Is homosexuality a sin?

Hey Flyers Fan:

OK...If you really DON'Tt believe what you said in your quote below-- then apologies for jumping all over you-----but from the way it was worded, it sounded like you actually thought that way ...at least from a cursory reading---- :

YOUR QUOTE

"So - the Christian religion says that God never changes. He
is the same for all Eternity.

When He makes a law saying that a sin is punishable by death, He certainly wouldn't change his mind a few hundred years later and say ... nevermind, you can now go commit Onanism and I don't mind and I won't punish you with eternal death... " UNQUOTE

It certainly seemed to me (at least) when I read those words at the time that the above sentiments were actually coming from you (and not just parotting the so-called "Christian" point of view--whatever that is) and that you actually "believed them to be true": but this is not the case?

So I must take it now that you agree with me that YHWH (the vicious clan-god of the Jews and Christians who read the "bible" as his "Word") has tonnes of inconsistent nonsense placed into his mouth, with contradictions left right and center?

As for the silent topic of the M word ["masturbation" spelled with a U] in the Bible, besides the sin of ONAN, which is more of COITUS INTERRUPTUS if you read the Hebrew words very carefully, there is the curious reference to David and Jonathan in I Samuel 20:30 from none other than King Saul ---who claims (in a ranting tirade in technical Hebrew) that his son "has chosen to wed the son of Jesse to the confusion of his mother's nakedness..." ---where we assume some kind of "spilling of seed" was involved---why else would he then say, "how then if you persist, will your Kingdom be established?" in other words, without making more male heirs to sit on the throne...

Either way, the reactionary Levitical Yahwistic post exilic priests who wrote most of the silly Torah laws to differentiate themselves from non Yahwists, i.e rival cults of other gods (and written the way they were mainly to benefit themselves as "beneficiaries" of perquisites and other sacrificial "perks" in a corrupt cultic system where they are guaranteed employment based on Levitical race) hardly have anything to do with dictating morals in the 21st century West....

Originally posted by Amadeus
l. �You will NOT make unto me any Molten Idos� as part of the so-called Ten Commandments of the socalled Torah placed into the mouth of YHWH the clan god of Israel.

Then in Numbers 21:5 it says, �YHWH said to Moses, Make thee a Bronze Serpent Idol and Place it on a Pole�� sounds pretty idolatrous to me

Don�t confuse an Idol with Idolatry. They are different; an idol is a representation or symbol of an object of worship or a likeness of something. Idolatry is the worship of a physical object as a god.

Joshua 24
23 "Now then," said Joshua, "throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel."

Idolatry the bible speaks of is more than just an object; it is the worship of another god.

The dictionary defines the word:
Main Entry: idolatry
1: the worship of a physical object as a god

So it�s deeper than the object, it is the worship and allegiance to another god.

Genesis 31
19 When Laban had gone to shear his sheep, Rachel stole her father's household gods.

Many people in the Old Testament kept small wooden or metal idols (�gods�) in their homes. These idols were called teraphim, and they were thought to protect the home and offer advice in times of need. They had legal significance as well, when they were passed on to an heir, the person could claim the greatest part of the family inheritance.

That�s why idolatry is a sin and symbology isn�t they are completely different. Symbology is the art of expression by symbols. Idolatry is the worship of a physical object as a god. I think people easily confuse them. This is why it�s ok for Christians to use the cross. The cross or crucifix represents the death of Jesus, it�s a symbol of his sacrifice. You could argue that it�s an idol but it�s not because it�s not being worshiped as its own god.

So Kinglizard:

How can you GLOSS over the text of the TORAH like that simply because it throws a WRENCH into your nice neat little world?

When YHWH tells MOSES in the TORAH (Numbers 21:4-9) to go out and MAKE A (Jebusite) BRONZE SNAKE TOTEM and STICK IT ON A POLE SO THE SONS OF ISRAEL MAY "look upon it" and "be healed of snake bite" (i.e. worship it, including the buning of Incense to it), then HE WAS NOT TELLING MOSES TO MAKE AN IDOL??

