Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, can I add this question :

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

Only if you are extremely bad at logic.

Hardrain wrote: »

Why do you find them 'sinful'

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

Hardrain wrote: »

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

What problems would arrise is my friend wished to convert?

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

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

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

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

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

robindch wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardrain wrote: »

How would you feel about gay adoption?

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

PDN wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

marc_cerebis wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, Christianity doesn't hate homosexuality.

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

PDN wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDN wrote: »

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

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

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

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

marc_cerebis wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

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

Sigh. You were warned.