Why are most religious against homosexuality?

fasttalkerchat · 20-01-2013 10:49PM

Laneyh wrote: »

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.

Neither would priests... if they kept it in their trousers.

lazygal · 20-01-2013 10:50PM

Philologus, I didn't marry in a religious ceremony. Do you think I'm not actually married? Are non Christian marriages real?

philologos · 20-01-2013 10:51PM

Sacramento wrote: »

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.

Christianity doesn't hate homosexuals. Nor do I by any means.

Christians have different beliefs about sexuality. Yes. Holding different beliefs doesn't constitute hatred, and it's absurd and ridiculous to claim such.

I also hold different views about sexuality to friends of mine who would be perfectly ok with the concept of having one night stands, or who would be perfectly ok with the concept of sex outside of a marriage.

I don't hate them, I disagree with them, and I long that one day that they would all come to know Jesus as their Lord, because I deeply care.

If you think that Christians hate homosexuals, you don't understand Christianity.

fasttalkerchat · 20-01-2013 10:54PM

philologos wrote: »

Christianity doesn't hate homosexuals. Nor do I by any means.

Christians have different beliefs about sexuality. Yes. Holding different beliefs doesn't constitute hatred, and it's absurd and ridiculous to claim such.

I also hold different views about sexuality to friends of mine who would be perfectly ok with the concept of having one night stands, or who would be perfectly ok with the concept of sex outside of a marriage.

I don't hate them, I disagree with them, and I long that one day that they would all come to know Jesus as their Lord, because I deeply care.

If you think that Christians hate homosexuals, you don't understand Christianity.

Is it a sin to have sex with another man?

20-01-2013 10:55PM

philologos wrote: »

Christianity doesn't hate homosexuals. Nor do I by any means.

Christians have different beliefs about sexuality. Yes. Holding different beliefs doesn't constitute hatred, and it's absurd and ridiculous to claim such.

I also hold different views about sexuality to friends of mine who would be perfectly ok with the concept of having one night stands, or who would be perfectly ok with the concept of sex outside of a marriage.

I don't hate them, I disagree with them, and I long that one day that they would all come to know Jesus as their Lord, because I deeply care.

If you think that Christians hate homosexuals, you don't understand Christianity.

Many Christians do, but for the sake of your argument, lets change my wording from "hate" to "discrimination". I think that'd be more accurate. Many many many Christians do hate homosexuals though and use their religious beliefs to "justify" this hatred, there are plenty of examples of that. You might not hate them. But do you believe they need saving don't you? Because they don't.

dttq · 20-01-2013 10:59PM

Perhaps it's because groupings with a large volume of closet gays in their midst are often at best usually the most publiclly venehement oppononrnts of what they are ironically themselves.

20-01-2013 11:02PM

Most religions are anti sex, and homosexuality removes the only justification of sex, namely procreation.

Why religions are anti sex is a better question. I would think its because by making something natural and insupressable an area of taboo shadiness and permeating it with the risk of sin and hell and all the other threatening control measures that go with that, that they can gain some sort of control over the behaviour of the flock they care so much about.

It always seems to come back to control, whatever the question.

philologos · 20-01-2013 11:07PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Even if god (Jesus) was on earth at some point and made some comments on homosexuality it certainly wasn't recorded verbatim so anything taught by priests is an interpretation of an interpretation of what Jesus might have thought about gays.

This isn't even an accurate reflection of what Christianity puts forward:

1) Christians believe there was divine revelation before Jesus walked on the earth.

2) It's not about what Jesus taught about "gays". Jesus came into the world to rescue all from sin, and to bring forgiveness to all. Biblical Christianity is pretty unequivocal that Jesus so loved the world that He sent His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). That includes homosexuals if they are willing to repent and believe in the Gospel, much in the same way as I had to repent of my sin and turn to Jesus. That wasn't easy, but it was worth doing.

3) The Chinese whispers argument is woefully weak and I've dealt with it before. The manuscript evidence of the New Testament shows that it wasn't passed down by an "interpretation" of an "interpretation". We have 25,000 manuscripts in Koine Greek that largely are in agreement with one another and that match over a long period of manuscript copying.

We have better reason to trust the reliability of the New Testament than any other text in ancient history. Please see my signature links "Why trust the Bible?" there's no logical ground for that objection.

lazygal · 20-01-2013 11:08PM

philologos wrote: »

This isn't even an accurate reflection of what Christianity puts forward:

1) Christians believe there was divine revelation before Jesus walked on the earth.

