Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[TheKnight]

You just think it is because some book said so.

That is enough for me. To me it is the divine will of God. To you it is just some book.

We all have good intention. I don't doubt your intent. But if you honestly think that such a position does not contribute to the pain inflicted then you clearly have given this little thought.

My experience dictates otherwise. You can tell me that it does not contribute to the pain inflicted, but the more I meet people who are homosexuals and who hear my opinion and who actually feel better because of what I say...the less I will be able to believe you. It's not because they agree with me, but because I stand as someone who is willing to place the safety and well-being of another person above my own. I believe that it is wrong, but I am not willing to let that belief cause me to harm another person.

Then why even mention it being a sin in the first place?

Because I believe it is one and I believe that the lives of those who have those desires would be made better by adopting a similar mindset.

 

[Jeremiah]

That is enough for me. To me it is the divine will of God. To you it is just some book.


My experience dictates otherwise. You can tell me that it does not contribute to the pain inflicted, but the more I meet people who are homosexuals and who hear my opinion and who actually feel better because of what I say...the less I will be able to believe you. It's not because they agree with me, but because I stand as someone who is willing to place the safety and well-being of another person above my own. I believe that it is wrong, but I am not willing to let that belief cause me to harm another person.


Because I believe it is one and I believe that the lives of those who have those desires would be made better by adopting a similar mindset.

"That is enough for me."

As I said, thoughtless. To accept such a creed so thoughtlessly is stupid. Especially when that creed is harmful to others.


"My experience dictates otherwise. You can tell me that it does not contribute to the pain inflicted, but the more I meet people who are homosexuals and who hear my opinion and who actually feel better because of what I say...the less I will be able to believe you."

Actually I was telling you it contributes. Just by being an advocator, these very post in this thread are hurtful. When you call it a sin it's hurtful. If you were so "experienced" you'd understand this. It's the constant circulation of the notion, the idea, the thought that in someway, somehow it's wrong. This circulation confuses maturing youths. Youths who have a great yearning to fit in. Confused and left alone in the dark, depression sets in. But since you are so experienced I don't have to explain this all to you, right? No, you go on believing that you are not doing any damage; think that you leave no ripples in the pond. Hide in your ignorance and soothe yourself with misconceptions. O wise and experienced one.

 

[Alceste]

What about free speech? White supremacists are allowed to hate blacks and others, aren't they? As repulsive as I find racism, it wouldn't be legal for me to stop racists from saying that they hate minorities. And also, just because someone finds something a sin, that doesn't mean he hates or wants to harm the person doing whatever it is.

I don't think this is about whether it should be legal, it's just about whether it's wrong. Anyone (except a racist) can see that spouting racism is wrong. Likewise, spouting misinformation and intolerance of homosexuals is wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't think this is about whether it should be legal, it's just about whether it's wrong. Anyone (except a racist) can see that spouting racism is wrong. Likewise, spouting misinformation and intolerance of homosexuals is wrong.

Yeah, that was actually said in the OP. This is only about whether or not you think it's wrong. I think being part of the KKK is wrong, but I wouldn't want it made illegal. Likewise with denouncing homosexuality.

 

[slave2six]

Right...I have no other tool by which to make decisions then my own judgment...

You should have met me 3 years ago when I was a fundamentalist Christian...

This is wayyyyy off topic but:

Then let me challenge you to consider this. What happens to either the Judeo or the Christian faith if you completely discard the Garden story? Can the religion still stand. If not then the first question that you have to answer is whether the "fall of man" is in fact true or not. Using your reason, is it possible for the Adam/Eve story to be true literally? If not, then your religion is baseless and meaningless. Is the Adam/Eve story mere allegory? If so, then how do you account for the actual traditions, none of which are allegorical and all of which are based on the law that was supposedly given to Moses?

Using your intelligence, I cannot see that there is any way that you can conclude that what you believe has any basis in reality. If you can see a way around the logic, let me know because thus far no one else has been able to get me past that hurtle.

 

[slave2six]

What are you talking about?

Mincing words and making them mean whatever you want while evading the real problem. Just because your tradition tells you to be nice to your slaves doesn't make them any less slaves. If they have been taken from their homeland and are not free to return, it doesn't matter if you beat them or dress them like royalty. They are still slaves.

 

[slave2six]

That is enough for me. To me it is the divine will of God. To you it is just some book.

That's what you thought about Christianity as well and you came to cast that aside. How reliable is your thought then? What happens when you stop liking your current religion? There has to be some basis of truth beyond one's opinion.

