Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

@ Abom,

That's fine. But nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus specifically mention Homosexuality, let alone condemn it. Not once. If this were such a terrible, grievous sin, don't you think he would have at least...ya know, brought it up?

 

Why bring it up if previous laws are satisfactory? The argument you can establish against homosexuality is if there is something said in the Old Testament that Jesus doesn't refute yet the Christian organised religions still don't follow the Old Testament version then why do the do the same for homosexuality?

 

Let's say you're a man married to a woman. You have three beautiful children. You decide not to have anymore children (for monetary reasons or time reasons or just because you don't feel like it). You further the plan of God.

Now Let's say you're man married (or not, if same-sex marriage is illegal in your country) to a man. Your female friend agree to carry your child and give it birth. You have three beutiful children. You decide not to have anymore children (for monetary reasons or time reasons or just because you don't feel like it). You don't further the plan of God?

You seem to deny that homosexuals actually love each other. Homosexuality follows the same rules as heterosexuality in the sence that while there may be lustful relationships, gang bang, etc, there are loving relationships between two individuals. How can a homosexual relationship lead to a lifetime of pain whereas a heterosexuality relationship would not?

 

Well I'd say in that case the fact that the children will have two fathers and one mother yet the mother and father are not exactly in a proper relationship could be a problem.

However I imagine that they could work around it and nobody says mommy and daddy have to love each other in order to raise good kids.

 

Gnarff:

But Jesus himself says that nothing shall be removed from the Law - not even the smallest thing...

Matthew 5:18-19

Luke 16:17

I sense some inconsistancy in your thinking...

On the other hand, I sense inconsistancy in the Bible's thinking - but I'll do as (many) Christians do and only quote those parts which support my points for the given arguement You can bring up the contradictions of these statements if you like - but that doesn't really help you...

 

My hunch is that many religions are a man-made expression of our deepest animal instincts. Humans, like all other animals, are ultimately about reproduction. Deep, deep down in our DNA there is a compelling voice telling us "have sex!!!!" as this leads to procreation. If we didn't have it, we'd be extinct by now, what with all the things in this universe just waiting to wipe us out in the blink of an eye.

This instinct shows up in things like "Be fruitful and multiply" and in the condemnation of anything that goes against procreation, i.e. homosexuality and birth-control (and abortion). It is not surprising to see some folks react violently to such things in their zeal to stamp them out.

 

Just to drift from the traditional “the catholic church condemns homosexuality discussion”, how do others religions feel about the topic. I’d like to know how Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion, besides Judaism, Christianity and Islamism, feel about this question.

 

Out of curiosity: If all of the prophets were the harbingers of God's word and infallibe, how come what some of them said contradicted what others said? Does that create a paradox?

 

Clixby:

There is a special mechanism for dealing with such paradoxes - it's called 'doublethink'...

 

Not even just the deepest instincts, either. I figure that whole shellfish thing was really just an "Ew! That looks gross!" reaction. Then, after people had tried it and discovered it was good, they repealed that law. Perhaps someday they'll repeal the law about homosexuality too...but I wouldn't hold my breath for it happening in my lifetime.

 

Hey Fel...in that case, is there a biblical passage condemning Rocky Mountain Oysters? Or any other foods clearly based on a dare?

 

Not dolphins, I'm afraid, but a quick search got me
this.

 

Just before we get started on homosexual animals, what about incest among animals? Or rape? Also good because it actually happens? Or are things natural just because some animals do it?

 

natural != good. But, it does stamp down the claim that 'homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural'. Because it's not. (Either, IMO, but the second is less subjective.)

 

Homosexuality is "natural" not because animals do it, but because same sex interest most often emerges during early childhood for gays, just as opposite sex interest (schoolyard crushes and the like) emerges during early childhood for straights. Thus it's not a chosen perversion but a natural predeliction. I don't think that "because animals do it" should be the standard by which we judge any human activity. Animals also eat their own sh!t, devour their young, abandon the weak and a host of other traits commonly referred to as nature's cruelty.

I prefer not to bring what animals do into this discussion for 3 reasons. 1) Where animals have instinct alone, we have reason and free will to interpret our instincts. 2) It invites idiotic comparisons to beastiality and necrophelia. 3) It clouds the issue more than it already is.

So I humbly request we leave animals out of this, if nobody minds. Thanks in advance.

 

Homosexuality and religion will never mix.

Many organized religions consider it a sin and an abomination under God. Therefore people who practice homosexuality are lost children and their sins will condemn them to an afterlife in hell.

Homosexuals on the other hand are deeply offended by this attitude. For all of there wailing about tolerance and understanding they will give the religious people no peace. The homosexuals believe that what they are is genetic (or even God-given) and they must be accepted. They believe that the religious should change their beliefs to coincide with theirs.

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the homosexuals would just live there lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.

 

The problem here is that, they can't live their lives the way they want. After all, they are still struggling to achieve some basic rights, like the recognition of homosexual civil union.

 

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the religeous conservatives would just live their lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.

That's got to be one of the more small-minded statements I've ever seen from you, Snook.

 

Well...I'm sure once they stop having to worry about being physically assaulted, exiled by their families and reviled by those whom claim authority (polititians, religious leaders and the elderly), they'll get right on with the enjoying of their lives...

...but until that time...there is a large amount of hostility in society which they must try to defeat or at the very least mitigate.

It's a great underdog story...how can you not be on the side of the homos?

I've said it once, and I'm sure I'll say it again: I'd be gay, but I haven't yet met a man who reminded me of my mother.