homosexuality is NOT a sin

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

icetiger300
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:55 pm

homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #1

Post by icetiger300 »

Hello, homosexuality and same sex marriage is not condemned and here's why.

These are not 100% accurate translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, they've been taken them out of their Scriptural and cultural context.

So, let"s put them back, and have a look"

Because they are basically repeating, I will just deal with the non murderous verse Leviticus 18:22.

That chapter starts off with God telling Moses to tell the Israelites to "not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."

It then goes on listing many various incestual restrictions, and then it tells not to have sex with a woman when she is having her period, then it tells not to have sex with your neighbors wife.

Then it takes a completely different turn, and tells not to give any of your children to be sacrificed to the Pagan god Molek.

After that, the restrictions of a mankind with mankind and sex with animals come in.

The reason for that is because back then in the culture God was referring to, the Pagans would start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

However, if you chose to ignore all of that, it is a fact that those two verses were only referring to men, and that means they could not refer to any and all homosexual sex for any reason.

One must factor in the cultural and Scriptural context. The Jews of that time, and in that culture did not know that a woman had a egg. They thought the the man's seed was like the seed of a plant, and the woman was (Like an incubator) just to be implanted with their seed. They also held increasing their numbers to the utmost importance. There are a few reasons for that, but the most crucial, was because they wanted to make their religion more dominant.

So, their reasons were based on their biological ignorance, and for the most part selfishness.

Given their belief they viewed any use of a man's seed other than for the attempt at procreation to be anything from uncleanliness, all the way up to murder.

Given this, it's not surprising that that would have an issue with a man having sex for any reason other than to procreate. However, if you take all of that into consideration, and the fact that they were coming into contact with cultures that embraced things like pederasty, and Pagan fertility orgies. It would be no surprise to see a lot of parts in the Old Testament (Torah) that strictly forbade men having any kind of sex other than sex to procreate.

But, in fact there are only 2 out of 23,145 verses in the Old Testament (Torah) that some state have to do with it directly forbidding men having sex with men. And, as I have pointed out, it is clearly backed up by the Scriptural and cultural context, that it was not any and all homosexual sex that was being condemned.

It is paganism.

I forgot to add this regarding Leviticus chapter 20...

If the focus of that murderous chapter was not surrounding Pagan idolatry, why would it start off with this?...

(Leviticus 20:1-5)

The Lord said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.A279;

With Romans:26-28 it is actually right there in the context of the scriptures that Paul was not referring to homosexuals. I think you would agree that just because someone engages in homosexual sex does not mean they are a hoimosexual.

Here is the context...

"Because of this, God gave them over"

Because of what? Here is what...

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen.

Now that is not Paul reffering to homosexuals, those people were Pagans engaging in idolatrous sex orgies.

Again...

The reason for that is because back then in the culture Paul was referring to, the Pagans would occasionally start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

The fact is that there was never any Greek or Hebrew words that were used in refrance to homosexuality used anywhere in the Scriptures, and there were words that would have left to question as to what the writer was reffering to. It is humans that have been equating aspects of Paganism with homosexuality, not the writers of the Scriptures or God. This is nothing new, things like this have been going on for as long as the Scriptures have existed.


Oh yeah. about "Sodom and Gomorrah".

Why is it that some of you have equated an angry mob threatening to gang rape some strangers in their city with homosexuality? Are you aware of the fact that not one Jew/Hebrew/Israelite in almost 4000 years ever taught that? They have always taught that the people of "Sodom" treated strangers and the needy sadistically at times, there are horrible stories regarding this in their teachings. Are you also aware of the fact that there is not one living Biblical Scholar that believes that homosexuality was the reason for their destruction? Even the Scriptures where Jesus and God describe the reasons, it was not due to homosexuality.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ condemns specific towns which reject His disciples to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Matthew 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Matthew 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

These passages from Jesus show that hospitality was seen as a quality of righteousness in the ancient world.

Any city that proved inhospitable, was condemned to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain indeed treated visitors with cruelty, brutality, and viciousness.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 is a unique passage in that God Himself talks of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

This passage confirms the above allegations concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain were "overfed", indicating a wealth and abundance of food and resources.

They were "unconcerned", as Isaiah and Jeremiah both pointed to their arrogance, and "haughty and did detestable things", demonstrated in their treatment of the young girls and their treatment of God's angels.

They also refused to help the needy and the poor, an indication of the selfishness of the people.