 

[TheKnight]

As I said, thoughtless. To accept such a creed so thoughtlessly is stupid. Especially when that creed is harmful to others.

It's not thoughtless on my part. I could explain the reasoning behind it, but it wouldn't really do anything because it won't change your mind.

Actually I was telling you it contributes. Just by being an advocate, these very post in this thread are hurtful. When you call it a sin it's hurtful. If you were so "experienced" you'd understand this. It's the constant circulation of the notion, the idea, the thought that in someway, somehow it's wrong. This circulation confuses maturing youths. Youths who have a great yearning to fit in. Confused and left alone in the dark, depression sets in. But since you are so experienced I don't have to explain this all to you, right? No, you go on believing that you are not doing any damage; think that you leave no ripples in the pond. Hide in your ignorance and soothe yourself with misconceptions. O wise and experienced one.

It's not that I am unaware of the possibility of a youth reading my words and being harmed. However, if explained in an appropriate manner to a young person it wouldn't be so harmful as you say. Like I said, I've seen it.

Then let me challenge you to consider this. What happens to either the Judeo or the Christian faith if you completely discard the Garden story? Can the religion still stand. If not then the first question that you have to answer is whether the "fall of man" is in fact true or not. Using your reason, is it possible for the Adam/Eve story to be true literally? If not, then your religion is baseless and meaningless. Is the Adam/Eve story mere allegory? If so, then how do you account for the actual traditions, none of which are allegorical and all of which are based on the law that was supposedly given to Moses?

I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to ask? Are you asking if I believe that story is literal? Then yes, I do. Are you asking that I see it as allegory? Then yes, I do. Are you asking whether or not Judaism can stand without the garden story? My answer to that is that Judaism without any part of the Torah isn't Judaism anymore.

Mincing words and making them mean whatever you want while evading the real problem. Just because your tradition tells you to be nice to your slaves doesn't make them any less slaves. If they have been taken from their homeland and are not free to return, it doesn't matter if you beat them or dress them like royalty. They are still slaves.

I suppose.

That's what you thought about Christianity as well and you came to cast that aside. How reliable is your thought then? What happens when you stop liking your current religion? There has to be some basis of truth beyond one's opinion.

Stop liking? It wasn't a matter of taste. I left Christianity because Christianity (from it's own internal theology) simply can't be true. It just doesn't work. Christianity is a religion that essentially says "The goal is to get the number 5. We can teach you how. All you have to do is add up 2 and 2, and you'll get 5!"

Maybe the goal is to get 5, but even if it is, you don't get there from 2+2. Christianity claims Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, he wasn't and that makes Christianity false.

You say that there should be a basis of truth beyond one's opinion. Outside of my own opinion are the opinions of others. If you can find a basis of truth that isn't rooted in someone's opinion, then please let me know.

 

[Alceste]

It wouldn't matter. As you may have noticed in my posts to Slave2Six, binding Scripture for the believing Observant Jew or Noahide is not limited to the Bible itself. That being said, I do not live in Israel, neither am I a Jew and therefore such laws of how to care for a rash do not apply to me.

And yet the Jewish laws regarding homosexual acts DO apply to you? Why the selective application of the law?

Also, believing in the veracity of law doesn't mean you know the law. I'm sure you also agree with the laws of your country, but do not know them all.

No, as a matter of fact I don't agree with the laws of my country. Sometimes the law is wrong. For example, we once had a law that mandated the abduction and indoctrination of all first nations children in Christian residential schools. We also had a bigoted head tax on Chinese immigrants. And we used to have marriage laws that discriminated against homosexuals. All these instances of the law being out of harmony with the ethics of our society have been rectified, but it's still illegal to smoke a joint, which is utterly ridiculous. Every day, the lives of innocent people are ruined by the enforcement of this stupid law.

I believe in "the rule of law" in principle, but "the law" must evolve to stay relevant. We must be (and some of us always are) on the lookout for prejudice, injustice, cruelty, violence, inconsistency and ignorance embedded in our laws, and we must rout it wherever it is found, or else "the rule of law" is worse than having no laws at all.

It is not good practice to "believe in" something you know nothing about. You have to judge each law individually, on its own merit. If you honestly believe a God wrote your book, you owe it to your God to read it. The whole thing. Not just the parts you're told to read by your preachers. And you owe it to your God to interpret it yourself, using all the faculties of reason, compassion and intellect that God gave you.

