Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not follow your logic...or lack thereof...on the subject of anal sex being an unsound practice morally....what has abstinence got to do with it? Now I know abstinence means no descendants...but so would castration, infanticide, Adam murdering Eve before giving birth to the first child, etc., etc....but the point is that abstinence and all these other unlikely possibilities have absolutely zilch to do with anal sex which is what the topic is...yes? So please pay attention to what you say and make it relevant because you've wasted so much of my time on your nonsense...

I'm sick of having to explain my point over and over again to someone who just refuses to get it. You're done.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm sick of having to explain my point over and over again to someone who just refuses to get it. You're done.

You never had one from the beginning...just being a time waster...

 

[JoStories]

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

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.

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/

This is your source? Are you serious? Its a right wing tea partyist site spreading horse manure. There is not one shred of scientific evidence in the entire article. No wonder you are deluded if this is the kind of propaganda you follow.

 

[JoStories]

You will have to follow the exchange between Jo and I about anal sex.. Jo asked for a source and I told her the bible and she would not accept... And iirc, she then asked where the bible said anal sex was wrong between a man and a woman.. I then made the point of the logical result of such an approach to sex....that if the first man used the woman's anus as the place for his penis....there would be no humanity today....

So what do you think would be the logical result of male horses, pigs, dogs, fowls, etc., using the female's anus to have sex?

This does not preclude the idea that Adam had sex with Eve for fun and used anal sex. Can you prove they didn't do this? Can you even prove there was an Adam and Eve? No. Can I prove that we evolved from primates? I can most definitely post countless articles that show this.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This does not preclude the idea that Adam had sex with Eve for fun and used anal sex. Can you prove they didn't do this? Can you even prove there was an Adam and Eve? No. Can I prove that we evolved from primates? I can most definitely post countless articles that show this.

Jo....you are consistently drifting waaay of topic....this thread is not about evolution...it is not about kosher diet...it is about what the bible considers an abomination...anal sex! Genesis 19 .... Leviticus 18:22 ... Leviticus 20:13 ... Romans 1:26-27 .. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ... 1 Timothy 1:10

Now please be reasonable and not digress from the OP....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This does not preclude the idea that Adam had sex with Eve for fun and used anal sex.

Well, they were prancing around naked with nothing to do....maybe that devious snake talked them into some form of sexual "perversion" and God didn't approve..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You (general you) tout out that one verse as being directly given to you by God but when it comes to shellfish or pork, those you can ignore. Either the book was written by God and therefore has to be adhered to or it was not.

Gay shell-fish would probably have large "mussels", impressive "winkles" and make "prawn" movies.

 

[JoStories]

No offense, but for the sole purpose of example, if I believed it was okay to rape women and I broke into your mother's house and raped her, then you would have no right to hate me for it but have respect for my subjective morality. See the error in your logic? Morality is not subjective.

Yes, morality IS most definitely subjective. For some of the ancient Latin American peoples, IE: Aztecs, Incans, cannibalism was perfectly acceptable. And today, in some parts of the middle east and more particularly, in Africa, rape is not only allowed it is condoned. For those peoples, it is morally acceptable. For you, morality includes finding all homosexuals deviant and abnormal. Those are your morals. They are not mine, however,

 

[JoStories]

Gay shell-fish would probably have large "mussels", impressive "winkles" and make "prawn" movies.

GROAN...now that was BAD Norman. Funny but very naughty!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For you, morality includes finding all homosexuals deviant and abnormal. Those are your morals.

Or is it bigotry masquerading as morality?

 

[JoStories]

How so? It is a perfect example of subjective morality. A person believes raping is okay, therefore, he should do it. It clearly addresses the subject.

Moral consensus is reached by society. Thus, the SCOTUS deemed that SSM was and is a right for ALL peoples. Before that, it was not and is still seen, as in people in you, as morally wrong. Rape may be moral for one or two people but for the majority, it is not. Therefore, laws are made to prohibit it. Those same laws, about 70 years ago, precluded Blacks from drinking at the same water fountains as whites. Do you begin to understand this?