Can you read Paleo-Hebrew? Sounds pretty Idolatrous to me. And the COMMAND to MAKE THE SNAKE FETISH was actually PLACED INTO THE MOUTH OF YHWH, the clan god of Israel !

And if you have any doubts at all, why don't you try reading what Hezekiah thought of all that Bronze-Snake-on-a-Pole-Thingy that Moses was commanded to make in II Kings 18:4 (acting like his brother Aaron who had this kinky habit of making Golden Calves out of spare earings--if y but I digress):

2 Kings 18:4 (notice the plays on words: Heb: Nachashtah =The Jebusite Snake Goddess versus "Nehushtan" = "a worthless thing")

"And Hezekiah razed the high cult-places, and smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles: and he broke into pieces the bronze Snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it, nicknaming it "Nehushtan". "

Notice how a later 7th century BC king of Judah named Hezekiah TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO DESTROY THE ASHERAH GODDESS POLES ALONG WITH THE ANCIENT AND SACRED SNAKE IDOL THAT YHWH PURPORTEDLY ORDERD MOSES TO MAKE in THE SO CALLED TORAH...

If you really don't think that a Bronze Snake-on-a-pole is an Idol, then you need to go over the text again....and again....and again.

You'll see that the Israelite religion did a lot of borrowing from the cults it conquered---in this case, the Snake worshipping Jebusites, who controlled Jerusalem and Mounts Zion and Moriah, whom David was NOT fully able to subdue.

Even David ("a man after my own Heart, saith YHWH" !!) had absolutely NO qualms at all about mixing his own Canaanite Yahwistic religion with the Jebusite "idol worshippers" when he took and installed Zadok as his new Jebusite bornHigh Priest (and banned Abiathar his own rival priest) then commits murder (or have you forgotton about poor old Uriah the Hittite?) so he can marry the Jebusite princess Bath-Shebiti ("Daughter of the Seven Gods") = aka "BathSheba", to solidify his conquest through political inter-marriage...

And if you think Bath-Shebiti did not bring her gods with her when she joined her poltiical house with that of the clan chief "David", guess again. Her bastard son nicknamed SOLOMON (aka "Jedediah") spent oodles of sheckles buillding pagan templs with idols on Zion itself for all his IDOL WORSHIPPING WIVES (or maybe you've forgotten 1 Kings 11:1ff

11:1 Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites;

11:2 of the nations concerning which Yahweh said to the children of Israel, �You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.� Solomon joined to these in love.

11:3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. 11:4 For it happened, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his God, as was the heart of David his father.

11:5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination (Toqebah) of the Ammonites. 11:6 Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and didn�t go fully after Yahweh, as did David his father.

11:7 Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the mountain that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon.

11:8 So did he for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed to their gods. 11:9 Yahweh was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from Yahweh, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 11:10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he didn�t keep that which Yahweh commanded. "

Sounds pretty "Idolatrous" to me....and Solomon was supposed to be what? Wise?!!!!!!!

Whatever......

Western society bases their LAWS on money making. If it makes money, then the government allows it. The western laws like to get rid of moral laws. They have the term if something effects someone then we will ban it.

Rape is banned
Murderer is banned
Stealing is banned

Lying is is legal, ouside the court
Commint adultery is fully legal
Having sex with another man's wife is ok.

The west still has a imature though system. Its uses core of LAWS, but forget morals laws. I'm suspecting that west can't see effect of moral laws being broken.

This why western nations are turning sour.

Marriage is falling apart
Bisexuality is increasing
homosexuality is increasing
Adultery is increasing

Mothers are giving away their children
Women are killing their own babies before they are born
Women are having sex for other reasons then for a family.
Homosexuals are rasing another familys child

Women don't respect loyalty/or marriage anymore.

If the west fails to impose ethical and morals law the nation will fall to peaices.

