Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sadly, there are such things as "gay lifestyles". They seem to be self-imposed, like "black culture". It takes what has been stereotyped and turns it into an ideal.

LGBT culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what LGBT culture is. I'm a B and a T.

You don't hear people talking about "the straight lifestyle". What they are usually calling "the gay lifestyle" is being promiscuous, drug-addled, an alcoholic, depressed, un-masculine/un-feminine, etc. They assume that this how most gay and lesbian people are. When they say "gay lifestyle", they're not just talking about being a flaming queen.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I know what LGBT culture is. I'm a B and a T.

You don't hear people talking about "the straight lifestyle". What they are usually calling "the gay lifestyle" is being promiscuous, drug-addled, an alcoholic, depressed, un-masculine/un-feminine, etc. They assume that this how most gay and lesbian people are. When they say "gay lifestyle", they're not just talking about being a flaming queen.

Now that I've never heard of. Just goes to show the fluidity of the term.

It's a pointless label, but apparently it holds merit to some. Tack "culture" or "lifestyle" to anything genetic and it becomes a choice I guess.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Now that I've never heard of. Just goes to show the fluidity of the term.

It's a pointless label, but apparently it holds merit to some. Tack "culture" or "lifestyle" to anything genetic and it becomes a choice I guess.

Whenever you hear homophobic religious people talk about gay and lesbian people, that's the picture they always paint. They tend to view it as a psychological disorder caused by problems in childhood.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, really, there's no such thing as "the gay lifestyle". Does the gay and lesbian community have its share of drug addicts, alcoholics, hardcore partyers and sluts? Sure. (But that's not all or even most gay people.) But so do straight people. But I don't hear homophobes saying they're an example of "the straight lifestyle".

 

[dgirl1986]

Stereotypes are just that....stereotypes. Take me for example...I dont fit the common lesbian stereotypes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Stereotypes are just that....stereotypes. Take me for example...I dont fit the common lesbian stereotypes.

We understand that. But homophobes don't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

My point is that there's no such thing as "gay lifestyles" and I know what the Bible says. All 6 of those verses usually cited are in dispute over what they mean.

"Acting on homosexual impulses" is a good way of putting it. Look, the LORD was clear...

Lev 18:22 "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

I don't know how that verse could be "disputed over what it means". It is as clear as day.

And look, as I said, it isn't just about homosexuals...it is the "straight" fornicators and adulterers as well...and I assure you that more people fall under at least one of those labels than not, including pastors, reverends, etc.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, really, there's no such thing as "the gay lifestyle". Does the gay and lesbian community have its share of drug addicts, alcoholics, hardcore partyers and sluts? Sure. (But that's not all or even most gay people.) But so do straight people. But I don't hear homophobes saying they're an example of "the straight lifestyle".

A lifestyle of being attracted to and having relations with the same sex is a "gay lifestyle". I don't see what is so wrong about that label..it is what it is...a man who lives a life of being attracted to the opposite sex and having relations with the opposite sex is a "straight lifestyle".

Both are a lifestyle. The way that one lives his/her life. What is the big deal here.

 

[dgirl1986]

I find it funny that out of all the things the bible instructs on that goes on todays society, people go nuts over the homosexuality thing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Acting on homosexual impulses" is a good way of putting it. Look, the LORD was clear...

Lev 18:22 "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

I don't know how that verse could be "disputed over what it means". It is as clear as day.

And look, as I said, it isn't just about homosexuals...it is the "straight" fornicators and adulterers as well...and I assure you that more people fall under at least one of those labels than not, including pastors, reverends, etc.

There is a debate over it. Things have context, you know.

Analysis of Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

• The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:
  • The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."
  • On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."
• The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:
  1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" in this verse into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
  2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe.

