Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class

[SeRoX]

I'm homosexual and I know it's considered a sin by religions. I'm a deist, don't believe in any religion but only God. But I know Quran and Bible says "homosexuality" is a sin, against the nature.

From the view of religion, then why God created me like this? You know, I'm genetic student and it is known that homosexuality isn't a illness, both  physically and psychologically. Plus, homosexuality isn't choice (which is known by many like that, even by homosexuals), it's a inclination like heterosexuality. You just can't say one day "hey I wanna be homo or I feel I have to choose to be homo..." It's already inside of you but you may not realize. Social environment or something may effect and dispose your real sexuality.

I also believe homosexuality is considered "abnormal" from the view of many people even they are unbeliever because we are born at a world where heterosexuality is only thing we see. (To me, this is effects of religions) That's why many of us try to hide our true personality not to be labelled "abnormal" even we know we are exactly homo.

Let's agree on one thing! It doesn't matter to love a girl or a boy, it does matter to love a human being. That's all.

[Chino]

Let's agree on one thing! It doesn't matter to love a girl or a boy, it does matter to love a human being. That's all.

End thread

[Bombardana]

To echo previous comments in this thread, I wonder which of gods laws they conveniently ignore whilst supporting his most homophobic ones. Dave Mustaine weighed in on gay marriage recently, and his comments were an enlightened "I believe it's a sin because I'm a christian and that's what a christian believes". And you know, maybe that is the case that some people feel the need to conform to what the bible strictly teaches, even against their own morality, which is sad, but what I think is most likely is this circular reasoning just acts as a handy rhetoric for avoiding answering the real question of "why do you dislike gays so much?". Maybe he thinks Kirk Hammett is gay. I'll admit I did for a while.

[tofee35]

In our 12th Grade Scripture class every Friday, we get the desks in a circle and write down questions and pass them in and they get randomly distributed among the students and they pose the question they received to another classmate.

The issue of homosexuality and the fact that I'm Christian but don't take issue with it has been on my mind recently so I asked "Is it wrong if a Christian doesn't take issue with homosexuality?"

A student asked my question to another student and her response was:
Yes, it is wrong. Homosexuality is a result of sin, so if a Christian doesn't take issue with it, then they are on the side of sin, so they are in the wrong.

It just really irked me. Is it really so wrong that I am a Christian who doesn't take issue with it and doesn't try to tell a homosexual that they are wrong and that God doesn't approve. It just never really mattered to me how a person chooses to live their life and who they choose to love.

For the Christians out there, is it really that wrong of me that I don't take issue with homosexuality and think that there are more pressing matters to deal with than this? Does this mean that I'm not a good Christian? I don't think it does, but man, they painted me to be some weirdo

Nah, man. The only thing that matters is that you believe that Jesus Christ was the savior. That's really all you need to believe. It's commendable that you don't have an issue with homosexuality.

[Vivace]

From the view of religion, then why God created me like this? You know, I'm genetic student and it is known that homosexuality isn't a illness, both  physically and psychologically. Plus, homosexuality isn't choice (which is known by many like that, even by homosexuals), it's a inclination like heterosexuality. You just can't say one day "hey I wanna be homo or I feel I have to choose to be homo..." It's already inside of you but you may not realize. Social environment or something may effect and dispose your real sexuality.

How do you know this though. There are articles that actually claim that homosexuals have known to be "cured". Also if homosexuality isn't a choice then it's like being transgender or having blond hair. My question here is how do we "know" homosexuality isn't a choice? Science has yet to determine it connected to any gene. There are some scientists who also claim that homosexuality can develop the same as any neurosis, that is without our knowing, something that we have accepted as being normal. Also, if God is defined according to you, as a being that must follow your rules, you ideals and agenda, then how can you justify this being as God? Isn't the whole idea of God a divine being with divine wisdom? If every text about God and homosexuality comes up as homosexuality being a sin, then in what way can you justify your idea that God made you that way? God is before religion. Divine Wisdom is before religion. Religion is only the praxis that brings us to God. If divine wisdom is before religion and divine wisdom holds that homosexuality is a sin then how can you justify your position about homosexuality and God at the same time? I'm not trying to make you not believe in God, but your beliefs are paradoxical to God.

