Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Rick O'Shez]

Keep an open mind....you think to much within the conditioning framework of your mind...it will never produce an output different from the one that always comes out.... your mind is closed to revelation...you fear change...

That is pure projection on your part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Bottom line: It's not a choice. Not any more than heterosexuality or any other sexual orientation is a choice.

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

What Taylor Seraphim said was that homosexuality is not a human creation. So not sure what line of logic you think you’re following.


Also humans do practice cannibalism and filicide already. Apparently a lot of animals do and it is natural. (Of course that doesn’t mean we should[/i}, just pointing out that we do.)

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.

Who says it was designed at all?

Umm, right. Neither do you apparently.

I’m not the one claiming it was designed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

That's true regardless of age.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I wasn't talking about the faithless either. I was talking about people who supposedly took commands from god to go and wipe out their neighbours and to stone people to death for fairly minor infractions.
Before accusing someone of reading comprehension problems, you probably shouldn't be guilty of it yourself.

.. Jesus never spoke about homosexuality....nor about bestiality and pedophilia..but that doesn't mean he was approved of it...

Then I repeat, 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?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Sure they do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No you are mistaken....I am not the judge....the bible judges them as it plainly says that homosexuality is an abomination.... You are also judging the bible as having no divine input...shame on you...how do you know this?

How do you know it does have divine input?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you want to be treated equally then treat us the same. Do not force us to conduct or contribute to your marriages. Conduct your own marriages (gay preachers, gay judges, gay cake shops, etc.) and respect our beliefs, even if you think they are "hateful". Nevermind the violence, as that is not going on in America. This is all about social status, not rights. American gays still had rights before gay marriage was legal. They could still get civil unions. Marriage, as an institution, is just a social thing. I don't even believe in it, not for straights or gays.

Ya know, there are plenty straight people that would gladly perform a marriage ceremony, or issue a marriage license or bake a cake for a gay wedding, and many of them are Christians. What you're saying here is that if gays want to get married they should go find a gay preacher and a gay judge and a gay baker? What on earth are you saying?

If two people that have entered into a civil union aren't afforded the same rights as a married couple (which is the case), then those people don't have the same rights as anyone else.

You're certainly free to be judgmental and hateful towards gays, but you also have to expect that people might have a problem with your views, just like you have a problem with theirs. I will certainly point out bigotry and hatred when I see it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand this....it is a sensitive issue for homosexuals...

Gee I wonder why people might be upset about being called an abomination ....

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree, but that's beside the point. You are nitpicking a single sentence from what I said and failed to address my point, which is to say that gays should have their own institutions that cater to their wants.

Then the laws should be changed. The government shouldn't be conducting marriages in the first place.

What's the point in having a Constitution then, if everybody gets to just do what they want?

Now you're advocating segregation for gay people? Eesh.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, and no that is not the same thing as racism. Sexual orientation is a choice, and I've already presented evidence to prove that. The color you're born with isn't.

Don't be ridiculous. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Ask any human being of any sort of sexual orientation whatsoever.
And it is the same thing as racism - it's discrimination against a group of people for something that is beyond their control. I.e. Not their choice.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

....a gay preacher and a gay judge and a gay baker...

...and a gay candle-stick maker.

 

[SkepticThinker]

...and a gay candle-stick maker.

Haha! You're awesome.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Earlier you claimed that the Bible said that anal sex between and man and woman was an abomination, and JoStories asked you for a source.

Yes...the anus lower colon was not designed by nature for sexual intercourse.... If the bible expressly condemns homosexuality, it is logical to accept that one of the reasons it that anal sex is unnatural for the reason above, and that there are serious health risks...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes...the anus lower colon was not designed by nature for sexual intercourse.... If the bible expressly condemns homosexuality, it is logical to accept that one of the reasons it that anal sex is unnatural for the reason above, and that there are serious health risks...

That has nothing to do with the statement I took contention with. To remind you a third time, the statement was this one:

Eve was made as a mate for Adam...if Adam used the Eve's back passage for sex...the human race would not exist...

Now that you understand the context in which you said this, maybe you can finally answer what I have been asking for two pages now: What was the point you were trying to make with the ABOVE statement?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you talking about the movie about the Catholic sex abuse scandal? What does that have to do with homosexuality? Are you trying to equate gay men to sex abusers? Wtf.

No....the irony that we are talking about bible teachings on morality as they pertains to deviate sex....and the Catholic church, being the self proclaimed divinely appointed institution on the planet with the inherent responsibility to uphold and proclaim the bible teachings, has been the sexual corrupter of their flock all over the planet for centuries...and this corruption was and is systemic.....it goes right to the top.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It shows that that you have chosen to be selective. You discriminate against gays but not against shell-fish, though both are apparently seen as "bad" in the Bible.

What about gay shell-fish though, where would you stand on them? Would it make any difference how big their mussels were?

I don't see the relevance of a movie about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Spiny...the thread is about homosexuality in the context of biblical teaching......shellfish is way off topic....but it is your standard mo to misdirect and create strawman digressions...kids..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That has nothing to do with the statement I took contention with. To remind you a third time, the statement was this one:

Now that you understand the context in which you said this, maybe you can finally answer what I have been asking for two pages now: What was the point you were trying to make with the ABOVE statement?

Oh......I presumed you would have known that a woman can not get pregnant as a result of anal sex....it is true...google it? It then follows that if Eve could not get pregnant, she would not have children....Adam and Eve would have been the first and last humans.... We would not exist...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh......I presumed you would have known that a woman can not get pregnant as a result of anal sex....it is true...google it? It then follows that if Eve could not get pregnant, she would not have children....Adam and Eve would have been the first and last humans.... We would not exist...

And, as I had pointed out, the exact same would be true if Adam had taken a vow of abstinence. So, in light of that point, what is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to say that anal sex is therefore bad - because that must mean that you believe abstinence is bad. If that's not the case, what is?

 

[Parsimony]

Animals will sometimes practice cannibalism and filicide, but does that mean it is natural behavior?

By definition, yes. Don't equivocate "natural" with "good".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I wasn't talking about the faithless either. I was talking about people who supposedly took commands from god to go and wipe out their neighbours and to stone people to death for fairly minor infractions.
Before accusing someone of reading comprehension problems, you probably shouldn't be guilty of it yourself.


Then I repeat, 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?

This thread is about homosexuality and bible teaching on the subject.....the wider debate about morality wrt incidents in the bible narrative is not being discussed. Now get on topic and stop creating strawman digressions..

Here are the passages I put to you....wave your hands about all you like about biblical personages who didn't mention homosexuality... they are not relevant to the subject and are not being discussed. Now get on topic and stop creating strawman digressions...

Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10