Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[SkepticThinker]

WOW, okay.....

Even though I've stated that I wasn't going to participate in this thread anymore, I need to say a couple of things:

1. 
   I'm beginning to think that the whole reason why this thread was created was to expose all the "homophobes" to either disrespect them or ban them.

I have no idea why the thread was created.

1. 
   Judging someone's person or religion as "homophobic" because they believe homosexuality is immoral is wrong and not fair. For thousands of years people have held the view that a relationship between a man and a woman is natural because their pieces fit together, and that two hot dogs and two bagels don't fit. It is a moral objective to many, and it is wrong for homosexuals to expect tolerance from those whom they know don't approve; to expect others to throw away their world view for the sake of their sexual preference. It's completely selfish. Why do homosexuals care so much about what others think of them? That's a serious question because all they think about is promoting gay tolerance.

If a religion does espouse homophobic beliefs, why is it wrong and/or unfair to point that out if it is true? People thought slavery was a-ok for hundreds of years as well, but that doesn’t mean we still must think it’s acceptable, right? If someone’s worldview is racist, why is it wrong or unfair to call it what it is?

By the way, two men can fit their pieces together too, not that that really matters at all.

I think all that homosexuals and probably just most people ask is to be left alone to go about their business as they see fit, as long as they’re not harming anyone. They, like most other people, just want to be treated the same was as anyone else is treated. There are some religious people out there who do just that. But there are many, like some politicians, for example, that want to enact legislation that is discriminatory towards gay people, or to curb their freedoms in a way that doesn’t extend to any other group of people or just to keep laws on the books that are discriminatory specifically toward gay people. Is that fair? If a gay couple wants to buy a cake for their wedding, as straight couples do, why shouldn’t gay couples deserve the same as anyone else deserves?

This whole thing about homosexuality vs religion is way overblown. It is a violation of freedom of religion to force churches to perform gay marriages, or to force Christian judges to issue a marriage certificate for homosexuals, or to close down cake shops because the owners object to make wedding cakes for gay couples. Equal rights, huh? I don't think so.

I don’t think anyone is advocating that Christian churches should be forced to marry gay couples, at least, I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned anywhere in the thread.

Christian judges who represent the government are forced to issue marriage certificates to gay couples (and should be) because it’s not up to the government to promote or favour any religion. Freedom of religion works both ways. A Christian judge that represents the State, who doesn’t want to follow the law shouldn’t be a judge if they can’t properly carry out their duties.

Let me ask you this … if there were a Christian bakery that didn’t want to bake cakes for interracial marriages, should that be okay? Is it wrong or unfair to say they can’t discriminate against interracial couples?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why are you focusing on anal sex? There's way more ways for men to have sex with each other than anal, and straight people have anal sex more than gay or bi men.

Besides, your argument doesn't really factor in lesbians (although some of them enjoy anal sex, too).

My original Yyuk was in response to another post about homosexual sex...it was raised again now so I responded as I did...I would prefer not...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I specifically mentioned to you in my post #1623 the ten commandments and sermon on the mount as the relevant teachings.... so Jesus never mentioned sodomy, but then neither did he mention beastiality, pedophilia, etc... And I remind you that it is not I who originates the condemnation, but the scriptural teachings on morality...

Uh ok, whatever. You're all over the place here. Ancient peoples are not wiser and more moral than you are then?

Where do your views against homosexuality come from then? Jesus never mentioned it and the 10 commandments don't refer to it. If those are the "relevant teachings" where are you coming up with your views on it?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

WOW, okay.....

Even though I've stated that I wasn't going to participate in this thread anymore, I need to say a couple of things:

1. I'm beginning to think that the whole reason why this thread was created was to expose all the "homophobes" to either disrespect them or ban them.

