My views on homosexuality

[Sultan Of Swing]

no. what you are suggesting is...using our free will is sin.

No, you've misunderstood. We can use our free will to do good and stay true to God, or use our free will to do bad and sin. The purpose of free will wasn't to allow us to do what the heck we wanted without consequences. No, the free will is there to allow us to choose whether to stay true to the right path or walk away from it.

 

[waitasec]

No, you've misunderstood. We can use our free will to do good and stay true to God,

but not true to ourselves...in this case homosexuality.
if someone is attracted to the same sex innately...wouldn't denying their truth be what you consider staying true to god? and if that were the case you need to apply that to heterosexuals too...since they are innately attracted to the opposite sex...right? however heterosexuals have a vehicle called marriage which validates the act of heterosexual sex...a really strange idea if you ask me...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, you've misunderstood. We can use our free will to do good and stay true to God, or use our free will to do bad and sin. The purpose of free will wasn't to allow us to do what the heck we wanted without consequences. No, the free will is there to allow us to choose whether to stay true to the right path or walk away from it.

Illogical as well as the concept of an omnipotent/omniscient. What good would free will be if the outcome of all things was known by this god before it supposedly created everything?

You did good and this god knew it beforehand. You did wrong and this god knew it beforehand. The concept or free will, sin and judgment are the concepts of men.

 

[Greyn]

I can't speak for him, but I will say that I personally find it immoral to pressure homosexuals towards abstinence. There are absolutely no grounds to justify that.

You may find it immoral, but it is acceptable if it is a tenant of their chosen belief. If the individual can't reconcile their activities within their belief, then there are consequences (as outlined by that belief).

Because they have no choice, of course. Homosexuals can't choose to have non-homophobic parents any more than they can choose not to be homosexuals. Nor can they really choose the culture they are born into.

I am not talking about individual (or family unit) opinion, I am talking about congregational beliefs. And they do have a choice as to whether or not they participate within that congregation or faith.

Which would the other direction be?

An individual's lifestyle needs to be protected, as much as an institution's belief structure and freedom to observe it.

Homosexual tendency is due to many factors, as are many other kinds of tendencies in human beings. Genetics are only one of them. There are, for instance, indications that male homosexuality may be in part due to in fetus interaction with the mother's hormones.



Nor does having a scientific explanation imply that it has a purpose, either.

Even so, avoiding procreation while still being a productive member of society seems to me to be a very useful role for society. Despite some popular misconceptions, being procreative is not necessarily more constructive than the alternative.

This is opinion, speculation and theory, not a "perfect" scientific explanation.

A more accurate presentation of that argument would be: should the faithful accept obvious failures of the current state of their doctrine, or should they revise it so that it doesn't chastise people with no good reason?

That is how Christianity let go of slavery. And that is how it will eventualy let go of homophoby.

"Obvious failures" and "no good reason" are completely arbitrary to the observer. You may feel that way, but someone on the other side of the fence feels they are being made to "conform" their beliefs for an individual. Those beliefs need to be protected. Just as the individuals rights to choose to abstain or go to another church/faith should be protected.

Comparing slavery to homosexual biasness is disingenuous to the argument. People were forced into slavery, no one is forced to be homosexual.

Sure. But above that, we have to protect the inherent worth of the institutions. From the inside first of all.

Indeed, but isn't that what people are trying to do when they condemn homosexuality within their faith?

 

[Mintz]

Sex before marriage, drinking alcohol, and stealing is a sin just like homosexuality. God will judge each individual according to their intentions. The decision is with God alone and no one else.

 

[Greyn]

i don't think that is what he's trying to convey here...
to be fair you can say the same thing about heterosexuals, right?


'heterosexuals are mindless straight zombies driven to satisfy their base urges...'

the control part you need to elaborate on...

Of course this applies to heterosexuals, just as I said in the example from my first post. I have said quiet a bit concerning self-control in this thread already. Homosexuals would not be the first people to be required to practice control of their natural tendencies in order to be "right" with their faith.

But ultimately, this comes down to choice. Does an individual believe in a faith and want to adhere to its tenants or do they find the fault with the faith? If they find fault, should they move on to something that better represents their beliefs or should the faith be forced to change to suit the individual?