If it would not have been for the intercession of the angels, Lot might have been counted amongst the Sodomites victims. And, the Angles would have most likely been killed.

I hope that clears up your confusion, and that you stop spreading lies and distortions that have caused nothing but harm and death to multi-millions of God's children and in His name worst of all.

Correct if I'm wrong christians.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #61

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote: Am I the only one who uses perverted correctly?
If you're in a situation where you think you alone are the possessor of truth, it is wise to review the position.
RightReason wrote:
perverted: having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

In this sense – adultery is a perversion of the marriage.
Yep - comes from the Latin verb pervertere, to turn the wrong way. Perversus meant wrong or eventually, bad and evil.

In applying "perverted" to adultery you are just using the wrong word. You can possibly argue the phrase: "adultery is wrong."
RightReason wrote:
Adultery is always wrong.
Now you ARE using wrong but the word "always" has a tough job defending itself. I can think of situations where adultery confers not just pleasure, but hope and sanity.

RightReason wrote:

I can be compassionate toward someone who might have felt trapped in a bad marriage.
I wouldn't bet too much that your affirmation holds in practice, if we judge by your words.


RightReason wrote:
Funny, I see the complete opposite. Would you consider it wrong for man to have sex with an animal?
I suppose it would depend on which animal - polar bear might be awkward. This of course is a complete irrelevance and my view on this area of interest has nothing to do with how I view the topic of the OP. If you insist on involving animals, note that homosexuality exists among animals too, so if we credit God for making all creatures, it is he who made men and animals homosexual. As Pope Urban said: Deus vult - it is God's will. I think it's more to do with chance, but it's not reprehensible.
RightReason wrote:

It is your comments that I see as absurdity in modern times. Mine, however are based on science, biology, form, shape, function, reason, and logic. Yours appear to amount to emotional plea, strawman argument, slippery slope exaggerated outcome , etc. . . unless you had something more?
Science does not pronounce on love. Shape and form do not deter a lover - why should love give up when a lover becomes deformed? Reason and logic take a back seat where love is concerned. So your star witnesses are hopeless here.

Shakespeare said: " Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments; love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove." Love, of course, is blind to the sex of the person adored.

We've come a long way from pronouncing prison sentences on people for biblical crimes, at least in the West. Hitler used science, reason and logic to get an excuse for killing Jews; in the past we used the Bible to let us kill blameless people.

Thank goodness we have learned sense.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #62

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]
RightReason wrote:

Am I the only one who uses perverted correctly?


If you're in a situation where you think you alone are the possessor of truth, it is wise to review the position.
Ha. Ha. Ha. I stand by my interpretation of perverted – having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state. Given this definition (which is the definition of the word), it would be very hard to argue adultery is not in fact perverted. If you are in doubt, just ask the spouse who was the recipient of being cheated on – they might help you understand why the behavior of their spouse is perverted or a distortion from their marriage’s original course, meaning or state.

Yep - comes from the Latin verb pervertere, to turn the wrong way. Perversus meant wrong or eventually, bad and evil.
Well most of us go by Webster’s dictionary definition or something similar and not simply the Latin translation, but even going with the Latin root of the word, like I said, I’d say the word fits and think it can be applied in this context. I will let the record reflect that you disagree.
Now you ARE using wrong but the word "always" has a tough job defending itself
I don’t think it is tough to defend my argument at all.

.
I can think of situations where adultery confers not just pleasure, but hope and sanity.
I can think of situations where your above statement could be said about a number of immoral acts (stealing, lying, using drugs, cruelty, killing, etc). This of course doesn’t mean those things are right/good.


RightReason wrote:




I can be compassionate toward someone who might have felt trapped in a bad marriage.


I wouldn't bet too much that your affirmation holds in practice, if we judge by your words.
Wow, I’d say looks like you are the one jumping to conclusions and judging someone simply because they believe something different than you. Are you saying a person cannot love the sinner, but hate the sin? Are you saying a person who believes something differently than yourself cannot be compassionate? I would like to know exactly what exactly I have said that would give you this idea? The only thing that I have said is I think adultery is wrong – by what words do you then go to judge that I would lack compassion toward someone who committed adultery? Just because a person is in a bad situation or has “reasons� why they did what they did or whatever doesn’t change the truth that their actions/behavior was still wrong. This doesn’t mean they should suffer and pay for their crimes, but it also doesn’t mean what they did was not wrong and should not be supported. Are you incapable of making that distinction? We all can understand a youth, who might have been abused and or angry at their father one day snapping and killing their father, but it doesn’t mean their behavior was right or good. It was wrong and will always be wrong.



