Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[SkepticThinker]

Are you serious? If I felt "bothered" by a particular position or ideology, am I justified in having that person with that ideology removed from my presence via request or force? If someone feels bothered by the actions of another human being that directly affect nobody but themselves, the genuinely respectful thing to do is to respect their right to do it. People can voice their disapproval if they wish, or politely request them to do otherwise, but ultimately other people's personal decisions, beliefs and actions are not beholden to your sensibilities, religious or otherwise. To suggest that others amend their personal freedoms in accordance to someone else's personal beliefs it thoroughly absurd.

This ^^^^^

 

[MountainPine]

It is relevant when it comes to matters of informed consent.

No it isn't. When two teenagers make a conscious decision to have sex, and even plan it out and "play safe", is that not informed consent? Do you really think people are not informed about anything until they are 18? Pfff....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

People are responding to your assertion that you get your morality from the Bible. Spiny Norman is making a point that speaks directly to that assertion, as I also did.

The pest again....what don't you understand about off topic nonsense? This thread is about the morality of homosexuality according to the bible....here are the passages I present to you.....Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10 Now the subject of my dietary habits in the context of biblical rules is not what the OP is about....it is not the issue being discussed....so don't change the subject and read the linked passages above for your understanding of morality as it pertains to homosexuality...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Real mature. You intentionally ignored what I wrote and stated the antithesis.

I didn't ignore what you wrote. You seem to think sexual orientation is a choice. I pointed out that practically every person who is alive that identifies withy any kind of sexual orientation knows that it is not a choice. You included.

No, it means that when animals do it it is unnatural. An animal is going against it's nature when it eats it's young when there is a scarcity of food. "Survival mode" is not natural behavior.

You were responding to a claim that homosexuality is not a human creation, which it clearly isn’t since animals have actually been observed practicing homosexuality.


Then you pointed out that animals practice filicide and cannibalism and asked if that makes it natural behavior and/or something humans should do. To which I pointed out that humans have been known to practice such behaviors as well so maybe it is natural.


And now you’re saying that when animals do it, it is not natural and that “survival mode” is not natural behavior. So I have to ask you why you don’t consider “survival mode” a natural behavior? Survival mode of “fight or flight” is the sympathetic system’s reaction to a perceived harmful or dangerous stimuli or threat to the animal’s survival. So what’s unnatural about it?

The Bible, and other creationist religious sources.

Who says the Bible is correct? And where does it provide detail about the supposed design and purpose of the anus?

 

[Draka]

First I want to thank @SkepticThinker for pointing out @ImmortalFlame 's post addressing this because I remember it being one of those head slapping moments when I read through this thread earlier.

(1): Yes. People who know that drinking, or doing anything at else that would cause a religious person or group to be bothered should do such things around them. It's called respect. And if that person doesn't have the courtesy to do that, then that religious individual or group should remove that person out of their presence, via request or force. (the former is preferred obviously)

This is a whole lot of "no". If you find yourself in a situation where someone is doing something which makes you uncomfortable, and the thing they are doing is completely legal for them to be doing and they have every right to do so, then it is not them that need removed from the situation, but you. If you find yourself in a designated smoking area and there is someone smoking there and you don't like the smoke then YOU leave that area. You do not make them put out their cigarette. In a public setting, where the public has rights, if you don't like any part of the public exercising those rights then YOU leave. Not them.

Likewise, if someone works in the public sector, their wages paid by tax money, then they work for ALL the public whether they religiously agree with anyone or not. If a person cannot separate their beliefs from the job they are to do then perhaps they should not have that job. That goes for not just judges and county clerks and the like, but also for businesses who intend to make their money in the public sector. In businesses which deal with public accommodation one cannot simply refuse service to someone because they are black, or because they are female, or because they are...gay. When one takes this absurd idea that it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals if your religion makes you think that you don't have to "deal with" them just how far does that go? Providing car insurance? Medical care? Adoption services? Or do you simply draw the line at businesses which deal in the business of matrimony? Discrimination is discrimination and if you go into a job or business in which you are going to have to be dealing with the public then that means ALL the public. If a person can't handle that without discriminating against people then perhaps they shouldn't work in such lines of work.


Edited for typos. I hate when I don't notice these things until after someone else has quoted me.

 

[Draka]

No it isn't. When two teenagers make a conscious decision to have sex, and even plan it out and "play safe", is that not informed consent? Do you really think people are not informed about anything until they are 18? Pfff....

