What's so wrong with being homosexual?

[Hans35]

Not that I'm gay, just wondering. I could understand that in the times when the bible was written, it was important to keep marriages between men and women, to keep up the population growth e. But now, as 7 billion people on the planet, I don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't be married?

Tell me pls!

[Zzyzx]

.

Sex is the symbol for the marriage union of one flesh

Most people understand that sex need not be associated with marriage. "Sex only in marriage" may be an ideal for some religious or traditional folk (or in some cultures), but in the real world of the 21st Century that is far from unanimous.

and marriage is the symbol for our heavenly union with our GOD in heaven so

In most societies marriage is a contract between two people that is legally binding. It may or may not have anything to do with any of the proposed "gods" or worship thereof. A more comprehensive view of marriage is available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

any defilement of these symbols strike at the heart of HIS purpose for our creation, the heavenly union / communion.

Evidently some ancient writers claimed to know what a "god" thought about marriage. Some contemporary people attempt to inflict those thoughts on others.

This may also be why divorce is also wrong.

Under the laws of the US and many (most) other nations divorce is NOT "wrong" but is legal and is socially acceptable. Note that Christians divorce as frequently as other groups -- which seems to suggest that divorce is not wrong in their understanding of Christianity. Some idealists may disagree.

[Zzyzx]

.

The only reason I think gay sex is wrong is that the Bible says so. Period.

The same bible says to stone adulteress to death (and to do the same for disobedient children or people who gather firewood on the sabbath). Do you think the bible is right (period) on those things too?

Of course it was - though our obedience to these laws that could not be kept (and never were) was changed to a command to love.

Since some laws are disregarded ("not kept" -- or changed) and others are supposedly kept, exactly how can anyone tell which laws do or do not apply?

Why were apparently WRONG laws commanded by an all-wise God or his representatives. WHEN was it desirable to stone disobedient children or adulteresses? Why did that change?

[Deidre32]

I will never understand why so many people care so much about what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own private lives.

[ttruscott]

...

Since some laws are disregarded ("not kept" -- or changed) and others are supposedly kept, exactly how can anyone tell which laws do or do not apply?

Why were apparently WRONG laws commanded by an all-wise God or his representatives. WHEN was it desirable to stone disobedient children or adulteresses? Why did that change?

I'm sorry, I thought I need not go into detail as this is fairly common stuff.

GOD's laws were given to people who would never agree to keep them, to prove that they were sinners and not made righteous by their religious system. The purpose of the law was found in it's failure with them. The people failed, not the law; the people were wrong, not the law.

The laws were never considered WRONG but maybe not applicable to their lives... "GOD's laws are holy but I cannot / will not measure up" was apparently par for the course.

There was no abrogation of the law by Christ but there was a new stipulation that all the law could be fulfilled by love, love for others and love for GOD. Obedience to the law does not create love for GOD but love for GOD does create obedience to HIS law so love is greater than obedience.

As for why HE gave us a progressive revelation of HIS relationship with people from law based to relationship based, rather then start with forgiveness and love, I do not profess to know.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

I will never understand why so many people care so much about what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own private lives.

What 'people' care so much about what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own private lives?

There is no concern over how anybody actually lives. This is about an interpretation of a religious text and the meanings we can find there for our edification.

You understand what it means that something is 'academic?' Well, something theological can have the same understanding of meaning as without concern for how people actually live.

Peace, Ted

[Elijah John]

I will never understand why so many people care so much about what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own private lives.

Moderator Comment

This is considered a "one-liner" and while not necessarily wrong or offensive in and of itself, it does not really advance the debate.

Try to amplify or elaborate a little more on your basic point.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Wordleymaster1]

I will never understand why so many people care so much about what consenting adults are doing with each other in their own private lives.

I didn't understand it either. Then, after some thought I realized it must be boredom. Some people are just so bored with their perfect lives they MUST interject into the lives of others when their other's lives have no influence on anyone else's lives but there own!
Or these people like to control others. We see that in some religions - esp. the violent ones. People like to control others from some sort of god-complex.
Or some people are just jerks?