RightReason wrote:



Funny, I see the complete opposite. Would you consider it wrong for man to have sex with an animal?


I suppose it would depend on which animal
I think you might think you are being funny, but in actuality you are sidestepping the question. It was a genuine question worthy of a serious response. Do you think human beings can know from the world we live in that man is not supposed to have sex with animals? It’s pretty straight forward. Personally, I think it is fairly easy to argue that this is something we can know. We can base this on our knowledge of science, biology, shape, form, function, harm, reason, logic, etc.

Perhaps you choose to avoid the question because you recognize that your argument regarding same sex relations when drawn out to its logical conclusion would have to equally allow for sex between humans and animals to be ok (even right/good) too. #Loveislove, right? Isn’t that your argument?

If you insist on involving animals, note that homosexuality exists among animals too, so if we credit God for making all creatures, it is he who made men and animals homosexual.
Uummmm . . . some animals eat their young. Animals that God made. Of course any reasonable person knows animals are not subject to the same laws that human beings are. Please tell me you think it would be wrong for a human being to eat their young. Or does your worldview prevent you from even being able to admit that?




Science does not pronounce on love. Shape and form do not deter a lover
Like I said, with that logic then there is nothing wrong with bestiality. And yet, I would argue that is intellectually dishonest to suggest. Coming to the conclusion that it is wrong for man to have sex with animals is something that can be known, even if one attempts to use the lame, “who are you to tell me who I can or cannot love�. Society does just that all the time. We have declared it wrong for a father to marry his daughter. We have said it is wrong for a brother to marry his sister. We say it is wrong for one man to have multiple wives. We have determined a person cannot marry their dog. We say an 40 year old cannot marry an 11 year old. We say all of these things regardless of love and many of the reasons we use to say these things are wrong are based on science, biology, etc.

- why should love give up when a lover becomes deformed? Reason and logic take a back seat where love is concerned. So your star witnesses are hopeless here.
They shouldn’t and don’t because reason and logic demonstrate a deformed man is still a man. What does your reason and logic have to say about what nature reveals to us regarding sexual relations between a man and a fish? You can’t tell me reason and logic take a back seat to love – that’s illogical and simply not true.
We've come a long way from pronouncing prison sentences on people for biblical crimes, at least in the West. Hitler used science, reason and logic to get an excuse for killing Jews; in the past we used the Bible to let us kill blameless people.

Thank goodness we have learned sense.
You compare my science and reason to that of Hitler? I would argue he lacked science and reason in his worldview. In fact, I would compare his argument to that which we see today in the justification of abortion. He first acted counter to science and attempted to dehumanize those he wanted to eliminate. Once he did that, the rest was easy, because all human beings naturally recognize the value of human life. The only way people can rationalize acting against this natural understanding that people have value simply in being a person is to rationalize that maybe the person isn’t fully human. Hitler did this and it is done on a daily basis in the abortion industry.

I value the human person. We all deserve to be happy and the chance to obtain human fulfillment in this life. And only in doing what is right/good can man have a chance at obtaining peace/happiness/human fulfillment. Adopting a “live and let live� attitude lacks compassion. Right and wrong exist. To live contrary to that which is right does not lead to happiness/peace. If we really care about one another, we uphold that which is right/good. We don’t settle for anything less. This can be done in a loving a way and is really the only way to be a good friend/neighbor and help one another in our journey on this earth.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9457
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #63

