I know that in some religious beliefs, it is a sin to be homosexual. Well, can you tell me why? I want to know why some people believe it's a sin, other than the bible says it is (for example, killing is a sin because it says so in the bible and it just isn't morally and socially acceptable to take a life. It has other reasons than just the bible and because God said so. How would homosexuality fit into that?)

I personally think that homosexuality is not a sin becuase it doesn't make since to make it a commandment to keep a person from someone they really care about.

How does the bible say that it's a bad thing? That would also give me an idea to the sintuation.

Don't try to look for logic in the Bible. You'll never find any.

Some people, though, are just uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, without even being fervently religious. Maybe this discomfort has always existed, and someone finally decided to make homosexuality a sin.

There is quite a lot of logic in the Bible, Che, I don't understand where you'd get the idea there isn't (and don't quote this single sentence without including what I'm saying next) . Sure, if you have limited knowledge of it, or only choose to interpret every single last thing as an actual event, rather than metaphorically, or you fail to grasp the time in which it was written (kinda like judging Marx using today's standards of capitalism) you're going to say that, but not if you look at it unintelligently.

Also, to Curst, saying its "socially unacceptable" is just about as solid a ground to stand on as saying "its in the Bible." Both are begging the question "so what?" They aren't tenable positions to hold on to.

The Bible makes various references to homosexuality going against nature. Which makes sense, from a 1st century point of view. Life is meant to continue, homosexuality in a biological sense has no purpose. Thus it is against nature.

Again, from a 1st century point of view, it is perfectly sensible and logical. As to why people hold onto it today, well," God said it, so it must be true."

I agree with Deltasix that a lot of the events in the bible have to be metephorical, and that in a survival-of-the-fittest view homosexuality is bad. It's also easy to understand why people would fear gays in the 1st century. But we go a bit past nature with our intellect and whatnot. Perhaps the fear of gays has been left over from prehistoric times, an old survival tactic that isn't really needed today.

I also agree with Che Guevara. There is no logic in tales such as Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark when it comes to literally interpereting them.

I do not see the bad thing on it. How would it stop reproduction? Not every single man in the world is homosexual, and surely there will remain to be heterosexual men forever. In the case of ethics and other people not liking it, they should also stand in the other person's shoes: maybe homosexuals do dislike heterosexual persons, but they have to stand them only because they are the "majority"

I agree with homosexuality and I look forward to it being normal and acceptable, since all people has the same right, and they did not do anything wrong or voluntary to go homosexual :)

Obviously I don't see it as a bad thing either, I'm posting possible thought processes, I don't expect anyone in their right mind to apply them today.

Homosexualls aren't a threat to society at all. So why treat them badly? I hope all of this greif about gays will just go away and that they'll be treated equally without hassle or prejudice, but something tells me that that won't happen for a REALLY long time.

It's also a cultural matter.

Here in Québec, one of our most popular politicians is a homosexual, and if someone important (minister, journalist, radio talk-show host, etc.) comments against it, it causes a province-wide scandal and the person is accused of homophobia. But in many other countries, to admit being gay would be a political suicide.

Wow. :o It would take a miracle for that to happen in the U.S. (at least where i live.....)

Homosexuality, which is is considered unholy according to God and the bible. Perhaps I can pull something up on it. Here you go:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=16715

I found this to be interesting, I think this might be the section of the bible you are looking for..

I recently read something that is more specific in some ways and less in others. It runs something like:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death."
-Leviticus 20:13

Anyway, onto the topic a bit more.
Firstly, as I have said somewhere else I think, I don't think it's a sin to be homosexual. Because, homosexuality is just a way of the mind, it's not even necessarily what one's mind wants (although it can be too), I think it's also what one wants subconsciously. People don't choose, I think.

I agree with Delta in that the problem with homosexuality is that it in no way reproduces another human being. Also, there's always been a big fear of gays for... well, ever.
Not that I think homosexuality is a sin, 'cuz it ain't, but at the same time, I don't think it's "right" to be homosexual.

Here's an idea, though.
Most of you believe that homosexuality isn't a choice-- that it's something one is born with. Would that make it genetic?
Assuming it is genetic, then how would it be passed down from generation to generation, considering that gays don't reproduce?
And if being gay or not isn't emblazoned upon out DNA, then where the hell does it come from?

:huh: Good question...