[TheThinWhiteDuke]

To answer the OP of the thread.

There is nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

It is people who makes homosexuality wrong. People who love to makes others peoples lives their business.
Homosexuality is almost as old, as humans itself. Before any religion existed, homosexuality was already in the open.
The Greeks surely used to love it, and even in the times the Roman empire, homosexuality happened openly.
Homosexuality changed after religion came into this world. Religion has made homosexuality as something bad. And it still happens i see, after reading so many threads here and on other websites.
We the people need to stop worrying about someone else life, and start minding your own business.
If your religion does not allow it, leave it in your church, and your home, but do not bother others with it. And specially leave it to the governments what to do with it.

[KCKID]

Well, there does appear to be something 'socially strange' about the idea that some boys act, or appear to act, like girls. When I was at school such 'girly' boys were referred to as 'sissies' and were sometimes bullied by the 'tough guys'. They were clearly still 'boys' but somehow their behavior was attributed to that more associated with girls ...perhaps their mannerisms, their not being much interested in contact sports, their perhaps having a caring attitude toward others that 'tough' boys would not want to appear to have, etc. It soon became evident to me that this 'tough guy/soft girl' sort of imagery that society promoted was all stuff and nonsense. In fact, I couldn't understand how come I seemed to be the only one who had figured this out. This type of imagery still persists within society though, thankfully, to a much lesser degree.

So, throughout history, in the psyche of many, a man has been expected to be 'the tough provider' and the woman his 'soft subordinate'. The Bible makes no bones about the lower ranking of the female in a male/female relationship. Worse, the woman was very much the 'property' of the male ...certainly not his equal. And, "God" appears to have not only been fine with this situation but He also encouraged it. The tenth commandment of 'the Big Ten' is addressing the male and not the female who was merely the chattel of the male along with his home and his livestock. "Your neighbor" is a male, not a female! This is what tickles me whenever I hear Christians espousing the virtues of 'marriage according to that intended by God' . . .

So, any male giving the appearance of being 'woman-like' (whatever that might have entailed) would have been MOST frowned on during Bible-times. Even today we're still caught up with silly sterotypical gender roles. If male homosexuality as we term it today was addressed in the Bible it would have been very much perceived as being 'sissie' ...modern terminology. In fact, it would have been unthinkable for one to have been seen as being gay (or perceived to be taking on the role of a female) since there was such a role distinction between male and female. It's doubtful that 'lesbianism' would have rated a mention since the female was basically a 'sub-par' human being anyway.

Yes, as I say, stereo-typing genders is all stuff and nonsense and we're slowly but surely learning this. However, let's face it, if all humans have one thing in common, regardless of the race, the time and culture in which they live, it's ...stupidity!

As far as the Bible and homosexuality is concerned ...the terms 'homosexual/homosexuality' was never found in the original manuscripts of scripture. When the word WAS eventually included in the 1946 version and later editions of the Bible it was used deceptively by their (apparently) bigoted and their (apparently) homophobic authors. The definition of the term "homosexual" is absolutely 'sin neutral'. It has NOTHING to do with 'sin' any more than 'heterosexual' has to do with 'sin'. It simply means that one is sexually oriented toward another of the same gender. Nothing more than that. There cannot be any 'right or wrong' connection with regard to one's innate sexual persuasion.

HOWEVER, when that word appeared in the 1946 and later editions of the Bible it suddenly took on a new definition and one that appears to have been PERSONAL to the authors. 'They' changed the actual definition of "homosexual" and equated it with SIN!! AND, many Christians (in their rather typical narrow-mindset) have since used that definition of the term as a weapon against gay people. The authors of these versions of the Bible and their, um, equally dumb followers (if the shoe fits) have a great deal to answer for!!

While I realize that I might receive a reprimand for that last remark I still stand by it.

[lia15]

[Replying to post 1 by Hans35]

The argument of us being "stable" population wise is not a very strong one. In many country's the government is paying people to inhabit villages cuz they are so under populated. And even if we are stable in population. it is morally wrong cuz God created marriage and he defined it to be between a man and a woman. why is it that we want what God created but not how he created it ?