homosexuality

I give up. I'm just gonna think that it's wrong, or rather incorrect, (meaning it opposes natural law) I'm still don't have anything against homosexuals i simply won't partake. from the movie In & Out- "the body is made up of in holes, and out holes. Your supposed to put stuff in the in holes and out the holes."

 

You don't have to be homosexual to not consider it a sin...

Funny that you reference a movie about a gay teacher when talking about homosexuality opposing natural law.

 

I think it has to do with sodom and gomorrah or something. that's where the word sodomy came from. appearantly there were so many homosexuals there that Lot (some bible dude that lived there and was rescued by angels) was seduced by his daughters because no men would sleep with them and they wanted kids.

 

Huck,
I would never, ever attempt to argue the theological point of view about anything, with anyone, especially with you. You are much more knowledgable about the Bible, etc., than I am. I think I did find some interesting sources that counter the idea, but I have no doubt that you can produce countless more URL's, proving me wrong. Even though I don't think we ever agree, I respect your ability to provide intelligent arguments and produce resources backing up your point of view, at incredible speeds. Do you do research for a living?
Back to homosexuality, while I clearly understand your religious views on it, how do you feel about homosexuals in general. Do you condemn them? Do you think they can convert? Do you think homosexual activity should be illegal? etc etc...
As a queer, I would appreciate your point of view, just for the education of it, whether pro or con. You will not offend me, so don't hold back...

 

i have no problems with homosexuals i know some very nice people who are gay, and in the same way i know some very nice people who have premarital sex, very nice people who get drunk off their tits every night and very nice people who couldn't give a fuck about jesus.


all these people are sinning and either don't care for jesus, or at least are not repenting from their sin, but they are all my friends

 

Story time!

the people of sodom and ghonnoreah tried to rape Lot's freinds.
these two guys rock up at Sodom one day and Lot say 'hey menigger' and theyre like 'yo, you mind if we set up camp here in the street?' and hes like 'nar man, err you dont wanna do that' 'why?' 'hey who cares you know, why dont you just come chill at my pad for the night' 'awesome!' 'yeh man we can bake some cakes caus its my turn on the cooking roster tonight' 'dude tehres two of us you know' 'yeh man'

then when they were eating their fresh cakes (with no leaven of course!) they heard a knock on the door, and lots like 'fuckin hell' caus he knew it was people wanting to fuck these two hot europeans.
So the people outside go "bring them out so that we may have intimacies with them" , and lot sniggered and theyre like 'what do you find humerous?' and he sniggered again and theyre like 'by chance is there some sort of comical perception you would like to put forth to us people so that we may partake in the festive laughter in addition to yourself?'
He offered for them to rape his daughers but they wanted some foreign ass. In fact, every single person in the town came for some action, and surrounded Lot's house (including babies, toddlers and the elderly!). his freinds, who convinently happened to be angels, cast a mystic spell of blindness on all of the people so that they could escape.
then lot and hsi daughters ran off, and God destroyed Sodom for their peoples crimes, and Gomorrah jsut for the sake of it, caus they were near by and also probably enjoed sex.
When they escaped, his daughters were really horny so they got theri dad drunk to have sex with him.

so you see, the people of sodom were actually jsut horny bisexuals whod already done their rounds around town and wanted to rape the angels (caus angels would be hot)

as if someone shouldnt rewrite the bible in that style..

 

No, but I do try to stay abreast of various "hot button" issues. With all due respect, I find the pro-gay revisionist biblical arguments to be very intellectualy dishonest.

I think that homsexuals, like any of the rest of us sinners, can be brought to repentance and be delivered from sin through genuine faith in Christ. I don't hesitate to say that homosexual conduct is sinful, but I don't condemn homosexuals as individuals. I don't think they're private behavior should be criminalized, but I don't think it should be positively affirmed, either. I don't want to turn this into another "gay marriage" debate, though.

I think I provided you with this link in a private message. It does a good job of address why homosexuality is wrong:

http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/issues/tomschmidt.html

 

so hold up.

its a sin because its not natural?as in its a choice not something your born with?


what happens if science proves that homosexuality is in fact a gene within the body??

do we just deny that and still say homosexuality is a product of choice ans not natural order?



that's just the thing that confuses me somewhat. surely if its apparent from birth that one is gay, how is it not natural? and i do not mean natural in the sense of, majority=natural, minority=unnatural if you get me.

 

ohhhh stop it!

 

s

 

can man + man = love?

I believe it can...

""Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.""​

""A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city “both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception” and demanded that the visitors be brought out “so that we might know them.” (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.

There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were “the sin of Sodom.” (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.​

It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin.""

""Although the traditional interpretation of the Sodom story fails as an argument against homosexuality, there are several other Old Testament passages that do condemn homosexual acts. Again, it should be noted that these passages do not deal with same-sex orientation nor is there any reference to genital love between lesbian or gay persons.""​

(Matthew 19:10-12) Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage that Jesus said “some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake.” Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being “born eunuchs” are the people we call lesbian or gay.

Episcopal priest Dr. Tom Horner has written that the Gospels imply in two places that Jesus' attitude toward lesbians and gays would not have been hostile. (Jonathan Loved David, p. 122) The first is found in the story of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. (Matthew 8:5-13) The word used for the servant is “pais,” which in the Greek culture referred to a younger lover of an older, more powerful or educated man. Clearly, the story demonstrates an unusually intense love, and Jesus' response was wholly positive

​

 

Well said.

At least, He would be if I believed in Him.

 

i think the problem arises in the lack of religious evolution. as society evolves so must the religions that guide its morality. In the 1300(for example) the only connection between god and man was thru the church. man held the clegy in god like esteem and and dared not stray from the line of perceived normality. now as the structure of the church began to change( the burning of monastries, and the developement of the protastant faith) peoples faith began to change too, and so did the perception of normality.... this is an obvious step in the mental evolution of the human race... now , as normality is only governd by the majority; as the division between majority and minority has become a closer and closer run race; normality is becoming blurred to the extent that even the mention of the word normal can be considered facist.
so if normal people can get into heaven and there is now no such thing as normal then surely evry1 is entitled. to forbid homosexuals into heaven is a backward policy which i dont think god would be too happy about people expressing. its time for the church to evolve once more to catch up with society me thinks..

now im not sure if that entirely made sense but there is a point in there somewhere.

 

Hmm so you are saying that God should keep changing his mind on what is right and wrong to keep up with our changing habbits?

 

no im saying that god would always have let homosexuals into heaven.. god created all and so is responsible for all.. im saying that gods representation on earth( the church) should be the ones keeping up with evolution.

 

Ahh I see, so in reality it was the churches mis interpretation of gods word in the first instance.

This makes perfect sense as the interpretations of his word are ambiguous at best, hence we keep having to have these same discussions on and on and on

Keeping it real Love Clairexxxxx

 

How can something be a sin if it is not a conscious decision? People do not choose to be gay. It is simply within their nature. If God is so hateful and dissaproving of homosexuals, then why did he create them in that way?

 

we should not hold the views of our ancestors against them.. they lived in a very different world.. but we should be able to evolve our own views to fit in with a developing society.

so yeah what claire said.

 

Indeed as I put before...

(Matthew 19:10-12) Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage that Jesus said “some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake.” Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being “born eunuchs” are the people we call lesbian or gay.

I am not christian by the way... I am discussing this on a purely accedemic level.