Who is the victim?

Do you not look into certain laws at all? 18 may be a legal adult, but there are all kinds of numbers of ages which come up when it comes to consent. What you aren't going to find though is anyone saying a 12 or 13 year old has the wherewithal to consent to a 36 year old. You keep wanting to push it down the slippery slope, but it simply won't go. You cannot compare what two consenting adults do with each other to situations where there is a clear perpetrator and victim. Whether you ignorantly want to bring pedophiles into this, or bestiality, or rape or etc etc etc...you keep bringing crimes in to compare with a consensual relationship. It doesn't work. You'd have to show how a homosexual relationship is in and of itself a crime with one perpetrator and one victim before you can make such comparisons. Short of that, you are blowing hot air.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sacrificing babies is destructive, so is drinking, and so is homosexuality, and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone with a religious foundation. And the reason why I say that homosexuality is destructive is because

Homosexuality is not any more or less destructive than heterosexuality, and you haven't shown otherwise.

a) It causes anal destruction, resulting in infection. And the people here who are objecting to this and to the fact that the anus is not a sex organ like ShadowWolf and SkepticThinker are loaded with bs.

Then maybe you could explain why, as Saint Frankenstein (and others) pointed out, that there are pleasant points in the anus and prostate, same as there are in the clitoris and vagina, which kind of puts your assertion in doubt here.


By the way, I’ve had vaginal infections before, and plenty of women have had yeast infections throughout the course of their lives. So going with your line of reasoning here, that would mean that the vagina should not be used as a sex organ.


I simply have been pointing out that if people want the anus to be a sex organ, it can be. Plenty of heterosexuals have used it as one.

b) It causes destruction of family values. All homosexuals who have religious parents have dishonored them and setting bad examples for the next generation.

This new Common Core curriculum is going to teach young children that being gay is normal and will discourage heterosexuality. (source: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/19/3439163/state-rep-common-core-gay/

No it doesn’t. What causes the destruction of family values is parents and family members rejecting a HUMAN BEING who is a member of their family for simply having a sexual orientation they have no control over. Gay marriage strengthens family values, given that the people marrying each other are CREATING a family.

We ‘ve had the same type of fear mongering going on here as well, with new curriculum being introduced that teaches kids that homosexuality exists as a sexual orientation. For some reason people interpret this to mean that the curriculum discourages heterosexuality or pushes kids into being gay (as if you can “make” people gay) which of course, it actually does not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree. You seem to think that nature encompasses all. Would it be natural if I stabbed someone?

You disagree? Then can you explain why our sympathetic nervous system naturally reacts in the way it does?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The prefix 'true' implies they live by the biblical teaching.....the bible does not teach sexual deviation.....

They would say that they do live by the biblical teaching, based on their interpretation of it. And since the Bible is obviously open to many interpretations (given the huge number of Christian denominations in existence), who's to say you're right and they're wrong?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lots of sex acts can result in bodily harm and infection. What's more, if you honestly only view homosexuality in terms of "anal sex", then your view is obviously skewed toward the gutter. The vast majority of anal sex is still performed in heterosexual relationships, and if your argument is merely against anal sex as an unsafe sexual practice, then your argument is against poor sexual hygiene, not homosexuality. Many homosexual men do not practice anal sex. Also, I assume this means you can find no issue with lesbianism?

I was going to point this out as well, and forget to. I'm glad you thought of it.

Since you have started with the assumption that homosexuality is abnormal and devaluing, your logic is purely circular. There is no good reason to assume that children can be "taught" to be gay. And, frankly, what you personally believe honors or shames families is a complete non-issue. There are parts of the world where a young girl not consenting to having her genitals mutilated, or being forced into an arranged marriage, supposedly "dishonors" her family. What people may feel honors or dishonors their family is irrelevant - what's relevant are the rights of human beings be protected and that their preferences and actions, provided those actions bring no harm to others, are not used as grounds for the discriminating ideologies of bigots.

So, essentially, your argument for homosexuality being destructive is "Anal sex can sometimes be dangerous" and "It doesn't mesh with my personal view of what family should be". Not exactly a formidable case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science has refuted the Common Core curriculum's agenda? Hmm, interesting.