2. Judging someone's person or religion as "homophobic" because they believe homosexuality is immoral is wrong and not fair. For thousands of years people have held the view that a relationship between a man and a woman is natural because their pieces fit together, and that two hot dogs and two bagels don't fit. It is a moral objective to many, and it is wrong for homosexuals to expect tolerance from those whom they know don't approve; to expect others to throw away their world view for the sake of their sexual preference. It's completely selfish. Why do homosexuals care so much about what others think of them? That's a serious question because all they think about is acceptance.

3. This whole thing about homosexuality vs religion is way overblown. It is a violation of freedom of religion to force churches to perform gay marriages, or to force Christian judges to issue a marriage certificate for homosexuals, or to close down cake shops because the owners object to make wedding cakes for gay couples. Equal rights, huh? I don't think so.

Here's the solution: maybe homosexuals should just accept the fact that not everyone is going to approve of their lifestyles and deal with it. It isn't the end of the world.

(1): That may have been the result but nothing points to that being the intention.

(2): No it is perfectly fair because sexuality is genetic and homosexuals occur among humans AND other animals therefore it is not a human creation. This is the equivalent of saying that it is wrong for mixed marriage couples to want people to accept them.

(3): I would agree with the first and third examples but the second is not excusable. As a judge you are to enforce and follow the laws of your country regardless of your personal views, does that mean that if someone said their religion does not allow people to mix race that a judge can turn down a bi-racial couple?

Here is a solution, homosexuals should (and most already do) realize there are bigots out there who deny science, tolerance, and logic but try to reach the people who do not.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My original Yyuk was in response to another post about homosexual sex...it was raised again now so I responded as I did...I would prefer not...

There's nothing that LGBT people do sexually that straight people don't, really.

 

[MountainPine]

IPeople thought slavery was a-ok for hundreds of years as well, but that doesn’t mean we still must think it’s acceptable, right? If someone’s worldview is racist, why is it wrong or unfair to call it what it is?

You're comparing homophobia to slavery and racism? Are you serious? That's called a straw-man argument. Just so you know, "homophobe" is a derogatory term used to describe anyone with morals.

By the way, two men can fit their pieces together too, not that that really matters at all.

You mean anal sex? The anus was designed for excretion, not sex. That's common sense. When the anus is penetrated and stretched, it cracks, allowing semen and pathogens to enter the bloodstream causing illness. They do not get their pieces to fit, they force their pieces where they don't belong.

If a gay couple wants to buy a cake for their wedding, as straight couples do, why shouldn’t gay couples deserve the same as anyone else deserves?

So what if it isn't fair? If you own your own business, you should be able decide whom you serve.

Christian judges who represent the government are forced to issue marriage certificates to gay couples (and should be) because it’s not up to the government to promote or favour any religion. Freedom of religion works both ways. A Christian judge that represents the State, who doesn’t want to follow the law shouldn’t be a judge if they can’t properly carry out their duties.

Then only secular judges should be appointed to conduct marriages for gay couples. Whether or not a Christian judge represents the State, their religious views need to be respected.

Let me ask you this … if there were a Christian bakery that didn’t want to bake cakes for interracial marriages, should that be okay? Is it wrong or unfair to say they can’t discriminate against interracial couples?

Of course it should. A lot of people consider miscegenation to be a sin.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You mean anal sex? The anus was designed for excretion, not sex. That's common sense. When the anus is penetrated and stretched, it cracks, allowing semen and pathogens to enter the bloodstream causing illness. They do not get their pieces to fit, they force their pieces where they don't belong.

Many parts of the body have more than one role. For example, the penis itself has both sexual and excretory functions. The lips, tongue, thighs, skin in general, etc. are highly erogenous and pleasurable when stimulated.

When it comes to anal stimulation and penetration, it's pleasurable because of the anatomy. With males, the prostate lies against the rectal wall and it is known to be extremely pleasurable for it to be stimulated, often producing intense orgasms in the male. It may also be stimulated by rubbing, licking, etc. the perineum.

With females, anal play can be pleasurable because of the closeness to the vaginal walls.

With both males and females, there are very sensitive nerve endings centered around the anal opening that can feel very good when stimulated. Also, many people enjoy the feeling of "fullness" that anal penetration provides, due to the nerve endings there.

