Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

Asked and avoided is what happened.

whatever

 

[shmogie]

Asked and avoided is what happened.

whatever

 

[SkepticThinker]

All the evidence science can offer has identified no specific, inherent, consistent cause for homosexuality. What we invariably are is the result of genetics, no specific gene has been identified and declared the cause of homosexuality in all who have it. If you know of this gene, that has been identified beyond a reasonable doubt to cause homosexuality, identify it

This assumes we can pinpoint one precise thing that "causes" heterosexuality as well. It doesn't really work that way and gene expression isn't really that basic. For anything. There are many other factors involved including epigenetics and prenatal environment.

 

[SkepticThinker]

whatever

Yes, whatever indeed.

I can simplify it into a yes or no question for you. Did you consciously choose to be heterosexual?

If the answer is no, what makes you think other people are consciously choosing their sexual orientation.

 

[sojourner]

It affects them if they agree. I could call somebody a demon from hell, if they don't agree, then their is no affect. Hypersensitivity to words is nonsense, has gotten totally out of control. When I was in college, all those decades ago, The Black Students Union would not admit those of European ancestry because of the color of their skin, if any applied. So what, nobody cared. If some believed Gypsies were thieves, the Gypsies would laugh and go on about their life. Today people CHOOSE to be harmed by words, sounds. The college campuses are full of whiners and crybabies and it is all BS. You can choose to be harmed, or choose to consider the source and move on.

Whites aren't the minority. Gypsies aren't systemically discriminated against. You don't seem to understand the dynamics of systemic dehumanization. This isn't about individuals. It's about the system.

 

[shmogie]

Yes, whatever indeed.

I can simplify it into a yes or no question for you. Did you consciously choose to be heterosexual?

If the answer is no, what makes you think other people are consciously choosing their sexual orientation.

I have been patiently waiting for you and your fellow travelers to present evidence, any evidence to support your claims, you have not because you cannot. Instead, you have resorted to disingenuous word play to dismiss my view. It is time to take you down from your high horse, since you and your cohorts refuse to dismount. So, Lets look at the evidence on the matter. The American Psychological Association contends that the cause of homosexuality (their word, cause) is not understood. However they list eight factors that are always present in homosexuals, virtually all are environmental. They concede that there is is no clear evidence that confirms homosexuals" are born, not made", my words. Look it up, in fact, look up all the research on the matter, identical twins, prison populations, "reformed" homosexuals, all of it from those who BELIEVE that homosexuals cannot be anything different to those who BELIEVE it is a choice. And everywhere in between, I have. All with solid credentials, all with some kind of research that supports their position. So, I have watched while you and others have peddled a sows ear as a silk purse, day after day, Using absolute terms like never, always, and wrong, spicing the rhetoric up with terms like bigot or hater, waiting for someone to be honest, you all failed. You have a BELIEF you believe is a fact. Your belief is wrong, you are no more right than I am. There is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the matter. So, in the end, you are presenting as the truth, what cannot be established as the truth, so it could be a lie. You have an agenda, the agenda is to present the muddy as clear, and excoriate any who dare say the muddy is muddy. I will say I am a little disappointed, I expected some intellectual honesty

 

[shmogie]

Whites aren't the minority. Gypsies aren't systemically discriminated against. You don't seem to understand the dynamics of systemic dehumanization. This isn't about individuals. It's about the system.

People who allow words to dehumanize them have little faith in their humanity

 

[sojourner]

I have been patiently waiting for you and your fellow travelers to present evidence, any evidence to support your claims, you have not because you cannot. Instead, you have resorted to disingenuous word play to dismiss my view. It is time to take you down from your high horse, since you and your cohorts refuse to dismount. So, Lets look at the evidence on the matter. The American Psychological Association contends that the cause of homosexuality (their word, cause) is not understood. However they list eight factors that are always present in homosexuals, virtually all are environmental. They concede that there is is no clear evidence that confirms homosexuals" are born, not made", my words. Look it up, in fact, look up all the research on the matter, identical twins, prison populations, "reformed" homosexuals, all of it from those who BELIEVE that homosexuals cannot be anything different to those who BELIEVE it is a choice. And everywhere in between, I have. All with solid credentials, all with some kind of research that supports their position. So, I have watched while you and others have peddled a sows ear as a silk purse, day after day, Using absolute terms like never, always, and wrong, spicing the rhetoric up with terms like bigot or hater, waiting for someone to be honest, you all failed. You have a BELIEF you believe is a fact. Your belief is wrong, you are no more right than I am. There is NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the matter. So, in the end, you are presenting as the truth, what cannot be established as the truth, so it could be a lie. You have an agenda, the agenda is to present the muddy as clear, and excoriate any who dare say the muddy is muddy. I will say I am a little disappointed, I expected some intellectual honesty

Then, if there's no clear evidence, why not give them the benefit of the doubt??? Isn't that the more loving and Christian attitude?
(BTW: you've never answered the question of why homosexuality deserves some irrefutable "cause," but heterosexuality does not.