 

[TalAbrams]

Dan,
Torah gives no arguments. One does not argue with God over one of his ordinances.
How would it be possible today? I do not eat forbidden things because of another of His commands. He gives no reason. He is God and does not owe us an explanation.
Simply stated; if one believes that there is a God and that he is responsible for Torah,
there can be no justification for acting on these desires. It is sin.
If, however, one does not believe that Torah is the word that God left to us then yes, human logic would dictate that it is OK.
There is at least one European nation which permits sex with animals.
That, BTW, calls for the death penalty in Torah for both man and beast.

 

[LuisDantas]

You may find it immoral, but it is acceptable if it is a tenant of their chosen belief.

You mean that people are entitled to repress themselves? Maybe they are. I do not pay much attention to such extreme cases, because they are not to be encouraged, perhaps not even tolerated.

If the individual can't reconcile their activities within their belief, then there are consequences (as outlined by that belief).

I fear that you got it backwards. The consequences are outlined by how healthy the belief is, and how compatible it is with the believer.

Beliefs do not get to choose what the real-world consequences of their practice will be. They certainly bet and even promise on what those consequences will be, but they do not have such power of determination. That is one of the reasons why a variety of beliefs is necessary and unavoidable.

I am not talking about individual (or family unit) opinion, I am talking about congregational beliefs. And they do have a choice as to whether or not they participate within that congregation or faith.

Except when they don't, such was when they are pressured by family from an early age.

An individual's lifestyle needs to be protected, as much as an institution's belief structure and freedom to observe it.

Protected from what, in this case? From the realization that homosexuality is neither evil nor much of a choice?

This is opinion, speculation and theory, not a "perfect" scientific explanation.

Don't project religious expectations into science, or you will be disappointed and mistaken time and again. Science does not deal with perfection, and you shouldn't disregard it so quickly either.

"Obvious failures" and "no good reason" are completely arbitrary to the observer.

Except that you are wrong. Religion has a responsibility towards its adherents and towards the greater society. That is not at all an arbitrary call, but rather the basic duty of everyone. Slavery is not "arbitrarily" wrong. Neither is homophoby.

You may feel that way, but someone on the other side of the fence feels they are being made to "conform" their beliefs for an individual. Those beliefs need to be protected.

What do you mean here? Which beliefs must be protected, and from whom?

It is in the very nature of belief that is must be tested against the reality of facts and change accordinging, lest it become sterile and harmful superstition.

Just as the individuals rights to choose to abstain or go to another church/faith should be protected.

That is a false simetry. The rights of institutions are an extension of the rights of individuals, and shouldn't be treated as if they were inherently of equal value. Churchs and faiths only exist, and can only be justified to exist, as long as actual people see value in maintaining them.

There is no a priori ethical reason not to change or even dissolve institutions and faiths as long as the people involved want to do so.

Comparing slavery to homosexual biasness is disingenuous to the argument. People were forced into slavery, no one is forced to be homosexual.

You miss the point entirely. I am not comparing slavery to homosexuality, that would be gross. I am instead comparing slavery (a cruel human mistake that hurts other people) to homophoby (which is the same).

People have the choice of avoiding slavery, much as they have the choice of avoiding homophoby. And since both stances are inherently harmful and immoral, they should.

Indeed, but isn't that what people are trying to do when they condemn homosexuality within their faith?

No. They are not protecting their faith, but rather corrupting it.

 

[waitasec]

Of course this applies to heterosexuals, just as I said in the example from my first post. I have said quiet a bit concerning self-control in this thread already. Homosexuals would not be the first people to be required to practice control of their natural tendencies in order to be "right" with their faith.

but heterosexuals can get married...right?
this entire premise of self control is nonsensical... we are sexual beings...
there is nothing wrong with consensual sex

But ultimately, this comes down to choice. Does an individual believe in a faith and want to adhere to its tenants or do they find the fault with the faith?

sure if the faithful believe that faith trumps natural instincts...an odd idea from the get go.

If they find fault, should they move on to something that better represents their beliefs or should the faith be forced to change to suit the individual?

faith in this case is subjected to bias...