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. I stand by my interpretation of perverted – having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state. Given this definition (which is the definition of the word), it would be very hard to argue adultery is not in fact perverted.
There is a difference between getting the definition correct and using the word appropriately.
If you are in doubt, just ask the spouse who was the recipient of being cheated on – they might help you understand why the behavior of their spouse is perverted or a distortion from their marriage’s original course, meaning or state.
What's this about cheating?
I can think of situations where your above statement could be said about a number of immoral acts (stealing, lying, using drugs, cruelty, killing, etc). This of course doesn’t mean those things are right/good.
It also doesn't mean that the these acts are always wrong.
I think you might think you are being funny, but in actuality you are sidestepping the question.
Are you perchance forgetting that humans are animals?
It was a genuine question worthy of a serious response. Do you think human beings can know from the world we live in that man is not supposed to have sex with animals?
No, we cannot know that. "Suppose" implies a purpose, there is no such thing as an objective purpose that one can know through science.
Like I said, with that logic then there is nothing wrong with bestiality.
BUZZ, there is a significant difference between "science doesn't tell us bestiality is wrong" and "bestiality isn't wrong."
We have declared it wrong for a father to marry his daughter...
Note that it is we who declare it, not discover by science. None of the things you listed are based on science or biology.
They shouldn’t and don’t because reason and logic demonstrate a deformed man is still a man. What does your reason and logic have to say about what nature reveals to us regarding sexual relations between a man and a fish?
It says the two species cannot produce an offspring, it says the bits doesn't fit, it says fishes are incapable of sexual attraction to a human. Note the absence of it being immoral. Morality is not something that is derived from reason and logic.
I value the human person. We all deserve to be happy and the chance to obtain human fulfillment in this life.
The problem here is, banning same sex marriage gets in the way of the very happiness and fulfillment that you claim we all deserve.
And only in doing what is right/good can man have a chance at obtaining peace/happiness/human fulfillment. Adopting a “live and let live� attitude lacks compassion. Right and wrong exist. To live contrary to that which is right does not lead to happiness/peace. If we really care about one another, we uphold that which is right/good. We don’t settle for anything less. This can be done in a loving a way and is really the only way to be a good friend/neighbor and help one another in our journey on this earth.
And yet here we are, with you arguing homosexuality, calling it unnatural and therefore immoral, equating it with bestiality.
Last edited by Bust Nak on Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #64

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]

A few more thoughts . . .

There are many immoral acts that the current culture has given a pass -- under the veil of “progress� and “enlightenment�. New facts/science has not been revealed about these things – other than new science/facts confirming such things are in fact not in man’s best interest. None the less, people such as you now make comments like, “It is an absurdity in modern times to regard homosexual acts, far less homosexuality itself, as a sin.� Of course we can add sex outside of marriage, pornography, abortion, etc -- fill in the blank with the immoral act of our choosing. . . . as outdated absurdities.

We can rationalize anything regardless of what we know and observe to be wrong (harmful, disordered, bad for man, beneath the dignity of the human person). All that is required is to ignore the science/facts and rely instead on emotionally based “wishful thinking�. This attitude that we are not subject to the laws of the world we live would be humorous if it wasn’t so harmful. We are an absurd nation indeed – we fight for freedom while fighting for the very things that deny our freedom and think ourselves wise in doing so. C’est la vie.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #65

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 63 by Bust Nak]
There is a difference between getting the definition correct and using the word appropriately.
The way I used the word fits the definition sooooooo . . . .

Are you perchance forgetting that humans are animals?
No. Are you denying human beings are subject to “rules/laws� that don’t apply to other species of animals?
It was a genuine question worthy of a serious response. Do you think human beings can know from the world we live in that man is not supposed to have sex with animals?

No, we cannot know that. "Suppose" implies a purpose, there is no such thing as an objective purpose that one can know through science.
Yes we can know that – whether you can admit it or not. Man operates on a daily basis deriving what is right/wrong from observation of this world we live in. You don’t have to use the word “suppose� or “intended� – I don’t really care what word you use, but it is intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge all human beings are subject to the limitations of the world we live in. And this is something that science reveals.

Quote:
We have declared it wrong for a father to marry his daughter...

Note that it is we who declare it, not discover by science. None of the things you listed are based on science or biology.
Wrong. We have determined the wrongness of incest or bestiality or adultery via observation (science) of the man and his relationship with the world he lives in. THAT IS how right/wrong is determined.

Morality is not something that is derived from reason and logic.
Huh? THAT is exactly what it is derived from.




The problem here is, banning same sex marriage gets in the way of the very happiness and fulfillment that you claim we all deserve.
Not true – acknowledging science reveals the opposite. Homosexuals have increased rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.

And yet here we are, with you arguing homosexuality, calling it unnatural and therefore immoral, equating it with bestiality.
I am arguing we can know the wrongness of homosexual acts based on observation of the world we live in, acknowledging science/biology, form, shape, function, reason, logic, etc. And using bestiality as an analogy is a perfectly acceptable argument, especially when the argument is reduced to things like, “#loveislove, “we can’t determine should/ought� etc. We do make distinctions regarding love – what is right/good/acceptable and what is not and with good reason.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9457
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #66

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: The way I used the word fits the definition sooooooo . . . .
So it's time to evaluate your position given it doesn't fit?
No. Are you denying human beings are subject to “rules/laws� that don’t apply to other species of animals?
No. Why would you ask me that?
Yes we can know that...
No you can't know that - whether you can admit it or not. Man operates on a daily basis evaluating what is right/wrong from observation of this world we live in. You don’t use the word “suppose� or “intended� which means it is incorrect to not acknowledge all human beings are subject to the limitations of the world we live in. And this is something that science cannot change.

