Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[Kerr]

But I strongly resent the tendency to want to limit Freedom of Speech, and oppose any attack on the traditional family and family values, which needs all the help it can get. Seems they could find happiness without attacking the family and family values.

We are debating homosexuality, not attacking the "traditional" family. There is a difference.

 

[ayani]

quite honestly, and i've said this elsewhere, but it seems like sometimes people assume that folks who are not for gay marriage are automatically going to picket against it, and raise Cain.

i'm not for it morally or religiously, but obviously gay men and women who don't see any reason why they shouldn't get married aren't going to see it my way. and why should they? they're not Biblical, evangelical Christians convinced that it's wrong.

so i say, let people do what they want. i'm not going to picket for it or against it. i know what i believe and why, and it's silly to try to force theological values on people who simply don't have and don't want to share my worldview.

if someone asks me how i feel about it, i'll tell them, and explain why. i'm not going to stay quiet about that. and if a gay man or woman asks, i'll give them the same answer. how people live their lives is up to them.

 

[Nayana]

Someone else has probably asked this question, but i cant be bothered to read the whopping 147 pages (sorry ;_

WHY is it that homosexuality is wrong? If you answer i don't want a "Because the bible says so" answer, because thats much too easy an answer. Is there an actual legitimate reason as the why it is a sin, Does the bible or any other abrahamic (those seem to be the ones with the problem) text actually give an explination of ANY sorts?

 

[ayani]

Nayana ~

an explanation for the Biblical position could go as follows.

God has created humans male and female, and blessed and enjoined sex to be within a heterosexual, marital relationship.

diversity exists, but those aspects of ourselves are not truly who we are meant to be in God. i would add that logically, as only God can change a person, it makes no sense to punish someone for how they feel and relate to others. neither does it make sense (or is it Christian) to marginalize or ostracize a person on those grounds, either.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Nayana ~

an explanation for the Biblical position could go as follows.

God has created humans male and female, and blessed and enjoined sex to be within a heterosexual, marital relationship.

diversity exists, but those aspects of ourselves are not truly who we are meant to be in God. i would add that logically, as only God can change a person, it makes no sense to punish someone for how they feel and relate to others. neither does it make sense (or is it Christian) to marginalize or ostracize a person on those grounds, either.

This is certainly the best position I've heard against homosexuality.

 

[ayani]

well, God gets the glory. thanks to God if i make sense, and am able to present His Word clearly and meaningfully for people. i'm speaking as a "former", myself. so i do hear people about marriage equality, and civil rights.

and personally, i'm for keeping faith and civil matters separate. not because i agree or think that it *should* be allowed, but because i know that actively trying to make it legally otherwise would be hypocritical, not to mention cruel.

 

[Kurt31416]

We are debating homosexuality, not attacking the "traditional" family. There is a difference.

Well, I sure wish they were mutually exclusive, they certainly could be, but they aren't. The traditional family is under attack and needs all the help it can get. Ethnic groups in the US with strong family values always prosper.

 

[Kurt31416]

No, I said anything that has not been "added", that have existed with us from the very beginning and always will, is natural. Which is not false, I have yet to see a reason why "natural" must be something that can be considered good. It is a term without any forms of moral implications.

What I was reacting to is that it seemed like you said that if a child molester cannot be natural, homosexuality can´t be. That would be comparing apples and oranges, but maybe I missunderstood.

But then the word "natural" has no meaning, we can dispose with the word.

Perhaps a definition would be what would be best for raising a cheetah cub or a baby otter, that you wanted to be able to release to the wild. What would make it possible for the animal to grow up "naturally." What kind of role models should we give them?

 

[Nayana]

Nayana ~

an explanation for the Biblical position could go as follows.

God has created humans male and female, and blessed and enjoined sex to be within a heterosexual, marital relationship.

diversity exists, but those aspects of ourselves are not truly who we are meant to be in God. i would add that logically, as only God can change a person, it makes no sense to punish someone for how they feel and relate to others. neither does it make sense (or is it Christian) to marginalize or ostracize a person on those grounds, either.