No offence the world doesn't deserve a moral king. They must open the door for him.

Marriage is falling part because people don't believe that maybe that special person in their lives could take awhile. This is where spawned. People were impatient, the way they saw it was mirror or nil. And they wanted something so they told someone what they were like and bam. It eventually became that we were "Born Gay" when god Clearly States that man was born with a Free Will So they can say that they were "Born Gay" but they're wrong.

Originally posted by AeroQuake when god Clearly States that man was born with a Free Will So they can say that they were "Born Gay" but they're wrong.

Hmmm,

I'm not sure what you are implying by the 'born gay' phrase - I've not known any gay ppl to just up and 'want to be gay'.

So, in that respect - with your Gods' free will in place, gay ppl are damned by the act of being born.

Go figger.

Misfit

that is too simplistic,First urine secretions don't normally contain any bacteria, Indeed the waste water is sterile & free of bacteria, viruses, and fungi.
urinating on open cut wounds has been practiced as a form of "Bush Medicine" for thousands of years, The A-nus & Va-gina are 2 types of bacterial locations with many incompatable bacterias & antibactiral antibodies which don't naturally cross over.

True, but not 100%. Urine has been used for practical medicine of the centuries, but with an equal amount of failure as well as success. Otherwise it would not be known as 'waste'.

Again that is far too simplistic, The vagina secretes its own lubrication, whereas the anus and rectum do not. The tissues in this area are particularly delicate and susceptible to tearing,there is also the risk that the Pe-nis may collide with the sigmoid colon, the lining of which is not much stronger than a wet paper tissue or towel, and trauma can result in internal bleeding with potentially fatal results therefore, artificial lubrication is highly recommended for anal sex .

The condom comment was about avoiding pregnancies (and it is not absolutely true that the anus/rectum is not lubricated - it's not like the vaginna, but it still lubricates itself). Why does the male feel sexual pleasure then from anal contact? why are there glands that offer this possibility, if God did not plan for it?

Furthermore, the argument that the human body was not built for such actions, so as that these actions are sins, is a flawed one. Man was not designed to fly in space, too. Is that a sin?

Still, the big question goes unanswered: why is sex a sin if all parts agree to it? they don't force anyone to anything.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by masterp]

The way I see it, "sin" in a word.

"Homosexuality" is also, most fundamentally, a word.

Both of these words meanings shift on what definitions you rely upon. The concept of "homosexuality" did not even exist in Ancient Greece, where it was normal for respected male teachers to have what we would call homosexual relations with their students. My point is not that homosexuality is not okay, but that it (like every other word) is dependant upon a temporal and cultural context.

While it would be nice if the Holy Texts of the world handed us ideas, they only hand us words. Man is always interpreting them and will continue to interpret them in all sorts of different ways, thus the plethora of denominations we have today.

All that fluidity makes legislating morality rather difficult; it seems to me the opposite is the case. By allowing a maximum of liberty (until the point where someone hurts someone else), a political system is best adapted for each person to make his own decisions and live by their own interpretations.

Looks like the issue is locked up between the individual and God.

Originally posted by Amadeus
Hey Flyers Fan:

OK...If you really DON'Tt believe what you said in your quote below-- then apologies for jumping all over you.... It certainly seemed to me when I read those words at the time that the above sentiments were actually coming from you that you actually "believed them to be true": but this is not the case?

No, I do not believe them to be true. I said at the top of most of my
posts that I do not believe masterbation to be a sin. Someone posted
that the bible doesn't discuss masterbation, but that it is considered
a sin. I pointed out that, although I do not believe it to be a sin, the
bible does indeed discuss masterbation and sex without procreative
purposes and that if someone is Christian and completely believes the
bible, then they also believe the Christian view that God never changes
and that he wouldn't make a law punishable by death in the old testa-
ment, just to say it's okay to do that now.

