homosexuality

I wouldn't think that there would be a species of animal that was exclusively homosexual, afterall, how many of them would there be??

 

you are sick sick sick. ;P

i think homosexuality is something god built in to the animals (including humans) of this world as a form of population control and sometimes as a way for people to bond when members of the opposite sex are unavailable.

 

edited to remove content.

 

Because of their placement in the text, their content, and understanding ancient Hebraic customs and culture.

Moral principle falling back to the principles of not committing adultery and coveting. This is universal. If it isn't then the principle upon which the law is built is.

Part of gentile religious practices of the time included shaving beards and cutting hair. This is a cultural law and does not directly apply to us. However, the principle DOES. Do not carry the appearance of one who follows another God. This is based on worshipping only one God and it prevents confusion. On a modern level, this would say "do not dress as a witchdoctor or as a Muslim or as a Hindu."

Probably cultural. I am not an expert on OT law, so I will not know EVERY answer. However, in this case, it doesn't seem to have the weight of the moral laws (don't murder, don't lie, etc.) but doesn't feel like a ceremonial law. It is possible, however, that touching a woman who is menstruating could be a source of ceremonial uncleanness. As such, it would be a ceremonial law which was fulfilled by Christ and no longer directly applies.

Ceremonial. It was fulfilled under Christ and no longer applies. You can follow the law, but is no longer necessary because we are cleansed by Christ, not by what we eat and don't eat.

Again, this is cultural. Are you sure that it says 'cotton-polyester blends'? I would guess that this has to do with not blurring lines between the nation of Isreal and surrounding nations. Since Israel was a theocracy, keeping them distinct was VERY important since blending cultural lines could easily lead to breaching of the moral law.

Cultural, but the moral principle is that we should not blend or blur the distinction between the sexes. Men and women are ontologically equal. However, we are completely separate anatomically and psychologically. This is good. Our culture now is more relaxed, but the principle remains the same, do not blur the lines between what it is and means to be male and female.

Just about anything dealing with the Church is ceremonial. All ceremonial laws are fulfilled in Christ.

Cultural. But the underlying priciple is one stated time and time again in scripture. Sex is a unique and precious bond reserved for a husband and wife.

Can you provide an exact quote with references and context? I have not read this one.

In Hebraic times, other religions would get tattoos as religious sybols and devotion to their Gods. It was not mere "body art." Again, the underlying principle goes all the way back to "worship only God" and "don't create confusion." Now would it be a sin to get a tattoo at all? I don't think that argument could be made from this scripture.

Don't know. Could be any of them, but I would bet that it is cultural.

Cultural. Women of other cultures left their heads uncovered. Again, the supporting moral principle is "prevent gender lines from being blurred." I would also note that men are commanded to respect and care for their wives.

Slavery was a common practice in that day. Now, this law doesn't apply to us (mostly because we do not have slaves). However, this sentiment is echoed in the NT and expounded upon. Slaves are to obey as Christ was a servant; Masters are to love and care for their slaves as Christ would.

They don't all have to be. However, the moral principles which underpin cultural law DO apply to us. One of the ones mentioned is gender diversity. Do not blur the lines of gender. This is consistent between the Old and New Testament. Homosexuality doesn't blur gender lines, it typically shatters them.

Corithians and Romans.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Agreed. However, if moral principles are outlined in Scripture, shouldn't we follow them? Homosexuality is pretty clearly condemned.

I couldn't say for certain, but just because you cannot find a logical deductive reason for it to be wrong doesn't make it okay. From certain philosophical viewpoints, something is wrong if everone doing it would lead to the end of society. If everyone lied every time, then society would end. Same thing for murder. If every person was homosexual, then society would end within a generation. So, there you go. There is a logical reason why it is wrong.

Eating pork led to ceremonial uncleanness. Ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. They are completely superfluous. I don't think that I am pulling it out of context. The passage deals directly with moral wrongdoings (which are universal, and apply to everyone thoughout history) and the admonition against homosexuality is dead in the middle of it. I am reading it in context.

