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?

[mitty]

If , as is recorded by the Gospels, that Jesus's father was NOT Joseph, even though he was married to Mary, then, well, Jesus would be disqualified for being a rabbi anyway.

According to my understanding, by rabbinic rules of adoption, Yeshua was Yoseph's son, with all of the rights and privileges attached thereto. However, what you say is at least a valid accusation and it is addressed by Yeshua, in passing, in Jn.8:41 and by Mattityahu in the references to the four women in Yeshua's geneology. There is no such acknowledgement of homosexuality even being on the radar?

You are taking a lot misunderstanding about Jewish laws in this statement.

You do realize, for the Jewish laws of adoption, the child keeps the bloodline of the biological father, not the adoptive father, don't you?

You do realize that if a married woman has a child who is not her husbands, that child is considered a mamzer, don't you? Being a mamzer disqualifies someone from being a rabbi.

The genealogies mean nothing, unless, Jesus was indeed Joseph's biological son... not adoptive son. The bloodline goes with the biological father... and the mother's bloodline is totally irrelevant.

Jesus' status would be much cleaner if Mary and Joseph were NOT married at the time of Jesus' birth.. if Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

Interesting discussion, but how would this effect the likelihood that Yeshua would have been questioned about being homosexual"?

If Jesus remained a celibate homosexual or even a closet one (like J Edgar Hoover) who would know or give a toss.

[mitty]

If , as is recorded by the Gospels, that Jesus's father was NOT Joseph, even though he was married to Mary, then, well, Jesus would be disqualified for being a rabbi anyway.

According to my understanding, by rabbinic rules of adoption, Yeshua was Yoseph's son, with all of the rights and privileges attached thereto. However, what you say is at least a valid accusation and it is addressed by Yeshua, in passing, in Jn.8:41 and by Mattityahu in the references to the four women in Yeshua's geneology. There is no such acknowledgement of homosexuality even being on the radar?

You are taking a lot misunderstanding about Jewish laws in this statement.

You do realize, for the Jewish laws of adoption, the child keeps the bloodline of the biological father, not the adoptive father, don't you?

You do realize that if a married woman has a child who is not her husbands, that child is considered a mamzer, don't you? Being a mamzer disqualifies someone from being a rabbi.

The genealogies mean nothing, unless, Jesus was indeed Joseph's biological son... not adoptive son. The bloodline goes with the biological father... and the mother's bloodline is totally irrelevant.

Jesus' status would be much cleaner if Mary and Joseph were NOT married at the time of Jesus' birth.. if Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

Interesting discussion, but how would this effect the likelihood that Yeshua would have been questioned about being homosexual"?

If Jesus remained a celibate homosexual or even a closet one (like J Edgar Hoover) who would know or give a toss that he fancied blokes rather than sheilas.

[bluethread]

If Jesus remained a celibate homosexual or even a closet one (like J Edgar Hoover) who would know or give a toss that he fancied blokes rather than sheilas.

Do you have any support for that, or is this just more self serving speculation?

[mitty]

If Jesus remained a celibate homosexual or even a closet one (like J Edgar Hoover) who would know or give a toss that he fancied blokes rather than sheilas.

Do you have any support for that, or is this just more self serving speculation?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual. Afterall this bloke was apparently AC/DC http://sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm and perhaps explains how it created men and women in it's image despite needing to talk to itself (Gen 1:26-7), although I prefer that the genesis 1 version of the creation stories indicates that there was at least a god and goddess involved. The goddess was perhaps Asherah, although I'd think that most women would prefer to think that they were created in Aphrodite's image.

[bluethread]

If Jesus remained a celibate homosexual or even a closet one (like J Edgar Hoover) who would know or give a toss that he fancied blokes rather than sheilas.

Do you have any support for that, or is this just more self serving speculation?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual. Afterall this bloke was apparently AC/DC http://sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm and perhaps explains how it created men and women in it's image despite needing to talk to itself (Gen 1:26-7), although I prefer that the genesis 1 version of the creation stories indicates that there was at least a god and goddess involved. The goddess was perhaps Asherah, although I'd think that most women would prefer that they were created in Aphrodite's image.

Yah, Brazilian Weird News is an authoritarian source, especially since it is a single sourced story. The existence of phallic idol worship in the land is not news. The Scriptures speak of it and condemn it. Applying this to Yeshua is just more self serving speculation.

[Iam]

If Jesus remained a celibate homosexual or even a closet one (like J Edgar Hoover) who would know or give a toss that he fancied blokes rather than sheilas.