As for the health risks, that's taken care of by using condoms, using a lot of lube and going slow (as well as paying attention to hygiene). When you're relaxed and highly aroused, it can be pretty easy to insert the tongue, fingers, penis, toys, etc. into it, without any harm.

Besides, I suppose you've never gone for a prostate check with your doctor? How exactly do you think they check the prostate? They put instruments and their finger(s) into your butt to check it. With endoscopies, they also put a scope up your butt to check your digestive tract.

Just a friendly message from your RF sex ed teacher.

Of course it should. A lot of people consider miscegenation to be a sin.

Which is just as reprehensible, illogical and harmful.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I don’t think anyone is advocating that Christian churches should be forced to marry gay couples, at least, I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned anywhere in the thread.

Christian judges who represent the government are forced to issue marriage certificates to gay couples (and should be) because it’s not up to the government to promote or favour any religion. Freedom of religion works both ways. A Christian judge that represents the State, who doesn’t want to follow the law shouldn’t be a judge if they can’t properly carry out their duties.

Let me ask you this … if there were a Christian bakery that didn’t want to bake cakes for interracial marriages, should that be okay? Is it wrong or unfair to say they can’t discriminate against interracial couples?

To be honest I agree with you on all but the last one.

The bakery has the right to not do that, but that does not make what they are doing any less wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're comparing homophobia to slavery and racism? Are you serious? That's called a straw-man argument. Just so you know, "homophobe" is a derogatory term used to describe anyone with morals.

Yes I am, and you aren’t responding to it because … ?

You tried using the "tradition is best" argument, so I countered it pointing out that slavery/racism was once tradition as well, but that doesn't mean we must let it continue just because it was always that way.


Homophobe is not a derogatory term used to describe anyone with morals. Where on earth did you come up with that?

You mean anal sex? The anus was designed for excretion, not sex. That's common sense. When the anus is penetrated and stretched, it cracks, allowing semen and pathogens to enter the bloodstream causing illness. They do not get their pieces to fit, they force their pieces where they don't belong.

Yes, I mean anal sex and oral sex, both of which heterosexuals engage in as well. The pieces fit just fine for many people.


You have no idea what the anus was designed for, or any other body part for that matter. Many body parts serve multiple purposes. It’s not for you to decide who does what with which body parts.

So what if it isn't fair? If you own your own business, you should be able decide whom you serve.

You’ve avoided answering my question again. But at least you admit it isn’t fair. Not only that, it’s discriminatory. I guess you also think businesses should be allowed to turn away Jews or black people?

Then only secular judges should be appointed to conduct marriages for gay couples. Whether or not a Christian judge represents the State, their religious views need to be respected.

How about just appointing a judge who is going to follow the law and do his job? Is that too much to ask?


If a judge represents the state, they must follow the law. If gay marriage is legal, they must issue marriage licences to gay couples, regardless of their personal views on the matter. That’s what a judge is supposed to do. You just cited the First Amendment, but for some reason you think it only works in one direction.

Of course it should. A lot of people consider miscegenation to be a sin.

Again, the law disagrees with you.


You seem to have ignored a lot of my post; why is that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Judging someone's person or religion as "homophobic" because they believe homosexuality is immoral is wrong and not fair. For thousands of years people have held the view that a relationship between a man and a woman is natural because their pieces fit together, and that two hot dogs and two bagels don't fit. It is a moral objective to many, and it is wrong for homosexuals to expect tolerance from those whom they know don't approve; to expect others to throw away their world view for the sake of their sexual preference. It's completely selfish. Why do homosexuals care so much about what others think of them? That's a serious question because all they think about is acceptance.

Let's apply this to women. Paul wrote women are not to be in positions of authority over men. Is it wrong to judge such an attitude misogynist? For thousands of years people have had objections to women being fully entitled and equal citizens. Why do women care so much? Is it really selfish of women for wanting to break from societal and religious norms?