 

[JoStories]

Or is it bigotry masquerading as morality?

I don't think so Norman. For these peoples, viewing being gay as wrong is their moral stand. The bigotry only comes about when the majority sees the stand as being same.

 

[JoStories]

For heavens sake Jo....it is a matter of logic....if a man lying with another man as with a woman, ie..anal sex...is condemned....why would anal sex involving a man lying with a woman as with another man be any different.. It is anal sex that is condemned...not love...

You still have not provided a Biblical reference that states that anal sex is prohibited. Therefore, as can be seen, this is merely your opinion. Nothing wrong with that but at least be man enough to admit the fact.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

GROAN...now that was BAD Norman. Funny but very naughty!

Shell-fish puns are good fun to winkle out though.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Good grief......read my words in the quote you responded to...your post #1929....where is the word animal even mentioned??? The irony of asking me to pay attention and you are too obtuse to even know your response makes no sense and has no relevance to what you quoted... time waster!

HE was making a point about absistence as a response to your point about animals which I clearly explained.

I am honestly starting to think you are just trolling me because I doubt your reasoning skills are as low as they seem.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

You'd have to ask someone who believes in supernatural things. I'm not one of them. Just talking about word usage.

I know your not XD

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No offense, but for the sole purpose of example, if I believed it was okay to rape women and I broke into your mother's house and raped her, then you would have no right to hate me for it but have respect for my subjective morality. See the error in your logic? Morality is not subjective.

No because you broke secular laws in doing so, if you disagree with the laws of this society you need to campaign against it or leave.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

1) Show me where it is in that agenda.

2) And in the eyes of many ISIS is a good thing, having random people who agree with you proves nothing.

Yes it does, just like not accepting someone's race is.

What the **** does this have to do with removing a female's clitoris!?!

Bull****, Islam forbids that actually it is done in many pagan African cultures, just like male genital mutilation is done in Jewish and Christian cultures.

Homosexuality is indeed not a culture, it is a genetic condition.

3) And how is doing anal sex creating harm in the world?

No one is saying that a man and a woman being in a relationship is unnatural.

And quoting your mother proves what exactly?

 

[Draka]

Never, never, try sitting down and reading over a dozen pages of this thread at once. I felt like someone was slapping my brain with inordinate amounts of stupid. Far too much to address. Couldn't even go back and try fishing for all the stupid individually. Can't do it, won't do it.

If anal sex is wrong or bad because if Adam had done that with Eve then they wouldn't have had children...then it logically follows that anything else which Adam may have done which would have prevented children then must be just as wrong including abstinence.

The point being made about shellfish is valid. Though it could have well been pork or wearing mixed fabrics or any number of other things. The point is that these are things which are also addressed as sinful or bad in the bible. Things you are not to do. If sin is sin, then there is no godly difference in eating crab-meat and having a homosexual relationship. They are both sin in the eyes of god. To criticize one and not all the other "sins" of the bible is to be a hypocrite. To partake in eating shellfish (or pork or wearing mixed fabrics or etc) and at the same time condemn homosexuality is to be a hypocrite with not a leg to stand upon in the argument. It only shows one cherry picks what they want to believe and hold to in the bible while keeping the dust off of themselves.

What is found in nature is natural. If animals do it, it is natural. All it means is that it is found in nature and is therefore a natural part of physical existence. Whether something is natural or not speaks nothing to whether something is considered "good" or not. Those things are judgments based upon subjective morals. And yes...

Morals ARE subjective. In many societies laws are developed which address certain things morally to a point of an objective determination. The general basis for determining as to whether something is morally wrong as a whole for a society is whether the action has a victim. Thus...rape = wrong, consensual sex = fine. If what a person does they do willingly or with consent and with no intended harm to another it is usually considered moral. Ergo, homosexuality is, inherently, moral. No victim, no intended harm, consensual. Just like heterosexuality. In fact, it is actually hard to say a sexual orientation is moral or immoral as is it a state of being. You may as well say it is moral to be Asian or female. It is our actions which can be judged moral and if they are consensual and victimless then they would be considered moral.