 

[sojourner]

People who allow words to dehumanize them have little faith in their humanity

It doesn't have anything to do with the peoples' feelings themselves. It has more to do with either supporting or refuting the prevailing social attitude toward them that results in social pressure and ostracism, separation, and being singled out. No one can stand the open contempt of his fellows for long. No one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All the evidence science can offer has identified no specific, inherent, consistent cause for homosexuality. What we invariably are is the result of genetics, no specific gene has been identified and declared the cause of homosexuality in all who have it. If you know of this gene, that has been identified beyond a reasonable doubt to cause homosexuality, identify it

You apparently didn't take in the article I posted where a scientist could predict the sexuality of someone, with over 70% accuracy, by the presence of a single gene marker.

 

[shmogie]

Then, if there's no clear evidence, why not give them the benefit of the doubt??? Isn't that the more loving and Christian attitude?
(BTW: you've never answered the question of why homosexuality deserves some irrefutable "cause," but heterosexuality does not.

Heterosexuality just is, all of the physical, hormonal, psychological building blocks combine to produce a heterosexual person 90% of the time.. something causes a male or female to not act as a heterosexual, but as a homosexual, it is aberrant, until proved otherwise. As a Christian, I owe them equal treatment as far as my conscience will allow, respect, kindness, all the things a true Christian believes anyone, and everyone deserves.

 

[shmogie]

You apparently didn't take in the article I posted where a scientist could predict the sexuality of someone, with over 70% accuracy, by the presence of a single gene marker.

I read it, for whatever reason, most scientists don't give it much value, or at least they are not quoting it.

 

[sojourner]

Heterosexuality just is, all of the physical, hormonal, psychological building blocks combine to produce a heterosexual person 90% of the time.. something causes a male or female to not act as a heterosexual, but as a homosexual, it is aberrant, until proved otherwise. As a Christian, I owe them equal treatment as far as my conscience will allow, respect, kindness, all the things a true Christian believes anyone, and everyone deserves.

And, by the same virtue, homosexuality just is, 10% of the time. Homosexuality isn't an action. It's an orientation, until proved otherwise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It doesn't have anything to do with the peoples' feelings themselves. It has more to do with either supporting or refuting the prevailing social attitude toward them that results in social pressure and ostracism, separation, and being singled out. No one can stand the open contempt of his fellows for long. No one.

Really, it doesn't matter. He is of the, I guess, for a lack of anything else to go by at the moment, of the "super privileged." Not only does he live with privilege, and all that entails, but his position is also such that he has never really had his status of privilege challenged. We can fairly assume his sexuality has never been questioned or challenged. This is a difficult assumption to make, but we have plenty of his posts now to act as a guide to suggest this has never happened to him. Of course no one has told him his sexual attractions are shameful, that they will get him into hell, they make him less of a man, or that god wants nothing to do with his abominable ***. Never has this happened to him, never has he had to question such things, I'll even guess he has never pondered such things.
The two things I can deduce are that either he is bisexual, and has attractions towards both but because he did factually decide just to focus on women he has such views of "choice," (but this strikes me as very unlikely, because he doesn't strike me as the type to ever have had a sexual attraction towards a man), or, what seems more likely, he has no idea and he is basing his views upon what is a strictly conservative Christian perspective, a view that doesn't even consider for a moment "I haven't been there." To me, in my "not-quite-yet-a-full-"judge and jurry," he seems very likely to be of the group that just doesn't know. Though the "choice" we frequently see out of people who do seem to be bisexual, he seems to be straight (or just very dishonest, which in this regards doesn't seem as likely as in regards to other things). So we are left with his belief in sexuality as a choice. Now, obviously, those who are homosexual do not believe it is a choice, and the scientific community at large does not believe this. So what we are left with is that his information comes from rigidly conservative sources, and although these sources make up a very slim minority, he has chosen to believe them over other sources, probably for no other reason than his religious conviction - and this cannot be ignored or understated because anyone who says such things can take a blind-bet and assume that anything he says is from the perspective of a conservative Christian, the perspective of someone who does not understand and who does not understand.
This thread is actually pretty good. We have Jeager, a Christian who does not judge homosexuals and has professed a deep friendship with a homosexual (so deep that he entrusts his very well being and life with a homosexual), and then we have Shmogie, who is also a Christian, but who has said his best friend cannot be homosexual. Personally, I'd say I'm for more interested in the "Christian vs. Christian" aspect of it, because they both have the same book, the same Messiah, and the same god, but they have two completely different approaches on the subject. But, at the same times, it's not that interesting because one of those Christians has shown he's more accepting of others, which is what we see Christ doing throughout his time in the NT, and another Christian who shuns others and turns them away. We also have examples of Christ doing such a thing, but this was with hypocrites and money lenders being present at the temple. Adding the perspective of someone who is GLBT, trained in psychology or psychiatry, or well read in the subject isn't so interesting. What is interesting, however, is when two people of the same identical religion have two completely different views. I leave Ben out because he is not on the same level of acceptance as Jeager or on the same level of "no" that Shmogie is on, yet it's also interesting to add because that gives us a third view, which is not the level of acceptance as human beings that Jeager's is on, but Ben has also said he will not even associate with homosexuals, leaving him in the middle of the two, albeit closer to Shmogie's view than Jeager's.
So, what we are left with is who of these Christians is right? I am in a position to add my own experience to weigh the thoughts of the two, and my own experience, which does come from a view more similar to Shmogie's, which is a past that left me miserable and wanting to die. Had I been a member of a church who was affirming, I may have never left my faith to begin with. Obviously my position is heavily biases. But we can review what Christ did and taught. When reviewing the first four books of the NT, I have no reason to believe that Christ himself would have turned someone away for being homosexual, unlike Shmogie who said he won't even associate with them.