I don't let the level of repulsion I feel dictate whether I recognize what is wrong. The topics of premarital sex or murder do not particularly offend me or make me queasy, but I recognize that both are sins. While I might find, as a male, that homosexuality between males to be more disgusting than between females, I do not somehow condemn male homosexuality as being somehow "worse" than female homosexuality.

First, you are begging the question. Your proof that was centered around God creating homosexuals. I countered that God also makes rapists and adulterers and thieves. You then came back and assumed that sexuality is determined by God ALONE and that therefore it is not a sin. You assumed the truth of the very thing you were trying to prove.

Second, God doesn't make someone a rapist, but He did make someone with tendencies that COULD be used for rape. The rapist doesn't necessarily have to act on those tendencies. As such, he is accountable for his own actions and it is a choice. I could make the same argument for homosexuality. Even IF it is genetic (which I DO NOT grant), a person can choose not to act on those impulses in the same way that we can choose not to act on our impulses to hurt someone who threatens us or to lie when we get into trouble in order to escape punishment.

Homosexuality is more than just one male dominating another male. If a creature is homosexual in the sense that we mean when we speak of human homosexuality, then the issue of sexuality must be one or the other. An animal that mounts a male then mounts a female is not homosexual, but is bisexual at best. You might respond with the idea that some animals are not monogomous. I would respond the way that I did. In order to prove that homosexuality exists, you have to have more than mere mounting. You have to have actual copulation (i.e. the male must ejaculate either on or in another male). Without copulation, you just as easily have a dominance issue (which is *social*, not sexual). Also, to show that homosexuality exists, you must have continued rejection of the opposite sex. Even if copulation occurs between males, there must be a continued rejection of the female species by one of the two males. If the males copulate with each other and then with a dozen females, well... that isn't homosexuality. It is bisexuality.

Also, if it were genetic (even though it is evolutionary suicide), then it would be expressed in a predictable, repeatable pattern throughout all populations and cultures. The fact is, it is not. More affluent, larger nations tend (but not always by any means) to have a noticably larger percentage of homosexuals.

If you say that it is simply because the culture allows it, then you are begging the question. If society can stiffle something so powerful as sex drive, then it would be safe to say that homosexuality is more of a cultural phenomenon than a natural (genetic) one. Not only that, I can argue (based on the same data) that instead of being genetic, it is a social behavior which is reinforced by the larger cultures. It comes down to "nature vs. nurture" once again. Neither side can assert with any real certainty as to what the "cause" of homosexuality is.

Now we have the crux of the matter. Why would God make someone "wrong"? You assume that it is genetic without any evidence that it is genetic in humans. But, I will answer the question anyway. Even if God makes someone with homosexual tendencies, they are still free to make their own choices. People are born with many different challenges to overcome. Some are born with violent tendencies or with an inherent inability to think as quickly as other people. When a person is born with violent tendencies, do we excuse his brutality? No. Why not? Because they have a choice. When someone is born with below average intelligence, do we excuse his refusal to learn because its harder for him? No. He is still held accountable for learning some basic things. If you equate homosexuality to being born blind or deaf or missing organs, then you are equating homosexuality to a disorder. If you say that someone has no control over their own sexuality in order to excuse them from moral culpability, then you have equated their sexuality with something more akin to a disorder than a personal choice. My position of choice allows them the dignity of determining their own actions with the unfortunate side effect of being responsible for those actions.

Okay, here you go. Assuming that we are talking about the Christian God, then here you go:

God appointed human sexuality between a man and a woman.
The appointment is good because it is a direct reflection and runs parallel to God's own nature as the source of goodness.
Anything that runs contrary to God's nature is morally wrong.
Homosexuality runs contrary to the appointment that human sexuality is between a man and a woman.
Homosexuality, therefore, runs contrary to God's nature.
Homosexuality, therefore, is morally wrong.

 

Alsharad,

Thank you for your very interesting and intelligent response to what I said. I've just read it and I'm going to reply another time as it's late, but I will reply because I feel like, for the first time in my life, I'm actually making some real progress in exploration my of this issue. You obviously really know your stuff, and a lot of the things you have said have made me re-question my position on the issue.

I also must compliment your intelligence because you're probably the only person I've ever met who understands what begging the question means! (Although, whether I begged the question remains to be seen!)

