The question of the Christian and the homosexual

[robtex]

paWz your IPU avatar rocks. I may have to go look for a different one now. Hopefully some of the abrahamic theists will pick apart my post make corrections as they see fit and we can have a more academic debate with a blunter arguement on the table.

 

[UnTheist]

paWz your IPU avatar rocks. I may have to go look for a different one now. Hopefully some of the abrahamic theists will pick apart my post make corrections as they see fit and we can have a more academic debate with a blunter arguement on the table.

Thank you . I do hope we get a more diverse argument here soon, as well.

 

[PureX]

---------

I am not seeing the arguement I hear in person made by christians and muslims so I am going to throw it out there for you theists to defend. In contrast to the qoute by PaWz my understanding is the trangression of morality is not man vs man but man vs God.

In my understanding of inerrant theology is that God wants man to pro-create which means find a mate of the opposite sex and use copulation as a means to bring more children of God onto the planet. Any hedonistic use of sexuality that is not able to create off-spring is not a transgression of man but of God's divine will.

The arguement being that using sexuality and copulation for purposes other than pro-creation is using for reason (motive) not intended by God. The only reason for this to even be applicable is the religious arguement of free will. That God gives man a choice to obey or not to obey.

If this arguement is correctly interpreted, than irregardless of wheather homosexuality is genetic or a product of envirormental factors the God in question by interpetation of his followers commands that sex is only a tool for making babies nothing less and nothing more. Any other uses irregardless of reasoning is transgressing the SPECIFIC reason for God creating sex in the first place.

I agree that this is often the reasoning presented, but the real problem with it, logically, is the assumption that one knows the will of God regarding human sexuality. And this assumption rests only on one's interpretation and understanding of scripture. So again, it all seems to come down to how we choose to interpret religious doctrine and dogma.

 

[UnTheist]

I agree that this is often the reasoning presented, but the real problem with it, logically, is the assumption that one knows the will of God regarding human sexuality. And this assumption rests only on one's interpretation and understanding of scripture. So again, it all seems to come down to how we choose to interpret religious doctrine and dogma.

I thought it stated explicitly in the Bible that God is against Homosexuality. I could be wrong

 

[PureX]

I thought it stated explicitly in the Bible that God is against Homosexuality. I could be wrong

Yes, but not all Christians believe that God wrote the bible, and that it's literally sacrosanct. So they might interpret such a quote as the natural prejudice of the human author.

 

[robtex]

Yes, but not all Christians believe that God wrote the bible, and that it's literally sacrosanct. So they might interpret such a quote as the natural prejudice of the human author.

PureX you are a christian. What is your take on homosexuality as it relates to God and why?

 

[PureX]

PureX you are a christian. What is your take on homosexuality as it relates to God and why?

I'm not a bible literalist, so my understanding of God and Christ are based on Christ being God's love expressed in and through us, to each other, to heal us and save us from ourselves. So I believe that anything that promotes love and forgiveness is "Christ expressed". Love between homosexuals is no different to me than love between heterosexuals. It's the love that matters to me, and that heals the soul, not the sex act, or the gender of the lovers.

We human beings use sexuality to express our love for each other, and to create and strengthen bonds between couples more often than we use sex to procreate. And I believe this is a very legitimate use of sexual intimacy. I also believe it's in keeping with Christ, as Christ is "God's love made flesh". Christ is God's love being expressed in and through us to each other. Sexual intimacy is one means we have available to us of expressing that love.

 

[James the Persian]

Given the fact that psychotics cannot be helad liable for the actions as tied in with their concience (which, for many are lacking - or severely repressed), and God will judge them thus...........I cannot see a God that would turn away a son or daughter who was created with a love for their own sex.

Oh, I don't disagree with you on this at all. I don't believe that God will turn someone away because they are homosexual. I trust in the mercy of God and hope for the salvation of all, remember? In any case, that idea doesn't even really fit into our model. There is a distinction to be made, however, between God's mercy, which far surpasses man's, and the God's standards, which the Church must strive to uphold. Therefore we simply cannot encourage unrepentant and repeated sin. That doesn't mean that we see those people who fall into this sin as automatically damned, though (I'm sure some do but you get such people everywhere unfortunately - certainly, judging another's salvation is not an Orthodox attitude). I would just note, however, that so far as Christian anthropology is concerned nobody is now how they were created to be. Nobody then (even if we find that it is a 'natural' trait) created homosexual. It's a consequence of the fall, as is my foul temper. It's exactly these things we must work on if we truly strive to follow the standards revealed to us by God. I would certainly not encourage a homosexual to convert to Orthodoxy because I am aware of what a burdenb this would put on them. I would applaud anyone who really strove to live such a life, but I can't help thinking that for many gays, being Orthodox would make their ultimate salvation less secure. Please bear in mind that this is me, and not the Church, speaking.

James

 

[Anti-World]

"Of course we don't - although your choice of words is absurd; 'we allow psychopaths to kill people' implies that we follow them around, and say 'Go kill'."

