Are homosexual relations sinful?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #1

Post by Mithrae »

In Australia we're currently enduring a postal vote about gay marriage, and the Christian rhetoric which has inevitably been cropping up has reminded me of some thoughts I'd initially had back in 2006.
  • Tuesday, 9 May 2006
    It occurs to me that Christianity may very well have the wrong end of the stick in their view of God. If nothing else, surely what the old testament and the gospels teach us is that God is a covenant God. Jesus said that his blood was the blood of the new covenant; looking back, the Mosaic law is described as the old covenant; he made covenants also with Abraham and David. Perhaps we should not think of God as one who simply sits in the clouds handing out laws. Rather, he is a God who makes covenants with his people; fellowship in return for blessing. . . .

    With the people of Israel God made two covenants. The first was at Sinai, beginning with the ten commandments covering chapters 20 to 23 of Exodus. These are almost exclusively commandments of worship for God and social justice amongst the Israelites, with very little about sacrifical specifications or ritual purity. Chapter 24 describes the confirmation of this covenant and the people's agreement to abide by the terms written within the 'book of the covenant.' The second covenant was made in the lands east of the Jordan River, before Moses died and the people crossed over (Deuteronomy 29:1), and covers chapters 5 to 28 of Deuteronomy (with the earlier chapters being the preamble). Laws concerning such things as legal cases, the king, cities of refuge and warfare regulations (chapters 17 to 20) make it clear that this is essentially the constitution of the new nation of Israel.
The bible does not say that God gave any rules or commandments at all to Adam and Eve, except the bit about the tree; and similarly, Jeremiah clearly states that the new covenant to come would be "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer. 31:31). In commenting on that passage the author of Hebrews writes "In that he says, “A new covenant,� he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).

How can it be that at one time it was "sinful" to sow a field with two kinds of seed, or wear a garment made of two kinds of cloth (Leviticus 19:19), yet Christians now would almost universally consider these to be silly and outdated concepts? Why did commands like that exist in the first place? I believe they were intended to ingrain into the Israelite people the concept of their separateness from the nations around them, to reinforce and strengthen their own national identity. But then, that same kind of practical purpose seems to obviously underlie the prohibition against same-sex relations too (or the exclusion of anyone who'd suffered genital injuries in Deut. 23:1): A small nation surrounded by enemies would likely need all its people breeding to maintain its strength. Crude and even cruel though those laws may have been, at least we might be able to glean a worthy intention behind them.

But the Christian concept of "sin" as it is usually expressed seems to be utterly blind to the fact that these were part of a covenant - an agreement - between God and Israel, one which the author of Hebrews declared to be obsolete. And according to Jeremiah the new covenant is not to be found in letters of stone or ink in a book; instead "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jer. 31:31-34). (See also my earlier thread Did apostles think they were writing the 'word of God'?)

Likewise Paul - though he himself remained hung up on homosexuality - captures the more individual nature of the New Agreement perfectly, even as he downplays the everlasting covenant of circumcision:
  • Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. . . .
    13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.� 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.


    Romans 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’�
    12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
Have Christians got the wrong idea of "sin"?

And if the essence of God's will is simply that "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," as Paul says, isn't homosexuality one of the most obvious examples in which freedom in Christ replaces the situational rules of Israel?

An example in fact where Christian attitudes often seem to be almost the opposite of love?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #261

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:15 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:01 am
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #242]
As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Surely, if it was that important, we may have expected Him to comment.
Honestly, such an argument of silence is nonsense. Jesus also never said anything against child molestation.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Best wishes, 2RM.
How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether.

Indeed. But I do not think for one moment Jesus would have allowed the molestation of children who He had never met, and did not believe in Him, any more than those He had, and did. Do you?
But if all molested children are equal in his eyes then why bother to mention ONLY those "little ones which believe in me"? Nope, it's clear he did not consider the two types equal at all. One singles out A from B because there's a significant difference between the two. And that's what Jesus does in Matthew 18:6. The "little ones which believe in me" deserve mention while the "little ones which don't believe in me" do not deserve mention. Hence they are left unmentioned.

