can christians support a homosexual inclination?

[Shermana]

i didn't in the OP...therefore you forced my hand.
loving someone isn't raping someone
both are natural raping someone is just as natural as loving someone of the opposite sex
whatever...
one of these things doesn't go with the other and to take it there only shows an attempt to justify the bias.

Well now you're shifting the focus to "love". As far as my own social experience has led me to believe, their idea of "love" is 99% lust and their promiscuity rate and cheating rate and such are remarkably high. Therefore, scripturally speaking, their behavior, which is mostly based on lust for the most part by far and large among them.

Do you think waiting in bathrooms and "Cottaging" is "love" just because it's consentual? DO you think "love" is all "Eros"? What percent of their "love" do you think is not "Eros"? How many do you think are really monogamous?

it makes sense doesn't it...

It makes a lot of sense. It's so important for so many people for everyone to accept their lustful perverted thoughts and fantasies that they make it their single focus.

 

[Me Myself]

Jesus wasn't okay with the whole OT.

Jesus never spoke against homosexuality.

Homosexuality doesn't need to harm anyone when carried out responsably (as most sex)

So... yeah, if it makes them happy and they don't hurt anyone, it would be unloving to forbid it just because.

That is my christian perspective on it.

 

[waitasec]

But this thread is for the religious rationale.

a rationale that it is irrational

 

[Shermana]

anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuality

That is what I believe is the gist of Romans 1:26, many erroneously believe it's referring to Lesbianism, it's not, it's referring to a practice that men do with women that is "unnatural" that they can do with each other.

std rates are not exclusive to homosexuality either...

Of course not, were you assuming I was saying they alone have high STD rates? Well, they have 40% of Syphillis and well over their share of HIV. And practically every other. For a 3-10% population....And also, you should see their partner counts, and their notoriety for purposely avoiding using precautions.

don't forget the obvious here...one group can get married, the other cannot

The term "Marriage" is defined by the will of the people, one group cannot just radically change the 8,000 year old meaning against the will of the majority just because they say so. I want polygamy legalized, but no one's rushing to that one.

i started this thread asking a question...
your 1st response didn't answer the question it was a disclaimer...

Well I answered it then.

 

[Shermana]

a rationale that it is irrational

Perhaps you want to start a thread on why you think a religious rationale is irrational?

 

[Shermana]

Jesus wasn't okay with the whole OT.

Yes he was, this is a common Pauline misconception.

Jesus never spoke against homosexuality.

He spoke against lustful intentions and feelings.

Homosexuality doesn't need to harm anyone when carried out responsably (as most sex)

Define "harm" and would you like to discuss how often "responsible precautions" are deliberately avoided even though they know very well about them?

So... yeah, if it makes them happy and they don't hurt anyone, it would be unloving to forbid it just because.

Define "hurt anyone". How do you know that it's not devaluing their Cosmic worth? Giving them "Bad karma"? Dishonoring their immortal being?

That is my christian perspective on it.

Would Jesus condone something that the Father Himself says "Offends Him"? What parts of the OT do you think Jesus had an actual problem with?

 

[Me Myself]

Oh, and I wont talk for every homosexual in the planet or anything but from my (indirect) experience:

I have a friend who found out he was bi like around last year. He has been with many girls (generaly in relationships) and has always been faithfull to his current partner while at it. He broke up with the first woman he loved and was in shreds. So some time later, after some searching, sometrial and error, he found this guy.

He says he feels as happy as when he was at the begining with his last love (only love actualy(I think the word is more complicated in spanish than how it seems when translating to english... we say "te amo" like 5 or 6 months into an already sexualy exclusive relationship IF we get to feel it. So he has only said "te amo" to one girl. His first and only (so far) love))

Everyone who sees them together can see that they care deeply about each other, they are very affectuous. Everyone who knows my friend from before his relationship has noticed a change in his overal mood since he got into the relationship (even when they didn't know why, they just saw he was more happy since x day(day they became boyfriends))

I am really happy for my friend. It has been LONG and VERY hard for him (because I've been there to listen) to reach here, and another friend knows the guy he is dating and he is a good guy she trusts.