A Christian who says that they believe fully in the bible, MUST not be
masterbating or even having sex that doesn't have procreation as
it's purpose. The bible says so. I pointed out a few quotes.
Onanism is the biggie.

So ... if someone is a Christian who says they believe the bible
completely. And they say that homosexuality is a sin because the
bible says so ... then by God they had better not be masterbating or
having sex without making the purpose of making babies or they are
themselves in danger of hellfire. If they use the bible as a standard
to show homosexuality is a sin punishable by death and hell, then
they themselves have to stand up to the same standards and look
at what the bible says about THEIR sexuality. No masterbation.
No sex without fully submitting to it's procreative purposes (no
birth control!). The 'never changing God' said so.

There.

Did I word it in a perfectly clear way?



[edit on 10/4/2004 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan


So ... if someone is a Christian who says they believe the bible
completely. And they say that homosexuality is a sin because the
bible says so ... then by God they had better not be masterbating or
having sex without making the purpose of making babies or they are
themselves in danger of hellfire. If they use the bible as a standard
to show homosexuality is a sin punishable by death and hell, then
they themselves have to stand up to the same standards and look
at what the bible says about THEIR sexuality. No masterbation.
No sex without fully submitting to it's procreative purposes (no
birth control!). The 'never changing God' said so.

There.

Did I word it in a perfectly clear way?

That was exactly my point in my post on the top of page 2 of this thread! You can not say your Christian...and pick and choose what you will follow.....so by all the homosexual bashing done by "Thinker" and all the woman bashing done by "thinker"....we now know he is a totally, none sexual human being..... yeah right! No men, no woman, no taking care of things himself.

Originally posted by masterp
Still, the big question goes unanswered: why is sex a sin if all parts agree to it? they don't force anyone to anything.

This has been answered. Sin, according to the Christian religion,
is the breaking of God's law. It doesn't matter if it appears that
no one is hurt or that everyone agrees to it.

Christian View - If it breaks God's law, it is a sin.

Sin = breaking God's law

Hi, Peace Be With You:

You've raised a good point in your last: that the so-called "holy texts" were written in ancient languages that are not spoken any more (Modern Hebrew for example is NOT Paleo Hebrew) and that these ancient "words" have "connotations" which are lost to 21st century audiences, and wholly mis-represented and mis-construed by religious authorities in order to bring their "own slant" to these texts...

As many of you know already, the "Hebrew bible" has no word for "gay" or "homosexual" in the purely modern sense: the Hebrew scriptures (the socalled "Books of the Old Testament") do however have a cultic-technical Levetical word for "Male cult Sodomite Prostitute" however : the ancient Canaanite word "Qedash" (related to "Qadosh" : holy one, and "Qaddish" ("holy" prayer for the dead") etc. where during ancient Canaanite Fertility Rites of the Spring (e.g. Pesach, the socalled Limping Festival, which the Hebrew Israelites borrowed), "holy cult male prostitute seed" had to be squirted on the altar to produce fecundity of crops and cattle.

But all of this was exoressed in very technical cult language in the Old Testament Hebrew (not moral language at all), and "male cult prostitution" was later violently reacted against by the post-Exilic (i.e. after 430 BC) Torah re-writers in the book of Leveticus in the so-called Holiness Code dating from the time of Ezra, when the hardline Yahwists "came back to take over the government" under Pesian supervision, of course.

How many male cultic prostitutes do we have on Canaanite altars today out here in the West?

So how can any reference to "the toqebah "("Abomnation") of lying sexually male to male (Lev. 18) have any relevance at all in the 21st century in the West, with its grossly overpopulated cities and abortion clinics?

Turning to "the bible" for moral guidance on this issue will get you nowhere at all.

In fact most ancient peoples did not have a non-cultic "moral word" for "gay" or "homosexual" in the technical modern sense: these specific terms today are fairly late constructs of our language out here in the West.