.
Are you daring to suggest Jesus was not perfect? If that is your reading of the Gospels, you are entitled to it, I guess.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #262

Post by Miles »

2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:24 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:15 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:01 am
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #242]
As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Surely, if it was that important, we may have expected Him to comment.
Honestly, such an argument of silence is nonsense. Jesus also never said anything against child molestation.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Best wishes, 2RM.
How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether.

Indeed. But I do not think for one moment Jesus would have allowed the molestation of children who He had never met, and did not believe in Him, any more than those He had, and did. Do you?
But if all molested children are equal in his eyes then why bother to mention ONLY those "little ones which believe in me"? Nope, it's clear he did not consider the two types equal at all. One singles out A from B because there's a significant difference between the two. And that's what Jesus does in Matthew 18:6. The "little ones which believe in me" deserve mention while the "little ones which don't believe in me" do not deserve mention. Hence they are left unmentioned.

.
Are you daring to suggest Jesus was not perfect? If that is your reading of the Gospels, you are entitled to it, I guess.

Best wishes, 2RM.
I'm suggesting that one read the verses as written and not try impute more meaning than what is said. You contend Matthew 18:6 has Jesus addressing child molestation. Period; as if he's talking about ALL such child molestation. But he isn't. Jesus is deliberately addressing only child molestation among the "little ones which believe in me," which is quite a qualification because most children in the world are not "little ones which believe in me." NOW, if this is a less than perfect attitude toward molested children then so be it; Jesus was not perfect, at least when it comes to his attitude toward molested children.

And where is it written that Jesus is/should be perfect, especially when his father, god, was not?

The question, of course, is why would Jesus deliberately address only child molestation among the "little ones which believe in me," and deliberately exclude those who do not? Why are children in the world who are not "little ones which believe in me" not worthy of his concern?


.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #263

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:48 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:24 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:15 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:01 am
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #242]
As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Surely, if it was that important, we may have expected Him to comment.
Honestly, such an argument of silence is nonsense. Jesus also never said anything against child molestation.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Best wishes, 2RM.
How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether.

Indeed. But I do not think for one moment Jesus would have allowed the molestation of children who He had never met, and did not believe in Him, any more than those He had, and did. Do you?
But if all molested children are equal in his eyes then why bother to mention ONLY those "little ones which believe in me"? Nope, it's clear he did not consider the two types equal at all. One singles out A from B because there's a significant difference between the two. And that's what Jesus does in Matthew 18:6. The "little ones which believe in me" deserve mention while the "little ones which don't believe in me" do not deserve mention. Hence they are left unmentioned.

.
Are you daring to suggest Jesus was not perfect? If that is your reading of the Gospels, you are entitled to it, I guess.

Best wishes, 2RM.
The question, of course, is why would Jesus deliberately address only child molestation among the "little ones which believe in me," and deliberately exclude those who do not? Why are children in the world who are not "little ones which believe in me" not worthy of his concern?


.
Context, as usual, is all. Jesus was talking to His disciples about a specific group of children that had come to Him. He was not laying down law for all humanity for all time. But from His words we can infer His attitude towards all children, not just those who believe in Him, I think.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #264

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to brunumb in post #250]
You talk as if homosexual acts are something new and if they are allowed society will crumble into an immoral mess.
Not really. This is simply the usual complaint. The ‘ole accusation, “them Christians all believe if we let them gays marry it will be the ruin of society!” Uh, yeah, I’ve never said that. People aren’t really any more immoral today than they were 2000 years ago. There isn’t much new under the sun. People did the same foolish things then that they do now. So, no. That is not my argument.

Yes, I do not believe homosexual acts are in man or society’s best interest, because I never think it is in a person’s best interest to engage in immoral behavior. Authentic peace/happiness cannot be obtained living contrary to the moral order. But my argument is not that the world will fall apart if we allow homosexual acts. There are lots of things people engage in that are not in their best interest and it doesn’t mean the world will collapse.

However, I engage in discussion about such topics because I believe truth matters. I’m also motivated to engage when it starts to affect what my children are being taught in school. I take an interest when the thought police are permitted to call me hateful or a bigot or charge me with a hate crime for disagreeing with the position they hold.

As for animals engaging in homosexual acts, that is soooooooo over exaggerated. There are some studies that actually include when birds rub their feathers together they are engaging in same sex masturbation. <sigh>. Most observed acts of animals engaging in homosexual acts are found to be more about domination and marking one’s territory and acts of aggression.