I also believe homosexuality is considered "abnormal" from the view of many people even they are unbeliever because we are born at a world where heterosexuality is only thing we see. (To me, this is effects of religions) That's why many of us try to hide our true personality not to be labelled "abnormal" even we know we are exactly homo.

Are you saying that religions effect what we see? That is religion will condition us to accept some humans and not others? This is not how religion works, I'm sorry (well it's not how it is supposed to work, but we do see certain religions that teach hatred and intolerance). Religion is a praxis. It is a human method of following the will of the God. We cannot have this praxis without first knowing God, and knowing his self revelation. Homosexuality is considered abnormal in many religions because it doesn't fulfill our contingency as human beings to perfection. As you say, all that matters is love, but reflect on the contingency of homosexualty and of heterosexuality when it comes to love? What is the final aim of heterosexuality? Does it match the final aim of homosexuality? What defines a homosexual? Can I love human beings without being homosexual? What exactly does it mean to be homosexual over being a heterosexual? What are the necessary contingencies for homosexuality? For heterosexuality?

My point is, human knowledge wants to reason for homosexuality. If we stick only to human knowledge then it's impossible to argue homosexuality unless we turn to philosophy to discuss it. What does philosophy say about human sexuality? If you want to inject God into the picture then you have to accept divine wisdom over human knowledge. You cannot place human knowledge above divine wisdom. We are not smarter than God.

Nah, man. The only thing that matters is that you believe that Jesus Christ was the savior. That's really all you need to believe.

But what's next? I believe in Jesus Christ, sure, but now what? If I believe in Christ, then I must believe in the revelation of God that speaks of Christ and his teachings. I cannot just believe without accepting divine revelation. I also cannot just believe without right reason. Sure faith must come first, but I must use more than my will to believe, I must use right reason. To believe without right reason makes you an extremist willing to crash a plane into a building or parade around town saying how God hates fags. Believing in Christ is one thing, but we must also believe in God's revelation that tells us about Christ. And if we believe in this revelation then we must learn the whole deposit of revelation and try to understand how God is leading us back to himself. My point being, believe in Christ is one thing, but only believing doesn't get you very far.

[the Catfishman]

My point is, human knowledge wants to reason for homosexuality. If we stick only to human knowledge then it's impossible to argue homosexuality

  why?

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

@Vivace:

Is it possible that the traditional Western Christian point of view on sin being volitional is wrong?  If all sinful acts are merely choices, then how come those who desire to put an end to their sin cannot by their own will power?

[Omega]

I suppose that my main problem with homosexuality is that we can intuitively recognize that it is unnatural and not sanctioned by nature. "But wait," people say: "wild animals are known to engage in homosexual acts, therefore it is natural and is an act that we as humans shouldn´t be constrained from imitating." "Natural" has been taken to mean "anything or any action that is observable in the animal kingdom."

Yet animals engage in all sorts of activities that would, by this definition, be considered "natural" for us to imitate or sanction. Cannibalism, for example. Examples of rape, incest, necrophilia, polygamy, genocide, etc can all be presumably observed in among wild animals. You might say that all these examples are contrary to the survival of a species. Yet is homosexuality any exception to that claim? Why only sanction homosexuality and condemn all other actions that can be observed in the animal kingdom?

I also find legalizing same-sex marriage problematic (though I would be in favor allowing same-sex couples to enter into a social contract that would allow them to share all the financial benefits of an opposite-sex couple yet not define it as marriage; a civil union, of sorts) mainly because if marriage can be redefined to suit a disenfranchised minority, then why shouldn´t we allow incestuous couples to marry, or polygamous couples, or infantile couples, or animal-person "couples". Wouldn´t we be discriminating against those groups if we only allow monogamous same-sex and opposite-sex marriages?