Homosexuality is an innate orientation just like heterosexuality. That is to say...yes...you are born that way. In fact, there have been several studies which have shown that the arousal reactions within the brain of a gay man are nearly identical to those of a straight woman and the reactions for a lesbian nearly the same as a straight man. There are scans which show this. That means, it is a brain wiring thing. The brain is formed where? In the womb. Much like how most people are born right handed because the usual part of the brain which establishes dominancy is found within the left hemisphere and only a fraction of people are born left handed because, for some reason during development, that usual part of the brain stops forming before dominancy is established and thus has to be picked up in the right hemisphere (ambidextrousness is thought to occur when one side starts to establish dominancy and the other side finishes)...it is surmised easily enough that the part of the brain which determines attraction to the opposite sex stops forming before that is determined and another part of the brain picks up orientation. The variation in orientation may well be explained along the lines of how ambidextrousness is explained. You could no more choose your orientation then you could choose whether you are right or left handed. You may train yourself to us your right hand if you are left handed, but it will never feel right and you will always be more adept with your left. Same goes with sexual orientation.

More than enough for now I think. I'm still reeling from this thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You intentionally ignored what I wrote and stated the antithesis.

How could he have written the antithesis if he ignored your thesis?

No, it means that when animals do it it is unnatural.

How is it unnatural for an animal to do something they normally do? Whoever claimed that nature is safe, friendly, and Disney-esque? Lestat's "Savage Garden" is rather a spot-on philosophy, stating that the world is a place filled with beauty and wonder but also great destruction and death.

"Survival mode" is not natural behavior.

Yes, it very much is. I suggest you read some case studies involving those who experienced traumatic events, troops returning from war, or someone who came from a very dire and/or abusive situation and fell into "survival mode" because self-preservation is a very strong and very natural instinct for nearly all living organisms.

No offense, but for the sole purpose of example, if I believed it was okay to rape women and I broke into your mother's house and raped her, then you would have no right to hate me for it but have respect for my subjective morality. See the error in your logic? Morality is not subjective.

Just because morality is subjective does not mean you have to approve or like something. In this case, breaking into a house and raping someone causes harm. It should not be tolerated, and there should be consequences for the attacker. Actually, having a position of moral relativism means you have to not only develop an approach to what is moral, but you also have to be able to defend it without appealing to culture, tradition, religion, or norms. It requires things to be thoroughly thought through, and the consideration of many sources and positions.

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

The point of Common Core that is refuted is that teaching kids to pass a test is terrible pedagogy. Now, of course conservatives do like to complain that things like the new AP-US History standards do not make America look infallable, and they don't like homosexuality being mentioned as something normal, but the bad spots of American history should not be ignored and their views of homosexuality are nothing more than a personal religious view. And, of course, it is also used to be socially acceptable to use the Bible as justification to have slaves, discriminate based on ethnicity, keep women oppressed and repressed, and to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

Besides, clitoridectomies are only practiced in African Islamic cultures, but that is a culture.

There are Muslim cultures that do not practice that, and non-Muslim cultures that do. It's most frequently practiced today in Africa and the Middle East, but it is unfortunately practiced globally, and the practice predates both Islam and Christianity.

Not accepting a particular sexual orientation does not violate anyone's right as a human being.

It does when you believe it is ok to discriminate and harass someone of a sexual orientation (or anyone). You can believe what you want, you can hate who you want, but when you start calling for discrimination and/or violence and condoning discrimination is when you are going too far.

Did you know that HIV was originally known as "Gay Man's Disease", and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) was originally known as "Gay Bowel Syndrome"?

HIV was erroneously believed to "gay disease," but even early researches quickly realized that notion is false. And I wonder if you even know what IBS is, because the symptoms of it do not match with what you are claiming as risks of anal penetration (and you probably don't know what group gets IBS at a higher rate).