And those two male penguins that started hooking up that made the news years ago that caused the media and LGBTQ community to rejoice and try to claim they had fallen in love and were now life partners . . . yeah well they “broke up” and went back to having sex with members of the opposite sex.

But also, we are not the same as other animals. We can reason and have control over our passions, so comparing animals, who sometimes even eat their young, to human beings isn’t really much of an argument.
People have engaged in homosexual acts for thousands of years, so have other animals for that matter, and society has flourished nevertheless.
Agree, people have engaged in homosexual acts for thousands of years, but you and I might have different definitions of what constitutes flourishing.

We have restrictions regarding any behaviour they may result in harm to others. Society is waking up to the fact that homosexual acts between consenting adults should no longer be considered in that regard.
Thanks to great lobby groups and NPR!

This “waking up” is more a result of wokism than any factual scientific evidence/support.
Unfortunately, those with deeply entrenched religious beliefs are unable to accept that reality.
Once again, I didn’t bring up religion regarding homosexual acts, you did. The other side always says, “the only reason you oppose homosexual acts is because your Bible says it’s wrong.” Nope. As I continue to argue, but others keep bringing it back to the straw man “religious argument”, we can know homosexual acts are wrong by observing the world and acknowledging form/shape/function/purpose. It isn’t rocket science, but it is science.
There are also those who just find it 'icky' and feel compelled to impose their distaste on everyone else.
Also, not an argument I’ve ever made. You might want to stick to what is actually being said.

Though, we all should be a little repulsed when we see immorality. It is beneath man’s dignity to behave immorally. There is a beauty and an order to the world we live in. When that order is violated, it stands out as ugly/wrong/perverted. If I hear that Joe is screwing a cow, it is not prejudiced or simply a matter of personal taste if I recoil at the thought. When we think of mother and son getting it on, we have a right to be repulsed. These behaviors are contrary to a natural order.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #265

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #251]
Good post. What bugs me about this whole debate is that the anti-homosexual brigade have no reason for their position, other than prejudice. Once we all realise that, we may start to make some social progress in this matter.
Ha, ha, ha . . . except for all the reasons I posted that look at science, biology, the way the world works, man’s relationship with this world, logic, reason, etc. You can keep ignoring him, but that elephant’s not getting any smaller.

You guys are funny.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #266

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #257]
on the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Why do non believers always do that? Take Scripture out of context and proclaim it means something other than what it does? And tell Christians what their book means?

The passage you refer to has nothing to do with sexual abuse or child molestation. In fact, it wasn’t even necessarily just talking about literal children. It was talking about those who have a child like faith and believe in God. The quote was a warning to anyone who led believers astray by either teaching false teachings, being poor examples, trampling on their beliefs and faith, introducing them to corruption, etc. The passage is trying to show the seriousness of others getting the innocent involved in sinful ways.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #267

Post by Miles »

2ndRateMind wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:05 am
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:48 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:24 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:15 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:01 am
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #242]
As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Surely, if it was that important, we may have expected Him to comment.
Honestly, such an argument of silence is nonsense. Jesus also never said anything against child molestation.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Best wishes, 2RM.
How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether.

Indeed. But I do not think for one moment Jesus would have allowed the molestation of children who He had never met, and did not believe in Him, any more than those He had, and did. Do you?
But if all molested children are equal in his eyes then why bother to mention ONLY those "little ones which believe in me"? Nope, it's clear he did not consider the two types equal at all. One singles out A from B because there's a significant difference between the two. And that's what Jesus does in Matthew 18:6. The "little ones which believe in me" deserve mention while the "little ones which don't believe in me" do not deserve mention. Hence they are left unmentioned.

.
Are you daring to suggest Jesus was not perfect? If that is your reading of the Gospels, you are entitled to it, I guess.

Best wishes, 2RM.
The question, of course, is why would Jesus deliberately address only child molestation among the "little ones which believe in me," and deliberately exclude those who do not? Why are children in the world who are not "little ones which believe in me" not worthy of his concern?