 

[leibowde84]

Luis is living proof of your error in believing that.."Being an atheist does not mean one cannot be spiritual."....for Luis is implying it is foolish to have spiritual transcendence as a goal ....and that is the consistent position that Luis always takes...as do all atheists...There is some serious cognitive dissonance there between your belief in the spirituality of Luis and his repudiation of spirituality as foolishness...yes?

Luis might say this, but you and I both know it is completely absurd to claim this applies to all atheists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Luis might say this, but you and I both know it is completely absurd to claim this applies to all atheists.

Perhaps...but I know of no atheist who hopes to realize spiritual transcendence....

 

[shmogie]

Really, it doesn't matter. He is of the, I guess, for a lack of anything else to go by at the moment, of the "super privileged." Not only does he live with privilege, and all that entails, but his position is also such that he has never really had his status of privilege challenged. We can fairly assume his sexuality has never been questioned or challenged. This is a difficult assumption to make, but we have plenty of his posts now to act as a guide to suggest this has never happened to him. Of course no one has told him his sexual attractions are shameful, that they will get him into hell, they make him less of a man, or that god wants nothing to do with his abominable ***. Never has this happened to him, never has he had to question such things, I'll even guess he has never pondered such things.
The two things I can deduce are that either he is bisexual, and has attractions towards both but because he did factually decide just to focus on women he has such views of "choice," (but this strikes me as very unlikely, because he doesn't strike me as the type to ever have had a sexual attraction towards a man), or, what seems more likely, he has no idea and he is basing his views upon what is a strictly conservative Christian perspective, a view that doesn't even consider for a moment "I haven't been there." To me, in my "not-quite-yet-a-full-"judge and jurry," he seems very likely to be of the group that just doesn't know. Though the "choice" we frequently see out of people who do seem to be bisexual, he seems to be straight (or just very dishonest, which in this regards doesn't seem as likely as in regards to other things). So we are left with his belief in sexuality as a choice. Now, obviously, those who are homosexual do not believe it is a choice, and the scientific community at large does not believe this. So what we are left with is that his information comes from rigidly conservative sources, and although these sources make up a very slim minority, he has chosen to believe them over other sources, probably for no other reason than his religious conviction - and this cannot be ignored or understated because anyone who says such things can take a blind-bet and assume that anything he says is from the perspective of a conservative Christian, the perspective of someone who does not understand and who does not understand.
This thread is actually pretty good. We have Jeager, a Christian who does not judge homosexuals and has professed a deep friendship with a homosexual (so deep that he entrusts his very well being and life with a homosexual), and then we have Shmogie, who is also a Christian, but who has said his best friend cannot be homosexual. Personally, I'd say I'm for more interested in the "Christian vs. Christian" aspect of it, because they both have the same book, the same Messiah, and the same god, but they have two completely different approaches on the subject. But, at the same times, it's not that interesting because one of those Christians has shown he's more accepting of others, which is what we see Christ doing throughout his time in the NT, and another Christian who shuns others and turns them away. We also have examples of Christ doing such a thing, but this was with hypocrites and money lenders being present at the temple. Adding the perspective of someone who is GLBT, trained in psychology or psychiatry, or well read in the subject isn't so interesting. What is interesting, however, is when two people of the same identical religion have two completely different views. I leave Ben out because he is not on the same level of acceptance as Jeager or on the same level of "no" that Shmogie is on, yet it's also interesting to add because that gives us a third view, which is not the level of acceptance as human beings that Jeager's is on, but Ben has also said he will not even associate with homosexuals, leaving him in the middle of the two, albeit closer to Shmogie's view than Jeager's.
So, what we are left with is who of these Christians is right? I am in a position to add my own experience to weigh the thoughts of the two, and my own experience, which does come from a view more similar to Shmogie's, which is a past that left me miserable and wanting to die. Had I been a member of a church who was affirming, I may have never left my faith to begin with. Obviously my position is heavily biases. But we can review what Christ did and taught. When reviewing the first four books of the NT, I have no reason to believe that Christ himself would have turned someone away for being homosexual, unlike Shmogie who said he won't even associate with them.

