A question for people who think being gay is a sin.

reply to post by StallionDuck


Right, and by no means should anyone question this work of fiction, huh? We should just accept this silliness as fact? I thought we were denying ignorance here?!

Duracell
yes, god did say in the bible it's a sin..

Did GOD say it? Or did humans say that God said it, all the while they interjected their own notions about right and wrong ... interjected their own societal and cultural beliefs ... calling those 'God's Will'???

reply to post by boymonkey74


It didn't make the Top 10

Seems like if it really bugged God an awful lot it would be carved in stone

The stuff that was carved in stone gets ignored all the time

Random

:-)

reply to post by Akragon


A finer point on that would sound something like no amount of deduction will change their course. Sort of the definition of faith or one type of it at least.

Snsoc

Without gay people, we'd have an extra 3% of the population compounding each generation.

Really? a whole 3%?

I think wars have gotten rid of more people than Adam & Steve.

Also, your argument really doesn't add much to the discussion. Just because something has no "evolutionary purpose" doesn't mean it's sinful. Lots of things have no "evolutionary purpose".

My argument is at the crux of the discussion. The New Testament is quite clear that homosexuality is unnatural. (Romans 1:26-27.) This is why it is a sin. Because it doesn't make babies. This is why the Catholic Church is against contraception-it doesn't make babies.

Gays don't make babies, and this is a defiance of the natural order. Nature/God put sperm in men's testicles for reproduction. According to you, nature/God made gay men gay, and yet somehow still put the baby batter inside of them ??? It seems obvious that those people are not using their bodies the way nature/God intended.

Evolutionary purpose is survival of the species. Gays don't make babies, their sexuality doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose. You can argue that "lots of things don't serve an evolutionary purpose," but when the most important activity in the world is involved, clearly something that does not cause reproduction means something is out of whack.

Huh. So all of the married couples who choose not to have children are somehow sinners because they are not using their bodies as intended? What about celibates and those who choose not to get married? Are they all "out of whack"? "Defiance of natural order" is a new one on me. Then again, I always knew there was something wrong with the clergy.

CJ

FlyersFan

Duracell
yes, god did say in the bible it's a sin..

Did GOD say it? Or did humans say that God said it, all the while they interjected their own notions about right and wrong ... interjected their own societal and cultural beliefs ... calling those 'God's Will'???

You have been growing on me lately. Thanks FlyersFan.

CJ

reply to post by spiritspeak


In a round about way did you just say that gays were/are responsible for Hitlers power?

and you say us Gays are confused...

reply to post by Snsoc


I didn't choose to be Gay, did you choose to be straight?

this comes down to Sex,

If i gave my sperm to a Women and she had a Baby = Reproduction. If i had sex with a Women and she had a baby = Reproduction.

So what is the difference?

I don't think either heterosexuality or homosexuality are a sin, but I also can't say that all their manifestations don't cause social harm.

Surely there were forms of homosexuality in history (and probably the present) which were undesirable and every bit as exploitative as the worst forms of heterosexual patriarchy.
I think for both "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" we are referring to a current, Western ideal of egalitarian choices and sexual relationships for both adult men, women and transgendered people.
Unfortunately it seems that religious groups of various types have the most shocking histories of sexual exploitation, and most don't even have an age of consent for either gender, or clear rules on what qualifies a fully grown "man" or "woman".

At least part of the "sin" seems to be "lowering" another man to the position of a woman, which then seems to have been little more than the position of livestock (as a "currency" of trade).
In other words, it was also about securing social roles and dominant patriarchal positions.

I'd agree that the Old Testament has a focus on procreation at all costs (including raping a virgin in order to buy her as a wife), however I can't say the same for the New Testament.

Jesus restricts the polygamy and concubinage of the OT to one wife, while St. Paul even says that he who has a wife should rather act if he had none (1 Corinthians 7:29).

Furthermore, Jesus says that marriage is only for those who can accept the teaching, and says 3 types of eunuchs should not marry (Matt 19, one form of which is becoming a "eunuch" for "heaven's sake").
Yet, eunuchs are not rejected, and are even baptized.

If it's just about procreation then why not condemn spinsters, nuns and monks?

As Ray Comfort often reminds us, Jesus also said that whosoever looks at a woman in lust commits adultery in his heart.

Yes, straight men ought to be ashamed of themselves for their sexuality according to Jesus, and women shouldn't tempt or defile them.

There were no psychological studies back then, so they saw homosexuality as similarly defiling to anything outside life-long monogamous marriage (and even that was suspect compared to male celibacy), or as something pagan, and St Paul chewed out the early church for partaking in such customs.
However, he describes straight people who gave themselves over to same-sex lust, and he didn't seem to understand being gay as a sexual orientation at all.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You know, I really like you and your posts/logic. Threads too! So, Just Wanted To Say, You're, Awesome.

reply to post by boymonkey74


God did not write the bible.
Does god even exist to have said this at all?
It sounds like something small minded people would say or write.

At the risk of replying to an old thread, I just read this again... and for clarification ...

When you people in hear use the term "OT God"? WTF do you mean?

• Old Testament?
  
• Operating Thetan?
  

reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator


Old Testament god...

Not to be confused with the Father of creation

Deleted post,

It is sin just like....

1)wearing two type of cloth materials.

2)cutting hair.

3)or not cutting...


You know... things people don't give a crap out.

people who wear only 1 type of cloth material should call everyone else sinner and stone them to death for disobeying the bible.

It's only a sin if you believe in that Religion.. but has anyone taken a look at a list of the "Mortal Sins"?

why is Homosexuality the biggest concern?

when I hear 'homosexuality is a sin...because the bible says so...because God said so...' I reach to pull a chunk of hair out because there is a very looooong list of sins in the good ol bible that most people conveniently brush aside ...

sexuality is fluid....homosexuality is just a piece of sexuality. when super sexygirls do it then its hot but disgusting when men do it...oh and that lifestyle...trying to live normal, nuclear family lives like the ones they were raised in...how disgusting!

this is why I wish the ETs would just come down already... humans are meanest, most selfish creatures...no wonder the ETs keep us locked up in this zoo called earth. some of us have no sense, or interest in walking a mile in someones shoes...their experience and struggle.