I think, it probably just happens... not in the way of being passed on genetically, but some slight differences in how one's mind works. I hadn't thought of it like that before, but I think this is how it goes.
Maybe it has something to do with glands?

I'd say thats wrong. Ancient Rome and Greece didn't seem to be that fearful of homosexuality.

Yeah, most Romans would have been considered bisexual by today's standards. It was considered OK for a young boy and an old man to have a sexual relationship.

Please read Leviticus in context. These were Jewish laws and practices that are almost entirely ignored by present day Christians... except for when it comes to condemning homosexuals... then they want to take that one part and ignore the rest. <_<

Yeah, don't we all want to be like Roman use to be... not.

Believe it or not, there is such a thing as sexual immorality (and not just from a religious point of view).

It’s not just bible-bashing Christians who think so.

I have always suspected that homosexuality was genetic, or something like that. However, many people i have argued with over the internet argue (in the defence of it being a choice, that is) that it isn't genetic. I still think it's a born thing, but i don't exactly know why.........

That's the problem with any kind of 'holy text': many people just pay attention to the quotes they prefer and they ignore the rest. And often, the ignored part is the most important one.

I agree. But still, things like pedophilia or zoophilia will always make me sick, no matter how 'natural' it is.

Sorry; I didn't know that. :blush:
I didn't, as you may guess, get it straight from the bible; I just read it somewhere else.

I think I'll join the "I accept but do not endorse" camp. Obviously I encourage those who believe themselves to be homosexual to carry on with their dreams and I encourage swapping and changing the sex of your partner if you see that to be something you'd like to do but don't endorse it as a uniform life style if you understand.

Ancient Rome was converted to Modern Rome and it adopted Christian law later in its imperial life. Following this chain, you'd imagine Rome with its worldwide influence would condemn it throughout the Empire and this could be one of the causes of anti homosexuality that we see today.

To Che, to say there is no logic in the bible is very true. Even looking at it in a metaphorical context we can only turn the tales into the stuff of myths and that ruins the entire base of the faith right? Christians I imagine like to believe that their god and its offspring/followers can do magical things. Even looking at things in their metaphorical context- the numerous translations make the Bible like a bad photocopy- slowly fading away and losing definition and becoming fuzzy each time you photocopy the photocopy. So therefore even looking at things in context do not aid the Bible in any way to make more sense.

However, Delta has a great point of looking at things in context. To those of you who cannot see why homosexuality could ever have been wrong, it's a benefit and a hindrance. A benefit because you are a modern human being and you're tolerant which is brilliant. However on the other side, tolerant people usually are intolerant of the intolerant- so failing to look at things as they were in the 1st century brings you prejudice against those people and that leads to significant problems (for the sake of on-topicness I won't list). In the first century, the world was not as densely populated as it is today. Health care was appalling and I imagine it could've been very difficult to produce offspring as it was (dirt and other such things could very easily cause infections and kill child and mother at birth) so they'd've needed all of the heterosexual men & women they could get. Today, we can go to any bar and hopefully pick up a guy/girl to go mate with. In those days, travel wasn't quite as easy as starting the ignition so the "genepool" wasn't quite as big.

So, I can see why homosexuality was wrong then, but not why the Christian Fundamentalists haven't caught up.

This is very true. Not to mention that even within Jewish interpretation this isn't exactly a very study thing to cite.

Agreed. The Bible is a very nice book, and it can be twisted and turned to make it say almost anything you want it to say.

I do wonder, if we continue on this line of thought between population and sexuality, need for one to increase causing the repression of another, do you think that eventually homosexuality would be promoted due to overpopulation?

Abortion would be supported due to overpopulation faster than homosexuality. Just because you support homosexuality doesn't mean the number of homosexuals will increase, but if you incourage abortion enough where it's not seen as shameful or wrong it might cause the population to decrease. It would have to be pretty bad though...

Isn't that a happy thought :(

Delta brings about an interesting point- but I think governments would sooner use propaganda about the evils of having sex at 16 and then raising the age to 18 or 20...

Yes, so I heard; if I had been able to read the text straight from the Bible I would, but as I said, I picked it up somewhere else.
Still, I think the Bible certainly does have a lot of negative things to say about the matter.
So please don't think I was ignoring anything, I only got that bit I said without the rest.

I know it's a slightly different matter, but I feel that people shouldn't take into account what's being promoted, they should just do what they feel to be right.
And, in response to what I think you actually meant, I wouldn't say that that's the sort of thing a government (I presumed you meant a government) would do.