In the eyes of many, homosexuality is grotesque and is an unnatural affection. Not accepting a particular sexual orientation does not violate anyone's right as a human being. Removal of a girl's clitoris can cause physical and emotional harm, which is a violation of her natural rights. Besides, clitoridectomies are only practiced in African Islamic cultures, but that is a culture. Homosexuality is not a culture, it's merely an orientation. Your argument is not relevant, and one MAJOR straw-man.

And, no, my issue is not just with anal sex. Straight couples do a lot of sexually immoral practices, but that is not what this thread is about. Like I said before, the peg fits the hole; therefore, man + woman is natural. As my mother used to say, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Lots of "pegs" easily fit in "holes." That point has already been refuted.

If you think homosexuality is "grotesque" and unnatural, then don't do it. Simple.

Making human beings feel that they are grotesque and unnatural has real consequences. Gay teenagers (and adults) commit suicide all the time in response to such disrespectful and demeaning attitudes toward them. They are HUMAN BEINGS, for Pete's sake, and they are harming no one.

 

[Draka]

Wait a second, wasn't it this @MountainPine person who didn't seem to think that poorly lubricated vaginal sex hurt? That the idea that sex could be painful for the woman was absurd? I think I remember that bit among the mountains of tripe. Am I wrong?

 

[MountainPine]

I didn't ignore what you wrote. You seem to think sexual orientation is a choice. I pointed out that practically every person who is alive that identifies with any kind of sexual orientation knows that it is not a choice. You included.

Knows or thinks? I know for a fact it is not genetic, and anyone who says it is not a choice is consciously lying.

You were responding to a claim that homosexuality is not a human creation, which it clearly isn’t since animals have actually been observed practicing homosexuality.

Then you pointed out that animals practice filicide and cannibalism and asked if that makes it natural behavior and/or something humans should do. To which I pointed out that humans have been known to practice such behaviors as well so maybe it is natural.

And now you’re saying that when animals do it, it is not natural and that “survival mode” is not natural behavior. So I have to ask you why you don’t consider “survival mode” a natural behavior? Survival mode of “fight or flight” is the sympathetic system’s reaction to a perceived harmful or dangerous stimuli or threat to the animal’s survival. So what’s unnatural about it?

Would you eat your kids in a survival situation? It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior and vice-versa. Human nature is different than animal nature. We are conscious beings who think with our minds. We have a concept of morality, decency, logic, and reasoning. We can invent complex materials, and create civilizations, cultures, ideals, etc. Animals are only bound to their instincts. They don't know why they do what they do, nor why they need to fit in where they fit in. They just do according to instinct. Animals are not naturally sexual like humans are. They only have sex during mating season to propagate their species, and sometimes, like I said before, to dominate another animal (anal sex). Again, no animal will ever engage in prolonged homosexual activity to the exclusion of heterosexuality.

I was wrong for saying that "survival mode" is not natural behavior. It is not behavior at all, it has a state of mind that is "switched on" in particular situations. The behavior is the actions that proceed from that state of mind. But even animals will hesitate to eat their young and try to search for food, and will only do it as a last resort.

Who says the Bible is correct? And where does it provide detail about the supposed design and purpose of the anus?

The first question is off-topic, so I will not answer that, and the second one doesn't deserve an answer because you asked it in order to lead to an ad hominem attack, and it's a stupid question.

 

[Draka]

Knows or thinks? I know for a fact it is not genetic, and anyone who says it is not a choice is consciously lying.

So, you are saying you could up and choose to be gay right now? Just, bam, make that choice and you will fall deeply in love with another man and want nothing more than to hold him and kiss him and cuddle next to him in bed for the rest of your life? I don't think so.

Did you bother to read the post I made this morning covering many subjects hit upon in this thread? Did you see the bit about the neurological workings of the aroused brain? If you have not, I suggest you go back and do so. Perhaps you'll learn something. Orientation is indeed innate. It is indeed something which you are born with. It is determined in utero. I have not mentioned genes at all. I speak from a neurological perspective. Go look. I'll wait.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Pedophiles are already pushing to have pedophilia as a recognized orientation rather than a mental illness. They want rights too. You can find evidence for this all over Google. Before you know it will be legal for kids to marry adults, and then zoophiles will start pushing for rights..... oh, boy...