Do you have any support for that, or is this just more self serving speculation?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual. Afterall this bloke was apparently AC/DC http://sofadasala.com/english/jahova.htm and perhaps explains how it created men and women in it's image despite needing to talk to itself (Gen 1:26-7), although I prefer that the genesis 1 version of the creation stories indicates that there was at least a god and goddess involved. The goddess was perhaps Asherah, although I'd think that most women would prefer that they were created in Aphrodite's image.

Yah, Brazilian Weird News is an authoritarian source, especially since it is a single sourced story. The existence of phallic idol worship in the land is not news. The Scriptures speak of it and condemn it. Applying this to Yeshua is just more self serving speculation.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual.

You don't seem to have addressed this question Blue. When using the good book as an authority on the sexual practices of humans(let's leave animals) surely one of the sources for your conclusions should at least have his sexuality declared, or in the least not be a matter for speculation. Especially when you are championing one form of sexuality against another with reference to the alleged opinions of this person of undeclared sexuality.

[Wissing]

Does anyone have personal, first-hand experience as to whether being gay is in fact a choice or not?

If it's not, I think the argument is settled - you can't help who you are, and gay is ok. This is the argument I often hear on the news, but I'm not so sure that sex defines a person like that. I have a very close friend who claims to be attracted to both sexes, but chooses to be heterosexual out of personal preference. To me, the idea of sexual preference is mutually exclusive with the idea of sexual identity. Either its something you do, or something you are. Not knowing, I don't have a stance. I'd like to find out, if possible.

If it is a choice, then the argument breaks into two factions. One (the left) is implied in the OP: there's no conceivable logical reason why it's wrong to choose homosexuality. In short, reason. The other argument (the right) is almost never stated outright, and seldom wins arguments, but does have a profound way of winning votes: discouraging homosexuality has been a long-standing tradition for a really really long time, and you don't mess with a complex system you don't understand. In short, precedent.

In my mind, reason does not always trump precedent, because my reasoning has proven itself faulty many times, and my parents seem smarter now than they did 5 years ago. However, precedent does eventually die. Innovation is key to our survival. Both are important.

But again- choice or not?

[Goat]

Does anyone have personal, first-hand experience as to whether being gay is in fact a choice or not?

If it's not, I think the argument is settled - you can't help who you are, and gay is ok. This is the argument I often hear on the news, but I'm not so sure that sex defines a person like that. I have a very close friend who claims to be attracted to both sexes, but chooses to be heterosexual out of personal preference. To me, the idea of sexual preference is mutually exclusive with the idea of sexual identity. Either its something you do, or something you are. Not knowing, I don't have a stance. I'd like to find out, if possible.

If it is a choice, then the argument breaks into two factions. One (the left) is implied in the OP: there's no conceivable logical reason why it's wrong to choose homosexuality. In short, reason. The other argument (the right) is almost never stated outright, and seldom wins arguments, but does have a profound way of winning votes: discouraging homosexuality has been a long-standing tradition for a really really long time, and you don't mess with a complex system you don't understand. In short, precedent.

In my mind, reason does not always trump precedent, because my reasoning has proven itself faulty many times, and my parents seem smarter now than they did 5 years ago. However, precedent does eventually die. Innovation is key to our survival. Both are important.

But again- choice or not?

I could not be gay. It is not a choice, for me.

One of my friends is gay. When she was a teenager, her fundamentalist parents sent her to a 'camp' to get reparitive therapy. Out of the 13 people in that camp, (they were between the ages of 14 and 18), 7 are dead, from suicides and drug overdoses in the 17 years since she went though that. She's still gay. For her, it's not a choice.

I know several bisexual people. Most of then stay in 'straight' relationships because of the stigma of 'being gay'.

[Darias]

Does anyone have personal, first-hand experience as to whether being gay is in fact a choice or not?

Why does it matter? I think part of the problem is that the LGBT community and its supporters have made fallacious arguments appealing to nature, e.g. something is okay because it's natural. Well many things are natural but not beneficial, like cancer; and likewise many things are unnatural but bring benefits, like medicine and prescription glasses.

The thing that makes homosexual relations or preference fine is the same thing that makes any other voluntary, victimless behavior okay. It's not like there's gay fever sweeping the world -- as in the US, the community is like 3.5 % of the total population. There may be more closetted persons who could make that number higher but that's a minority compared to the over 90% of everyone else.