You should be clear about - or at least aware of - which Biblical laws you believe in and which laws you discard, and why. Otherwise you have no credibility. The Bible is just one little book. You should read it from cover to cover and make a list of the all laws you believe in, and a separate list of the laws you don't think apply to you. Then spend some time contemplating how you go about deciding which is which.

 

[Jeremiah]

There's no need to. You should be able to see that I would believe in it as true. Saying that believing something because the Bible says so is without thought is akin to saying that because I don't see things like you do, I must have denied thought.


I believe in the administration of justice when it is appropriate. If we were to try homosexuals on the basis of Jewish law...I could guarantee that almost 100% of them wouldn't be executed. There are too many factors that would make the person exempt from capital punishment.



Please. My opinion has not caused anyone to commit suicide. If someone misunderstands my opinion and as a result kills themselves, then it was their misunderstanding that caused their death. My opinon really isn't all that harmful. I advocate control, not self-loathing. In fact, I'm very pro-"you shouldn't give a **** about what people think". So much so that I'm willing to disagree with myself to promote that attitude. Self-esteem is more important then my idea of morality. That doesn't mean that I will disregard my idea of morality for someone's self-esteem.

"I believe in the administration of justice when it is appropriate. If we were to try homosexuals on the basis of Jewish law...I could guarantee that almost 100% of them wouldn't be executed. There are too many factors that would make the person exempt from capital punishment."

Back to this; regardless of what you think the outcome would. It still says they should be put to death. Do you not see a problem with this?

Also, explain it all, in detail, accompanied by reference (passages and links). I see you talking allot on behalf of the religion but I don't see anything to back it up.

And this...what the heck is this...

"guarantee that almost 100% "

Don't have much encouragement with the law? That's OK that is a good thing. But you can't guarantee anything as you have no authority; I mean who are you that you can make such promises? Also "almost" is not good enough. The idea you would even allow such a law to remain among laws is just savage.

"There are too many factors"

You are saying, here, that although it tells you to kill homosexuals it also tells you not to. Making it impossible to follow; one law must be disregard. Which means you are do what I said you were doing. Picking and choosing which to follow and which not to follow. Disregarding one but not the other.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The Bible says punish those who participate in certain activities with death. The Tradition tells us how to do that and what that means.

This is actually true and untrue....

As a Jew I know the truth that:

"Ask two jews a question, you will get three opinions."

At least one Rabbi I have read, would say Torah means GUIDE as much as it means "law"

afterall there is the golden rule...

"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15

What many non jews forget is there is far more to Judaism than Torah...there is interpretation of the Torah.... which fill many pages!!!!!!

Very few groups of Jews are literalists.

So to conclude, Judaism does not really seek bigotry...

"This is the law: all the rest is commentary"

Homophobia, in any form, would be against the law!

 

[Jeremiah]

It's not thoughtless on my part. I could explain the reasoning behind it, but it wouldn't really do anything because it won't change your mind.


It's not that I am unaware of the possibility of a youth reading my words and being harmed. However, if explained in an appropriate manner to a young person it wouldn't be so harmful as you say. Like I said, I've seen it.


I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to ask? Are you asking if I believe that story is literal? Then yes, I do. Are you asking that I see it as allegory? Then yes, I do. Are you asking whether or not Judaism can stand without the garden story? My answer to that is that Judaism without any part of the Torah isn't Judaism anymore.




I suppose.


Stop liking? It wasn't a matter of taste. I left Christianity because Christianity (from it's own internal theology) simply can't be true. It just doesn't work. Christianity is a religion that essentially says "The goal is to get the number 5. We can teach you how. All you have to do is add up 2 and 2, and you'll get 5!"

Maybe the goal is to get 5, but even if it is, you don't get there from 2+2. Christianity claims Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, he wasn't and that makes Christianity false.

You say that there should be a basis of truth beyond one's opinion. Outside of my own opinion are the opinions of others. If you can find a basis of truth that isn't rooted in someone's opinion, then please let me know.

"It's not thoughtless on my part. I could explain the reasoning behind it, but it wouldn't really do anything because it won't change your mind."

"I could explain the reasoning behind it"

No you can't; if you could you would have already.

"It's not that I am unaware of the possibility of a youth reading my words and being harmed. However, if explained in an appropriate manner to a young person it wouldn't be so harmful as you say. Like I said, I've seen it."

"It's not that I am unaware"

Yes it is, it is clear that you are unaware. It does not even have to be your words but an echo of your words. You can not spread such filth without causing harm. And you can not make laws without them being abused. Nor can know how it will effect each individual. It does not matter what your intent is, once you cast the stone it is already out of your hands.

