FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
There's homosexual behavior and homosexual identity. The Behavior has been around for a long time, the identity as we know it now, has not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Homosexuality and religion
- Thread starter Camatose
- Start date
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
What exactly do you mean by "homosexual identity"? Are you simply referring to gay culture, or the recent legal recognition of homosexuality as a demographic?
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
This is exactly what I meant
It does not just get equated with pedophilia but with beastiality as well.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think what he means is homosexual as one's identity of one's sexual orientation. I identify as heterosexual, because I'm sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Some identify as homosexual, because they are sexually attracted to the same sex. It really has nothing to do with "gay culture" or "gay legality." It has to do with how the individual identifies her or his sexual orientation.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
A combination I suppose.
I should have put both in quotations since they aren't real categories.
But it is in reference to that when one looks at the Greeks and Romans and other cultures that practiced homosexuality, It wasn't seen as an identity. People didn't identify themselves as such, but they would behave in that manner. I guess an example would be that of a male in Rome who would have intercourse with other men, that individual would still have a wife, still be a part of the community, and would not have identified themselves or be identified as another separate group.
Essentially them sleeping with another man was a part of their lives but it didn't define their life.
I hope that made sense.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In other words, homosexuality as an orientation was unknown to them.
This is exactly what I meant
It does not just get equated with pedophilia but with beastiality as well.
I saw an interesting Louis Theroux doco on the porn industry. There was a focus during one section on gay porn, particularly male on male porn, and many of the actors were straight.
They termed themselves 'gay for pay'. There was a lot of discussion around what that meant, and whether there was any difference whether they were...
*Scratches his head*
Heh...I don't even know the right one to describe it. Funny. Anyways, the giver or the taker, basically.
Suffice to say, the performed some pretty extreme homosexual acts, but didn't identify as homosexual, since they were exclusively attracted to girls.
That's just BS. Any male who's willing to have consensual sex with other males is most definitely a homosexual or a bisexual.
So, if I was offered one billion bucks to have let a man give me a blowjob, one shot deal, and I took it, I'm gay?
Even though I have no sexual interest in men?
Are you sure about that?
No, it means you're bisexual if you're willing to have sex women as well.
Go figure. So a virgin who is attracted to other men is...?
Sexually attracted to men or just attracted?
Sexually attracted. Let's say wet dreams and posters on the wall attracted, and the subject of his masturbatory fantasies.
Definitely gay, no questions asked. This type of homosexuality is not a sin in my religion because it's not within a person's control, so it's not a big deal. But actually having sex with men is a major sin.
Hmm...Just trying to work out how you define homesexual. Intellectual curiosity, really.
Your definition of homosexual attraction being outside control, but homosexual acts being sinful is clear enough to me. It seems pretty consistent with some Christian beliefs, too. I wasn't sure where Islam stood on homosexual attraction, to be honest.
But...if I am attracted to men sexually, I'm a homosexual.
If I am NOT attracted to men, but perform homosexual acts, I'm homosexual.
I don't get it, from a logical point of view (not a moral point of view).
If the attraction is informative in the first case, why not the second?
If the act is informative in the second, why not the first?
Well, I personally have always defined homosexuality as thus: A person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex AND/OR is inclined to do actions of a sexual nature with members of the same sex. Does that clear it up for you?
Generally speaking, I always mean sexual attraction to members of the same sex when I speak about homosexuality, but a man who is willing to have sex with men and has no regrets, and is proud of it, how can that NOT make him a homosexual? It defies logic in my opinion.
I would understand it if you were poor and needed money to survive and so blew off another guy for some much needed cash or food but you didn't really wanted to do it, or you regretted it after you done it, or you didn't like it at all and wouldn't do it were it not for the fact that you were desperate for money. All that I can understand. But to willingly do it, without coercion or out of necessity, consensually with another man, that definitely makes a person homosexual. There's no doubt about that.
Btw, what you DO is more important than what you SAY. A person who says he's not sexually attracted to men, but regularly has sex with men, makes him a homosexual beyond all doubt. I tend to judge people on what they actually do, rather than who they say they are or giving lip-service.
Sorta. For myself, I'd distinguish between a homosexual, and a homosexual act. But I think I understand your position.
I'm not sure where the 'proud of it' part comes from. People generally have sex with those they are attracted to, so I would generally see those participating in male on male sex as homosexual.
But I think there are exceptions. As I said earlier, my definition would be more around their sense of attraction. You might be revolted by homosexuality, but perform it if it was a way to protect yourself in prison. Or if it was a way to feed yourself.
From what I remember about the Theroux doco, the attitude was much more mercenary. It was more akin to having a neutral attitude towards homosexual acts, and doing it purely for the 'easy' money. I suspect there were some bisexual components to it, to be honest.
Well...sure. I wasn't arguing that someone who chooses to have sex with males of their own volition and for no external reason isn't gay, since I would assume there is a sexual attraction, or at the very least curiosity. I am more of the opinion that it's possible to perform a homosexual act, but not actually be homosexual.
I watched a documentary about this once, I was absolutely disgusted and sickened. I don't understand why some judges just tell it like it is and sentence a person to "5 years in prison plus repeated rape and sexual assault". Because that's what happens a lot of time in America, South Africa etc. I don't think prisons in Britain are like that thank god. I would keep away from prisons in many places around the world just to avoid such a disgusting, humiliating and revolting experience. The fact that prisons don't care about it really speaks volumes. It's not just male-male rape though, I saw a shocking statistic on the number of male prison OFFICERS who rape female prisoners. Sometimes, there really is no hope in some areas of the world.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I know someone who worked as a prison officer. A family friend.
He said it's far more common in Britain than we think, but the media is fairly quiet on it, the prison officers don't make a big deal out of it, the prisoners rarely report it, etc.
The fact he couldn't seem to do anything to make a difference made him decide to leave and work elsewhere.
Depressing.