Probably.

I bring up the idea because I remember reading it in a Sci-Fi book years ago and being intrigued by it. Thats all ^_^

Logic? Logic is the evaluation of arguments and the determination of whether or not the premises support the conclusion.
Technically, you're right to say the Bible lacks logic. But that is only because it makes arguments for morality, drawing conclusions from its premises. It doesn't exactly evaluate itself and say if its arguments are bad or good. That is for others to do. But that isn't at all what you were saying by making that comment.
Now, whether it is logically valid or invalid (or strong/weak if you're talking about inductive arguments) is something that can be commented on and argued about, which is what you were trying to do.
Seriously, though, are you telling me that helping the homeless, giving food to the poor, essentially sacrificing yourself to help all humankind is illogical? Is it a bad idea to do so? If you think general selflessness is a bane upon humankind, then, yes, you could argue the Bible to be illogical (but trust me, it'd be a poor argument).
And I know I'm just being anal, but if you're going to get into a deep philosophical argument, you absolutely must know your language if you're to be taken seriously.

What are you talking about?
That's exactly what faith is: a belief in something that cannot be proven.
Quite frankly, once you prove something that requires faith, it is no longer appropriate to believe in it. And that is why I am so against the fundamentalist right. They are trying so doggedly to prove God objectively that they are essentially killing faith. God does not need to be proven.

There's quite a big difference between some sort of divine intervention and cheap magic tricks.
Christians (and most religions) like to believe that God is some fatherly figure who will look after you and protect you. Believing that God will keep you safe, and, on various occassions do miracles, is hardly a belief in magic.

Exactly, which is why we must evaluate the original Greek copy of the New Testament to truly understand the meaning of the Bible.

Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Jesus' message is quite simple: love thy neighbor, do good, act selflessly, and so forth. Although the means of telling those stories may change (and morons consistently remove Jesus from that original message to support their own evils), Jesus' message has always been consistent.
Yes, the Christian right has done some pretty damn awful things to taint what should be a beautiful religion, but you have to understand that their interpretation of the Bible is just plain wrong.


Back to one of my original questions, though.
If being homosexual is neuronal, genetic, or anything that is determined before birth, there must be some kind of way to trace it and discover what exactly is the cause of homosexuality. It may take a while to find it, but there if it's something a person is born with, it has to be coded upon their DNA. Either that, or God had something to do with it, but I doubt many of you would feel that way.
But assuming it's something already there when we are born, we can assume it is a hereditary trait, especially if it is genetic. Now, you could argue that it's a recessive trait (the dominant being heterosexuality, of course), and due to the subjugation of gays throughout history, it was able to be passed down, because if you were a gay man, and the penalty for being one was death, you'd absolutely want to have a wife and children to remove all doubt. If that is true, thanks to the modern psuedo-acceptance of gays, we should see them die out, as they are no longer being forced to stay 'in the closet' out of fear, and are, thus, no longer reproducing.
However, the idea that it is biological has one major flaw. What purpose does it serve on the evolutionary chain? The theory of evolution basically says that small changes occur over time in a species' genetic makeup help the induvidual procreate to benefit the entire species' chances of survival. Homosexuality does nothing of that sort. If you do not have sex to create a new being, your genes cannot be passed down, which would eventually destroy homosexuality. Small changes like that are supposed to help the individual, who then futher helps the species. But since that cannot happen with homosexuality, it is hard to believe that it is a genetic benefit.
I guess you could argue that homosexuality is part of the evolutionary chain to help with overpopulation, but as I've said many times, it will die out within the next couple of generations, as homosexuals are not reproducing.

Honestly, the more I've thought about it, the more I believe that homosexuality is a choice. Granted, I doubt it is much of a conscious choice, but I still feel it is not something decided before birth. Does that make it a sin? I don't think so.

Well, well , well. If it isn't my favorite biblical subject. Homosexuality and the bible.



Anyways for the most part the areas where it talks about homosexuality in the bible aren't too clear in what they mean and when looked at in the orginal languages they become very vague. Some of them have been used to condemn different acts in the past such as masturbation. Looking at the bible in context to when it was written and to whom it was written to is very important to understanding the bible.

It's kinda sad really. Most christians miss out on a meaningful relationship with god because they focus so much on something so insignificant in the eyes of god.


Oh and don't write-off magic in christianity so quickly.