No it doesn't. It implies that we are *trying* to stop psychopaths from killing people. I don't know where you got that implication.

"Ok, well let me spell out the difference for you:

We don't let psychopaths kill because killing hurts people
We don't let pedophiles have sex with children because it hurts the child
We let gay couples have relationships becuase they don't hurt anybody

Savvy?"

Well. You're not looking at the big picture. Necrophiliacs don't hurt anybody either. Nor do zoophiles. I don't see how you can accept one but not the other. If you do accept those other two I have no argument.

 

[Anti-World]

Ha ha rolling_stone.

 

[MaddLlama]

Well. You're not looking at the big picture. Necrophiliacs don't hurt anybody either. Nor do zoophiles. I don't see how you can accept one but not the other. If you do accept those other two I have no argument.

I don't see how you're making the connection between two men having a normal relationship, and a man having sex with a donkey, or a corpse. I don't see anything similar about these things.

 

[standing_alone]

I don't see how you're making the connection between two men having a normal relationship, and a man having sex with a donkey, or a corpse. I don't see anything similar about these things.

I don't either, but I think when one goes by that "logic," one would have to reject heterosexual relationships, too. I mean, how can you accept one without accepting the other? So maybe we should reject all forms of relationships regardless and all live as hermits or something?

 

[MaddLlama]

I don't either, but I think when one goes by that "logic," one would have to reject heterosexual relationships, too. I mean, how can you accept one without accepting the other? So maybe we should reject all forms of relationships regardless and all live as hermits or something?

Or, we could all just sit at home and touch ourselves.

Oh, wait, didn't he say that was the same thing too? Damn.

 

[standing_alone]

Or, we could all just sit at home and touch ourselves.

Oh, wait, didn't he say that was the same thing too? Damn.

Man, no wonder he's anti-everything.

 

[Sunstone]

So maybe we should reject all forms of relationships regardless and all live as hermits or something?

I resent your public reference to my sex life!

 

[Anti-World]

"I don't see anything similar about these things."

Did I not list, several times, what was similar about these things? Come on. Am I hallucinating here?

I didn't say masturbation was wrong either (I don't know). I'm simply stating that the reasons for accepting homosexuality don't apply to other cases of "sexual relationships" where they logically should. To me it's easiest just to call anything immoral in human sex which is not between a man and a woman. Piece of cake. It's short, easy to remember, not complicated, and no one ends up dead.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't either, but I think when one goes by that "logic," one would have to reject heterosexual relationships, too. I mean, how can you accept one without accepting the other? So maybe we should reject all forms of relationships regardless and all live as hermits or something?

Actually your not too far off.

1 Corinthians 7:8,9
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[pladecalvo]

I resent that! Religion does not limit human advancement.

IMO, Religion has limited human advancement for 2000 years and still does. I'm old enought to remember the first human heart transplant by Dr Christian Barnard, and the Christians marching in the streets chanting "Doctors must not play God".

 

[Random]

To me, all sexuality and Nature is in a higher spiritual sense purely Artificial, a construct of our Consciousnesses collective and individual, therefore to bemoan one sort or another, hetero or homo for instance, as "better" or more "godly" in the sense of "more natural" is a fallacy.

Love is Love: whether between a man and a man, man and a woman or a woman and a woman.

 

[pladecalvo]

The basis for the idea that homosexuality is voluntary is extremely unconvincing. Can anyone provide any even remotely compelling argument for why a person would deliberately refrain from sexual relations with those they find attractive, and instead engage in sexual relations with those they find unattractive, and in doing so expose themselves to tremendous amounts of hateful treatment. The idea that it's done for easy access to sex simply doesn't satisfactorily explain it; a great many homosexuals are perfectly attractive and would have no problem getting all the sex they want from the opposite sex. It's not as if we live in a society where heterosexual sex is only available in the context of marriage or serious long-term relationships. Any guy who's not repulsive or completely socially inept can be going home with a different woman most nights of the week if he cares to make a little effort. And how do we explain homosexuality in people who, by virtue of their social position, could basically get all the sex they want from whoever they want? Why have kings and emperors like Alexander the Great, men who could have their pick of any women out of millions at any time they want, no strings attached, been homosexuals?

Heterosexual men, ask yourself: If you felt like you weren't getting enough sex from women, could you REALLY suppress your discomfort with the idea of having sex with other men instead? Could you REALLY "switch off" your attraction to women if you wanted to? Of course not; attraction is a matter of sex hormones. You can't make yourself be genuinely attracted to men, and genuinely not attracted to women.

If homosexuality really is a choice, what is the motive for all these people--up to 10% of the general populace, according to some estimates? Why are they doing it? It's hard enough to provide a convincing answer nowadays, when anti-gay hatred is merely commonplace rather than pervasive; how do you explain it during, say, the European Middle Ages, when discovery guaranteed gruesome torture and execution?