How can a person worship a religion that despises gay people? (religions, created)

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

The focus is on sex acts in a specific context. Never does the Bible say "Homosexuality is a sin". If homosexuality were such the evil sin most conservatives claim, why, out of over 37,000 Biblical verses (and that's not including the Apocrypha which says nothing), do only 5 of them ever mention same-sex behavior, and every single one of them is in the context of either pagan worship practices of surrounding cultures, or rape?

It may just not have been an issue outside of pagan practices. That wouldn't mean it was accepted. I'm not sure bestiality, necrophilia, or even incest are mentioned in the Gospels. Not that homosexuality is like those, my point is limited mention doesn't necessarily mean acceptance or indifference.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Not even Jesus saw fit to discuss homosexuality, but he did discuss divorce, adultery, self-righteous legalism, etc. all of which are very prevalent among conservatives.

I'm not really here to defend all political conservatives. I think a person can be orthodox and not fit American conservatism at all. I find many elements of US conservatism to be too classically liberal and callous. Also I'm more concerned with tradition and orthodoxy than an American political ideology. I tend to be politically conservative, as they are traditionally more open to these things, but I'm not uncritical of Republicans or Evangelical-Protestantism.

That being said you can find divorce, adultery, etc among liberals too. Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, etc. Divorce rates among Baptists and Pentecostals are unusually high, and they're highly Republican, but I don't really relate to either of those faiths much. Also Mormons, when they marry other Mormons, have fairly low divorce rates and tend to be conservative.

I think I've also been clear that I dislike how adulterers or multiple divorcees judge homosexuals.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

How did homosexuality become such a monumental sin to trump all other issues when the Bible barely ever talks about it?

I'm not entirely sure it should be seen as any more monumental than adultery. However it's often seen as worse because it can never be procreative and automatically excludes half of the species. Heterosexuality unites the male and the female. Even adulterous heterosexuality can produce life so some good can come of it.

Homosexuality allows one, not that homosexuals necessarily do this, to remain completely ignorant of the other sex. It's sterile in the sense of having no children and in the sense of not expanding beyond your own.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Most Jews are even agreeing the Torah needs to be reevaluated on this issue. Why are Christians so stubborn?

You could just as easily ask why are Jews so waivering? The maintenance of tradition and the stabilizing force of religion was once important to Jews too. I think for many Orthodox it still is. (And yes I'm uncomfortable talking like that, but you seem to be the one bringing up the Jewish thing)

Christianity has solid beliefs and taboos on sexuality that come from the Bible, the Councils, and Tradition. These matter and not everything can be open to re-evaluation. Having a solid foundation on anything can look like stubbornness, and maybe it is, but that's sometimes okay.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Correct. Orientation refers to attractions and desires, not acts. A man who is attracted to other men but never has sex with them is still gay.

Agreed.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Is that really a stretch? Sex refers to your chromosomes (XX or XY), as well as sexual activity.

If you said you desired the "same sex", would someone understand you to mean you desire to have the same kind of sex you've always had or does it refer to whether you desire men or women? I wouldn't consider that a neat trick. English is a funny language.

It's maybe not that much of a stretch, but it is still problematic.

Many men join all-male organizations because they desire time with other men. So they are men desiring, in one sense, their own sex. However to say every Monastery, Lodge, Barber-shop quartet, etc is "homosexual" is a bit of a bridge too far. Homosociality does not necessarily mean homosexuality. So if the desire isn't sexual or romantic than I don't see how it's homosexual.

I'm not saying it's the actions, but I don't see how you can easily get around homosexual referring to one who desires sex or romance with their own sex. Or the desire itself. (I have homosexual desires, but am not homosexual as such)

[sheena12]

1.I don't worship my religion.
2. Not all Christian denominations "despise gay people"
3. I am a member of a Christian Church
4. We ordain Gay people.

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

It may just not have been an issue outside of pagan practices. That wouldn't mean it was accepted. I'm not sure bestiality, necrophilia, or even incest are mentioned in the Gospels. Not that homosexuality is like those, my point is limited mention doesn't necessarily mean acceptance or indifference.