There are three things you're forgetting in this argument:

1) Not all evolutionary mutations need necessarily to help the species. They just need to not hurt them. Example: Earlobes. We have them, and they're encoded on our DNA. How could small patches of skin at the base of our ears help us? It doesn't even help sound enter the ear canal, let alone perform any other function. But we have them because, while they didn't help our survival, they also didn't hurt us, so they remained.

2) Ever hear of "carriers"? If the gene is recessive, someone can have 1 dominant "heterosexual" allele (gene type) and one recessive "homosexual" allele. They'd be heterosexual, but able to have a genetically homosexual child by mating with another heterozygote (person with 1 dominant allele and one recessive one). There would be a 25% chance of their child having 2 recessive alleles and being genetically gay. There'd also be a 25% chance of their child having 2 hetero-alleles (just abbreviating now :) ), and a 50% chance of their child being a carrier as well (1 hetero-allele and 1 homo-allele). Thus, even with homosexuality being more and more accepted, it may not die out because there may be many carriers out there. Being carriers, they are not genetically homosexual, and thus can pass on the "homo-allele" gene to future generations.

3) This is all assuming that anything non-hereditary is a choice. Many types of cancer are not hereditary, yet they are chemical processes that are not always chosen. Perhaps there's a biochemical basis for this that has nothing to do with genes, hence they're not hereditary per se, yet still they're not a choice.

Anyway, just my 2 cents... or in this case, 3 cents, I guess :P

-IMP ;) :)

In fact, it would be good if half the men and women were homosexual. We need SOME type of population control... Kids already need to be adopted and people still spit out babies left and right knowing damn well that they can't afford it.. Instead, our fucking tax dollars get spent taking care of a baby that would probably have been better off aborted.

Anyways, Horgay for rays!!!

Farther blurring the gender roles doesn't solve anything.
Neither does killing every child before they're born.
Abstinence is population control or at the least using a condom.
And who are you do decide if an unborn child is "better off aborted"?
Yes, lets save money and kill the human lives...
Using your logic we might as well kill anyone who is inconvenient because mass murder is the obvious solution to population control...

I think in some cases, abortion is a bad idea, but in others, it can be the best option. I don't think abortion is always murder, if it's done before a certain point. Think about it: When do you consider an unborn baby a "living human"? As soon as they're conceived? So it is killing someone if a single-celled, newly-conceived "baby" is stopped from developing?

Also, think about this: If you know you can't afford the baby, it will most likely have a terrible life--if it lives at all. There are plenty of cases where, because the parents had a child they couldn't afford, the child dies from neglect and/or starvation. If you could prevent this via abortion, would you rather not? Would you rather put your child through an inevitable torturous life before dying young than preventing it from the beginning?

Anyway, this is getting off topic, so I'm going to stop here.

-IMP ;) :)

"As soon as they're conceived?" Absolutely. Even if it is an unplanned pregnancy or just an unwanted pregnancy, you still have no way to justify killing a life. Bad situation or not, there are many people who have to grow up and have a rough time. That’s life, and it’s not supposed to be fair. Oh, and again the solution to that is waiting until you're married before having sex. By then you’ve hopefully thought thinks through, and it's not an entirely unplanned pregnancy. When I say that, I mean one man and one woman representing both genders so the child learns the different roles of a male and female. No, I'm not saying women should all stay in the kitchen. I'm talking about what is normal behavior and what isn't. There is a line between masculine and feminine in every culture.

I'll point people to the title of the topic. No where does it say, "Lets debate abortion."

Accordingly, all further posts on that topic will be removed.

I just want to say this last thing since I didn't get to defend myself.
The one issue that makes me conservative in any way is spending my tax dollars on the babies of minorities. I'm tired of funding WIC and programs like that. If you can't afford a baby, don't have one. It's that simple.
_____________

Homosexuality = Not Bad.
The only reason that people could possibly want to reject homosexuality is because either (1) they are scared of it or (2) it is "against the bible".

(1) They need to get over it. How do they think homosexuals feel about heterosexuality? They are usually disgusted about it just as much as straight people are towards gays. Oh wait, they don't care about how the gay people feel because they are inferior to heterosexuals..

(2) Umm.. First Amendment anyone?