An interesting diatribe. A clarification of facts, Contrary to your opinion science and psychology are all over the map, there is no consensus. Christianity is not homogeneous,so someone does not necessarily have " the exact same religion as I do". Roman Catholics are not the same, Jehovah's Witnesses are not the same and on and on it goes. There are serious doctrinal differences. I practice a form of Christianity based upon the Bible, primarily the NT, all of it. So, you believe Christ himself would not have turned someone away for being a homosexual, I agree. However, he told a woman sleeping with a man, not her husband, "go, and sin no more". Christ made it very clear that we all must give up something, to follow him. Now, if a person believes that Christ saves them in their sin, not from their sin, that belief is fine for them. However, Christ spent a great deal of time pointing out sin, and asking for repentence. Christ discussed marriage a lot, it is always between a man and woman, never between two of the same sex, so if the woman at the well was guilty of a sin for having sex outside of marriage, wouldn't two homosexuals doing the same be as guilty ? Wouldn't the instruction be the same ?
We do not have to speculate though, Paul made the issue very clear, you may believe that his words have not been translated right, or if one looks at the words for a long time, he is saying something else. That is perfectly OK, for you. I on the other hand believes he has the authority to say exactly what he says. You are right, I have not have had to experience the things you have had to, and it must have been terrible. I am sorry anyone has to go through that. However, those feelings do not mitigate my belief that the Bible and it's teachings and instructions, as written, cannot be compromised. I would hope that even if I was to be killed if I didn't compromise, like so many Christians in the middle east have been told, that I would stand firm and die, just as they have done. I would heartily encourage you to seek your peace wherever it is found, I am not the voice of God, I have no responsibility to convince you of anything, if that is needed, God will do it. I simply am presenting a position, and what evidence I believe confirms that position.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps...but I know of no atheist who hopes to realize spiritual transcendence....

You should really get out more, then. If your views of atheists are that limited, then you may want to go out and meet some more of them, and learn from them. They may all be "atheists," but they tend to be as varied in their views as they are varied as people.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You should really get out more, then. If your views of atheists are that limited, then you may want to go out and meet some more of them, and learn from them. They may all be "atheists," but they tend to be as varied in their views as they are varied as people.

Well there's plenty on RF and none of them have ever shared with me we were fellow travelers on a spiritual journey of transcendence...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Contrary to your opinion science and psychology are all over the map, there is no consensus.

First, there is indeed much consensus in science psychology, and, for second, my degree is in psychology, so you probably want to stop trying to pretend you know when it's so very clear you don't. There may be some things that are "all over the map," but there is a very clear consensus on many issues, one of which is that homosexuality is not a choice and that no one should discriminate against them because it does lead to problems in life. I can stand firm that I know that both APAs agree with this, they have issued statements that agree with this, and that every single major psychological, psychiatric, sociological, anthropological, and counseling organization agrees with me. This even overlaps into the fields of biology and neurology. I can invoke a legion of sources that agree with me. You have an ancient book and a handful of sources, many of which had leaders preaching they can "prey the gay away" only to later be caught with male prostitutes.

Christianity is not homogeneous,so someone does not necessarily have " the exact same religion as I do".

Of course not all Christians are the same, but they are all Christians, they all follow Christ, they all hold the Bible as their sacred and holy text. That was the point. We have three Christians, yet all three of you have different approaches to the subject of homosexuality.

Christ discussed marriage a lot, it is always between a man and woman, never between two of the same sex, so if the woman at the well was guilty of a sin for having sex outside of marriage, wouldn't two homosexuals doing the same be as guilty ? Wouldn't the instruction be the same ?

If they were having sex outside of marriage. But homosexuals can now get married in all places in America, so this "sex outside of marriage" does not apply to those homosexuals who are married.

You are right, I have not have had to experience the things you have had to, and it must have been terrible. I am sorry anyone has to go through that.

If you really are sorry, you'll ditch the attitude that you won't even associate with homosexuals. It's that sort of attitude that does, factually, form the basis of institutional violence. This isn't beating someone up violence, but the violence that is a result of discrimination, lack of and legal protections for employment, lack of and protections for housing, lack of and protections for medical treatment, and lack of and protections for next-of-kin rights.