Homosexuals, should we accept them, are they really homosexual?

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, I understand. You're trying to learn. How about if we set Leviticus aside for a minute while you learn? After all, I doubt that you follow any of the other prohibitions in Leviticus, such as not eating bacon or wearing clothing of mixed fibers, right?

That's rather harsh don't you think? He is making an attempt to learn, and you still insult him?

I just don't know what to believe/follow with Leviticus saying homosexuality is wrong, then going into explain, that it's the practice of homosexuality is wrong vs. homosexuality fullstop.

First you have to realize the Bible was wrote before we knew anything about microbiology, psychology, genetics, or the nature vs. nurture debate. Even a Vatican Astronomer (I don't remember his name but this did actually happen) stated that you can't take all of the Bible to be literal because it was wrote thousands of years before the era of modern science. Now in the days of when the Bible was wrote people were often nomadic and/or lived in small tribes, and heterosexual couples having babies was very important to the tribe. They also did not know anything of bacteria or viruses. When we look at the dietary laws of the Jews from Leviticus, there is a reoccurring theme of forbidding meats that are prone to making people sick. This for many reasons can be interpreted as the will of God, especially to primitive man.
Now as for homosexuality, when you are living in a small village, and having more kids means more people to hunt and gather, and more people to tend other necessary chores, it makes life easier and boosts the survival chance of the tribe. Homosexual couples obviously cannot reproduce. (Again this is before modern science so artificial insemination does not apply here) This too can be interpreted as the will of God, as it can lead to a lower population which can make things harder. The early logic may have been that God did not want gays since it was not good for the tribe. However man also did not know anything about psychology. Step forward in time to today and we know that suppressing one's sexuality is very damaging to the mind. It has been theorized by some that the reason the Catholic priest were molesting those kids was because living a life of celibacy had taken such a mental toll that they needed a sexual outlet and they took what was available. We also know that the act of sex is very healthy, and sexual release has many health benefits.
So with today's understanding, if we are to take care of our bodies as the Bible commands, then since we know that sex, and indeed the chemicals released by the brain that create what we call love, is a very healthy thing, then how could it be wrong for two people of the same gender to love each other? Especially if God is love, and all love comes from him? Homosexuals are indeed naturally attracted to people of the same sex, and do fall in love with them.
As for the causes, we really don't know. (This was actually the subject of my Psychology lecture last week) There are twin studies (cases that involve the study of maternal and fraternal twins, usually separated at birth to get a full measure of how much biology and how much our environment influences us) that have shown plenty of gay twins to show that there is something genetic. There are also many studies that show that there are indeed environmental influences. One such lab rat study involved over populating the cage of the pregnant rats, which resulted in them having a higher frequency of giving birth to gay rats. So we have studies that show it is definitely to some degree both genetic and environment, but the exact whys and hows are still unknown. We do know however that it is not a choice, and that such theories as the one's you mentioned in that book are not true.
I hope this helps you to better understand the issue.

 

[Diederick]

Look man, don't hate. I have no personal experience with homosexuals, hence the whole point in this thread.
I just don't know what to believe/follow with Leviticus saying homosexuality is wrong, then going into explain, that it's the practice of homosexuality is wrong vs. homosexuality fullstop.

There are of course instances where people might be under such mental strain that they will exhibit homosexual behaviour. This is true for any behaviour really. But they are exceptional and there is a clear problem with mental health there. Actual homosexuality, meaning people naturally fall in love or tend to fall in love with people of the same gender (i.o.w. when not forced or mentally torn), is recognized by all respectable organizations of mental health professionals including the American Psychiatric Association, as something that is harmless, not an illness and can not (and should not) be changed.

Being an immutable difference, like race or gender, sexual orientation deserves freedom from discrimination.

Leviticus doesn't say 'homosexual', the Bible never uses that word. And that is a good thing, because people in that time didn't know about sexual orientation as we do now, same as how they couldn't explain infectious diseases and earthquakes. It is clear that the Bible condemns practice of sex with someone of the same gender, that it does say. But as is argued in the link of my previous post in this thread, it can be argued that the Bible in such instances is not speaking of people who've fallen in love and came to the point in their relationship where sex is practised; but rather the fallen or those without sufficient faith being engulfed in sin and thereby, in a lustful rage, take both men and women for the highest 'pleasure of the flesh'.

There are Christian denominations which will agree that the Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality but rather lustful acts when it portrays sex between two people of the same gender (is female-female sex in it at all?), and there are (probably far more) churches which condemn homosexual acts and who lovingly corrupted the Bible to actually say 'homosexual' when they suspect the evil ones depicted must have been.