.
Context, as usual, is all. Jesus was talking to His disciples about a specific group of children that had come to Him. He was not laying down law for all humanity for all time. But from His words we can infer His attitude towards all children, not just those who believe in Him, I think.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Sorry, but it was you who insinuated that Jesus was talking about all children:

RightReason: Honestly, such an argument of silence is nonsense. Jesus also never said anything against child molestation. (note; the lack of qualifying the children)

2ndRateMind: To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (note; the verse does qualify the children)

Miles: How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether. (note; first time the qualification in the verse is brought up)

2ndRateMind: Indeed. But I do not think for one moment Jesus would have allowed the molestation of children who He had never met, and did not believe in Him, any more than those He had, and did. Do you? (note; you're contention here that Jesus was talking about all children)

Miles:
But if all molested children are equal in his eyes then why bother to mention ONLY those "little ones which believe in me"? (My my contention that Jesus was talking only about those "little ones which believe in me" )

2ndRateMind:
Are you daring to suggest Jesus was not perfect? (note; your implication that if Jesus was not talking about all children he wouldn't be perfect)

Miles;
The question, of course, is why would Jesus deliberately address only child molestation among the "little ones which believe in me," and deliberately exclude those who do not? (My observation that Jesus was only speaking about the little ones that believe in him)

2ndRateMind:
Jesus was talking to His disciples about a specific group of children that had come to Him. (Although the verse says nothing about children that had come to him, it's good that you have finally come to see I was right all along. Jesus was excluding all other children)


.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #268

Post by brunumb »

RightReason wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:41 pm Yes, I do not believe homosexual acts are in man or society’s best interest, because I never think it is in a person’s best interest to engage in immoral behavior.
You have yet to demonstrate that homosexual acts between consenting adults constitutes immoral behaviour.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21065
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 789 times
Been thanked: 1111 times
Contact:

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #269

Post by JehovahsWitness »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:45 pm
bluegreenearth wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:15 pm
Yes, all people are harmed in some way by the prohibition of homosexual relations.
I see no evidence of this.


ARE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS* HARMFUL?

Image

PROHIBITION
Is there a difference between prohibiting homosexuals and prohibiting homosexual ACTS?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 40#p994140

Are homosexual wicked?
viewtopic.php?p=1062286#p1062286

WHY does God prohibit homosexual acts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 94#p994394

Do Jehovahs Witnesse believe homosexual marriage is a basic HUMAN RIGHT?
viewtopic.php?p=1016295#p1016295

Why do Christians wear MIXED FABRICS and eat SEAFOOD yet prohibit homosexual acts ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p996772

Could Jesus have been gay?
viewtopic.php?p=768477#p768477

Did Jesus break the law by not killing any homosexuals?
viewtopic.php?p=1108359#p1108359

Should Christians repudiate the biblical laws calling for the execution of those guilty of performing homosexual acts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p994278

HARM
Prohibitions: Is all pain harmful?
viewtopic.php?p=1016387#p1016387

Have there not been studies proving the negative effects of such* prohibitions?
viewtopic.php?p=1016328#p1016328

JS Mills: Who is HARMED by consentual homosexual practices?
viewtopic.php?p=1015824#p1015824

Isn't homosexual advantageous for the human species?
viewtopic.php?p=1015590#p1015590
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

HOMOSEXUALITY, HOMOPHOBIA and ...BIBLICAL PROHIBITIONS
Memorial of Jesus’ Death: Sunday, March 24, 2024
FIND A LOCATION NEAR YOU: https://apps.jw.org/ui/E/meeting-search.html#/memorial

Image

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #270

Post by boatsnguitars »

The OP is curious. It asks if homosexuality is "sinful", which implies "sin" exists in a religious sense. If the OP asked, "Is homosexuality bad, according to Sharia Law, or, "Is homosexuality wrong, according to the Lord of the Rings"?

These are questions put to the specific people who are part of that particular Book Club.

In the secular world, it is clear there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - unless we decide to make a law against it (which we have done, but most states/countries do anymore, except the most backward/religious groups of people).

Luckily, we aren't bound by any religion, and we don't need to listen to religious people when they tell us to hate this group or that.

Personally, I think religions that teach homosexuality is a sin are evil. So, even a better reason not to listen to them. They are of Satan.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Post Reply