Wow, it took a long time for this bogus slippery slope argument to come out, where people are marrying children and having sex with animals.
Good grief. Is this what you've been reduced to?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is a whole lot of "no". If you find yourself in a situation where someone is doing something which makes you uncomfortable, and the thing they are doing is completely legal for them to be doing and they have every right to do so, then it is not them that need removed from the situation, but you. If you find yourself in a designated smoking area and there is someone smoking there and you don't like the smoke the YOU leave that area. You do not make them put out their cigarette. In a public setting, where the public has rights, if you don't like any part of the public exercising those rights then YOU leave. Not them.

That is a very good point. I can't stand being around cigarette smoke since I quit, hog farms on a hot/humid day even smell better, but not in a million years would I ever think about telling or even asking someone to not smoke in their own home when I am a guest. If I were a guest and saw a bunch of Christian things, I wouldn't ask them to not display them, and I wouldn't even challenge their faith (not unless they brought it up). I may not like the music some people listen to, but even in their own cars I won't ask them to change the station because I don't like it. A part of a healthy society is people being able to at least at the bare minimum tolerate the things in others they don't like.
It's kinda like Ramadan in the work place. If you observe, great. That's your life, your choice, and I hope you are satisfied with your life. But don't ask me to skip lunch, pretend I'm not eating, or eat somewhere else just because someone else is doing something they feel appropriate for their own lives.

 

[MountainPine]

Who is the victim?

Do you not look into certain laws at all? 18 may be a legal adult, but there are all kinds of numbers of ages which come up when it comes to consent. What you aren't going to find though is anyone saying a 12 or 13 year old has the wherewithal to consent to a 36 year old. You keep wanting to push it down the slippery slope, but it simply won't go. You cannot compare what two consenting adults do with each other to situations where there is a clear perpetrator and victim. Whether you ignorantly want to bring pedophiles into this, or bestiality, or rape or etc etc etc...you keep bringing crimes in to compare with a consensual relationship. It doesn't work. You'd have to show how a homosexual relationship is in and of itself a crime with one perpetrator and one victim before you can make such comparisons. Short of that, you are blowing hot air.

Two teenagers consenting to sex is consensual. Forget the law for a minute and apply some logic.

 

[MountainPine]

Wait a second, wasn't it this @MountainPine person who didn't seem to think that poorly lubricated vaginal sex hurt? That the idea that sex could be painful for the woman was absurd? I think I remember that bit among the mountains of tripe. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong because I never said that poorly lubricated vaginal sex doesn't hurt. I was saying that young women generally don't need lubricants because their vaginas have natural lubricants.

 

[Draka]

Oh shoot, here:

Sexual Orientation is in the Brain

Several other studies indicate that sexual orientation — heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality — is determined by peculiarities of the brain structure and differences in brain chemistry. Cultural or societal factors, upbringing, moral leanings, and educational attainments do not determine sexual orientation as greatly as neural mechanisms do. In fact, scientists have identified several areas of the brain that they believe determine sexuality in an individual. These areas include the hypothalamus and the amygdala. Inter-hemispheric neural connectivity has also been found to contribute significantly to sexual orientation.

A landmark study by Savic and Lindström indicates that there are cerebral differences in homosexual and heterosexual individuals. There are differences in brain anatomy, activities, and neurological connections. Brain scan images of the subjects who participated in this study show that the brains of homosexual individuals exhibit similar structure and functionality as that of heterosexual individuals of the opposite gender.

According to the study, lesbians and straight men have similar brain structures and functionalities while gay men and straight women share neural characteristics. For instance, MRI findings prove that the right hemispheres of the brains of the lesbians and heterosexual men have slightly greater volumes than their left hemispheres. But the left and right hemispheres of gay men and heterosexual women are symmetrical.

http://brainblogger.com/2015/05/14/homosexuality-in-the-brain/

Comparing Brain Scans
A provocative new study has produced more evidence that the brains of homosexual men and women tend to differ from those of heterosexual men and women. This image contains a series of brain scans of homosexual and heterosexual men and women, focusing on a part of the brain involved in processing emotions known as the amygdala. The brains of homosexual men appear more similar to those of heterosexual women than heterosexual men while homosexual women appear more similar to heterosexual men than heterosexual women.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/23/GR2008062300060.html

There are many more articles about this out there if you would bother to look.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wow, it took a long time for this bogus slippery slope argument to come out, where people are marrying children and having sex with animals.
Good grief. Is this what you've been reduced to?

Don't tell them this, but they're evolving.