We have determined the wrongness of incest or bestiality or adultery by our subjective taste or preference. THAT IS how right/wrong is determined.
Huh? THAT is exactly what it is derived from.
Incorrect. It is derived from your own feelings.
Not true – acknowledging science reveals the opposite. Homosexuals have increased rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.
Right, that's because of people are getting in the way of the very happiness and fulfillment of homosexual people, that you claim we all deserve. You are affirming my point.
I am arguing we can know the wrongness of homosexual acts based on observation of the world we live in, acknowledging science/biology, form, shape, function, reason, logic, etc. And using bestiality as an analogy is a perfectly acceptable argument, especially when the argument is reduced to things like, “#loveislove, “we can’t determine should/ought� etc. We do make distinctions regarding love – what is right/good/acceptable and what is not and with good reason.
Perfectly acceptable to whom? Only those who presuppose homosexuality is immoral.
Last edited by Bust Nak on Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #67

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:
None the less, people such as you now make comments like, “It is an absurdity in modern times to regard homosexual acts, far less homosexuality itself, as a sin.�
I am not a fan of the Marquis de Sade. I have compassion for fellow humans. I think it is wrong to condemn people because they are left handed, have blue eyes or are homosexual.
RightReason wrote:

Of course we can add sex outside of marriage, pornography, abortion, etc -- fill in the blank with the immoral act of our choosing. . . . as outdated absurdities.
The fault is not necessarily in these activities but in their blanket condemnation. I am more worried about religious fanatics intent on killing in revenge for supposed insults to their deity. God has much to answer for in endowing humans with silly notions of what is sinful.
RightReason wrote:
This attitude that we are not subject to the laws of the world we live would be humorous if it wasn’t so harmful.
I think some of us just frown on the behaviour of others: women not wearing a hat in church or men not taking their hat off; working on a Sunday or failing to attend church - all these might be regarded as sinful. I think originally anything that made people happy was seen as bad. Maybe we should all return to the days of self-flagellation, to mortify the flesh.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that homosexual acts should not be condemned. Condemning homosexuality itself is just an outdated misunderstanding, just as was punishing people for writing with their left hand. We love to find fault!


The imperfect lyrics of the popular song says it all:

At school they taught me how to be
So pure in thought and word and deed
They didn't quite succeed
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a sin!

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #68

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Bust Nak]
We have determined the wrongness of incest or bestiality or adultery by our subjective taste or preference. THAT IS how right/wrong is determined.
Uuummm . . . no. We have not determined those things are wrong by some random or arbitrary “personal preference�. Using reason and observation and acknowledging the world we live in man can determine what is right/good. It isn’t rocket science, but it certainly isn’t preference either. Unless you mean human beings are intelligent enough to know it is best to prefer that which is right/good over that which is wrong/bad because it is in man’s best interest to do so. Rape is not simply wrong if the individual feels it is. The wrongness of rape is not based on subjective taste – lol!

Quote:
Huh? THAT is exactly what it is derived from.

Incorrect. It is derived from your own feelings.
Wow! I think you really believe that. We don’t think rape is wrong simply because we feel like it is. Believing rape is wrong is based on acknowledging man and his relationship with this world he lives in. It isn’t based on personal preference – that is NOT how morality works. We can determine right/wrong via observation, logic and reason. An individual’s personal taste has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
Not true – acknowledging science reveals the opposite. Homosexuals have increased rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.

Right, that's because of people are getting in the way of the very happiness and fulfillment of homosexual people,
That argument is getting harder and harder to use as homosexual unions are becoming more and more supported and approved – and yet the statistics remain.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #69

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 67 by marco]
I am not a fan of the Marquis de Sade. I have compassion for fellow humans. I think it is wrong to condemn people because they are left handed, have blue eyes or are homosexual.
I don’t condemn a person for having a same sex attraction. A person cannot always help or control their sexual feelings, BUT we can control what we do with those feelings.

