Is being attracted to another man considered gay? (Biblically, Christ, pagan)

[Padgett2]

To think that someone is attractive and to say that you are attracted by that person are two entirely different things. It's similar words, but oh, what different meanings!

I see many people that I think are attractive, I like to look at them and study just what it is that makes them more interesting than another one. But no, I do not find myself attacted to them. I don't want to touch, stoke or hug them. I don't even want to talk to them or get to know them. I just enjoy looking. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....right?

[cg81]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I think, I did a poor job of explaining my opinion on this. What I wanted to get at was that in the Bible, pedophilia is almost seen as OK. Having sex with children and all, yet when it comes to homosexuality, which seems to be a much lesser sin (come on, is it really a sin??? ) people aren't so possessed to believe it's that bad. After all, pedophiles are still allowed to marry. So are murderers, rapists, and all kinds of felons. So, this leads me to believe that the worst thing man can do, in a Christians eyes, is practice homosexuality. I guess it was so bad, God couldn't add it to the Ten Commandments. I guess it was so bad, that it couldn't be talked about directly and must have been alluded to in several poorly written biblical passages, particularly Leviticus and Romans. And, I suppose homosexuality was/is so bad that they are not allowed to marry?

What kind of Bible do you have?? Words fail me... Whether someone is allowed to marry or not is completely beside the point.

You know what else is funny, and I just brought this up on another thread?? Almost the exact same sentiments were had about interracial marriages less than 50 years ago. Now, almost no one would dare say it is a sin. Why? Because religions moral values change quite frequently. Don't believe me? Look at history from say, oh I don't know.... the year 1 A.D. to Present day.

Very true. "Religion's" moral values change quite frequently. However, God and his Word do not, and a true Christian will follow God's word, and thus his morals will not change.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by TheHarvester

It's strange to me because I grew up in a different culture from yours. That's all. In some countries, boys hold hands when they're friends. That doesn't make them gay. My guess is that you're from somewhere like Pennsylvania or Ohio or Idaho or Alabama where homophobia is so dominant that men aren't allowed to see beauty in anything but a Pamela Anderson poster. And that's fine.
OK, I won't spin your words. What are you words and what do they mean? What does "attracted" mean? When I love to look at a Johnny Depp poster but hate the concept of seeing him naked or having physical contact with him, am I still gay? You need to define what you mean by "attracted" if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

1. Do tell about this culture where men sit around and talk about how attractive other men are.
2. Boys do hold hands with other boys. Even I have... when I was in grade school.. or when my father asked me to hold his hand.
3. 0-4 on your "geographic homophobic" stereotyping. Try again. Only 46 more states to go.. also lived in a foriegn country. Try and guess which one. Sorry I don't fit into your sterotype of rural places.
4. I'll go with the wikipedia definition of attraction "draws one object toward another one". So I pretty much stand by what I say.. if you are a man.. and you are attracted to Depp, Clooney.. heck any other man. You MIGHT be gay. I never said you ARE gay. I said you MIGHT be gay.
5. I don't "love" to look at posters of other men because of their looks. There are many things I love to do.. and that is not even up for consideration to be on the list.
6. Pamella Anderson is nasty..
7. I'm move of a Juliette Binoche in Chocolat type person

so I'll make it simple..

My wife says "that Clooney sure is attractive"..

I say "He sure is.."

I'm in fact validating what she has said.. i.e. that a woman would find him attractive. Do I? No. Why? Because I'm not "attracted" to him.

[Pathwalker]

Actually, as a gay man, I don't think Clooney is all that attractive. LOL!

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by WCRob

Actually, as a gay man, I don't think Clooney is all that attractive. LOL!

too funny.... I, as a straight man, like to dress nice.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by Padgett2

To think that someone is attractive and to say that you are attracted by that person are two entirely different things. It's similar words, but oh, what different meanings!

I see many people that I think are attractive, I like to look at them and study just what it is that makes them more interesting than another one. But no, I do not find myself attacted to them. I don't want to touch, stoke or hug them. I don't even want to talk to them or get to know them. I just enjoy looking. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....right?

Harvester...

Padgett said it nicer than I..

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by cg81

What kind of Bible do you have??

Let's see. Perhaps the book of Judges Chapter 19 might be of interest to you. Judges chapter 11 might be notable as well... the story of Jepthah in particular. Let's not forget Moses' words either in Numbers 31:18 (the very same Moses who came down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments might I add) "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Let us also not forget Joshua 6:21. And, perhaps Deuteronomy 20 is another good example of the ruthless of both God and man in God's name. And if you believe in the Bible, this too, is at the behest of God. For a lighter hearted God we can turn to Numbers 15... oh wait a minute... that's when God ordered a man killed for working on the sabbath

Originally Posted by cg81

Very true. "Religion's" moral values change quite frequently. However, God and his Word do not, and a true Christian will follow God's word, and thus his morals will not change.

This statement I find false, because under these pretenses you assume that God's moralities do not change. HOWEVER, any simple reading of the New and Old Testament will show you that either God changed or the story of God changed. My personal opinion is that of the latter. Regardless, although the New Testament is seemingly much more on a moral parallel with today's society (whose morality I still often question) it is still filled with things that are quite horrible, and quite honestly, very misleading.