Thankyou, thats a good answer.

That is also quite true, if God is so against homosexuality and has the power to change it, why wouldn't he? People can't help how they feel and supression of homosexuality often leads to suicide (which is also a sin i presume for abrahamics?)

On another topic, I've always wondered why. If people are against homosexuals because of it being "unnatural" and not being able to populate the Earth. What do the majority of those people think about condoms for heteros??

Imagine that, if you belived to use comdoms was a sin but wanted only to have 3 children :flirt:.

 

[Father Heathen]

How exactly does one define "traditional families" and "traditional values" and how, exactly, are they "under attack"? How are one person's rights and freedoms diminished by allowing another person to have those same rights and freedoms?

 

[Kerr]

But then the word "natural" has no meaning, we can dispose with the word.

In this discussion it has no meaning, true. But it has other uses. Like the one you mentioned about the cheetah.

Perhaps a definition would be what would be best for raising a cheetah cub or a baby otter, that you wanted to be able to release to the wild. What would make it possible for the animal to grow up "naturally." What kind of role models should we give them?

Actually this is where I find the use of the word natural, even according to my definition. I may have phrased it poorly, since I was only thinking about behaviour at that moment, but the same think applies to environments and so on (the environment a specie is evolved to live in is their natural environment). In any case, I have yet to see anything that points to that even when we are in the wild, homosexuality would not exist. I believe it would, so I consider it natural.

Anyway, I confess the word has several meanings. The one I mentioned was the best one I could figure out that would have relevance to this discussion, in common day language it mostly means that something is "not weird", or "supposed to be". However, then it looses its objective meaning and become a subjective word.

Well, I sure wish they were mutually exclusive, they certainly could be, but they aren't. The traditional family is under attack and needs all the help it can get. Ethnic groups in the US with strong family values always prosper.

If that where the case I would believe that the "traditional" family should be redefined. Traditions only have value when it does not stand in the way of individual rights and freedom and such things. If traditions exist against homosexuality or that consider a homosexual family to be something different that should not be, then those traditions need to change. Besides, I am not sure they are under attack... depending on what you view as the traditional family of course.

 

[Kerr]

Nayana ~

an explanation for the Biblical position could go as follows.

God has created humans male and female, and blessed and enjoined sex to be within a heterosexual, marital relationship.

diversity exists, but those aspects of ourselves are not truly who we are meant to be in God. i would add that logically, as only God can change a person, it makes no sense to punish someone for how they feel and relate to others. neither does it make sense (or is it Christian) to marginalize or ostracize a person on those grounds, either.

That was a good explanation about the perspective that it is against God. Not that I agree with it, but still good.

 

[Smoke]

Silly Smoke. Don't you know by "traditional", what is really meant is "heterosexual"?

Even if that were a good definition, what I said would still hold true. Demonizing gay people and encouraging them to overcome their sexuality by prayer and willpower can be devastating not only to gay people themselves, but to the straight people they marry. How many Christian women find themselves married to men who are strangely distant, or divorced in middle age by men who finally got their nerve up? How many "good" Christian couples throw their kids out of the house when they find out the kids are "abominable"? Those are the kinds of things the Christian right's "pro-family" agenda leads to. A genuinely pro-family agenda would come to terms with homosexuality in an honest and compassionate manner -- something these people have no interest in doing.

 

[Autodidact]

I strongly support homosexual's right to pursue happiness in the short time we have on earth. it's the Golden Rule. Leonardo DaVinci, Alan Turing, some wonderful people were homosexuals. To a space critter landing from another planet, it would be a big joke how we are so obsessed with sex.

But I strongly resent the tendency to want to limit Freedom of Speech, and oppose any attack on the traditional family and family values, which needs all the help it can get. Seems they could find happiness without attacking the family and family values.

Can you give actual examples of gay proponents either advocating or trying to limit freedom of speech, or attacking traditional family values?