The idea that a man or woman can enjoy sexual expression with either gender is called "Bi sexuality" and was a particular topic of interest to Sigmund Freud and something he addressed many times in his patchy career (he published papers under the heading "Theory of Bi-Sexuality" in the early 1900s) and something he understood to be a "biological mandate": according to Freud (for what it is worth, since many eminent modern sexual "theorists" flatly reject Freud's sometimes bizzare "Oedipal" conclusions nowadays !) "all adult human males are potentially (and naturally) "BiSexual Creatures", and that only "the pressures of Society" (in the form of peer pressure, laws, religious taboos etc.) push adult males into "hetero-sexual" roles.

In other words, if left to their own devices, most unhibited adult human males would choose have free sexual intercourse with both males and females almost indescriminately (alla ancient Athens), though each for possibly for different reasons--as in fact did the ancient Athenians---something that most people in the West do NOT wish to discuss openly or in the schools--or even bring up in socalled scholarly circles (even though they have no trouble at all touting ideas taken from the Athenian Greek idea of "Democracy" , for some reason !!).

Freud aside, it is clear from observation of Nature, that she herself (if you actually take the time to study it raw) does NOT know of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" as labels: it only knows SEXUALITY.

Taboos are "moral codes" made up by men and women for "the good of society" and sexual mores are generally geared with a single end result in mind: viz. "produce more sons !! "

I blame most of the gross, pent up sexual frustration tha has plagued "western" societies, especially in America, (with all of its disastrous results) on the inhibited and outdated sexual and moral Weltanschauung of "the bible" and religious taboos in general, along with all the dis-information of parents, the churches, the mosques, the synagogues etc. --especially with regard to the complexities of sexual interaction which are oversimplified for the masses.

If you take the time to read "the bible" closely, you might be surprised to find certain shall we say "items" that Jews and Christians want just to go away... e.g.

All those stories about David and Jonathan for example----as it states quite clearly in I Samuel 20:30 ("Thou son of a Perverse and Rebellious Female: Don't you know that you have "chosen to marry" the son of Jesse to the Confusion of your own mother's nakedness---and to your own Confusion? If you persist, how will your Kingdom be Established??!!")

And also the Love Poetry from David to Jonathan after the latter was killed on Mt Gilboa: 2 Samuel 1:30 ff: "Jonathan, Jonathan ! Thy Love to me was Full of Wonder--Yea, Far Surpaassing That of Any Woman !!") etc.

Notice the kind of language being used in these stories: David and Jonathan clearly were doing more than "just holding hands and exchanging armour and underwear"--- but "Christians" and "Jews" don't want to talk about it: period.

They'd rather give "their heterosexual congregations" the understanding that David can freely murder people like Uriah so he can ("heterosexually" )bang the Jebusite Princess Bath-Sheba to produce illegitimate children--- and still have David be portrayed as "a man after my own Heart, saith YHWH"...!!!

In other words, I'd be very careful about turning to the morally confused and jlegally umbled texts of "the bible" for moral guidance if I were any of you: you won't find anything helpful in a book which has virtually no relevance today for the modern west.

Unless you REALLY want to go out and exterminate the Amalekites...and "leave noting breathing" as the clan-god of Israel orders people to do in the Torah (Deut chapter 20, and Deut chapter 13 for examaple)

Some "divine morality" in that book !!!

Originally posted by Amadeus
All those stories about David and Jonathan for example----as it states quite clearly in I Samuel 20:30 ... And also the Love Poetry from David to Jonathan after the latter was killed on Mt Gilboa: 2 Samuel 1:30

Kinda' makes ya' wonder, doesn't it? Were David and Jonathan close,
close like brothers .... or was there something more because the
sexual was brought up? hmmmmm

[edit on 10/4/2004 by FlyersFan]

Hey FlyersFan:

It does indeed make one wonder, especially when "King Saul" accused his son of "confusion" with "the son of Jesse" (i.e. David)---a word which refers to cross-dressing or crossed sexual roles in the Levetical Holiness Code.... (cf: "to the Confusion of your mother's nakedness..")