Something Richard Dawkin's brings up in "The God Delusion" is the story of Judas Iscariot who has been wronged by history because apparently his "betrayal was a necessary part of the cosmic plan. The same could be said of Jesus' murderers." I'd like to continue on with Dawkin's a little bit more and say that in the "New Testament we already have atonement, which is the fundamental principle of Christianity as being vicious, sado-masochist, and repellent." He also brings up a good point in saying "If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment?"

What is my point in all this? Well, the point is that if atonement is the principle part of Christianity (let me remind everyone that atonement is best told in the story of Jesus' execution) than it only stands to reason that the followers of said religion must also commit acts of atonement. This has clearly been trademarked throughout the centuries in the result of hundreds upon thousands of people being mass murdered for their beliefs against a Christian God, and surely for a different belief in the SAME God.

[cg81]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Let's see. Perhaps the book of Judges Chapter 19 might be of interest to you. Judges chapter 11 might be notable as well... the story of Jepthah in particular.

Jepthah, who had made a rash vow before the Lord that if he would win the battle, he would sacrifice the first thing that came to meet Him, was clearly dismayed when it was his daughter. You must remember that the history in the Bible does not only relate things that happened that were God's will.. God never condoned human sacrifice.

Let's not forget Moses' words either in Numbers 31:18 (the very same Moses who came down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments might I add) "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

When the Israelites (God's chosen people) did battle with their enemies they often were commanded to kill everyone. In this case, they were told to kill everyone except the female virgins. This in no way implies pedophilia.

Let us also not forget Joshua 6:21. And, perhaps Deuteronomy 20 is another good example of the ruthless of both God and man in God's name. And if you believe in the Bible, this too, is at the behest of God. For a lighter hearted God we can turn to Numbers 15... oh wait a minute... that's when God ordered a man killed for working on the sabbath

I'm thankful we live in a different era.

This statement I find false, because under these pretenses you assume that God's moralities do not change. HOWEVER, any simple reading of the New and Old Testament will show you that either God changed or the story of God changed. My personal opinion is that of the latter.

God's original plan for mankind came to completion and was fulfilled.

Regardless, although the New Testament is seemingly much more on a moral parallel with today's society (whose morality I still often question) it is still filled with things that are quite horrible, and quite honestly, very misleading.

Something Richard Dawkin's brings up in "The God Delusion" is the story of Judas Iscariot who has been wronged by history because apparently his "betrayal was a necessary part of the cosmic plan. The same could be said of Jesus' murderers."

Even tho Jesus' betrayal and murder was foretold, it was still a choice of these people and they were not predestined to do it.

What is my point in all this? Well, the point is that if atonement is the principle part of Christianity (let me remind everyone that atonement is best told in the story of Jesus' execution) than it only stands to reason that the followers of said religion must also commit acts of atonement. This has clearly been trademarked throughout the centuries in the result of hundreds upon thousands of people being mass murdered for their beliefs against a Christian God, and surely for a different belief in the SAME God.

Jesus was the complete atonement. There is nothing anyone can do to themselves or anyone else that will atone for sin. Mass murder in the NT age is clearly against Jesus' teachings.

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by bigthirsty

1. Do tell about this culture where men sit around and talk about how attractive other men are.

I've lived and traveled all about and have known many straight men who have no problem saying "Johnny Depp is hot."

I had written you a much longer response but some sort of magic keyboard shortcut accidentally erased it so I think I'll cut my losses and stick with this quick reply.

It seems to be a matter of semantics. If you're gay, you're gay. If you're not, you're not. And you cannot judge that on the basis of how people use the word "attractive" or "attracted."

I've already been through this battle on another forum and it was absurd, nobody changed their opinions, and I suspect the same outcome here. We're all going to leave this thread thinking and feeling exactly as we did when we first clicked on it. Why do we even bother?

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by TheHarvester

I've lived and traveled all about and have known many straight men who have no problem saying "Johnny Depp is hot."

I had written you a much longer response but some sort of magic keyboard shortcut accidentally erased it so I think I'll cut my losses and stick with this quick reply.

It seems to be a matter of semantics. If you're gay, you're gay. If you're not, you're not. And you cannot judge that on the basis of how people use the word "attractive" or "attracted."

I've already been through this battle on another forum and it was absurd, nobody changed their opinions, and I suspect the same outcome here. We're all going to leave this thread thinking and feeling exactly as we did when we first clicked on it. Why do we even bother?

I think alot of the difference between you guys here is cultural. Here in the US, homophobia and homo-friendliness varies widely from state to state, region to region, zip code to zip code, and person to person. I'm from California, and IN GENERAL, it is much more gay-friendly and accepting of "alternative lifestyles". I have also lived in Oklahoma--not exactly gay-bashing everywhere, but in comparison to California? Not so much.

So a totally str8 dude from Cali might not think twice about saying another guy looks good...but he probably wouldn't just volunteer that remark unless...he's swinging a little gay! He would probably just agree with what someone else says. Even my best bud back in Cali, who was in truth a bit homophobic, had no problem saying that Brad Pitt was the best looking guy in the world! But go out to Oklahoma...well, let's just say I've never even hugged some of my uncles--men shake hands!

But to clarify to everyone, what makes someone gay is being attracted physically to the same sex. If only the sex acts make someone gay then that extends to str8 people too. That means we all asexual when we are not having sex!