2) It's not about what Jesus taught about "gays". Jesus came into the world to rescue all from sin, and to bring forgiveness to all. Biblical Christianity is pretty unequivocal that Jesus so loved the world that He sent His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). That includes homosexuals if they are willing to repent and believe in the Gospel, much in the same way as I had to repent of my sin and turn to Jesus. That wasn't easy, but it was worth doing.

3) The Chinese whispers argument is woefully weak and I've dealt with it before. The manuscript evidence of the New Testament shows that it wasn't passed down by an "interpretation" of an "interpretation". We have 25,000 manuscripts in Koine Greek that largely are in agreement with one another and that match over a long period of manuscript copying.

We have better reason to trust the reliability of the New Testament than any other text in ancient history. Please see my signature links "Why trust the Bible?" there's no logical ground for that objection.

Phil, in your eyes am I married?

1ZRed · 20-01-2013 11:10PM

philologos wrote: »

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.

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)

You're actually so ignorant on this it pisses me off a bit as if you're telling me about my own sexuality when you have feck all of a clue about it.

If you still think it is a choice then choose it. Choose right now to get hard at the thoughts of sex with a man and we'll meet up to feck around a bit. It's not my preference but I might just bottom for you

Sure, It shouldn't be difficult for you anyway if it's a choice.

Very little genetic evidence from what you've seen? I will gladly get you some evidence and you will be proven wrong as it is widely established that it is genetic, if it's not a choice what else could've caused it? Some curse from God?

And here, while I'm going to get my evidence I want a large pile back to explain how it is actually a choice.

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.

Don't care, you're welcome to it. Love is love and that's pretty much it. I don't see how it's so superior and your argument is just that the bible says so. No personal take on things.

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.

True. My slaves are kicking up quite a fuss lately. Better consult the scripture and see how best I should handle the feckers. The cheek of them.

But seriously, if you say there's nothing new under the sun from the days of the bible I pity you and your eyesight if you're using a computer. Fact of the matter is the world is infintely different and changing all the time for the better - for everyone.

When the bible was written nobody understood the fundamentals of anything and believed in superstition and magic for things they can't explain like we can now. By that fact alone how should we take the bible so seriously?

It's like Santa, it's not alright to believe in him passed a certain age yet it's perfectly fine to believe in a Jewish superhero from 2000 years ago.

I respect what you believe and I'm not telling you otherwise, but I just think that all that bible stuff should be put under the carpet and not allowed to have such influence on things in bigger society.
If that's your thing keep it in it's clubhouse and out of the public were it's not wanted. If you want it, you'll look for it.

That's my only gripe with it, it effects me and my rights when ye hold your beliefs over me eventhough I don't do the same to you in return.
Anyway that is off topic so it should be left there.

dttq · 20-01-2013 11:10PM

philologos wrote: »

Christianity doesn't hate homosexuals. Nor do I by any means.

Christians have different beliefs about sexuality. Yes. Holding different beliefs doesn't constitute hatred, and it's absurd and ridiculous to claim such.

I also hold different views about sexuality to friends of mine who would be perfectly ok with the concept of having one night stands, or who would be perfectly ok with the concept of sex outside of a marriage.

I don't hate them, I disagree with them, and I long that one day that they would all come to know Jesus as their Lord, because I deeply care.

If you think that Christians hate homosexuals, you don't understand Christianity.

Philogos, I appreciate your excruciating efforts at trying to portray Christianity as, and represent it as a force which has no underlying quarrels with 21st century lIberalism and progressivism - but both Church history and doctrine down to this day clearly show that religious institutions have a clear problem - often with scriptural justifications - with areas such as homosexuality. Dress it up here all you want, but the fact of the matter is that most religious institutions consider "vices" such as homosexuality to be a sin down to this very day.

If you can proove otherwise, Id be happy to entertain a debate on the issue with you. Otherwise; I remain sceptical of your claims.

philologos · 20-01-2013 11:13PM

lazygal wrote: »

Philologus, I didn't marry in a religious ceremony. Do you think I'm not actually married? Are non Christian marriages real?

Marriage from a Christian point of view is defined as the union between a man and a woman. The intention of that marriage from a Christian point of view is to bring God glory and to be partners with Him.

Of course there's a concept of secular marriage, but obviously as a Christian I'm going to hold to the Christian concept of marriage, and I think that's by far the best basis or the best philosophy to hold in respect to it.

lazygal · 20-01-2013 11:15PM

philologos wrote: »

Marriage from a Christian point of view is defined as the union between a man and a woman. The intention of that marriage from a Christian point of view is to bring God glory and to be partners with Him.