These are the types of embarassing little things in the Bible to file under "Never Bring up to your Rabbi when he's Holding something Breakable"

...they ABSOLUTELY HATE it when people notice these tricky little details in the text !

(ditto for priests and ministers by the way)
...

About the 1-3% of the population thing.......The thing is is that doesn't take into account all the closet gay people who are married with kids. It doesn't take into account the married men who are on the "down low" (these men don't consider themselves gay but have sex with other men). There are alot more married men that do this than you would think.....go to your local public park and see....most of the men who are "cruising" have that special ring on their left ring finger. The thing is, is these men don't have anywhere else to vent their sexual desires for other men. Gay men can just go to the local gay bar to find sex. Most married men will not set foot in a gay bar so they have to resort to going to public parks, restrooms ect.

So, you can see with taking a poll.....it really doesn't give the most accurate figures.

I know...off topic but had to say something. On topic, I don't believe in sin, being of the more pagan religion myself. I believe in Karma, threefold law, whatever you want to call it. So, no being homosexual is not a sin in my mind because in my mind there is no sin. You say what about murder, ect? Well Karma takes care of that. And by the way, there has been more murder in the name of God than any other.

This has been answered. Sin, according to the Christian religion,
is the breaking of God's law. It doesn't matter if it appears that
no one is hurt or that everyone agrees to it.

Let's not use God in the answer. What is YOUR opinion about sex being a sin. Why, in YOUR opinion, God said sex is a sin? Please don't try to evade the answer.

Hey MacMerden:

The Kinsey people in the 1950s had the same problem in trying to gather accurate data: they could not get accurate figures because of the sheer number of people who did not report what sexual acts they were actively engaged in since puberty----and as you point out, the majority of "gay and bi-sexual men" in the world are married with children in order to "conform" to society's demands (which includes family, employment, social and religious affiliations etc.).

The suggestive "theory" put forward by some that there are aprox the same NUMBER of "gay people" (male and female) in the world as there are "left handed" people (approx 11 percent of the general population on average) and that there is the same number of "ambidextrous" people in the world who (in terms of percentage of the total popualtion) emngage in "bi-sexual" behaviour (approx 23% of the adult population worldwide) has yet to be confirmed...but it is an intriguing correlation, although it is not the same physical group involved---just the "percentage of people" who are "not normal" by majority standards.

But perhaps one might have to distinguish between what a person "does" and what a person "is" when it comes to sexuality.

Not all persons who engage in homosexual behaviour identify themselves as homosexual, especially married men who can manage to get sexual satisfaction from both sexes (and we recall the male prison system in the US for example, where the only "sexual outlet" available for the most part is auto-sexual or homo-sexual, and people engage in activities under such "abormal conditions" that they would "normally" not do if left to their own choice etc.)...

Then there's the old "top" v. "bottom" conundrum, where "tops" consider themselves to be "straight" whether they are with men or women...

These multiple cross-definitions show how complex the issue is, and some persons on this thread actually want to bring the god of the Jews into it, who forbids people to shave or cut their hair---he doesn't even allow people to mix cotton and linen together in the same garment?

Originally posted by Amadeus
Hi, Peace Be With You:

You've raised a good point in your last: that the so-called "holy texts" were written in ancient languages that are not spoken any more (Modern Hebrew for example is NOT Paleo Hebrew) and that these ancient "words" have "connotations" which are lost to 21st century audiences, and wholly mis-represented and mis-construed by religious authorities in order to bring their "own slant" to these texts...

As many of you know already, the "Hebrew bible" has no word for "gay" or "homosexual" in the purely modern sense: the Hebrew scriptures (the socalled "Books of the Old Testament") do however have a cultic-technical Levetical word for "Male cult Sodomite Prostitute" however : the ancient Canaanite word "Qedash" (related to "Qadosh" : holy one, and "Qaddish" ("holy" prayer for the dead") etc. where during ancient Canaanite Fertility Rites of the Spring (e.g. Pesach, the socalled Limping Festival, which the Hebrew Israelites borrowed), "holy cult male prostitute seed" had to be squirted on the altar to produce fecundity of crops and cattle.