Religious conservatives and Bible translators tend to interpret this transgression as a moral sin. The King James Bible is typical; it calls sex between to men to be an "abomination." However, others interpret it as a ceremonial uncleanliness -- as an impurity, ritual impurity, or act that results in ceremonial uncleanliness.
​

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

1. The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
2. An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

Context and analysis of Leviticus 18:22 and homosexuality; all views
Translations and interpretations of Leviticus 18:22; all views
The Mosaic Code; Hebrew word To'ebah

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I find it funny that out of all the things the bible instructs on that goes on todays society, people go nuts over the homosexuality thing.

Plus, Christians are hypocritical when they cherry pick from the Mosaic Law to buttress their homophobia, when they don't keep the Law in the first place.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A lifestyle of being attracted to and having relations with the same sex is a "gay lifestyle". I don't see what is so wrong about that label..it is what it is...a man who lives a life of being attracted to the opposite sex and having relations with the opposite sex is a "straight lifestyle".

Both are a lifestyle. The way that one lives his/her life. What is the big deal here.

Because it implies that one's sexual orientation is a matter of behavior and behavior that all who share that orientation have in common. It's faulty language and needs to be dropped.

 

[dgirl1986]

Plus, Christians are hypocritical when they cherry pick from the Mosaic Law to buttress their homophobia, when they don't keep the Law in the first place.

The evangelicals I knew would say they live by the new testament because jesus over rules it but they would always use the OT to tell you what to do.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The evangelicals I knew would say they live by the new testament because jesus over rules it but they would always use the OT to tell you what to do.

Yup. They're cherry picking hypocrites.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is a debate over it. Things have context, you know.

Analysis of Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

• The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:
  • The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."
  • On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."
• The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:
  1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" in this verse into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
  2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe.

Religious conservatives and Bible translators tend to interpret this transgression as a moral sin. The King James Bible is typical; it calls sex between to men to be an "abomination." However, others interpret it as a ceremonial uncleanliness -- as an impurity, ritual impurity, or act that results in ceremonial uncleanliness.
​

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

1. The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
2. An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

Context and analysis of Leviticus 18:22 and homosexuality; all views
Translations and interpretations of Leviticus 18:22; all views
The Mosaic Code; Hebrew word To'ebah

This is a clear example of looking for loopholes in the scriptures. We are all guilty of that at times. Hey, I'm not here to judge anyone, and I refuse to look pass my faults to judge someone on their "alleged" faults. Do whatever you feel is best for you...

Remember the Isley Brothers song... "Its your thing, do what you wanna do / I can't tell you, who to SOCK it to"

hahahaha.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is a clear example of looking for loopholes in the scriptures. We are all guilty of that at times. Hey, I'm not here to judge anyone, and I refuse to look pass my faults to judge someone on their "alleged" faults. Do whatever you feel is best for you...

Remember the Isley Brothers song... "Its your thing, do what you wanna do / I can't tell you, who to SOCK it to"

hahahaha.

Of course...dismiss any opposing view as simply sinners looking for "loopholes" (even though it's mostly not gays making that argument, but scholars, historians and theologians). Don't want to have to question your apparently divinely sanctioned bigotry, after all. That would be horrible and result in some rather humbling self-examination.

God always hates whoever and whatever his followers hate.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yup. They're cherry picking hypocrites.

stereotype much/

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

stereotype much/

It's just the truth. Christians don't follow the Mosaic Law. They don't practice sacrifices, ritual purity or even abstain from contact with women on their period but many of them of feel free to cherry pick seemingly anti-gay verses from Leviticus to buttress their bigotry.

That's hypocrisy.

 

[Viker]

I slip right under the radar to wreck havoc behind enemy lines. Don't call me a trap either. I hate that sh**. I've noticed that I don't fit anyone's stereotypes.

 

[Amechania]

Because it implies that one's sexual orientation is a matter of behavior and behavior that all who share that orientation have in common. It's faulty language and needs to be dropped.

I object to the term because the assumption is that my sexuality determines all that I am. My sexuality is a significant part of my life but it doesn't dictate everything I think, say or do. We don, t say " That one is living the black lifestyle." My sexuality is biologically no less than the color of my skin. I didn't choose it. It chose me.