Maybe not, but at the same time speculating that the Apostles and Jesus condemned them when they don't mention it is not right either. However, I merely bring this up because homosexuality has become the #1 sin to condemn in Christianity (particularly in the US). If the Bible is inspired by God, why is the most hated sin in all of Christendom not even hinted at in the Gospels, and not really mentioned in the rest of the Bible either (regardless of the meaning of the 5 clobber passages, they are quite obscure and vague in Hebrew and Greek)? The Bible, however, does present a contradiction in regard to this issue based on Paul's writing regarding marriage and celibacy.

I'm not really here to defend all political conservatives. I think a person can be orthodox and not fit American conservatism at all. I find many elements of US conservatism to be too classically liberal and callous. Also I'm more concerned with tradition and orthodoxy than an American political ideology. I tend to be politically conservative, as they are traditionally more open to these things, but I'm not uncritical of Republicans or Evangelical-Protestantism.

That being said you can find divorce, adultery, etc among liberals too. Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, etc. Divorce rates among Baptists and Pentecostals are unusually high, and they're highly Republican, but I don't really relate to either of those faiths much. Also Mormons, when they marry other Mormons, have fairly low divorce rates and tend to be conservative.

I think I've also been clear that I dislike how adulterers or multiple divorcees judge homosexuals.

I'm referring to religious conservatism, not political. Fundamentalists/Conservatives who claim the English Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. That the Earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs walked with man, etc.

Those Christians will cite Leviticus to condemn gays all day long, and yet they ignore almost every single one of the other 613 laws in the Torah like wearing mixed fabrics or breaking the Sabbath. It's pure hypocrisy.

I'm not entirely sure it should be seen as any more monumental than adultery. However it's often seen as worse because it can never be procreative and automatically excludes half of the species.

And yet, heterosexual couples and that elderly that can't procreate aren't condemned. Procreation is a ridiculous argument that does not come from the Bible (the be fruitful command was for Adam, not all of humanity. ) Augustine created the anti-sex, procreation/missionary position only philosophy in the church.

Heterosexuality unites the male and the female. Even adulterous heterosexuality can produce life so some good can come of it.

What makes the creation of life always a good thing? Over 90% of the world lives in poverty. Millions of children die every single day from starvation and disease. Procreation at this point in human history sounds quite immoral and selfish to me.

Homosexuality allows one, not that homosexuals necessarily do this, to remain completely ignorant of the other sex. It's sterile in the sense of having no children and in the sense of not expanding beyond your own.

Homosexuals can reproduce you know. Many of them do. And again, what if a couple doesn't want children? Where does God command that all of humanity must bear children? Maybe God created gay people to reduce the burden from all the unwanted children from heterosexual relationships. Gays are more likely to adopt and serve as caretakers for siblings than straights are. This is an evolutionary benefit found in the animal kingdom. Women who have gay children are also likely to have increased fertility. Another evolutionary benefit to homosexuality. Having a subset of humans be homosexual is actually beneficial to procreation from a biological standpoint.

You could just as easily ask why are Jews so waivering? The maintenance of tradition and the stabilizing force of religion was once important to Jews too. I think for many Orthodox it still is. (And yes I'm uncomfortable talking like that, but you seem to be the one bringing up the Jewish thing)

I'm not sure re-evaluating one's beliefs based on new evidence is "waivering". The Catholic Church believed the sun revolved around the Earth for hundreds of years. That was orthodoxy and tradition. Should they have maintained that view despite being 100% in error? I just think Judaism has a more realistic, intellectual view of theology and the world, whereas Christianity is more likely to rely on blind faith. That's faith built on sand, not rock.

Christianity has solid beliefs and taboos on sexuality that come from the Bible, the Councils, and Tradition.

I would argue most of those views originated with Augustine. But subsets of Christianity have a lot of stupid beliefs too, such as a 6000 year old earth, or humans playing with dinosaurs. Unwaivering tradition can be a very very dangerous thing, as we saw in the Dark Ages.