With over 35.000 denominations of Christ, I think we can safely say any matter over which there is doubt in the Christian faith, there is a church which supports each side of the debate. And if there isn't, you are special and should start a new church. Basically what this means is that almost everything that is not 100% clear can be subject of debate and, because apparently 35.000 churches couldn't agree on their faith, neither should you. You, if you want to be Christian or somehow can't help it, have to establish your own faith, measure yourself what is good and what is wrong. The Bible is filled with inaccuracies, so it's more of a guideline, and like Shadow Wolf said, even some die-hard Catholic scientists can't wrap their minds around a literal interpretation of the thing. So make up your own mind, invoke the help of God if you think that'll help, asking people will make you see things in greater detail, but no one can tell you what is right in this matter.

 

[gnomon]

So, some of you may be aware of Leviticus 18 22: "[FONT=arial, helvetica]Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

So does that mean you are allowed to be homosexual as long as you don't practice your sexuality?

And because everyone is a sinner we should treat them no differently, but then the Catholic church despise homosexuals, but not people who cheat on husband/wife.

Also I was told that homosexuals are confused and don't really have sexual feelings towards there own sex, but it's actually quite common for animals to practice homosexuality too.

Discuss?
[/FONT]

I don't believe the Bible is useful for much of anything.

So Leviticus means nothing to me.

As far as homosexuality there is a wealth of information on the biological sexual development of human beings. I would refer you to that information to develop your opinion rather than one phrase lifted out of a book from one particular culture over 2,000 years ago.

 

[Dezzie]

I actually feel quite sorry for the homosexual community, considering I don't believe it's when they are confused, but just how they are.
What I'm trying to figure out, is homosexuality acceptable or not. Even if it may seem unfair.

Well... to answer your question... yes and no. I don't agree with how people treat homosexuals either but most of the Religious Community believes that the Bible is stating NO all together. Personally, I think it was somebody's personal opinion. Whoever wrote that part of the Bible, that is... They didn't like the act so they decided to pretend that God felt the same as Him. People should be able to love who they want. It doesn't harm anyone. It doesn't harm God or Heaven either IMHO. Who knows... if the world was run by homosexuals, the world might just be a better place.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's rather harsh don't you think? He is making an attempt to learn, and you still insult him?

How exactly was that an "insult"? It was a perfectly valid point.

 

[Magic Man]

So, some of you may be aware of Leviticus 18 22: "[FONT=arial, helvetica]Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

So does that mean you are allowed to be homosexual as long as you don't practice your sexuality?

And because everyone is a sinner we should treat them no differently, but then the Catholic church despise homosexuals, but not people who cheat on husband/wife.

Also I was told that homosexuals are confused and don't really have sexual feelings towards there own sex, but it's actually quite common for animals to practice homosexuality too.

Discuss?
[/FONT]

There actually aren't any good reasons to not accept homosexuality, religious or otherwise. Even if you believe in the Bible, the usual places it's said to condemn homosexuality don't actually condemn it, or they don't serve as a reason for most people. You mention Leviticus. That same section of Leviticus tells people not to wear clothes made of a blend of materials, and not to eat shellfish. And that section is, as far as I know, directed at the people of Israel, which would exclude Christians. So, even if you assume that Leviticus is speaking to all people, if you aren't going to consider eating shellfish or wearing cotton/polyester blends immoral or wrong, you also shouldn't consider homosexuality wrong.

Another place the Bible supposedly condemns homosexuality is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In reality what this story is condemning is radical inhospitality, not homosexuality.

Homosexuality is perfectly natural. It should not be considered a sin, and the LGBT community should be treated as you would treat all other humans.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

So, some of you may be aware of Leviticus 18 22: "[FONT=arial, helvetica]Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

So does that mean you are allowed to be homosexual as long as you don't practice your sexuality?

Leviticus also says that rabbits chew cud and they don't. So it would seem that leviticus is not the best book to try to understand any type of biology.

The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.-Leviticus 11:6

 

[Penumbra]

Even a Vatican Astronomer (I don't remember his name but this did actually happen) stated that you can't take all of the Bible to be literal because it was wrote thousands of years before the era of modern science.

It's likely George Coyne, for reference.

 

[Sunstone]

the Catholic church despise homosexuals, but not people who cheat on husband/wife.

The Catholic Church might or might not despise homosexuals, but it certainly does not despise priests who rape children.

The Catholic Church is not an authority on morals, Ireland. It merely thinks it is.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I think many (not all) groups of gays and fundamentalists share a mutual hostility toward each other, and so empower the other to do what they've been doing for so long. Both claim moral high-ground. Both have felt justified in inflicting various forms of pain on the other in the past. Few seem to have the desire to turn the other cheek, let alone unconditionally accept the other's world view, but instead choose to feed on the passion of the conflict, and in essence, both are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I think many (not all) groups of gays and fundamentalists share a mutual hostility toward each other, and so empower the other to do what they've been doing for so long. Both claim moral high-ground. Both have felt justified in inflicting various forms of pain on the other in the past. Few seem to have the desire to turn the other cheek, let alone unconditionally accept the other's world view, but instead choose to feed on the passion of the conflict, and in essence, both are shooting themselves in the foot.

