Why are gay men worse than lesbians?

[Lycan]

I belong to several religious forums and have noticed that christians that spout about homosexuality are more times than not, complaining about gay men. How sinnful it is and whatnot. Why is being a homosexual male more "sinnful" than being a lesbian? Is it really an issue of being a sin, or is it more the "ook" factor?

[McCulloch]

I belong to several religious forums and have noticed that christians that spout about homosexuality are more times than not, complaining about gay men. How sinnful it is and whatnot. Why is being a homosexual male more "sinnful" than being a lesbian? Is it really an issue of being a sin, or is it more the "ook" factor?

It could be that the only biblical references refer specifically to men.

[Lycan]

It could be that the only biblical references refer specifically to men.

I could see that but they say homosexuality is a sin in itself but only refer to men. Is it the homosexuality or just the male version?

[jerickson314]

It could be that the only biblical references refer specifically to men.

No. Romans 1 refers to women as well. The others do refer specifically to men, but so do many other commandments found in the Bible that can apply equally well to women.

Male homosexuality isn't any worse than lesbianism, biblically. It just gets more attention these days.

[steen]

But then, does the US Constuitution allow for Biblically-based discrimination of others based on their sexual orientation?

[jerickson314]

But then, does the US Constuitution allow for Biblically-based discrimination of others based on their sexual orientation?

What does this have to do with whether lesbianism or male homosexuality is worse?

[Curious]

I belong to several religious forums and have noticed that christians that spout about homosexuality are more times than not, complaining about gay men. How sinnful it is and whatnot. Why is being a homosexual male more "sinnful" than being a lesbian? Is it really an issue of being a sin, or is it more the "ook" factor?

I think it has more to do with what they would rather watch!

[Corvus]

It could be that the only biblical references refer specifically to men.

No. Romans 1 refers to women as well.

Only in passing; more as an opinion that as a commandment. "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." It's an "ick" thing that Paul is expressing, though since it's in the bible, you might probably conclude that it's a divinely inspired ick. But reading it as it's written, it's obvious Paul thinks it's wrong, but not so obvious that this is a fact.

The others do refer specifically to men, but so do many other commandments found in the Bible that can apply equally well to women.

Like which others? I can't think of any more specific than "thou shalt not lie with man as you do with woman. It is abomination.' or how this could be reinterpreted to mean "women shouldn't lay with women". What if they stand instead?

Male homosexuality isn't any worse than lesbianism, biblically. It just gets more attention these days.

And unfortunately, some people will make arguments against homosexuality based on health dangers when they are only making arguments against anal sex. Very often, when we say homosexuals, we are talking of the male variety, and females don't figure into the equation. Probably it's a social thing.

[jerickson314]

Like which others? I can't think of any more specific than "thou shalt not lie with man as you do with woman. It is abomination.' or how this could be reinterpreted to mean "women shouldn't lay with women". What if they stand instead?

What I meant is commandments like:

“‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Notice all the male pronouns? Commandments were usually given in male form but applied by extension to females.

And unfortunately, some people will make arguments against homosexuality based on health dangers when they are only making arguments against anal sex.

And unfortunately, some people won't read pages 5-6 of the linked article. And they won't realize that the person whose post they linked to didn't mention anal sex at all, except in that very article written by someone else.

[Corvus]

Like which others? I can't think of any more specific than "thou shalt not lie with man as you do with woman. It is abomination.' or how this could be reinterpreted to mean "women shouldn't lay with women". What if they stand instead?

What I meant is commandments like:

“‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Notice all the male pronouns? Commandments were usually given in male form but applied by extension to females.

I see the male pronouns, but what I don't see are commandments to specific genders. In English, male pronouns are often used because there is no "universal" or gender neutral pronoun in the language, though recently there is the vogue of using the singular "they". I would assume Hebrew is the same. Leveticus doesn't use pronouns, it uses nouns (man, woman) to refer directly to the different sexes. There is no question of what "man" is referring to in this instance because it can only mean one thing. It is not gender neutral. (You might notice the example you gave also begins with "for everyone".

And unfortunately, some people will make arguments against homosexuality based on health dangers when they are only making arguments against anal sex.

And unfortunately, some people won't read pages 5-6 of the linked article.

What, where it proposes the novel idea that lesbian women have sex with more men than do heterosexual women? The part which begins with the statement that lesbians are more at risk from STDS than heterosexuals, but uses as its reference an article that doesn't even mention STDs or gives a rate? Or maybe you mean the part about the psychological dangers of homosexuality for which enough evidence existed to the contrary for the American Psychological Organisation to declare homosexuality to no longer be a disorder, because it harmed no one, and many homosexuals were found to be perfecly well-adjusted?

And they won't realize that the person whose post they linked to didn't mention anal sex at all, except in that very article written by someone else.

Your argument was that homosexuality was unhealthy. The article was provided as evidence, and it dealt overwhelmingly with male homosexuality. But that doesn't really matter to the current debate. Allow me to say that very often, homosexual as a whole is opposed because of arguments made only against male homosexuality, and I believe this is a cultural thing, with male homosexuals being a more prominent part of our society. What's more, television shows seem to focus often on gay males, though usually showing effeminate stereotypes instead of Joe the secretly gay banker.