" However, if explained in an appropriate manner"

I see nothing appropriate about your argument at all. You have a baseless, thoughtless motive for no good ends at all.

"Like I said, I've seen it"

Please do tell. O vast homo master.

 

[Jeremiah]

I believe that it is wrong for a person to participate in any act of forbidden sex. Sex between two members of the same sex is included in that category.

Backtracking again....

"Sex between two members of the same sex is included in that category"

It was when a man lays with a man. I have never seen anything about women sexing other women though. Could you point out the passage? Or is it just that you just interpreted it how you like?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Backtracking again....

"Sex between two members of the same sex is included in that category"

It was when a man lays with a man. I have never seen anything about women sexing other women though. Could you point out the passage? Or is it just that you just interpret it how you like?

You have to remember the Noahide group is a very small extremist group
Such groups generally have "cultish" interpretations

For example,

extremism in this case leads to it being ok to have hatred for another human being, killing non believers,

aceticism with strict dietary laws, dress code, sometimes acts such as beating and binding until the particpant is "sorry" and/or bloody

In the end, it is their choice....
But we should remeber it is an extremist view.
Whether they are noahide, 7th day adventists, raelians or whatever...

:flirt:

 

[Mr Cheese]

Backtracking again....

"Sex between two members of the same sex is included in that category"

It was when a man lays with a man. I have never seen anything about women sexing other women though. Could you point out the passage? Or is it just that you just interpreted it how you like?

I think it is a fear of men's ding a lings personally

of course if one actually looks to the untraslated works, of the text mentioned above... the idea that homosexuality is beign referred to, becomes more ambiguous

Not once does Jesus mention leather pants, abba music or putting your pee pee in places....nor does the "bible".

What the "Bible" does say, is that sleeping around like a floozy is naughty....

Afterall David did not get in trouble for being with Johnathon, but because his wife wanted him too.... and we all know how nasty women can be if they have to share:slap:

 

[strange]

Then you would need to have the bible re-written. I have several good friends who are homosexual. I don't condone their lifestyle, but I value their friendship and their counsel on certain things. Neither has tried to "initiate" me into what they do. I have asked them what they believe that made them live the way they do, and they felt that at an early age they were like this. SO, genetic pre-disposition?, a genetic flaw?. I love them as my friends, but I don't condone the acts. But, I will not be the one who judges them. It is not for me to do that. We all have to atone and answer for our sins. But in God's eyes, what we deem to be small or large sins are all the same to him.:cover:

Good post. I may not agree with your take on the sin of homosexuality but I applaud you on accepting your friends.

On another forum, the members go by a literalists interpretation of the Bible, a similar discussion arose. What was said, after much discussion, was that homosexuals weren't born homosexual. So I asked the question (paraphrasing): "What about androgenous individuals, were they born one sex or the other?" The short of it, there answer was that if an individual was born with male genitalia they were male and should sexually act as males.

The discussion went on with my using scientific facts as we have them today with all the research about homosexuality. What I found, dates back to the days I was in college, the 70's, and the understanding about genetics. What was taught then and still applies is that males that carry an extra sex chromosome never made it to delivery. Those that did, had specific mental problems and deformities. Some though were born with normal intelligence and as adults were over six feet tall. They were very aggressive individuals. So agresive that they probably are all in jail. The point that I am making here is that there is, was an affect on their mentality.

With androgenous individuals, individuals with external and internal sex differences, they too struggle with their sexual identity. But what sex are they? An individual with external female sex organs and internally sterile female organs or the lack of but with testes, not yet descended, may mentally feel like a male. These individuals live a life confused about their sexual identity. What sex do they prefer?

And if homosexuals, as with androgenous individuals are effected by some genetics difference beyond the "normal" sex then they were certainly born gay or lesbian. The science is focusing on the number of protiens on the X and Y chromosomes. It seems as if there is a difference in the protiens counts. Something is causing this confusion in homosexuals. My take is that they were born homosexual, a part of God's creation, perfect as "normal" individuals, loved by God, deserving of recognition without condemnation and as important to society as any of us.

 

[strange]

Backtracking again....

"Sex between two members of the same sex is included in that category"

It was when a man lays with a man. I have never seen anything about women sexing other women though. Could you point out the passage? Or is it just that you just interpreted it how you like?

Romans 1:24-27

You may be interested in this link: The Bible and Homosexuality.