Can't say I believe the gay community are feeling that kind of murderous hatred really...sounds a bit unlikely....thats not the general sentiment I am getting, gay men have better things to discuss and do than the bigoted types who need someone to blame for their own miserable existences...which is tragic.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Look man, don't hate. I have no personal experience with homosexuals, hence the whole point in this thread.
I just don't know what to believe/follow with Leviticus saying homosexuality is wrong, then going into explain, that it's the practice of homosexuality is wrong vs. homosexuality fullstop.

Here's a good guide.

If it encourages you to hate, then it's wrong. If you can't reconcile this with your holy book then get a new holy book.

-Q

 

[Diederick]

I think many (not all) groups of gays and fundamentalists share a mutual hostility toward each other, and so empower the other to do what they've been doing for so long. Both claim moral high-ground. Both have felt justified in inflicting various forms of pain on the other in the past. Few seem to have the desire to turn the other cheek, let alone unconditionally accept the other's world view, but instead choose to feed on the passion of the conflict, and in essence, both are shooting themselves in the foot.

There may have been naughty gays, but to suggest the fault is equal on both sides is wrong and quite offensive. The religious idea that homosexuals are lesser people has caused far more pain on the part of homosexuals, than any group of homosexuals could possibly have inflicted upon the religious. It is like a fight between Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly, one is clearly wrong and aggressive, the other is not.

Besides that I sense that you are trying to argue that there is no right here. But there is, the religious people opposing equality are wrong, the people in favour of equality are right. By temporal standards, at least.

 

[McBell]

I think many (not all) groups of gays and fundamentalists share a mutual hostility toward each other, and so empower the other to do what they've been doing for so long. Both claim moral high-ground. Both have felt justified in inflicting various forms of pain on the other in the past. Few seem to have the desire to turn the other cheek, let alone unconditionally accept the other's world view, but instead choose to feed on the passion of the conflict, and in essence, both are shooting themselves in the foot.

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think we should accept homosexuals. I think accepting them only encourages them to make major contributions to our civilization like Michelangelo, Plato, and Turing did. The jerks.

 

[McBell]

I don't think we should accept homosexuals. I think accepting them only encourages them to make major contributions to our civilization like Michelangelo, Plato, and Turing did. The jerks.

But it is all right so long as we do not know that they are homosexuals, right?

 

[Sunstone]

But it is all right so long as we do not know that they are homosexuals, right?

Of course it's alright if we don't know they are homosexuals. Otherwise we would be unable to vote for at least a quarter of the Republicans in the Senate and House.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

There may have been naughty gays, but to suggest the fault is equal on both sides is wrong and quite offensive. The religious idea that homosexuals are lesser people has caused far more pain on the part of homosexuals, than any group of homosexuals could possibly have inflicted upon the religious. It is like a fight between Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly, one is clearly wrong and aggressive, the other is not.

Besides that I sense that you are trying to argue that there is no right here. But there is, the religious people opposing equality are wrong, the people in favour of equality are right. By temporal standards, at least.

I never said fault was equal for anyone; in fact, I'm not talking about fault at all. I'm saying it's ignorant to take on a group identity and fight each other. I'm sorry if it sounds offensive, but to be honest, I think that's a reaction from ignorance. It is taking sides that keeps people upset and fighting.

I find it a little funny to elevate Bill Mahar above Bill O'Reilly in many ways. Honestly, I find Bill Mahar to be one of the most uncreative, Xeroxed opinions that is influencing the pliable brains of the gullible today. Believe it or not, I care about alot more than just talking points. I pay much more attention to actions than words. There is much value in that.

Are you really that out of touch with reality?

Quite frankly, I don't care for your out-of-date view of reality. I might have dwelt there in the past, but I'm done buying other people's opinions of "reality". To be honest, I don't think you quite grasped what I was trying to convey anyway. You certainly didn't say anything of value, that is certain.

 

[gnomon]

I think many (not all) groups of gays and fundamentalists share a mutual hostility toward each other, and so empower the other to do what they've been doing for so long. Both claim moral high-ground. Both have felt justified in inflicting various forms of pain on the other in the past. Few seem to have the desire to turn the other cheek, let alone unconditionally accept the other's world view, but instead choose to feed on the passion of the conflict, and in essence, both are shooting themselves in the foot.

In what possible way have many groups of gays been inflicting pain on fundamentalists?

 

[McBell]

Quite frankly, I don't care for your out-of-date view of reality. I might have dwelt there in the past, but I'm done buying other people's opinions of "reality". To be honest, I don't think you quite grasped what I was trying to convey anyway. You certainly didn't say anything of value, that is certain.

Quite frankly, I think you are full of ****.
But let us skip the pleasantries and get right to it, shall we?

PLease be so kind as to present the homosexual equivalent to Prop 8.
I mean, with your claim that both sides are equal in the actions towards each other and all...