These matter and not everything can be open to re-evaluation. Having a solid foundation on anything can look like stubbornness, and maybe it is, but that's sometimes okay.

It seems more often than not, it's destructive and actually hurts Christianity more than benefits it. I don't think Galileo or the women burned at the stake during the Witch trials appreciated Christian orthodoxy and tradition. Just as many gays reject Christianity due to it treating them like demonic spawns of Satan who belong in Hell merely for loving someone with the same anatomy.

[SeekerSA]

All the waffle about gays not being able to procreate as some form of valid argument wrt to gay couplings is absurd in light of IVF and surrogacy.

There are so many valid counter arguments like women that have hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry nor have sex as they no longer have the wherewithal to procreate.

[sanspeur]

YouTube - ‪A Kids Reaction To Gay Couple‬‏

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Maybe not, but at the same time speculating that the Apostles and Jesus condemned them when they don't mention it is not right either. However, I merely bring this up because homosexuality has become the #1 sin to condemn in Christianity (particularly in the US). If the Bible is inspired by God, why is the most hated sin in all of Christendom not even hinted at in the Gospels, and not really mentioned in the rest of the Bible either (regardless of the meaning of the 5 clobber passages, they are quite obscure and vague in Hebrew and Greek)? The Bible, however, does present a contradiction in regard to this issue based on Paul's writing regarding marriage and celibacy.

Well I don't really approve of homosexuality being the main sin to focus on. As I see it, within the tradition and the standard understanding of the Bible, it's almost always in a litany of other sins. Also going by the traditional Aquinian type notions a woman say using a vibrator for sexual purposes would be, or just is, the same level of sin. I am quite plausibly just as much of a sinner as any active homosexual. (Going by a strict interpretation of Aquinas I probably should be hiring hookers to avoid masturbation, as prostitution is less of a sin in his thinking as the woman is already in a state of sin while procreation/complementarity isn't entirely negated, and although I've struggled with that I'm scared of disease plus I don't have that kind of money.)

Originally Posted by Fiyero

I'm referring to religious conservatism, not political. Fundamentalists/Conservatives who claim the English Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. That the Earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs walked with man, etc.

I consider myself a religious conservative, by and large, but yeah I'm not like that. I never read the King James Bible and I think at one time I was even a little nervous on trying. King James was pretty harsh on Catholics and Dissenters as I recall.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Those Christians will cite Leviticus to condemn gays all day long, and yet they ignore almost every single one of the other 613 laws in the Torah like wearing mixed fabrics or breaking the Sabbath. It's pure hypocrisy.

I see. I try to avoid citing Leviticus. I remember my sister did that on the matter and I told her how it also says adulterers should be executed. Or at least many kinds of adulterers. I seem to recall the punishment for having adultery with your mother-in-law, or maybe it was sister-in-law, to be way more extreme than that of two men having sex. And it says nothing of two women.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

And yet, heterosexual couples and that elderly that can't procreate aren't condemned.

The union of the elderly or sterile has been specifically blessed in the Bible. John the Baptist's parents were elderly or sterile or both. I think one of the Old Testament Patriarchs believed his wife to be sterile, but then she had a child.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Procreation is a ridiculous argument that does not come from the Bible (the be fruitful command was for Adam, not all of humanity. ) Augustine created the anti-sex, procreation/missionary position only philosophy in the church.

First I am not a Protestant. That seems to be something I constantly need to remind people of, which is unfortunate. What it means is whether something is explicitly "in the Bible" is not the beginning and end for me.

Second the early Christians had strongly ascetic elements before Augustine arrived. Chastity was preferred in many cases.

Third I never said procreation was the only point of sex, just that it's part of it.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

What makes the creation of life always a good thing?

Because existence is good. I mean who do you want to not exist?

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Over 90% of the world lives in poverty.