 

[waitasec]

Sex before marriage, drinking alcohol, and stealing is a sin just like homosexuality. God will judge each individual according to their intentions. The decision is with God alone and no one else.

why is sex before marriage a sin?
why would drinking alcohol be sinful?

i cannot enjoy dinner without a glass of good wine...and it's not like i'm a lush.
wine is life, just as chocolate is...

but of course anything done excessively is unhealthy...that is obvious.

 

[Greyn]

You mean that people are entitled to repress themselves? Maybe they are. I do not pay much attention to such extreme cases, because they are not to be encouraged, perhaps not even tolerated.

I really hope you are joking. By this argument, Tiger Woods or Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be found in the wrong because they should not be held to repressing their "natural" tendency towards infidelity. And you think people that try to repress behaviors that they deem negative should not be tolerated? Really? You must be joking....

I fear that you got it backwards. The consequences are outlined by how healthy the belief is, and how compatible it is with the believer.

Please give me an example of how a consequence is outlined by how healthy a belief is and how compatible it is with the believer.

Beliefs do not get to choose what the real-world consequences of their practice will be. They certainly bet and even promise on what those consequences will be, but they do not have such power of determination. That is one of the reasons why a variety of beliefs is necessary and unavoidable.

I won't argue with this, and that is why people have a choice in determining what faith they are going to follow.

Protected from what, in this case? From the realization that homosexuality is neither evil nor much of a choice?

No, protected from being forced to believe someone else's opinion like homosexuality being neither evil nor much of a choice.

Don't project religious expectations into science, or you will be disappointed and mistaken time and again. Science does not deal with perfection, and you shouldn't disregard it so quickly either.

Who said I disregarded it or projected anything? I was responding to the comment that there is a "perfect" scientific explanation for homosexuality. I am still waiting for that example.

Religion has a responsibility towards its adherents and towards the greater society.

You are correct, but you are assuming everyone believes the same thing as you. Whether you like it or not, some people believe that homosexuality is a threat to greater society and they have a right to that belief.

What do you mean here? Which beliefs must be protected, and from whom?

Everyone's beliefs need to be protected, no matter how backwards they may seem. They need the same protection from people that feel the believer must change his/her belief, as given to the person that feels homophoby is a problem.

The rights of institutions are an extension of the rights of individuals, and shouldn't be treated as if they were inherently of equal value. Churchs and faiths only exist, and can only be justified to exist, as long as actual people see value in maintaining them.

I am not arguing with this statement. It is why organizations should allowed to be bigoted, if they choose to be. If the organization does not see value in it, it will change.

No. They are not protecting their faith, but rather corrupting it.

This is completely your opinion and I can not argue it.

 

[Dan4reason]

Dan,
Torah gives no arguments. One does not argue with God over one of his ordinances.
How would it be possible today? I do not eat forbidden things because of another of His commands. He gives no reason. He is God and does not owe us an explanation.
Simply stated; if one believes that there is a God and that he is responsible for Torah,
there can be no justification for acting on these desires. It is sin.
If, however, one does not believe that Torah is the word that God left to us then yes, human logic would dictate that it is OK.
There is at least one European nation which permits sex with animals.
That, BTW, calls for the death penalty in Torah for both man and beast.

I never saw the point with not eating pork. I mean, pigs reproduce like crazy and have a lot of meat on them. Consuming pork would have been a great way to reduce starvation and malnutrition.

I think that sex with animals is insanely disgusting but I have no legal problem with it. Of course if the raper hurts the animal, or is doing this because of some mental problem, or is making grotesque public scenes with the animal, or is raping someone else's property,
or is getting himself hurt by the animal, then maybe legal action can be made. I wouldn't be too pleased if I knew this creepy guy was raping my horse out in the stable every week or so.:sarcastic

I don't see anything inherently evil with raping an animal, although you might contract some disease or something. I just think it is really creepy and gross. It is likely there is no biological aspect to this attraction. They are just being perverts.

But, I digress, I am getting way off topic. From reading the bible it seems to be full of mythology just like with any other culture and there is no evidence that the particular mythology of the bible is actually true. You might as well say that the whole Sleeping beauty thing really happened.