Of course there's a concept of secular marriage, but obviously as a Christian I'm going to hold to the Christian concept of marriage, and I think that's by far the best basis or the best philosophy to hold in respect to it.

Yes or no, am I married?

philologos · 20-01-2013 11:16PM

dttq wrote: »

Philogos, I appreciate your excruciating efforts at trying to portray Christianity as, and represent it as a force which has no underlying quarrels with 21st century lIberalism and progressivism - but both Church history and doctrine down to this day clearly show that religious institutions have a clear problem - often with scriptural justifications - with areas such as homosexuality. Dress it up here all you want, but the fact of the matter is that most religious institutions consider "vices" such as homosexuality to be a sin down to this very day.

If you can proove otherwise, Id be happy to entertain a debate on the issue with you. Otherwise; I remain sceptical of your claims.

It depends by what you mean by "liberalism" and "progressivism". If you mean godless thinking, then it's obvious that Christianity isn't going to encourage it. Nor do I regard that as "progressive". From a Christian view progressive would mean that the gospel is going out, and that people are deciding to live and speak for Jesus first and foremost.

My position has been crystal clear. As a Christian, any sexual acts outside of a marriage are considered immoral, and as a result if I am going to live as a Christian I can't partake in them. Others can freely disagree with me. I live on the basis of Scripture, and I want to live fully as God wants me to.

I don't think you've actually understood what my claims are yet.

1ZRed · 20-01-2013 11:17PM

philologos wrote: »

Marriage from a Christian point of view is defined as the union between a man and a woman. The intention of that marriage from a Christian point of view is to bring God glory and to be partners with Him.

So this is a polygamous marriage with God, as in a girl and two guys? But that's grand as long as there's no crossing swords, yeah :P

philologos · 20-01-2013 11:17PM

lazygal wrote: »

Yes or no, am I married?

If I find that an answer requires a longer answer, I'll give you one. You're in a secular marriage, it's a marriage between a man and a woman even if you choose not to accept the Christian purpose of it.

lazygal · 20-01-2013 11:17PM

1ZRed wrote: »

So this is a polygamous marriage with God, as in a girl and two guys? But that's grand as long as there's no crossing swords, yeah :P

God likes threesomes.

philologos · 20-01-2013 11:19PM

1ZRed wrote: »

So this is a polygamous marriage with God, as in a girl and two guys? But that's grand as long as there's no crossing swords, yeah :P

Obviously not. All things in this earth ideally should be used for God's glory. Everything is His to begin with.

Miss Lockhart · 20-01-2013 11:20PM

lazygal wrote: »

Yes or no, am I married?

I don't get the point of this question.

Surely it's obvious that in the eyes of the church (any church) unions not blessed by that church are not legitimate in the context of that organisation. Why is that an issue for anybody, religious or not? All that matters is that the union is legitimate in the eyes of whatever institution (state, church, cult, whatever) you care about.

lazygal · 20-01-2013 11:21PM

philologos wrote: »

If I find that an answer requires a longer answer, I'll give you one. You're in a secular marriage, it's a marriage between a man and a woman even if you choose not to accept the bigger purpose of it.

We don't need or want a bigger purpose to our marriage. Do you really believe I'm not married in the eyes of God, even though he's supposed to be omnipotent? Do you think I'm having sex outside marriage?

20-01-2013 11:38PM

lazygal wrote: »

We don't need or want a bigger purpose to our marriage. Do you really believe I'm not married in the eyes of God, even though he's supposed to be omnipotent? Do you think I'm having sex outside marriage?

I probably disagree with 100 percent of what Philologos has to say, but he's been quite clear that those are his beliefs, and quite polite about it too.

As Miss Lockhart says, its quite clear what most christians stance is on civil marriage without having to demand an opinion from him.

philologos · 20-01-2013 11:40PM

1ZRed wrote: »

You're actually so ignorant on this it pisses me off a bit as if you're telling me about my own sexuality when you have feck all of a clue about it.

No, you're making claims about how sexuality (in general) is determined. All I'm saying is that the science is actually unclear, and I've asked you to provide me some reason as to why I should hold to the same beliefs that you do in respect to sexuality (in general).