[tofee35]

Nah, man. The only thing that matters is that you believe that Jesus Christ was the savior. That's really all you need to believe.

But what's next? I believe in Jesus Christ, sure, but now what? If I believe in Christ, then I must believe in the revelation of God that speaks of Christ and his teachings. I cannot just believe without accepting divine revelation. I also cannot just believe without right reason. Sure faith must come first, but I must use more than my will to believe, I must use right reason. To believe without right reason makes you an extremist willing to crash a plane into a building or parade around town saying how God hates fags. Believing in Christ is one thing, but we must also believe in God's revelation that tells us about Christ. And if we believe in this revelation then we must learn the whole deposit of revelation and try to understand how God is leading us back to himself. My point being, believe in Christ is one thing, but only believing doesn't get you very far.
[/quote]

Everybody's interpretation of Biblical teachings vary. But, all Christians share one thing in common: they believe Jesus is the savior. That is the basis of Christianity. You don't have to believe every story about him.

[the Catfishman]

edit: @omega.

You still don't say why it's damaging, all the other examples you give of stuff that goes on in the animal kingdom are harmful (rape incest), homosexuality isn't.. so that argument doesn't really work there.
And for the slippery slope argument... I think most people would be fine with other kinds of marriages..as long as they are not harmful to others (which is not the case for animal-person (at least you can't prove it isn't), incestuous or infantile marriage).

[Sigz]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

[7StringedBeast]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

If humans are doing this, then it is natural.  It is a natural part of life.  People tend to forget that humans are natural creatures. 

Also, it doesn't matter if other animals do it or not, Humans do it and humans are not like other animals.  To compare humans to other animals out there in terms of sexuality is pretty stupid. 

Also, someone said something about gay people being "cured" I'm pretty sure that is a bunch of bullshit religious propoganda.  Gay people don't need to be cured of anything. 

[Omega]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

Hypothetically, let´s imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?

[7StringedBeast]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

Hypothetically, let´s imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?

Regardless of Sigz answer... What the fuck does that have to do with homosexuality?  How is that even in the same ballpark of thinking?

[Omega]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

If humans are doing this, then it is natural.  It is a natural part of life.  People tend to forget that humans are natural creatures. 

So if a tribe in a remote tropical island practices ceremonial cannibalism and necrophilia, are these actions, then, "natural" because humans are performing them?

Also, it doesn't matter if other animals do it or not, Humans do it and humans are not like other animals.  To compare humans to other animals out there in terms of sexuality is pretty stupid. 

What do you mean "humans are not like other animals"? In an atheistic worldview, you can bet your life that we are nothing more than relatively advanced primates - animals - who have simply developed an illusory standard of what is right and wrong, obligatory and prohibited, natural and unnatural.

[Sigz]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

Hypothetically, let´s imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?

Yeah, I don't see why not, as weird as it is.

But like 7string said, what the hell does cannablism and necrophilia have to do with homosexuality?

[Omega]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

Hypothetically, let´s imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?

Regardless of Sigz answer... What the fuck does that have to do with homosexuality?  How is that even in the same ballpark of thinking?

Need I really draw the painfully obvious logical parallel here, or are you just yanking my chain? I´ll allow Sigz to respond and then I´ll address this comment...

[Omega]

I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.

Hypothetically, let´s imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?

Yeah, I don't see why not, as weird as it is.

But like 7string said, what the hell does cannablism and necrophilia have to do with homosexuality?

Isn´t the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage that it is a consenting, private action that infringes upon no one else´s liberty?

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Let's go ahead and get this out on the table.

Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.

But, I am interested in the current discussion on human nature.  If something is in human nature, does it mean that ______ natural act is an acceptable act, all of the time?

[Sigz]

Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?

[Omega]

Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?

By using the argument for allowing same-sex marriage, any action that is consented to by individuals, performed in private, and does not infringe upon anyone else´s liberty would be permissible. This would imaginably include cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.

[Omega]

Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.

I don´t think this even amounts to an argument.

[7StringedBeast]

Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?