I assume you believe pedophilia is wrong/immoral. What do you say when the pedophile says he cannot help his attraction to young children? I assume you say, I recognize that, but that doesn’t mean you can act on these feelings you are having. I assume you would not lock up a pedophile that does not act on his feelings. I assume you condemn the act – not the human being who clearly has some issues they are dealing with.
The fault is not necessarily in these activities but in their blanket condemnation. I am more worried about religious fanatics intent on killing in revenge for supposed insults to their deity. God has much to answer for in endowing humans with silly notions of what is sinful.
You keep bringing this up and yet I am a believer and have never suggested we kill anyone who commits adultery or views porn or has an abortion. Your slippery slope is your continued strawman making it easier to preemptively condemn the Church. It is nonsense.
I think some of us just frown on the behaviour of others: women not wearing a hat in church or men not taking their hat off. . . all these might be regarded as sinful.
No they aren’t. And never were. Like you said, perhaps those things were frowned upon or considered bad manners. That is not what we are talking about in regards to morality.

I think originally anything that made people happy was seen as bad. Maybe we should all return to the days of self-flagellation, to mortify the flesh
Where do you get this stuff? Your anti-religious rhetoric is false stereotypes, unfounded, and historically inaccurate. The old, “religious people think sex is bad and dirty� has been debunked a long time ago. Ridiculous comments like that were based more on anti-religious spin than on truth and facts. Have you any idea about what the Church actually teaches regarding love, marriage, sex, family? Clearly you do not. As I would suggest the Church’s view on these things is not that she sees sex as bad – far from it. Read Humanae Vitae and tell me the Church sees sex as bad – LOL!

As for self-flagellation . . . I have a feeling you know actually very little about that as well.
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that homosexual acts should not be condemned.
How lovely for you. I have no doubt a cheating spouse, a thief, a drug addict would make similar remarks in regard to their immorality.
Condemning homosexuality itself is just an outdated misunderstanding
Yes, the fact that the body can be shown to not be designed to have something inserted in the anus – that engaging in such behavior is not in man’s best interest is just a misunderstanding.

The imperfect lyrics of the popular song says it all:
Yes, your poem says it all – it shows the ignorance we all often have – not being aware of what is truly good for us. Remaining little children in our reasoning -- thinking everyone only tells us no because they don’t want us to have any fun. What an untrue and immature thought.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #70

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:

I don’t condemn a person for having a same sex attraction.......I assume you believe pedophilia is wrong/immoral.
Why do you do this? We are discussing homosexuality not bestiality or paedophilia.
You want to pass judgment on homosexual behaviour and I don't. Suggesting that gay people can and should curtail their activities is both patronising and insulting; it is more insulting when we place their lifestyle beside bestiality and paedophilia. I can understand that you have your fixed view and would want justify it but I think your view is wrong and hurtful to people who are homosexual.
RightReason wrote:
You keep bringing this up and yet I am a believer and have never suggested we kill anyone who commits adultery or views porn or has an abortion. Your slippery slope is your continued strawman making it easier to preemptively condemn the Church. It is nonsense.
Let me un-nonsense it, then. Through the views you express on homosexuality, people were killed. Judges happily sentenced men to be executed for being homosexual, and they found consolation and justification for their atrocious judgment in the Bible. I have no idea where the strawman is - I am speaking factually. Your views would return us to that position.
RightReason wrote:
I have no doubt a cheating spouse, a thief, a drug addict would make similar remarks in regard to their immorality.
I don't see how you can argue objectively on this subject when you readily equate criminal behaviour with homosexuality. People who, by the grace of God, were born as homosexuals, are entitled to seek love and happiness. You think they should exercise restraint and be celibate. If my son announced he was gay I would be perfectly happy for him, and why not? In some brutal Christian families, such an announcement would lead to eviction. I have no doubt which side Christ would take. He probably knew, first hand, what homosexuality means.

RightReason wrote:
Yes, your poem says it all – it shows the ignorance we all often have – not being aware of what is truly good for us. Remaining little children in our reasoning -- thinking everyone only tells us no because they don’t want us to have any fun. What an untrue and immature thought.
The lyrics are not mine; they belong to the Pet Shop Boys. The Church dug up some character Onan, killed by (loving) God and through the centuries terrified kids for committing vile sins of impurity. Homosexuality would be on the list of offences to the Almighty. We have escaped into the 21st century and thrown the idiot teachings of the Church in these areas aside. Sadly, Christians in backward, uncivilised countries still think homosexuality should be punished. I side with sense and humanity. So would Jesus.

Post Reply