 

I believe that if Jesus were alive, he would not agree with the hate put to homosexuals. They are people, too, and the conservative right is discriminating against them. I believe that we should allow homosexuals the same rights that we have.

 

What rights do we have that homosexuals don't?

 

To marry the ones we love. To have the benefits associated with that. To have those hospital visitation rights of family. To fight for their country while being who they really are. To be recognized by religiouns everywhere as united in the eyes of God. Do you really think God would deny people their happiness?

 

However, God uses methods that humans claim to be wrong and against God. Who has the wisdom to judge the ways of the Lord or search his paths? Accept that whay you do is what you were made to do with Faith that it is for the greater good, for you do not think as God does, and God knows the reason for all actions, even if you don't.

Your lack of knowledge necessitates faith, instead of judgement.

 

If ~

• Jesus said God is love, then love must be obeyed. No matter what.
• The kingdom of god is within you, then god's directives are strictly personal motives that must be obeyed. No matter what.
• 1 John 21 is truth, then the above is also truth.
• Jesus taught a new gospel for salvation, then the old testament is irrelevant.

 

i pretty much agree, except from the standpoint of understanding at least some of the political and cultural history of the laws that pervade western culture.

 

you can't force your beliefs on another religion. i do, however, believe that no religion has the right to force a non-believer to conform to it's laws. religion has no place dictating the rights of a state's citizens, but it also has no right to dictate to any religion what that religion should and should not recognize as the will of god.

 

I think that the "will of god" is more often than not simply the belief of some people.

 

Ummm... sorry, but that right is denied to everyone. What if I love my sister? Don't have the "right" to marry her. What if I love two people the same amount? Can I marry them BOTH? Nope. To say that homosexuals are denied the right to marry those they love is somehow descriminatory is ludicrous. We are ALL equally "denied" the right to marry who we love based on certain criteria which are applied to everyone.

So now benifits are a right? Careful with the implications of what you are saying.

On the hospital visitation rights, I partially agree with you, but for different reasons. Regarding military, I don't see how being able to announce to the world at large that you are gay somehow changes who you are as a person.

That's a pretty tall order. Not even heterosexuals have that right now.

Yes. As a parent, I have to deny happiness ALL THE TIME. But, my kids are better for it. Do you think God would allow anything that makes people happy (including theft or assault)?

 

Except that religion and law are very close. It could be argued that the two are nearly inseparable. Why?

Morality.

Law codifies morality. Every piece of legislation is telling us how we should act towards others. The definition of a right is "an obligation that society owes toward an individual." That we should honor those obligations is moral. Morality is how we should interact with other people. That is what the law codifies.
And religion does the same thing. It tells us how we should act and think. Do you see how they fit? Religion tells us how we should behave and what our motivations should be. Law simply codifies our behavior.

Where they differ is how they relate to God. Law strictly deals with human relationships. Religion oversees how humans and God relate.

So this is how I see it. The law will be affected by anything that affects morality (including religion and philosophical thought). This is good and the nature of the law. The law can, should, and does tell you not what is permissible behavior among humans, but what is impermissible. The law cannot tell us how we relate to God, however. That is why law has no overriding influence on religion.

 

why is there such a dd standerd. devorce is a sin but how many people who call them selfs christian do it and are not condemed . if they marry some one els and have sex with them they are sinning. so people should get off there high horse and stop juging others for they will be.

 

I do not know. I know that I will not ever divorce my wife. Other people have divorced, some are in the process, and many more will divorce. Does that mean that I do not see it as a sin? I do. Do I hate them for it? No. Do I recognize homosexuality as a sin? Yes. Do I heat them for it? No.

There is a difference in the legal standpoint because legally, it is two different issues. Marriage is the terms of an agreement, divorce is the proceedings to legally absolve that relationship. Though they both relate to the relationship, they are two different legal processes and, as such, can be governed by two different sets of legislation.

From a societal viewpoint, I do not understand why there is a double standard. I think that a lot of it has to do with laziness, selfishness, and rebellion. It is important to remember that not too long ago, divorce was looked down upon in the same way that homosexuality was. The double standard is new.