But all of this was exoressed in very technical cult language in the Old Testament Hebrew (not moral language at all), and "male cult prostitution" was later violently reacted against by the post-Exilic (i.e. after 430 BC) Torah re-writers in the book of Leveticus in the so-called Holiness Code dating from the time of Ezra, when the hardline Yahwists "came back to take over the government" under Pesian supervision, of course.

How many male cultic prostitutes do we have on Canaanite altars today out here in the West?

So how can any reference to "the toqebah "("Abomnation") of lying sexually male to male (Lev. 18) have any relevance at all in the 21st century in the West, with its grossly overpopulated cities and abortion clinics?

Turning to "the bible" for moral guidance on this issue will get you nowhere at all.

In fact most ancient peoples did not have a non-cultic "moral word" for "gay" or "homosexual" in the technical modern sense: these specific terms today are fairly late constructs of our language out here in the West.

The idea that a man or woman can enjoy sexual expression with either gender is called "Bi sexuality" and was a particular topic of interest to Sigmund Freud and something he addressed many times in his patchy career (he published papers under the heading "Theory of Bi-Sexuality" in the early 1900s) and something he understood to be a "biological mandate": according to Freud (for what it is worth, since many eminent modern sexual "theorists" flatly reject Freud's sometimes bizzare "Oedipal" conclusions nowadays !) "all adult human males are potentially (and naturally) "BiSexual Creatures", and that only "the pressures of Society" (in the form of peer pressure, laws, religious taboos etc.) push adult males into "hetero-sexual" roles.

In other words, if left to their own devices, most unhibited adult human males would choose have free sexual intercourse with both males and females almost indescriminately (alla ancient Athens), though each for possibly for different reasons--as in fact did the ancient Athenians---something that most people in the West do NOT wish to discuss openly or in the schools--or even bring up in socalled scholarly circles (even though they have no trouble at all touting ideas taken from the Athenian Greek idea of "Democracy" , for some reason !!).

Freud aside, it is clear from observation of Nature, that she herself (if you actually take the time to study it raw) does NOT know of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" as labels: it only knows SEXUALITY.

Taboos are "moral codes" made up by men and women for "the good of society" and sexual mores are generally geared with a single end result in mind: viz. "produce more sons !! "

I blame most of the gross, pent up sexual frustration tha has plagued "western" societies, especially in America, (with all of its disastrous results) on the inhibited and outdated sexual and moral Weltanschauung of "the bible" and religious taboos in general, along with all the dis-information of parents, the churches, the mosques, the synagogues etc. --especially with regard to the complexities of sexual interaction which are oversimplified for the masses.

If you take the time to read "the bible" closely, you might be surprised to find certain shall we say "items" that Jews and Christians want just to go away... e.g.

All those stories about David and Jonathan for example----as it states quite clearly in I Samuel 20:30 ("Thou son of a Perverse and Rebellious Female: Don't you know that you have "chosen to marry" the son of Jesse to the Confusion of your own mother's nakedness---and to your own Confusion? If you persist, how will your Kingdom be Established??!!")

And also the Love Poetry from David to Jonathan after the latter was killed on Mt Gilboa: 2 Samuel 1:30 ff: "Jonathan, Jonathan ! Thy Love to me was Full of Wonder--Yea, Far Surpaassing That of Any Woman !!") etc.

Notice the kind of language being used in these stories: David and Jonathan clearly were doing more than "just holding hands and exchanging armour and underwear"--- but "Christians" and "Jews" don't want to talk about it: period.

They'd rather give "their heterosexual congregations" the understanding that David can freely murder people like Uriah so he can ("heterosexually" )bang the Jebusite Princess Bath-Sheba to produce illegitimate children--- and still have David be portrayed as "a man after my own Heart, saith YHWH"...!!!