1ZRed wrote: »

If you still think it is a choice then choose it. Choose right now to get hard at the thoughts of sex with a man and we'll meet up to feck around a bit. It's not my preference but I might just bottom for you

I've not explicitly said it is a choice. I've said it's unclear as to whether or not it is biologically determined.

I said even if it was biologically determined, we choose how to act on the basis of what feelings we might have.

1ZRed wrote: »

Sure, It shouldn't be difficult for you anyway if it's a choice.

See above.

1ZRed wrote: »

Very little genetic evidence from what you've seen? I will gladly get you some evidence and you will be proven wrong as it is widely established that it is genetic, if it's not a choice what else could've caused it? Some curse from God?

Genetically hardwired? I.E - That genetics determines your sexuality from birth? I'd be very interested to hear.

1ZRed wrote: »

And here, while I'm going to get my evidence I want a large pile back to explain how it is actually a choice.

I've not even said it was a choice. I've said it's unclear as to whether or not it is biologically determined.

1ZRed wrote: »

Don't care, you're welcome to it. Love is love and that's pretty much it. I don't see how it's so superior and your argument is just that the bible says so. No personal take on things.

That's fine. My job isn't to make you think it is superior. The OP asked me about why do are most "religious" (I don't like that term, but I'll take it reluctantly) against homosexuality? I've answered the question. People may not like my answer. Oh well, that's life isn't it?

1ZRed wrote: »

True. My slaves are kicking up quite a fuss lately. Better consult the scripture and see how best I should handle the feckers. The cheek of them.

I'm happy to discuss anything you like as long as you present Scripture that you have read already. I've discussed my position both on slavery in Hebrew society and also in terms of what the New Testament says about it on this forum. It's radically different to colonial slavery is the simple answer.

1ZRed wrote: »

But seriously, if you say there's nothing new under the sun from the days of the bible I pity you and your eyesight if you're using a computer. Fact of the matter is the world is infintely different and changing all the time for the better - for everyone.

There's nothing new under the sun because the reality is that we've all sinned and done what is completely wrong rather than what is right. The specific sin changes from age to age. Our current age is obsessed entirely with sexuality for example. We've gone from perhaps being prudish to being completely obsessive about it. That's why this is the main conflict that is present between the non-Christian world and the gospel.

Before it was on numerous other issues. But none of these things are new. In fact I would say it's a repeat of what happened in the Roman Empire for example in respect to the subject.

1ZRed wrote: »

When the bible was written nobody understood the fundamentals of anything and believed in superstition and magic for things they can't explain like we can now. By that fact alone how should we take the bible so seriously?

That's a claim, but it is baseless without any sound reason for believing that humans had no understanding in comparison to now. It's also based on the presupposition that every age progresses from the previous which is a misnomer.

I take the Bible seriously because when I read it, it makes perfect sense in respect to the world in which I live.

1ZRed wrote: »

It's like Santa, it's not alright to believe in him passed a certain age yet it's perfectly fine to believe in a Jewish superhero from 2000 years ago.

Except it isn't at all. It's on the rational position that this world was created, and that there is a Creator. As much as people like to compare that to Santa Claus there's honestly no serious comparison.

In fact I think the idea of the universe coming out of nothing is far more problematic on a logical level than believing that this universe was created by a omnipotent Creator.

1ZRed wrote: »

I respect what you believe and I'm not telling you otherwise, but I just think that all that bible stuff should be put under the carpet and not allowed to have such influence on things in bigger society.
If that's your thing keep it in it's clubhouse and out of the public were it's not wanted. If you want it, you'll look for it.

No you don't respect it. I don't want you to "respect" it either. I hope and long that as many as possible come to know Jesus before the end of all time, and that they repent, believe and trust in Him. At that point you will respect the Gospel in earnest because you'll realise what it's all about.

1ZRed wrote: »

That's my only gripe with it, it effects me and my rights when ye hold your beliefs over me eventhough I don't do the same to you in return.
Anyway that is off topic so it should be left there.

For the record. This is about how Christians regard sexuality. It is inevitable that you will disagree with me, much in the same way as others will disagree with me being opposed to pornography, being opposed to one night stands, being opposed to any form of sexuality that is not in a marriage.

I live on the basis of Christ. Others can disagree, but I long for all to come to know Jesus and be saved, to believe and to trust in Him fully and completely. That's the one thing I do care about the most.