 

[strange]

Then you would need to have the bible re-written. I have several good friends who are homosexual. I don't condone their lifestyle, but I value their friendship and their counsel on certain things. Neither has tried to "initiate" me into what they do. I have asked them what they believe that made them live the way they do, and they felt that at an early age they were like this. SO, genetic pre-disposition?, a genetic flaw?. I love them as my friends, but I don't condone the acts. But, I will not be the one who judges them. It is not for me to do that. We all have to atone and answer for our sins. But in God's eyes, what we deem to be small or large sins are all the same to him.:cover:

Good post. I may not agree with your take on the sin of homosexuality but I applaud you on accepting your friends.

On another forum, the members go by a literalists interpretation of the Bible, a similar discussion arose. What was said, after much discussion, was that homosexuals weren't born homosexual. So I asked the question (paraphrasing): "What about androgenous individuals, were they born one sex or the other?" The short of it, there answer was that if an individual was born with male genitalia they were male and should sexually act as males.

The discussion went on with my using scientific facts as we have them today with all the research about homosexuality. What I found, dates back to the days I was in college, the 70's, and the understanding about genetics. What was taught then and still applies is that males that carry an extra sex chromosome never made it to delivery. Those that did, had specific mental problems and deformities. Some though were born with normal intelligence and as adults were over six feet tall. They were very aggressive individuals. So agresive that they probably are all in jail. The point that I am making here is that there is, was an affect on their mentality.

With androgenous individuals, individuals with external and internal sex differences, they too struggle with their sexual identity. But what sex are they? An individual with external female sex organs and internally sterile female organs or the lack of but with testes, not yet descended, may mentally feel like a male. These individuals live a life confused about their sexual identity. What sex do they prefer?

And if homosexuals, as with androgenous individuals are effected by some genetics difference beyond the "normal" sex then they were certainly born gay or lesbian. The science is focusing on the number of protiens on the X and Y chromosomes. It seems as if there is a difference in the protiens counts. Something is causing this confusion in homosexuals. My take is that they were born homosexual, a part of God's creation, perfect as "normal" individuals, loved by God, deserving of recognition without condemnation and as important to society as any of us.

 

[Jeremiah]

Romans 1:24-27

You may be interested in this link: The Bible and Homosexuality.

I was talking to TheKnight, who follows Judaism. Roamans is from the New Testament, as such, I would assume he does not recognize that as scripture. Therefor his interpretation still seems off.

 

[TheKnight]

And yet the Jewish laws regarding homosexual acts DO apply to you? Why the selective application of the law?

Because homosexual sex is one of the laws that pertain to Noahides (see Tractate Sanhedrin Chapter 7)

Back to this; regardless of what you think the outcome would. It still says they should be put to death. Do you not see a problem with this?

No.

Also, explain it all, in detail, accompanied by reference (passages and links). I see you talking allot on behalf of the religion but I don't see anything to back it up.

That would be rather difficult. What you are asking me to explain in detail is the relevance of the Oral Tradition in Jewish law. That's a very vast area of knowledge to post...If you still want it, I'll look it all up and then PM it to you.

You are saying, here, that although it tells you to kill homosexuals it also tells you not to. Making it impossible to follow; one law must be disregard. Which means you are do what I said you were doing. Picking and choosing which to follow and which not to follow. Disregarding one but not the other.

No. You see it as picking and choosing, the law says "If Y conditions are met, then execute a person on X conditions, if Y conditions are NOT met then you cannot execute a person under Y conditions."

It's not a matter of picking and choosing, it's a matter of the law telling us precisely what to do. The law isn't something that is always applicable. There are exceptions to EVERY law. Sometimes, as in our current days, the exception occurs more then the law does.

What many non jews forget is there is far more to Judaism than Torah...there is interpretation of the Torah.... which fill many pages!!!!!!

I know that there is more to Judaism then the Torah. That has been my point all along. People have been accusing me of picking and choosing, and I'm trying to explain that in light of the ENTIRE tradition, I am not picking and choosing.

I see nothing appropriate about your argument at all. You have a baseless, thoughtless motive for no good ends at all.

Believe as you choose to believe.

It was when a man lays with a man. I have never seen anything about women sexing other women though. Could you point out the passage? Or is it just that you just interpreted it how you like?

Maybe you don't understand my position. Unlike Christians, Judaism has a vast tradition of legal works that are all just as binding as the Torah. It doesn't HAVE to say it in the Torah to be binding because it says it in the Talmud. You can't point out one verse in the Torah and say "Explain the reasoning behind this using only the Torah." Jewish law consists of MUCH MORE then just the Torah itself.