By using the argument for allowing same-sex marriage, any action that is consented to by individuals, performed in private, and does not infringe upon anyone else´s liberty would be permissible. This would imaginably include cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.

Same sex marriage should be allowed not JUST because its 2 private individuals consenting not affecting people's liberties.  To use this as its own argument is RIDICULOUS.  It should be allowed because its 2 people who love each other and want to be treated the same as anyone else in society.  They just want equality and why shouldn't they get it?  Why in the hell would we stop people who love each other from being able to be married? 

You can talk all about the sanctity of marriage, but don't forget how often "christians" and other religious people get divorced/cheat/ whatever. 

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.

I don´t think this even amounts to an argument.

I'll flesh out what I mean.  It seems to me that the two subjects we're discussing are very much different entirely.  I don't understand how cannibalism/necrophilia=homosexuality.

And your argument isn't making it any more clear to me either.

[Sigz]

Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?

By using the argument for allowing same-sex marriage, any action that is consented to by individuals, performed in private, and does not infringe upon anyone else´s liberty would be permissible. This would imaginably include cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.

I'm not seeing the problem here.

1) Who cares if two people get off eating each other?

2) That's hardly the argument for same-sex marriage. The larger reason is simply that there's no reason not to allow it. Arguing that it should be illegal because it's unnatural is a fallacy, and any religious argument is irrelevant because policy should not be based on religion. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexual couples are worse parents even in the most ideal situations, and there's no reason to believe that gay marriage has any larger affect on society.

[ehra]

Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.

I don´t think this even amounts to an argument.

Comparing marrying someone of the same sex to fucking and eating a corpse doesn't amount to an argument either, but here we are.

You'd come close to having a point if there were a law that allowed one group of people to screw corpses but prevented others. But I'm pretty sure there isn't, which makes your attempted comparison retarded.

[kirksnosehair]

Did someone really just compare homosexuality to necrophilia ? 

[Omega]

Anyone who thinks I have made the argument homosexuality = necrophilia is confused.

[7StringedBeast]

Anyone who thinks I have made the argument homosexuality = necrophilia is confused.

Just forget about that whole argument.  You said that based off of a misnomer regarding people who are for same sex marriage.  The argument you think that people are using as their sole argument, is not really the sole or even the front running argument.  You sir are extremely confused.

[Omega]

2) That's hardly the argument for same-sex marriage. The larger reason is simply that there's no reason not to allow it. Arguing that it should be illegal because it's unnatural is a fallacy, and any religious argument is irrelevant because policy should not be based on religion.

Replace same-sex marriage in this statement with consensual necrophilia or consensual cannibalism. Why should we deny any activity that is consented to and does not infringe upon anyone´s liberty?

[ehra]

You're attempting to argue that allowing homosexuality means there's also no reason we shouldn't allow necrophilia or cannibalism, as if they're similar enough concepts that allowing the former while not allowing the later would be contradictory. There's no confusion.

[Omega]

You're attempting to argue that allowing homosexuality means there's also no reason we shouldn't allow necrophilia or cannibalism, as if they're similar enough concepts that allowing the former while not allowing the later would be contradictory. There's no confusion.

Why should we deny any activity that is consented to and does not infringe upon anyone´s liberty?

[ehra]

I'm glad you agree that same sex marriages should be allowed.

[kirksnosehair]

Anyone who thinks I have made the argument homosexuality = necrophilia is confused.

2) That's hardly the argument for same-sex marriage. The larger reason is simply that there's no reason not to allow it. Arguing that it should be illegal because it's unnatural is a fallacy, and any religious argument is irrelevant because policy should not be based on religion.

Replace same-sex marriage in this statement with consensual necrophilia or consensual cannibalism. Why should we deny any activity that is consented to and does not infringe upon anyone´s liberty?

You may not be making the argument that homosexuality = necrophilia, but you and I both know what you're doing here.  Maybe stop now before you dig in deeper with this kind of silly comparison, eh? 

[7StringedBeast]

No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.