In other words, I'd be very careful about turning to the morally confused and jlegally umbled texts of "the bible" for moral guidance if I were any of you: you won't find anything helpful in a book which has virtually no relevance today for the modern west.

Unless you REALLY want to go out and exterminate the Amalekites...and "leave noting breathing" as the clan-god of Israel orders people to do in the Torah (Deut chapter 20, and Deut chapter 13 for examaple)

Some "divine morality" in that book !!!

For a start, if you read the whole chapter you can see that Saul is angry with Jonathan for taking sides with David. Saul is angry because he knows that the kingdom is being taken away from him and given to David.

It says nothing of sex or anything similar.

The Isrealites did many things in the bible that were not very nice, but God was not happy with them. They were always grieving His heart. The bible does not show everything good, it also shows the bad things that people do, because people at heart are bad, we are a fallen race.

Havent you ever had a friend that you cared deeply for but not sexually. Why has love always got to mean sex.

Oh Boy! Sure a lot to read here, with lots of Contradictions. I might as well add my opinion. I was raised Christian (still am) and I was taught that the Old Testament laws applied to God's (YHWH) Chosen people, Jews exclusively. He reqiured a blood sacrifice to atone, or pay, for sin.
With the death and resurection of Jesus, a door was opened to allow all people access to Him. The blood payment was paid only once, by Jesus, and for all persons choosing to follow Him. However, those choosing the way of Jesus could ask forgiveness of wrongdoing.
I am quoting a few New Testament from the New Century Version (NCV). I chose this one because I like it best, as I feel it is easiest to read AND understand.

Romans 7:6 In the past, the law held us like prisoners, but our old selves died, and we were made free from the law. So now we serve God in a new way with the Spirit, and not in the old way with written rules.

2Co 3:6 - He made us able to be servants of a new agreement from himself to his people. This new agreement is not a written law, but it is of the Spirit. The written law brings death, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 - The law that brought death was written in words on stone. It came with God's glory, which made Moses' face so bright that the Israelites could not continue to look at it. But that glory later disappeared.

Galatians 3: 8 The Scriptures, telling what would happen in the future, said that God would make the non-Jewish people right through their faith. This Good News was told to Abraham beforehand, as the Scripture says: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9 So all who believe as Abraham believed are blessed just as Abraham was. 10 But those who depend on following the law to make them right are under a curse, because the Scriptures say, "Anyone will be cursed who does not always obey what is written in the Book of the Law." 11 Now it is clear that no one can be made right with God by the law, because the Scriptures say, "Those who are right with God will live by trusting in him." 12 The law is not based on faith. It says, "A person who obeys these things will live because of them." 13 Christ took away the curse the law put on us. He changed places with us and put himself under that curse. It is written in the Scriptures, "Anyone whose body is displayed on a treen is cursed." 14 Christ did this so that God's blessing promised to Abraham might come through Jesus Christ to those who are not Jews. Jesus died so that by our believing we could receive the Spirit that God promised.

Speaking to Believers
1 Corinthians 6:9 10 Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God's kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob -- these people will not inherit God's kingdom. 11 In the past, some of you were like that, but you were washed clean. You were made holy, and you were made right with God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.



1 Corinthians10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

All the above was to lead to that last one. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient..." indicates to me that while something CAN be done, it is not always best. I know there is a lot of bible stuff here, but it is for a reason. If a person is NOT a Christian, why does sin matter?
Is homosexuality a sin? Well, it's not something I want to try.
By the way,I read the same criticism of Christians several times. It is said we pick and choose which parts of the Bible we want to use. VALID POINT!!! Way too many of us believe what we are told to believe. Why read the Holy Books if somebody will tell us what to believe? I think that if all believers would read that book cover to cover just once, that criticism would be weak. I did it once and my faith is stronger for it. Read it to see what is really said, not what you have been taught that it is supposed to say. The difference is AMAZING!