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?

[kayky]

As a progressive Christian, it doesn't matter to me what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality. The social mores of a primitive tribe that lived thousands of years ago have no bearing on modern morality. My denomination (Episcopalian) welcomes and even ordains gay people.

[Jacob Simonsky]

As a progressive Christian, it doesn't matter to me what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality. The social mores of a primitive tribe that lived thousands of years ago have no bearing on modern morality. My denomination (Episcopalian) welcomes and even ordains gay people.

There is no sin unless someone is being hurt...

[mitty]

[Replying to post 4 by preacher]

Hmmm!!! No mention in the bible at all about female homosexuality, however, even though female adultery and female bestiality are specifically dealt with in Leviticus etc. And Romans 1:26 only deals with unnatural acts which the women allowed their men to do to them, such as oral and anal sex. Romans 1:26 is not about female homosexuality since it doesn't say that the women were burning with passion for each other, or were doing shameful things to each other as described for their men (Rom 1:27).

Indeed, Jesus didn't mention anything about homosexuality at all, apart from asking his followers to accept that some men are born as homosexuals and therefore don't marry (Matt 19:12). In stark contrast, however, Jesus condemned the adultery of divorcees who remarry (Mark 10:11-12 Luke 16:18). Perhaps his unconcern about homosexuality results from his suggested sexual orientation (John 19:26 21:20 Mark's secret gospel) and why he was susposedly unmarried.

[Serpent Oracle]

[Replying to post 62 by Jacob Simonsky]



Sado masochism?

[bluethread]

Indeed, Jesus didn't mention anything about homosexuality at all, apart from asking his followers to accept that some men are born as homosexuals and therefore don't marry (Matt 19:12).

In what language does eunuch mean homosexual?

[mitty]

Indeed, Jesus didn't mention anything about homosexuality at all, apart from asking his followers to accept that some men are born as homosexuals and therefore don't marry (Matt 19:12).

In what language does eunuch mean homosexual?

Ancient Greek in which the gospels were originally written as I understand. The Greek word Eunikhos means bed-chamber attendant, and homosexuals make ideal bed chamber attendants, and probably better ones than castrated bed-chamber attendants because of their effeminate and therefore caring nature. Indeed, the late Queen mother quipped with her bed chamber attendants in Clarence House that she was a real queen in contrast to them.

If you think otherwise, however, perhaps you can explain how to castrate an unborn boy in-utero without aborting him, as in "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb.........He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matt 19:12). Or perhaps you can explain how Philip determined if the queen's official was a castrated or homosexual bed-chamber attendant (Acts 8:27-8). Did Philip examine his genitals or simply note that the official had effeminate mannerisms.

[Iam]

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?"

Your last question is an easy one.
FEAR. The basis of many religious factions and sects.

[bluethread]

Indeed, Jesus didn't mention anything about homosexuality at all, apart from asking his followers to accept that some men are born as homosexuals and therefore don't marry (Matt 19:12).

In what language does eunuch mean homosexual?

Ancient Greek in which the gospels were originally written as I understand. The Greek word Eunikhos means bed-chamber attendant, and homosexuals make ideal bed chamber attendants, and probably better ones than castrated bed-chamber attendants because of their effeminate and therefore caring nature. Indeed, the late Queen mother quipped with her bed chamber attendants in Clarence House that she was a real queen in contrast to them.

If you think otherwise, however, perhaps you can explain how to castrate an unborn boy in-utero without aborting him, as in "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb.........He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matt 19:12). Or perhaps you can explain how Philip determined if the queen's official was a castrated or homosexual bed-chamber attendant (Acts 8:27-8). Did Philip examine his genitals or simply note that the official had effeminate mannerisms.

This is highly speculative. This is not how the term is used in the greek. Yeshua is speaking of men who are not fit for marriage. He presents the three ways in which this happens. Those who are impotent or deformed, because they were born that way, those who are castrated and those who voluntarily abstain. Are you arguing that Yeshua is actually saying that some choose to be homosexual for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?

[Ooberman]

As a progressive Christian, it doesn't matter to me what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality. The social mores of a primitive tribe that lived thousands of years ago have no bearing on modern morality. My denomination (Episcopalian) welcomes and even ordains gay people.

I think your view is going to be the majority view in Christianity in another generation.

I'm not concerned about how people do the mental gymastics to argue for it, I only know that people have now found a way to justify homosexuality in a Christian worldview and that was always the goal:

Change the moral stance on homosexuality in the secular realm and watch the religious realm follow. Religion will always change to adopt the mainstream morality. Otherwise, it dies out.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 67 by bluethread]

The Greek word eunikhos translates to bed-chamber attendant and not to some-one who is necessarily castrated or infertile. To determine if one is infertile or impotent, one has to try out the gear first before marriage and that was forbidden then. Jesus even said that having erotic thoughts about women is adultery (Matt 5:27-31) resulting in execution or at least chopping off the offending organs and throwing them away (Matt 5:29-30). Clearly nobody chooses to be homosexual. Homosexuals are born homosexual, and heterosexuals are born heterosexual. There is no choice in one's sexual orientation. Jesus knew that, perhaps because of his own sexual orientation and his special relationship with one particular disciple (John 19:26 21:20 Marks secret gospel), and why he asked his followers to accept that fact (Matt 19:12), and why he remained celibate despite celibacy not being the norm then. And besides, just how did Philip know that the queen's official was a eunuch (Acts 8:27-8)? Did Philip examine his genitals or simply observe that the official had effeminate mannerisms and therefore was a homosexual bed-chamber attendant (eunuch)?