So my friend is in a relationship with a cool guy he loves and has found happiness he has been searching for so long...

I just don't find any loving merit in telling him "he is gay, so he is going to cheat on you" or some other stupid silly generalization like that.

I would have to be insane to tell him to break up with him because Jesus loves him.

 

[waitasec]

Well now you're shifting the focus to "love". As far as my own social experience has led me to believe, their idea of "love" is 99% lust and their promiscuity rate and cheating rate and such are remarkably high. Therefore, scripturally speaking, their behavior, which is mostly based on lust for the most part by far and large among them.

Do you think waiting in bathrooms and "Cottaging" is "love" just because it's consentual? DO you think "love" is all "Eros"? What percent of their "love" do you think is not "Eros"? How many do you think are really monogamous?

you can ask the same questions about heterosexuals

heterosexuals have sex in bathrooms too

i don't get what you mean.

are you a heterosexual because you have sex with the opposite sex...

is a 6 yr old child automatically a heterosexual by default.

It makes a lot of sense. It's so important for so many people for everyone to accept their lustful perverted thoughts and fantasies that they make it their single focus.

when someone is insecure they tend to overcompensate.
the homosexual community overcompensates because of the insecure position the court of public opinion holds over them...there is the stigma, there is the disgust they are more likely to encounter, theres the shame of their very being...we are sexual beings it's a big part of who we are..and when that is taken away....there is imbalance.

it makes sense

 

[waitasec]

Perhaps you want to start a thread on why you think a religious rationale is irrational?

it you haven't noticed...
they all are


do i have to mention the obvious?

 

[Shermana]

you can ask the same questions about heterosexuals

heterosexuals have sex in bathrooms too

i don't get what you mean.

I assume you are unfamiliar with the widespread practice of "Cottaging" and people lurking in public bathrooms, in some places you can't even go to a public restroom without some "lurker" staring at everyone who goes into to use it. This is such a common phenomenon there are political issues about the legality in places like Britain about it. In rich Manhatten Beach, several men, like 20 were busted in a sting for cottaging. This is a very common practice.

And that's not even discussing the "Hook-up" culture about it, my gay family members told me plenty about it.

are you a heterosexual because you have sex with the opposite sex...

As well as lustful feelings and thoughts for, as well as Romantic feelings, but also it's the "default" position of nature.

is a 6 yr old child automatically a heterosexual by default.

I would imagine in most cases, but not always. As a reincarnationist, I believe it can be something one is "born" with but it's not "good to have".

when someone is insecure they tend to overcompensate.

Quite often.

the homosexual community overcompensates because of the insecure position the court of public opinion holds over them...there is the stigma, there is the disgust they are more likely to encounter, theres the shame of their very being...we are sexual beings it's a big part of who we are..and when that is taken away....there is imbalance.

"We are sexual beings" is the problem here. I don't see it as such. I see it as that we are just "beings" who happen to reproduce. Anything beyond that is purely in the land of made up concepts and "emotions".

it makes sense

I agree. However, you have to expect some fighting back even if you fight back against a perceived social threat.

 

[Father Heathen]

Really?

Yes, see the statement below:

God abhors pepperoni pizza and barn owls.

That's how we know.

 

[Fiddler]

We are at different times,things change fastly .

Mom always tells me,when she had her first jean in the 50's a way long ago in Istanbul,she had been nicely beaten by grandma due to perceptional of immoral dress code.

My Grandma was wearing jeans in late 70's as I identified on my newborn family photo shot at hospital.

In the book,it is clearly stated that it is a shame to have intercourse between two males. That is quiet clear.

But, it never states that feeling gay is offensive or wrong.
I does not prevent us from the love of same genders.
The problem is the intercourse for which I would not like to lay out details. It is simply hazardous.

 

[idav]

"We are sexual beings" is the problem here. I don't see it as such. I see it as that we are just "beings" who happen to reproduce. Anything beyond that is purely in the land of made up concepts and "emotions".