It is a violation of freedom of religion to force churches to perform gay marriages

No one is trying to force that.

or to force Christian judges to issue a marriage certificate for homosexuals

If the judge is a public servant, then the judge has a job to do. A judge does not get to arbitrarily decide whom will be wedded or not.

to close down cake shops because the owners object to make wedding cakes for gay couples.

Regardless of religious beliefs, it is illegal to put up a sign that says "no negroes allowed." No matter what you believe, it is illegal to base hiring on religious affiliation, national origin, or veteran status.

Here's the solution: maybe homosexuals should just accept the fact that not everyone is going to approve of their lifestyles and deal with it. It isn't the end of the world.

Here's a better solution. Get over yourself and treat everyone like a human being and stop going out of your way to discriminate and try to make people feel bad about themselves. You are free to believe what you want, but no one should be expected to adhere to your own personal beliefs. You go do whatever. That's fine. Don't expect others to do what you do, however.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You mean anal sex? The anus was designed for excretion, not sex. That's common sense. When the anus is penetrated and stretched, it cracks, allowing semen and pathogens to enter the bloodstream causing illness. They do not get their pieces to fit, they force their pieces where they don't belong.

The rectum is lined with muscles that are designed to stretch. Sure, if people aren't careful injury can happen, but there is also risk of vaginal damage and even broken penises from heterosexual intercourse.

 

[MountainPine]

No it is perfectly fair because sexuality is genetic and homosexuals occur among humans AND other animals therefore it is not a human creation.

A trait is not determined by a single gene, and sexual orientation is not genetic. Scientists have tried to make this evident by studying twins, but failed to produce solid concrete evidence of a gay gene. People don't even have a sexual orientation until puberty. It is true that humans are genetically sexual, but that only means we desire our private parts to be stimulated. The only reason we have have different private parts is for procreation. The purpose of sex cells is to perform meiosis when the two are combined in a heterosexual union. This is simple logic. The peg fits in the hole. Women were made differently to appeal to men and vice-versa.

As for animal homosexuality, this is why it happens. A female will release the estrus scent during mating season. After a male mounts the female, that male will have the scent rubbed off on him and another male will sometimes mistake him for a female and mount him because an animal's instincts override their brains. Animals will also commit homosex as an act of dominance, or if there is no opposite sex around they will practice mutual masturbation. But no animal is ever consciously gay. While homosexual behavior is apparent in many species, it is not possible that individual animals will have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities.

Animals will sometimes practice cannibalism and filicide, but does that mean it is natural behavior? Should humans eat each other and their children because animals do it? According to your logic, yes we should. I have all the evidence that animal homosexuality is a myth here: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/animalhomo.html

I've also made a video several years ago refuting the gay gene myth:

The rectum is lined with muscles that are designed to stretch. Sure, if people aren't careful injury can happen, but there is also risk of vaginal damage and even broken penises from heterosexual intercourse.

Only to an extent, but it was not designed for penetration, that's why it always needs to be lubed before sex, where as a vagina has natural lubricants. People who practice sodomy over long periods of time have loose anuses because the tissue doesn't contract. Vaginas also have anti-bodies. Anuses do not. Anuses have weak tissue making it easier to contract STDs being that the tissue easily cracks allowing for them to enter the bloodstream, as well as bacteria from fecal matter, which can cause infection.

You have no idea what the anus was designed for, or any other body part for that matter. Many body parts serve multiple purposes. It’s not for you to decide who does what with which body parts.

Umm, right. Neither do you apparently.

As for the health risks, that's taken care of by using condoms, using a lot of lube

That just proves the anus was not designed for sex.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

[QUOTE="MountainPine, post: 4620620, member: 47580"where as a vagina has natural lubricants.[/quote]
Not always enough. It's pretty common for men to just try to shove it in and not pay much attention to if the woman is actually ready or not (or even wants it). In fact, I think a lot of the perception among heterosexuals that having vaginal sex for the first time is probably going to be painful has more to do with people not knowing what they're doing and not really caring about the other person. Vaginal sex should never be painful and you really shouldn't be bleeding, either.

