the world. I just long that as many as possible turn to Him in these last days before He returns.

I agree that there is civil marriage, but as a Christian I understand marriage from a Biblical perspective irrespective of what wider society thinks.

1ZRed wrote: »

That's not my point. You're coming from the point of view that orientation is your own choice, it's not. The act is a choice but the primal drivers to do it is not.

Not even. Even if sexuality is biologically determined (and the jury is actually out on this from discussing this before but I'm willing to be proven wrong), there is a difference between feeling something and acting on it. It isn't appropriate to act on every desire that one happens to have.

1ZRed wrote: »

So how is that fair? If God did create you along with your sexuality, then how come it's alright for a man and a woman to get married and then have sex, as it's then in wedlock, but not for two people of the same sex? -Baring in mind God created your sexuality and you can't fight or help that (as much as those closeted pastors like to think they can)

How is what fair?

God doesn't define us by sexual orientation. He just made us. That's it. The whole idea of identifying by sexual orientation is a modern phenomenon. The idea of a cultural group in society on the basis of what sexual orientation or desires that someone has is a very new thing.

By the by, as a result of the fall, as a result of our disobedience with God, it is true that mankind is going to face temptation towards sin, towards what is clearly wrong. Different people have different temptations. Nobody is without temptation towards sin, or wrongdoing. I disagree strongly with this point of view that it's not fair that some people don't have temptation X. They have temptation Y or Z instead. Claiming that God's standard should somehow change to accomodate temptation X rather than temptation Y because it is special seems odd. At least from a Christian point of view.

By the by, I've pointed to Christians who has struggled with same sex attraction, but who believe that following Jesus is what's most important, and live on that basis. Christians don't hate LGBT people, yet Christians don't applaud sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

1ZRed wrote: »

Why does he kick up such a fuss? Like, what's so different to have separate rules and praise one act, but dismiss the other? If the 'out of wedlock' issue makes all premarital sex so bad, regardless of sexuality, then surely wouldn't it make sense to say "yeah, you two lads or ladies get married and then it's grand".

God doesn't kick up a fuss. People who reject His word do.

God in His loving rule knows what is best about His creation from a Christian point of view. In His sovereignty He gave us standards for our own good in His creation. God knows that men and women are made for one another. They are complementary to one another, and they are built to be together. Biologically they are the basis of the family. God intentionally made woman to complement man from a Christian point of view.

That's not kicking up a fuss that's simply declaring what His intention was for marriage and in turn sexuality Scripturally. It is those who reject this view of marriage and undermine God's sovereignty over creation that kick up a fuss against God.

1ZRed wrote: »

No, I mean the world isn't like it was 2000 years ago. Time to catch up a bit.
I couldn't care they don't agree with me I'm just feeling curious and asking you questions.

I disagree with you. There's nothing new under the sun. I find that Scripture when read as a whole is incredibly relevant to society, and is particularly relevant to the problems that we have in the 21st century. I can see a number of things through the lens of Scripture that line up with the reality around us. The reason I am a Christian is because I believe that Scripture does provide a compelling case to the objections of the world.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Probably because they were fond of the idea of inducing shame... for other reasons.
An easy way to do this is to make you feel shame for any sexual "perversions".

Note that I use the word perversions as homosexuality would have fallen into that category then.

Actually, I have no interest in inducing shame. All I want to see is that people come to acknowledge the truth that Jesus is Lord and He has fully rescued us from sin by His death on the cross, and that we are born again to new life by His resurrection if we believe and trust in Him.

That's all.

Edit: The question is "why are most religious against homosexuality", the answer is probably along the lines of (although I can't vouch for non-Christian religions) that God intended for sex in a marriage between a man and a woman. Most religions don't hold to a 1960's onward liberal view of sexuality.

Solair

Probably because the people who make up these rules are a big bunch of killjoys who dislike anything that could be considered remotely fun, especially if it's in anyway related to sex.

From what I can see, it's mostly about power and control. Anyone who disagreed was 'sinning' thus was open to mob-style justice.
That's pretty much how all major social control movements, religious or political extremists work.

Anything non conforming is oppressed.

It doesn't matter if it's a religious group or an extreme political movement, the same dogmatic ideological observance and bullying / oppressing anything outside the 'norm' seems to apply.

Life's way too short for that kind of stuff!

philologos wrote: »

Actually, I have no interest in inducing shame. All I want to see is that people come to acknowledge the truth that Jesus is Lord and He has fully rescued us from sin by His death on the cross, and that we are born again to new life by His resurrection if we believe and trust in Him.

That's all.

Oh deary me...

Anyway, I didn't mean religious people I meant the institutions.

philologos wrote: »

Edit: The question is "why are most religious against homosexuality", the answer is probably along the lines of (although I can't vouch for non-Christian religions) that God intended for sex in a marriage between a man and a woman. Most religions don't hold to a 1960's onward liberal view of sexuality.

But religions decided/interpreted what each of their gods wanted so surely the question why still stands?

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

But religions decided/interpreted what each of their gods wanted so surely the question why still stands?

That depends on your assumption. If you're coming with atheist assumptions sure. I certainly don't share them though.

If Scripture is actually based on a living God who has spoken into creation, it doesn't matter a damn what any man has said about it.

efb

Religion is superstitious boll0cks to keep proles in check so Im not bothered what they 'command' of their 'flock'

Laneyh

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it? Or are they worried for immortal souls and genuinely want to make sure they get into heaven? Why do so many world religions condemn gay people?

Ultimately I would say its mostly about numbers. They encourage procreation to keep membership up. Gay couples are less likely to provide new members to the flock.
I suppose others are against it because of their interpretation of specific teachings but I think the numbers game has a lot to do with it

[Deleted User]

Ugh... Religions around the world promote hate against many minorities in most places. Catholicism and Christianity which would be most common in Ireland and are no different. Almost all Christian denominations teach that homosexual acts are sinful. Now since homosexuals are actually doing nothing wrong, and the church believes they definitely are, this dictates they are sinful by nature and since they are unlikely to "confess to their sins" and "seek forgiveness" they are always seen as sinful. So what does constant sinning mean will happen to you from a Christian perspective? Yeah.

They try to justify their position by claiming sexual orientation is a choice and therefor claim the individuals are actively choosing to perform sinful acts. This is not the case at all as sexuality is not a choice, they are born this way, nor are they doing anything wrong at all you know. Why would anyone choose the harder life of discrimination and difficult family conversations (in many cases not all)? Well there are people out there that think homosexuals do choose the orientation so they can blame them for the "choice" they have made and classify it as sinful/unnatural/perverted. It's always suited towards their agenda. What's really happening here is these religions discriminate against people for no good reason. It's all nonsensical fiction based rules they believe to be fact. It really makes me realise how far we have to go as a species. It makes me sad.