So you're saying someone with no religious belief wouldn't possibly say that they believe it is sexually immoral to be homosexual? But then for some reason objecting to something means you're in fear of it. Yeah that makes sense. Not. You also claim homosexuals are disgusted with heterosexuals. Where do you get this? And who is claiming homosexuals "are inferior to heterosexuals"? Inferior at what exactly?

I think that there are probably many non-religious people out there that are strongly against homosxuality, they probably think it's a threat to society in some way. Religion doesn't always have to do with the matter, but usually does.

I just want to come back to this for a minute - I thought that everything written in the Bible was considered to relatively devout Christians to be The Truth?
I mean, I know that there are plenty of Christians and such who think that homosexuality is acceptable, but I still always had the impression that the Bible was always correct from their viewpoint anyway?
Now, it seems I was probably wrong in thinking that.

Also, are there any other parts of the Bible that are generally considered as wrong, too?

I'd assume that most heterosexual males think it to be wrong because it's against their natural desire: i.e. that they are attracted to females and not males.

The logic there is not the same: homosexuality does not involve killing anyone, whereas your comparison did.

They are not considered wrong. They are fullfilled.


Although some people like to make up lame excuses to enforce certain laws by saying the law is split 3 different ways and the moral aspect of the laws are still enforced.

The New Testament rejects most of the laws of the Old Testament.
Why would Christianity put in something "outdated" like the Old Testament into the Bible? Because you have to understand where you've been to understand where you are.

Ok, so I think that the religious contexts of the biblical account of the anti-gay position, have been covered. Many have debated in "strangly" inaccurate detail the account of the hereditary link of homosexual behahavior. Since either no other sexual minority member signed up to answer this question or there are none here, I will take it on, becuase I have a background in Gay studies.

Ok...Where does "homosexuality" come from?

The better question is "where does sexuality and sexual preference come from?"

This was my answer to another topic on this board. To build on this, I think we have to take into account the modern vs. ancient view of homosexuality. And the multi-cultural considerations as well.

The modern understanding of sexuality, is based on the fact that straight white men, have defined what sexuality means. The word and identity of "Gay" and the idea of a seperate "Gay culture" is the creation of heterosexuals. The construct divides people into 2 categories: Heterosexual and no heterosexual; notice how this heterosexual perspective creates the idea of "homosexuality" as a "Seperate" exception: not normal, the opposite, the anti, the negation of the hetero norm, in a effect straight is good, and gay is evil. Deep within the construct is this value. This construct however, has only given people 2 ways of thinking: the straight, or not straight view of themselves.

In the same way that white people have defined black people, and men have defined women, Hetersexuals, have defined homosexuals.

Prior, to the 12th century, the Catholic church had not taken a postion on homosexual behavior, because the church had been founded on the ideas of St. Augustine, whom had not made sexuality a major issue. It was infact the St. Thomas Aquinas, who in his doctirine, had made the aristotelian, teleological postion important. Teleology says that homosexuality serves no purpose because is it not part of "natural order." Remember that the aristotelian tradition is notably critisized for its Tyranny of Perfection, which attempts to hold all people, to an ideal of perfect form, which according to Teleology would be that which homosexuality is dis-ordered and is thus immoral. It was not until the catholic church adopted this view, that it actually took an official anti-gay position. Remember that during the ancient period, that while most men and women did marry, they also had same-sex sex. But they considered themselves heterosexual, what we would call, Bisexual. But they thought nothing of it, becuase it was it not questioned or considered a problem.

In many culture around the world, from africa, to asia, europe and the americas, have had cultures, where homosexual behavior was either "normal" or actually "celebrated." It is only the modern west, permanently entrenched by this christian (actually aristotelian) view of sexuality, that says that homosexual behavior is "wrong" or "bad."

So what?

Well, as I had that about the many factors of actual sexuality earlier, this social constuct has remained, even after the many social change movements against racism and sexism. Homophobia is extremely intrinsic in our culture, even for people who claim to be tolerant of "other" lifestyles. The greater realization may be this: the human condition is enormous, encompassing all human behaviors, on one platter. Society and history have held up some aspects as good, and others evil, depending on the power structure of the place and time in history. In truth, it may be that deep within the genome, that humanity, like our primate cousin, the benobo, is bisexual (in modern terminology), and that this basic template is this shaped by the other factors: Fetal development, experiences, social constructs, individuality, and other regulating genes.

Each of us is a sexual individual, which our own personal set of prefences. In of themselves they are not good or bad, they are part of our existence. Our nature lies beyond good and evil.