Homosexuality and Religion

[Autodidact]

umm, ok, sorry sex is so terrible for you

It was a joke, trying to allude to the male point of view in your post.

so everyone who has sex is for pair bonding? onoly people in love have sex?

No, it's just one of the possible purposes.

I couldn't tell you, it's nature's law. Ask yourself, why was sex invented? Not just for fun.

As I said, for several reasons. But my point is that there is no moral standing to using what has evolved for only that purpose. Another example: our legs evolved for walking. No harm in using them to dance.

The question isn't what you would use it for, it is what it was designed for.

It wasn't designed; it evolved.

The question is, what is immoral about using our body organs for purposes other than what they evolved for primarily?

 

[DallasApple]

What about people who choose to live a life of abstinence??..Wouldnt that go against nature as well?...Supressing thier "natural" sexual urges altogether?..Not using thier sexual organs for reproduction or pleasuure?.>>(its original design and for what it was intended for?)

Using the line of thinking that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist therefore its wrong/against nauture ..then people who abstain from sex all together pose just as much of a "threat' to humanity as homosexuals...

In fact Paul the apostle wished that everyone would abstain like him...from how I interpreted him he knew it was an impossiblity that everyone would be like him able to control their burning desires so go ahead and get married rather than burn.

But in fact had we all taken his advice that its better to remain a virgin the human race would have ended long ago...

Love

Dallas

 

[Alceste]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Brain scans show that when people are divided into three groups and put into a room with a piano over a period of several days, the brains of the group told to [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]think[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] about practicing hard on the piano changed almost as much as the group that actually practiced, while the group that was instructed to do nothing showed no change at all. We can argue, then, that if the brain of a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual, it is the thinking that alters it.[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Oops.
[/FONT][/FONT]

I am pretty sure this is not the case.

 

[rheff78]

It was a joke, trying to allude to the male point of view in your post.
No, it's just one of the possible purposes.
As I said, for several reasons. But my point is that there is no moral standing to using what has evolved for only that purpose. Another example: our legs evolved for walking. No harm in using them to dance.

It wasn't designed; it evolved.

The question is, what is immoral about using our body organs for purposes other than what they evolved for primarily?

Sorry I missed the joke. We males are pretty simple minded creatures.
Anyway, IMHO dancing is a consequence of walking. Look, not to get too graphic but it is of my opinion, as far as gay male sex I have to say, that is not what certain things were designed for. Only things are suppose to come out, not go in. As for female lesbian sex, if you don't have what is designed to fit in, without the aid of technology, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm sorry for the graphic phrasing, I just don't know how else to put it.

 

[rheff78]

But I guess getting back to the OP, in Christianity (with the exception of I think the Episcopals) we are against the ACT of homosexuality. I think most religions throughout the world are pretty much in line with this.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I am pretty sure this is not the case.

Doesn't change the results of the experiments or the implications.

 

[DallasApple]

Sorry I missed the joke. We males are pretty simple minded creatures.
Anyway, IMHO dancing is a consequence of walking. Look, not to get too graphic but it is of my opinion, as far as gay male sex I have to say, that is not what certain things were designed for. Only things are suppose to come out, not go in. As for female lesbian sex, if you don't have what is designed to fit in, without the aid of technology, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm sorry for the graphic phrasing, I just don't know how else to put it.

But based on this line of thinking..Heterosexuals should never give each other oral or manual or anal sex..

My mouth was not designed for a penis to go in it.(sorry to be graphic)..It was designed for air to go in and out and to eat food. and to communicate.My hands were desinged for many purposes one of which was not specifically for sex...I can concieve a child without hands ever being involved.My hands or my husbands..My breast were designed to produce milk to feed a child..They arent needed for the actual sex act for me to become pregnant..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry I missed the joke. We males are pretty simple minded creatures.
Anyway, IMHO dancing is a consequence of walking. Look, not to get too graphic but it is of my opinion, as far as gay male sex I have to say, that is not what certain things were designed for. Only things are suppose to come out, not go in. As for female lesbian sex, if you don't have what is designed to fit in, without the aid of technology, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm sorry for the graphic phrasing, I just don't know how else to put it.