People who practice sodomy over long periods of time have loose anuses because the tissue doesn't contract.

That's not true. Otherwise, we'd all be in diapers again by at least our 20s. When you're putting something in your butt, you're relaxing the muscles, not stretching them. Same with the vagina. Actually, playing around with it might actually strengthen the muscles, just as exercise strengthens muscles in general.

That just proves the anus was not designed for sex.

You need those things for heterosexual sex, too. Vaginal penetration without enough lubrication is very painful. Also, you should use a condom unless you're ready to be a parent or don't mind the risk of catching something.

 

[MountainPine]

Vaginal penetration without enough lubrication is very painful.

LOL, really? Maybe if the woman is old, but otherwise that is ridiculous.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

A trait is not determined by a single gene, and sexual orientation is not genetic. Scientists have tried to make this evident by studying twins, but failed to produce solid concrete evidence of a gay gene. People don't even have a sexual orientation until puberty. It is true that humans are genetically sexual, but that only means we desire our private parts to be stimulated. The only reason we have have different private parts is for procreation. The purpose of sex cells is to perform meiosis when the two are combined in a heterosexual union. This is simple logic. The peg fits in the hole. Women were made differently to appeal to men and vice-versa.

As for animal homosexuality, this is why it happens. A female will release the estrus scent during mating season. After a male mounts the female, that male will have the scent rubbed off on him and another male will sometimes mistake him for a female and mount him because an animal's instincts override their brains. Animals will also commit homosex as an act of dominance, or if there is no opposite sex around they will practice mutual masturbation. But no animal is ever consciously gay. While homosexual behavior is apparent in many species, it is not possible that individual animals will have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities.

Animals will sometimes practice cannibalism and filicide, but does that mean it is natural behavior? Should humans eat each other and their children because animals do it? According to your logic, yes we should. I have all the evidence that animal homosexuality is a myth here: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/animalhomo.html

I've also made a video several years ago refuting the gay gene myth:

Only to an extent, but it was not designed for penetration, that's why it always needs to be lubed before sex, where as a vagina has natural lubricants. People who practice sodomy over long periods of time have loose anuses because the tissue doesn't contract. Vaginas also have anti-bodies. Anuses do not. Anuses have weak tissue making it easier to contract STDs being that the tissue easily cracks allowing for them to enter the bloodstream, as well as bacteria from fecal matter, which can cause infection.



Umm, right. Neither do you apparently.



That just proves the anus was not designed for sex.

Yeah you just proved you have not read any scientific articles on the matter.

Also you are acting like one of those bisexuals homophobics who think everyone is like them and must choose the opposite sex.

Do you serisoly think straight men enjoy having sex with other men?

And for that matter what gender do you think I should limit having sexual interactions with.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

That just proves the anus was not designed for sex.

So I suppose vaginas are not as well?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Uh ok, whatever. You're all over the place here. Ancient peoples are not wiser and more moral than you are then?

Where do your views against homosexuality come from then? Jesus never mentioned it and the 10 commandments don't refer to it. If those are the "relevant teachings" where are you coming up with your views on it?

You are serious deficient in reading comprehension and reasoning.....the ancient peoples who were wiser than I were the prophets and the apostles, not the faithless... Jesus never spoke about homosexuality....nor about bestiality and pedophilia..but that doesn't mean he was approved of it...

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

You are serious deficient in reading comprehension and reasoning.....the ancient peoples who were wiser than I were the prophets and the apostles, not the faithless... Jesus never spoke about homosexuality....nor about bestiality and pedophilia..but that doesn't mean he was approved of it...

The prophets and the apostles....

Like the Oracle of Delphi?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There's nothing that LGBT people do sexually that straight people don't, really.

Huh....true Christians do not do homosexual acts...no anal sex....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The prophets and the apostles....

Like the Oracle of Delphi?

What has the Oracle of Delhi got to do with the bible prophets and apostles of Christ?