This is the problem that we are made to be sinful in nature. Sex is sinful in by its very nature and lesbians don't get exemption nor do heterosexual sex addicts. Natural and unnatural are not a defensible term for since the whole point of spirituality is not giving to desires of the flesh which means any type of sex.

 

[Fiddler]

Well now you're shifting the focus to "love".

It makes a lot of sense. It's so important for so many people for everyone to accept their lustful perverted thoughts and fantasies that they make it their single focus.

Pls do not miss that gay teens have one of the highest rates of commuting suicide for they cannot find any space to survive and feel guily and dirty.

The worst are the religious queers,they assume that they are wicked.

 

[sojourner]

it's far to easy to dance around the word condemn, since only your god can do that...

will you be disappointing your god if you supported your gay child?
i'm not talking about condoning sex before marriage, i'm talking about the natural inclination towards the same sex.

No. Why would I be? Would you be disappointing God if you supported a responsible exegesis of religious text?

 

[sojourner]

Why not call rape "natural" while you're at it? Was probably responsible for a great deal of people's lineages. There's lots of things you can call "natural".

As for a person condoning this mentality, it is impossible under scriptural conditions, even lusting after a woman is forbidden by Jesus, and by NT standards, even Paul in Romans 1:26 condemns a particular act of intercourse that is not "natural" (against nature in fact) and says specifically that the "men burned in lust for each other", though the verse is not likely condemning lesbianism but certain non-reproductive acts men and women do that ahem....you can get the idea. Let's just say "Natural" probably means the act which leads to babies and in ancient Israelite society, it was probably more repugnant than it seemed in the 50's.

So the answer is, "Christians" must in fact, indeed in fact, sell out and compromise the scripture, to condone an inclination of lust in such a way. What is an "inclination" any way? Is it anything other than lust?

There is no question that Lev 18 says "lies with a man as with a woman" as for the death penalty being applied, that's only for ancient Israelite society under a politically autonomous Sanhedrin of appointed Judges, but the idea remains that one will endure a providential fate instead. Some Rabbis have said it's about a "particular act" as well, but it can mean anything that a man does with a woman.

Yashua says its better to castrate oneself than to cause his wife to commit adultery (by remarrying). By this idea, one would imagine that Yashua wouldn't want one causing another to sin of equal forbiddence.

Thus, any "Christian" that anything more than "Tolerates" male behavior in such a way or even the particular inclination and regards it as acceptable, is against the "Spirit" of the scripture which flat out condemns male-male behavior in the harshest of terms.

Female-female behavior however, now that's another story. I'm all for it. If women would stick to each other instead of men, there''d be practically no STD's and unwanted pregnancies, and lots more virgins to court.

Since you're not taking into account that the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation, you're simply not exegeting the texts properly.

 

[sojourner]

If you knew something truly "offended" (i.e. makes really angry, disgusts, horrifies, etc.) G-d and He didn't ever just change his mind all of the sudden about it, and it would cause a person to go to hell, how can you possibly believe that it's Loving to condone the act and the desire? You'd have to really hate or not care about the person whatsoever if you would think it means to accept it.

Therefore, your Theology must believe that you can have a gay old time in San Francisco and Jesus forgives you it's all good in the neighborhood. Otherwise, you're definitely not being "loving" by tolerating what causes people to offend G-d. Unless of course you don't love G-d enough to not condone and accept what He truly abhors.

Is God offended by dehumanization?

 

[Road Warrior]

Offended or disappointed?

 

[sojourner]

isn't that a double standard?

Not to the ancient mind set. Thanks for highlighting this, because it speaks to why this crap is in Leviticus in the first place. In the Ancient, Near-East culture we'e dealing with, honor and shame were imbedded in sexual identity. Males embodied honor and women embodied shame. For a man to "take it like a woman" meant that a man would have to act shamefully.

 

[sojourner]

I don't see why it would be scripturally speaking, as well as realistially and scientifically, the only "Double standard" is with some human invention of PC equality. It's the way things are, for males it's horrible and condemnable, for females its praiseworthy and perhaps even very socially beneficial when exclusive. Life is full of double standards and inequalities.

Cop out writ large.