Another point is that you have no idea that the particular book you are getting this info from is the word of God even if he existed and it could have been made up by some people long ago. In fact we know there are many books not in the bible that sometimes contradict the ones in the bible many of whom are obviously not divine. It is a historical fact that authors will make up holy books and that is a fact. This could have been an outright lie or a book which developed from exaggerating simpler narratives and historical events, turning history into legend by dressing it up with fanciful stories and myths of supernatural events.

You have no real proof that many books in the Torah are written by whoever the Torah says they were written by, no idea how long the stories were passed down and exaggerated by word of mouth before being written, no idea how credible the sources of the author were, the agendas of the authors, or whether the author way lying, exaggerating, leaving out information or perspectives, or using sketchy information.

 

[Dan4reason]

Sex before marriage, drinking alcohol, and stealing is a sin just like homosexuality. God will judge each individual according to their intentions. The decision is with God alone and no one else.

Why is drinking alcohol wrong but not eating too much or smoking. Why is homosexuality wrong but not heterosexuality? I am looking for arguments, not statements of belief.

 

[Mintz]

Why is drinking alcohol wrong but not eating too much or smoking. Why is homosexuality wrong but not heterosexuality? I am looking for arguments, not statements of belief.

eating too much and smoking is also wrong. Allah says in the Qur'an:

And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. 2:195

Do not harm your own self.

Basically homosexuality is wrong because Allah says so in the Qur'an. Allah created opposite sexes for a reason. Allah does not create anything without reason. Whether or not someone chooses to be gay is a different argument. Allah says we will be judged on our intentions.

 

[waitasec]

eating too much and smoking is also wrong. Allah says in the Qur'an:

And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. 2:195

Do not harm your own self.

Basically homosexuality is wrong because Allah says so in the Qur'an. Allah created opposite sexes for a reason. Allah does not create anything without reason. Whether or not someone chooses to be gay is a different argument. Allah says we will be judged on our intentions.

this is still a statement of belief...
because god said so...isn't good enough...maybe for you but not for some


this reminds me of the dynamic of a parent child relationship when the parent is either too busy or impatient with their child...
kid- "why?" parent-"because i said so"
sorry that just won't fly...

 

[darkendless]

eating too much and smoking is also wrong. Allah says in the Qur'an:

And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. 2:195

Do not harm your own self.

Basically homosexuality is wrong because Allah says so in the Qur'an. Allah created opposite sexes for a reason. Allah does not create anything without reason. Whether or not someone chooses to be gay is a different argument. Allah says we will be judged on our intentions.

Oh dear

 

[Father Heathen]

eating too much and smoking is also wrong. Allah says in the Qur'an:

And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. 2:195

Do not harm your own self.

Basically homosexuality is wrong because Allah says so in the Qur'an. Allah created opposite sexes for a reason. Allah does not create anything without reason. Whether or not someone chooses to be gay is a different argument. Allah says we will be judged on our intentions.

You do realize that it means absolutely nothing to those who do not believe in your particular faith or holy book, right? It's an irrational, unsubstantiated claim, and thus meaningless.

 

[Father Heathen]

I really hope you are joking. By this argument, Tiger Woods or Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be found in the wrong because they should not be held to repressing their "natural" tendency towards infidelity. And you think people that try to repress behaviors that they deem negative should not be tolerated? Really? You must be joking....

Besides not being a "natural tendency", infidelity is irresponsible, has negative consequences and impacts others, so it can't be compared to something as benign as homosexuality.

You are correct, but you are assuming everyone believes the same thing as you. Whether you like it or not, some people believe that homosexuality is a threat to greater society and they have a right to that belief.

Of course people have a right to their beliefs. However, beliefs that are substantiated by evidence and logic are superior to those that are not.

 

[blackout]

Why any homosexual person
would choose a "faith"
that condemns them to a life
without intimacy of love
and life partnership,
I do not understand.

 

[waitasec]

Why any homosexual person
would choose a "faith"
that condemns them to a life
without intimacy of love
and life partnership,
I do not understand.

because they were indoctrinated...as a youngling.