Homosexuality

[razovor]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

[preacher]

@Ex-Mormon:
convincing? what's your criteria for one research to be convincing? any objective (non subjective) criteria to determine this?
so, now the argument has shifted to whether the bible verse about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 is still relevant for modern times? you already accept that the bible condemns homosexuality in that verse and no other verse in the bible allow homosexuality?
As for the quote from Rabbi, the Jews practice Judaism, not christianity. while Torah is included in the bible, that just means there are overlapping between Judaism and christianity, but essentially, both are very different entities.
can you explain the purpose of the quote about sheqets and to'ebah? what's the connection between these quotes to leviticus that commanded homosexuals to be put to death?

[The Ex-Mormon]

@ Preacher,

I do not believe in the Bible; therefore also not to what is in it. I know, however, that many other people believe in the Bible in the one or other way. For this reason I have dealt with the topic "Bible & homosexuality". And arrived at the conclusions which I had already mentioned here.
Leviticus 18 (or 20) apply only to Jews, not to Christians. Notice at the same time also if I have a Jewish mother; the Judaism and I see, Thora, just as critically as the Bible.Which one was translated as abomination, should be better translated as TABOO!
BTW, a lot of things in that time was forbidden and an abomination. But noone cares about it today, even by Christians.

[labhras]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

Talking strictly in the sense of Utilitarian morals & ethics, then homosexuality falls into the realm of an individual's own set of morals, taking into consideration the possible outcomes so it's not a sin. Same goes for same sex union, according to Utilitarianism. So there is nothing wrong with them and the Civic Law reflects this in many countries, granting equal rights to all forms of both heterosexual & homosexual unions.

I am a Christian and I have no issue with that. Why should it bother me what a godless person or a pagan or an agnostic or atheist or cult or whatever non-bible believing group/person does in their sex life? Mine doesn't bother them.

The word "marriage or marry" is not just used to described a heterosexual union. It describes what it is. Marriage/Marry language can be tracked down to “maritare,� a latin term which mainly had agricultural uses, referring to the grafting of vines and plants, and the breeding of animals -husbandry. This describes heterosexual unions, the coming together to pro-create, the grafting of a man and a woman to produce, to bear fruit. It goes deeper than that in the bible on what the impact of the union is. So marriage as word to describe my union makes sense. But to use it to describe a homosexual union makes it become an oxymoron. So it's not just as easy as redefining a word, it impacts the other uses and meanings of that word.

Oxford English Dictionary online used.

[keithprosser3]

The word "marriage or marry" is not just used to described a heterosexual union. It describes what it is.

Words change in meaning over time - I feel 'awful' about pointing that out. I wonder what labrahas calls that thing next to his keyboard with two clicky buttons.... etymology does not define the meaning of a word.... usage does.

[labhras]

The word "marriage or marry" is not just used to described a heterosexual union. It describes what it is.

Words change in meaning over time - I feel 'awful' about pointing that out. I wonder what labrahas calls that thing next to his keyboard with two clicky buttons.... etymology does not define the meaning of a word.... usage does.

I agree words change over time and usage affects that. If anything my earlier comments say that. But for however long it has been, the usage of the word marry/marriage has not changed in it's definition. But what is happening now is that those same affects that took time are being forcibly imposed, even legislated for. Changing the meaning of a word without letting the people have a say! What other words have had this done, had their definition changed by law?

[Goat]

The word "marriage or marry" is not just used to described a heterosexual union. It describes what it is.

Words change in meaning over time - I feel 'awful' about pointing that out. I wonder what labrahas calls that thing next to his keyboard with two clicky buttons.... etymology does not define the meaning of a word.... usage does.

I agree words change over time and usage affects that. If anything my earlier comments say that. But for however long it has been, the usage of the word marry/marriage has not changed in it's definition. But what is happening now is that those same affects that took time are being forcibly imposed, even legislated for. Changing the meaning of a word without letting the people have a say! What other words have had this done, had their definition changed by law?

I personally feel , so what?? What is much more important is two people who care for each other can get the same rights and privileges as everyone else, despite the fact that they are the same gender, rather than have some group make a religious proclamation in a secular society.. and attempt to discriminate them socially, morally, and economically.