If it's not, I think the argument is settled - you can't help who you are, and gay is ok.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being gay, but "can't help feeling the way I feel" is a very poor argument. Psychotic persons might have urges beyond their control, but what they do isn't fine based on that. Similarly feeling same sex attraction and nothing else doesn't make being gay okay. What makes being gay okay is that it doesn't hurt anyone. Sexual relationships of any sort are fine if they are between consenting persons. And of course there are no victims of sexual attraction. Saying that being gay is immoral is like making victimless interactions criminal for no reason.

This is the argument I often hear on the news, but I'm not so sure that sex defines a person like that.

Sexual attraction is most likely a spectrum, rather than an on/off switch.

I have a very close friend who claims to be attracted to both sexes, but chooses to be heterosexual out of personal preference. To me, the idea of sexual preference is mutually exclusive with the idea of sexual identity. Either its something you do, or something you are. Not knowing, I don't have a stance. I'd like to find out, if possible.

All my life I've had a preference for women. But over the last few months, I've also developed an appreciation for the male sex that I can't shrug off, and was never before present. Now as far as romantic relationships go... for the time being, I can only imagine experiencing that with a woman. But in any case, I'm no pansexual. There are only certain woman and certain guys that catch my eye; most of the time I show no real interest, but I haven't put myself out there enough to really gauge the situation. In any case as soon as an attractive person says something incredibly stupid, my initial impression fades away.

I agree with you that sex is something you do not something you are. Philosophically, I favor individualism. I do not want to be known as "the libertarian," "the white guy," "the atheist," "the bisexual," or "the American." Quite frankly, I really can't understand why anyone would want their identity to be co-opted by a group. I mean you don't define yourself by your favorite food or color, so why do it at all?

Right now I plan to one day have a wife so my kid/s will be genetically related to me and my partner. And I think that only a woman could provide the romance I would want, whereas, that seems pretty gay if it were a dude.

I just hope that my sexual preference won't go too far in the gay direction because I'm a monogamous type of person who wants a relationship not just friend's with benefits type of situation. Honestly if I were to be in a relationship with a guy, that would not go over well with my folks, and they'd see it as a consequence of my atheism -- when it really isn't just based off all the ex Christians who stay straight...

I guess you could say that my preference is like a pendulum. Sometimes I like guys and the next moment I prefer the ladies.

I've romanced and made out with a woman before, so I know I'm still attracted to women, but I haven't been in a relationship in such a long time that it's kind of hard for me to know for sure. In that sense, maybe I'm demisexual.

I don't know but it hasn't really bothered me because I'm not currently looking, at least not very actively, as I have other priorities in mind.

I think one day in the future, this issue will sound as stupid as a guy making a dilemma about a choice between Coke and Pepsi... while others make it out to be a matter of morality -- meanwhile everyone else swears that they've never ever thought of trying one or the other. People waving flags with Coke or Pepsi, making communities... turning it into a matter of pride... and then fighting over laws regulating that preference -- It's all nonsense, quite insane really.



-

[Wissing]

@Darias,
First, I don't know whether sex is an identity or a preference...

I agree with you that sex is something you do not something you are

I think the two schools of thought are mutually exclusive, but I don't know which, if either, is correct.

Just an observation, not an argument: Your personal experience on the matter sits in contrast to Goat, above. You are open to the idea that maybe you could be gay, but Goat is decidedly not gay.

I could not be gay. It is not a choice, for me.

This would support the idea that there's a spectrum. However, there is the nagging thought in my mind that perhaps many of us are in fact wrong about our own libidos.

Now, does that 3.5% statistic refer to those who are gay, or who have had gay thoughts, have had gay intercourse... and would you mind posting where you got the statistic?

What makes being gay okay is that it doesn't hurt anyone. Sexual relationships of any sort are fine if they are between consenting persons. And of course there are no victims of sexual attraction. Saying that being gay is immoral is like making victimless interactions criminal for no reason.

Your premises are 1.) that gayness has no victims, and 2.) that morality is defined in terms of hurting individuals. I would agree that your premises are reasonable in the era and society I currently occupy. However, as I said before, reason alone is not sufficient. What's reasonable to me may not in fact be reasonable to someone else. There is always a chance that my reason could be faulty due to a lack of understanding, perspective, or experience. There is a very complex system keeping us alive, and few of us, I think, truly understand its nuances.

For that reason, I cite precedent as an equally important factor in decision-making. Note I said equally - I'm not against reason, I just think it needs to be weighed against our society's long-standing traditions, even if it doesn't make sense to me. As far as I know, we stand today at a crossroads - my society may be approaching a threshold where reproduction is no longer important, and may actually be detrimental to our society. Thus I am open to the idea that change is necessary. Open, but not convinced.

So how do you know that mainstream acceptance of this won't somehow indirectly hurt our society?