I don't like to get too graphic on the net, but I assure you that no technology is involved, and everyone is quite happy with the situation. And why exactly should we not be doing it?

You seem to forget about oral sex, which is harmless and pleasant for all parties.

Dancing is not a consequence of walking; a consequence of walking is getting where you want to go. Dancing is an alternative use of your legs. My point is that you do not apply this rule: "Only use it for its primary evolutionary purpose" to any other organ. Indeed, our lives would be poorer if we did. So why this rule for sex organs only?

There are a million examples. I'm sure you agree that our mouths did not evolve to permit us to whistle, but there is no harm or immorality in doing so.

 

[Autodidact]

But I guess getting back to the OP, in Christianity (with the exception of I think the Episcopals) we are against the ACT of homosexuality. I think most religions throughout the world are pretty much in line with this.

No, you're wrong on both counts. There are millions of Christians right here in the United States, possibly the majority, who have no problem with homosexuality by either sex. Indeed, there is an entire mainstream Christian Church with a special outreach to this community, the Metropolitan Community Church. So you had best speak for yourself, not for all Christians.
Further, as I've said here many times, there is no possible reasonable interpretation of scripture that condemns lesbianism. Unlike say marriage after divorce, which is clearly prohibited.

 

[DallasApple]

As for female lesbian sex, if you don't have what is designed to fit in, without the aid of technology, you shouldn't be doing it.

So do you think my husband and I are sinning if we use the "aid" of technology?..Should I say "sorry honey thats a spice we can not have any more in our marriage bed..because lesbians might use these also becasue they have no penis so it must be against God"...

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

I think most religions throughout the world are pretty much in line with this.

Maybe you should take a better look at most religions throughout the world, then. You don't have to go far, we have representatives from many of them right here on this site.

 

[Alceste]

Doesn't change the results of the experiments or the implications.

It changes the implication that this experiment has implications for homosexuality if there is no measurable difference between a "gay" brain and a "straight" one.

In other words, it debunks the suggestion (which I read between the lines of your post - feel free to correct me) that you can think yourself gay or straight.

There is a lot of interesting brain research, but unless somebody's come up with a fundamental difference between gay and straight brains none of it is relevant to the issue of homosexuality.

 

[DallasApple]

Hey ya'll...sorry..I just called up my friend who has fertility issues and told her to tell her husband to stop saving up money to have one of her eggs removed and succesfully fertalized with her husbands sperm in a petri dish and then implanted using "technology" into her body or GOD FORBID a surrogate.....That is complety unatural being that they cant concieve without the "aid of technology"...completely not in line with nature..So they are just out of luck ..too bad for them.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Alceste]

But I guess getting back to the OP, in Christianity (with the exception of I think the Episcopals) we are against the ACT of homosexuality. I think most religions throughout the world are pretty much in line with this.

I posted a link a few pages ago to a site with a run-down on world religions and homosexuality. Here it is again for your reference:

Right, well, getting back to the question of religion and homosexuality, I've found a pretty good online resource for you, Andrew (if you're still around).

Homosexuality and Religion - ReligionFacts

A quick tally of the articles would suggest the best religious choice for a gay man would be Ancient Greek Polytheism. You're OK with most forms of Buddhism, but it's touch and go with Vajrayana (Tibetan). Christians don't have a coherent position - some sects will condemn you for it (ie. the Westboro Baptist Church) while others (ie. the United Church, Anglicans, and the Metropolitan Community Church) have no problem with it. Hinduism is OK with it, but you'll want to steer clear of Islam and Judaism. Sikhism is touch and go.

Hope that helps! My suggestion would be to go ahead and try believing in God if you feel you must, then if you want some company in your God-worshipping, try to find a congregation that loves and accepts you as you are.