 

[Autodidact]

quite honestly, and i've said this elsewhere, but it seems like sometimes people assume that folks who are not for gay marriage are automatically going to picket against it, and raise Cain.

i'm not for it morally or religiously, but obviously gay men and women who don't see any reason why they shouldn't get married aren't going to see it my way. and why should they? they're not Biblical, evangelical Christians convinced that it's wrong.

so i say, let people do what they want. i'm not going to picket for it or against it. i know what i believe and why, and it's silly to try to force theological values on people who simply don't have and don't want to share my worldview.

if someone asks me how i feel about it, i'll tell them, and explain why. i'm not going to stay quiet about that. and if a gay man or woman asks, i'll give them the same answer. how people live their lives is up to them.

I support this attitude. You're not going to change your religious beliefs any more than I'm going to change who I love. I know what I believe and why, it's silly to try to force theological values on people who don't have and don't want to share my worldview. And so forth. We can all live with this attitude.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I sure wish they were mutually exclusive, they certainly could be, but they aren't. The traditional family is under attack and needs all the help it can get. Ethnic groups in the US with strong family values always prosper.

I agree that the traditional family is going under in America, but not because of gay people. I'd say the main problems are domestic violence, drug addiction, infidelity and divorce. I don't know why so-called "pro-family" proponents don't focus on those.

 

[ayani]

Auto ~

cool. live and let live is essentially the most Christian attitude one can have. deep disagreement needn't and shouldn't translate into rudeness or hysteria- neither thing is healthy, or right.

God bless you, and thank you also for your respect, and for writing back.

 

[J Bryson]

I agree that the traditional family is going under in America, but not because of gay people. I'd say the main problems are domestic violence, drug addiction, infidelity and divorce. I don't know why so-called "pro-family" proponents don't focus on those.

Maybe because the most vocal supporters of the "traditional family" can mark any or all of these off on their personal checklists?

I'm starting a "traditional families" thread, since it's the argument that's always puzzled me.

 

[Christless Christianity]

Nayana ~

an explanation for the Biblical position could go as follows.

God has created humans male and female, and blessed and enjoined sex to be within a heterosexual, marital relationship.

diversity exists, but those aspects of ourselves are not truly who we are meant to be in God. i would add that logically, as only God can change a person, it makes no sense to punish someone for how they feel and relate to others. neither does it make sense (or is it Christian) to marginalize or ostracize a person on those grounds, either.

I have enjoyed your Christian postings. When I started to study the issue, I was quite shocked of how very little Scripture speaks on the subject. Jesus never addresses homosexuality. I believe there are only 7 or 8 verses in the scriptures touching on the topic. When you take these verses in context, and understand isolated verses in light of the gospel, I really believe the contemporary church is in sin with it's attitude and even discrimination against non-hetrosexuals. Traditional family values is more of a moral gospel, than the gospel of God's grace. There is so much sexual sin in the professing church, that the church needs to look within it's own sins (fornication, divorce, etc) before discriminating against gays and lesbians. Could you please consider looking at this book review, and let me know what you think. I actually read the book and changed (repented) of my attitude with those with a different sexual outlook than myself. I personally cringe at the fundamental right political moral agenda in the name of Christ.

Amazon.com: Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, Revised and Expanded Edition: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (9780664233976): Jack Rogers: Books

 

[ayani]

this is actually a very good point, and i think a lot of traditonal family activists miss out on this.

why not focus on rasing awareness of domestic abuse, infidelity, child neglect, and irresponsible parenting within and without the evangelical Christian community, and take more care about the people involved than the institutions being mourned?

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:14-17)

this is something i desperately need to work on myself, and i'm praying about it. creed without discipleship is dead. sometimes we know what's right and what God expects of us, yet talking about and doing something are, of course, two vastly different things.

not saying i'm not concerned with the break up of the traditional family, and the way things are going. but again, missing the people for the issue is exactly what Christ would have warned about.

I agree that the traditional family is going under in America, but not because of gay people. I'd say the main problems are domestic violence, drug addiction, infidelity and divorce. I don't know why so-called "pro-family" proponents don't focus on those.