[labhras]

The word "marriage or marry" is not just used to described a heterosexual union. It describes what it is.

Words change in meaning over time - I feel 'awful' about pointing that out. I wonder what labrahas calls that thing next to his keyboard with two clicky buttons.... etymology does not define the meaning of a word.... usage does.

I agree words change over time and usage affects that. If anything my earlier comments say that. But for however long it has been, the usage of the word marry/marriage has not changed in it's definition. But what is happening now is that those same affects that took time are being forcibly imposed, even legislated for. Changing the meaning of a word without letting the people have a say! What other words have had this done, had their definition changed by law?

I personally feel , so what?? What is much more important is two people who care for each other can get the same rights and privileges as everyone else, despite the fact that they are the same gender, rather than have some group make a religious proclamation in a secular society.. and attempt to discriminate them socially, morally, and economically.

Same sex unions in the UK are equal to heterosexual unions socially, morally and economically in accordance to the Law. No-one had made any proclamation till a proclamation was made by a minority group that think they are entitled to change the meaning of a word. I have yet to see facts to support a legal change of a word and it's context. I see and hear emotions and feelings, claims of unfairness, bigotry and bible bashing.People expressing that they feel mistreated all because of 1 word. No-one is stopping them from having a civil service union and all that this entails.
So in replying to your comment, Goat, I ask what does it gain for same sex union morally,socially,economically that they do not already have under law?

[bluethread]

I personally feel , so what?? What is much more important is two people who care for each other can get the same rights and privileges as everyone else, despite the fact that they are the same gender, rather than have some group make a religious proclamation in a secular society.. and attempt to discriminate them socially, morally, and economically.

So, you believe that fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, uncles and nephews, aunts and nieces, grandfathers and grandson's, etc. should be granted the same rights as husbands and wives?

[Jacob Simonsky]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

I will assume that you are speaking of a homosexual who is sexually active????

It is my belief that if no one is being hurt there is no sin. Regarding same sex marriage I am of the belief that there would be a possibility for any adopted child of such a couple being hurt via ridicule from his/her schoolmates. This would not be the fault of the child. It is something that I've never heard addressed in forums either. It could happen though. Without knowing more I would have to say that this would not be the fault of same sex marriage even though that could well be a factor. Children hurting other children. Who gets the blame? Children? They only know what we teach them after all. Perhaps we all would share in this simply through the act of choosing sides in the debate.

Judge not lest ye be judged. Does this mean anything at all or is it OK to judge our fellows so long as we cite some passage in the Bible as justification? I say that it is NOT.

[Haven]

Same sex unions in the UK are equal to heterosexual unions socially, morally and economically in accordance to the Law.

No, they aren't. Civil unions are a separate and unequal institution created for the express purpose of discriminating against gay people, not at all unlike separate water fountains for African-Americans during the Jim Crow era in the United States. Calling heterosexual unions "marriages" and withholding the title from same-sex unions is an example of unjust discrimination based in religious fundamentalism and it needs to end.

No-one had made any proclamation till a proclamation was made by a minority group that think they are entitled to change the meaning of a word.

No one is trying to change the meaning of a word. "Marriage" has always meant the legal union of people, and it will stil mean that when marriage equality is enacted in Britain and across the world. Legalizing marriage for same-sex couples won't redefine marriage, only remove unjust bigotry and discrimination from civil law.

I have yet to see facts to support a legal change of a word and it's context.

The word "vote" used to mean vow or oath, and now means a declaration on legislation or in an election. Words' meanings change over time, it is simply something that happens.

I see and hear emotions and feelings, claims of unfairness, bigotry and bible bashing.

Discriminating against groups of people based on religious or other irrational sentiments is the very definition of bigotry.

People expressing that they feel mistreated all because of 1 word. No-one is stopping them from having a civil service union and all that this entails.
So in replying to your comment, Goat, I ask what does it gain for same sex union morally,socially,economically that they do not already have under law?

It's so easy for a member of a privileged majority to brush aside the rights of a minority. What logical reason, aside from religiously inspired hate, is there to deny same-sex couples the title "marriage?"