Andrewf20 · 20-01-2013 11:42PM

Read the story attached. A country thats roughly 85% Christian. What an absolute disgrace.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6645/status_of_uganda_anti_gay_bill_unclear__u_s__religious_right_support_isn_t/

"It’s worth noting that even if the death penalty provisions are ultimately dropped, the bill would still jail for life those advocating for equality or even offering shelter to a gay person..."

"American anti-gay extremist Scott Lively, a catalyst and consistent cheerleader for the bill, called its reported progress “a huge blessing for Uganda” and said that “Museveni is calmly and confidently setting the course of his nation by the guidance of the Bible..."

philologos · 20-01-2013 11:44PM

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I don't get the point of this question.

Surely it's obvious that in the eyes of the church (any church) unions not blessed by that church are not legitimate in the context of that organisation. Why is that an issue for anybody, religious or not? All that matters is that the union is legitimate in the eyes of whatever institution (state, church, cult, whatever) you care about.

Biblically it's not clear that a marriage of necessity must be conducted by a minister. However, if Christians come together in marriage there is a philosophical underpinning to it. All things come under a Christian worldview. We live on the basis that Jesus is Lord, and that He has rescued us from sin on the cross, and that He rose again. Namely He died, He rose again. Christians believe that while Jesus stood on the cross, they died to sin and they rose again to new life in Him.

As a result every sphere of life concerns God. From work to love, from friends to what we do with our finances. It's a broader thing than just sexuality.

SmilingLurker · 20-01-2013 11:50PM

Psychologically it is easier keeping a cohesive group with "in-group"/"out-group" thinking. Excluding certain behaviours makes the "in-group" feel stronger, more cohesive, and more controllable. Groups will find a reason, however insignificant, to exclude people to make themselves feel superior.

Excluding a group of people (sexual orientation/race/power) can unify the remaining members, with very strong bias towards in the "in-group", and against the "out-group".

Bullying, nazism, communism, sexual bigotry are just people putting themselves in a category or group to make themselves feel better about themselves.

It would be helpful in discussions not stating the official view of a church/group of churches e.g.

Marriage from a Christian point of view is defined as the union between a man and a woman.

but justifying the reasoning as to why you as a member believe this. Why is it exclusively between a man and a woman? I hope the reason for excluding people from marriage is nothing to do with breeding more humans? I know some very happily married people who do not have children who might get upset about that.

I would be disappointed if you said because a book and tradition said so, a thoughtful reasoned argument would be preferable. It might even convince people.

steddyeddy · 20-01-2013 11:50PM

Not all the religious. The ancient Greeks were very religious but loved a bit of man on man action!

Miss Lockhart · 20-01-2013 11:58PM

philologos wrote: »

Biblically it's not clear that a marriage of necessity must be conducted by a minister. However, if Christians come together in marriage there is a philosophical underpinning to it. All things come under a Christian worldview. We live on the basis that Jesus is Lord, and that He has rescued us from sin on the cross, and that He rose again. Namely He died, He rose again. Christians believe that while Jesus stood on the cross, they died to sin and they rose again to new life in Him.

As a result every sphere of life concerns God. From work to love, from friends to what we do with our finances. It's a broader thing than just sexuality.

Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about biblically, but about having the blessing of a church or religious institution.

Either way, I don't see how the blessings or opinions of a church you don't believe in matters. The desire of gay Catholics to get married in church is a different thing, but if you don't believe in a religion then I can see no reason other than looking for an argument for caring whether that religion recognises your union.

Emz93 · 20-01-2013 11:58PM

Seriously..sometimes I wonder what would happen if anyone who is against homosexuals, for either religious or other beliefs, was to have a gay child..

Could they seriously deny their own child happiness purely because it's against their beliefs?!

krudler · 21-01-2013 12:05AM

philologos wrote: »

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.

Don't you mean your branch of Christianity? there are plenty of Christians who have no issue with gay marriage, but hey, they're not real Christians are they?

ressem · 21-01-2013 12:29AM

Can you explain then Phil why homosexual intercourse is seen as a greater taboo than the sins explicitly banned on Moses' tablets?

Adultery, theft, blasphemy are indulged in by public figures but shrugged away by the majority of Christians.
The Catholic Church hierarchy contradicts Jesus's teachings on not exalting yourself above others.

The theological argument against it appears to be based on the same grounds as the arguments against contraceptives that kept condoms as restricted in Ireland till the mid 1990s.

But the theology is hijacked to justify overruling the "love your neighbour as yourself" rule by any thug or power seeking firebrand. The end result is that the denouncement does more harm than the sin.

Why are most religious against homosexuality?

Comments