I don't think that number can be right unless you're really stretching the meaning of "poverty." There are enough non-poor people in the European Union, US, and Japan to make it clearly invalid.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Millions of children die every single day from starvation and disease. Procreation at this point in human history sounds quite immoral and selfish to me.

I am aware that my idea that existing is actually good is a highly controversial position. Indeed it's infuriating for many people. Still I'm going to maintain it because I just don't see how I could believe anything different. Even a short-life can be instructional or have its joys. And it's not like I'm advocating everyone have a huge mess of kids.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Homosexuals can reproduce you know.

Not via homosexual sex.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

And again, what if a couple doesn't want children? Where does God command that all of humanity must bear children?

He doesn't, but part of the point of the pair-bond and sex is to produce and raise children. If no one ever had non-procreative sex again the species would continue. If procreative sex ended so would we.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Maybe God created gay people to reduce the burden from all the unwanted children from heterosexual relationships.

Perhaps, but that doesn't tell us whether they should be celibate or not. Either way they'd be doing that.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Gays are more likely to adopt and serve as caretakers for siblings than straights are. This is an evolutionary benefit found in the animal kingdom. Women who have gay children are also likely to have increased fertility. Another evolutionary benefit to homosexuality. Having a subset of humans be homosexual is actually beneficial to procreation from a biological standpoint.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Fiyero

I'm not sure re-evaluating one's beliefs based on new evidence is "waivering". The Catholic Church believed the sun revolved around the Earth for hundreds of years.

Certain developments in light of new information can occur. However what's not to be done, as I understand Christianity, is to totally overthrow consistent areas of faith and morals. From at least Eusebius to today orthodox Christianity has been clear on homosexuality.

This is why your analogy on geocentrism is so deeply flawed. Although it may relate to the Bible in a way, it's not a core and consistent element of faith and morals. One of the Cardinals in Galileo's trial pretty much said as much. I have actually told you this, and about Christian statements pre-Augustine against homosexuality, but you seem to ignore it. Which leads you to repeat these poor analogies. Hence my initial exasperation.

[RicLee]

Jaymax, I love your way with words. Bravo!

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Yet another person who reduces gays and lesbians down to acts of sex so they can dehumanize them.

If that's your belief, then your belief doesn't deserve respect.

Let's turn that around and see how it feels for you shall we?

You are a heterosexual, so your whole life is about sex-acts. That's all you do and all you are. There is no other purpose or meaning to your life other than the sex acts you perform. Sex, sex, sex...lust lust lust....sex, sex, sex.

What you do in the privacy of your home is your business. Just don't make your behaviors public. It's truly that simple.

So:

Please don't hold your partners hand in public. I don't want to know that you might be going home to have sex.

Please don't have a wedding in public. I don't want to know that you are going to have sex.

Please don't go out in public with your children- I don't want to know that you have had sex.

Please don't talk about your family. I don't want to know about your sex acts.

Please stop making movies, creating songs and writing books about your heterosexual relationships which are just about heterosexual sex sex sex acts.

In other words, please don't ever go out in public or let anyone know that you even exist - I don't want to know about your sex acts.

But hey! I love you! 'Cause Jesus said we had to love one another. And if I don't say that I love you, I won't go to heaven -even though I don't really love you, because I find the thought of you having sex kind of icky.

[Vinylly]

Originally Posted by Aptor hours

I truly don't understand how a person can actually worship and follow a religion that so despises gay people? I was so naive in the past and thought that religion wanted people to love everybody and now I realize that Christianty is more about hating others than anything else How can anybody actually continue to follow this and live with yourself?

I would highly recommend that you study the Bible befor making false assumptions, that is the intelligent thing to do.
So, saying that, Christ says; 'Above all things, love your neighbor as thyself'. Now let's look at 2 Thessalonians 3 where Paul says you are to warn your brothers of their wickedness. To warn a brother of his wickedness is not show 'hate' but infact just the opposite. It is showing love and concern for your brother.

[Huckleberry3911948]

could you please point out any of the major world religions that does not take a dim view of open homosexuality.