 

[DallasApple]

Along those lines?..My freind has no fallopian tubes..Its litterally impossible for her to concieve.Since she was in her early 20's..So when she and her husband got married thier sexual life was strickly 100% for pleasure and pair bonding.

I mean come on..every woman who has sex after memopause and every man that has sex with a woman post menopause is havign sex for recreation only..But its o.k for them to have pleasure and comfort and love because they are opposite sex I suppose.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It changes the implication that this experiment has implications for homosexuality if there is no measurable difference between a "gay" brain and a "straight" one.

There are...and gay activists made it an issue.

 

[DallasApple]

No, you're wrong on both counts. There are millions of Christians right here in the United States, possibly the majority, who have no problem with homosexuality by either sex. Indeed, there is an entire mainstream Christian Church with a special outreach to this community, the Metropolitan Community Church. So you had best speak for yourself, not for all Christians.
Further, as I've said here many times, there is no possible reasonable interpretation of scripture that condemns lesbianism. Unlike say marriage after divorce, which is clearly prohibited.

Well I guess you wouldnt be shocked to know there are many Chirstians who believe anyone (Chirstian couple that is) who divorces for WHATEVER reason are not free to remarry untill their ex spouse dies.And that if they do both parties are living in daily adultery..

So if for instance I divorce my husband for committing adultery..(Jesus said thats the one reason I can)...If I remarry before my husband dies..Myself and my new husband are living in daily sin..Perpetual adultery..The only true way to 'repent" is to divorce (legally) my second husband ..Apparrently that divorce wouldnt be a sin because it was only a legal matter rather then a true marriage covenant in Gods eyes..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[fantome profane]

why was sex invented?

Cell phones were invented, sex was not.

But if it was could you imagine holding the patent rights?

What about people who choose to live a life of abstinence??..Wouldnt that go against nature as well?...Supressing thier "natural" sexual urges altogether?..Not using thier sexual organs for reproduction or pleasuure?.>>(its original design and for what it was intended for?)

Using the line of thinking that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist therefore its wrong/against nauture ..then people who abstain from sex all together pose just as much of a "threat' to humanity as homosexuals...

In fact Paul the apostle wished that everyone would abstain like him...from how I interpreted him he knew it was an impossiblity that everyone would be like him able to control their burning desires so go ahead and get married rather than burn.

But in fact had we all taken his advice that its better to remain a virgin the human race would have ended long ago...

Love

Dallas

I really have nothing to add to this, I just wanted to quote it so people would get a second chance to read it.

 

[DallasApple]

Heres the hypocritcal part..I have run into quite a few Christian men that have divorced their wife specifically over her not having sex "for pleasure" only..How they "got away with it" with a clean conscience is declaring her an "unbeliever discontent to dwell in the marriage"..being that she was living in sin by her refusal not to engage in sex at all...or not often enough..Because PAUL SAID to not deny each other but for fasting and prayer in order to prevent the other from falling into tempataion and causing them to stumble and sin..

How they got away with running as fast as they could to find a new "bride(sex for pleasure partner) was stating that thier first wife in fact wasnt even a Christian..So their was no covenant in Gods eyes...

Blessings

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Cell phones were invented, sex was not.

But if it was could you imagine holding the patent rights?




I really have nothing to add to this, I just wanted to quote it so people would get a second chance to read it.

Thanks Fantome I appreciate that..

I do want to add though..Its clear Pauls concern was not to keep the human race alive..He knew that most of the population would be miserbale and not be able to stand going their entire lives without sex..He talked about "burning with desire"..That sounds like pure 100% horniness..And not denying each other but for fasting and for prayer???...Would not be a lot of time off for sex if one or the other or both wanted it..And in fact that advice was to prevent one or the other from becoming tempted to cheat(not becasue he wanted them to have one baby after the other)..(adn in fact he knew people will cheat and the cheating would also have been to get sexual pleasure NOT to have a baby)....

Love

Dallas