Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
What I do find tiresome is thinly-disguised homophobia dressed up as religious objection.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is your belief about homosexuality?
- Thread starter Gnostic Seeker
- Start date
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
*
Yep! And the story has YHVH saying he will NOT destroy Zoar - so OBVIOUSLY there were still men there - and they knew it.
The storyteller fell flat on his face with this one.
*
Just as good as bad as heterosexuality (which has lots of downsides, make no mistake) really. Which is to say, it is good to those people who find affinity with it.
I can't take claims that homosexuality is "sinful" at all seriously. Such claims are a strong indicator of a troubled person.
Certainly, homosexuality is as natural as anything can possibly be. No different from, say, green eyes.
Fair point. After all, baldness is natural, as is dying of snake bite. We do not demand people to obey nature or to refuse to make choices in those matters, and I don't see why we should.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Me neither. Possibly there was an undercurrent of homophobia in the culture of the time when certain ancient religious texts were written down, but that's no excuse to propagate bigotry in the modern world.
Now I know how to get rid of JWs when they come to my house. Show them in the Bible where Lot's daughters got their Dad drunk and screwed him.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I will.I have learned the difference my angry little tiggerLol...
It is not I who says this.It is God's word.If you do not believe the word of God then it is He you must take this up with.
As soon as he decides to make an appearance...
Not going to hold my breath though.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Unfortunately, in Biblical times, rape was a way of getting a woman for your wife against the woman's will.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Means to an end and all huh? Isn't that lovely? With these ideas, and so many more messed up and disgusting things in the bible, why do some find it any wonder that there are so many of us that don't believe it or follow it? The fact that some do find it amazing that people have issues with what the bible says is what people should be concerned about. That book is rife with such wrong information and such questionable and hideous morals being touted as "right" that it's just scary that people believe this is the work of some benevolent god. I mean, how could it be? When us mere humans have better judgment of right and wrong than that book does? If it were inspired or the work of some deity, it would have to be a cruel and sadistic one. Certainly not one worthy of my worship.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
1. If the bible is correct it no doubt is a sin.
2. I also believe it is unnatural (though I will admit the jury is still out). Or at least no more natural than the genetic tendency to abuse alcohol.
3. It is also wrong. Nothing practiced by 4% of the population that produces 60% of the aids cases in the US is right.
4. It does not contain any gain that offsets the horrific cost and there for is as wrong as wrong can get.
It does not contain any gain that justifies the demand that the rest of us pay billions to treat the horrific problems it causes.
I do however believe a gay person can be saved and good. I see homosexuality as nothing beyond a sin the same as theft, lying, hate, etc......which we all commit. Despite it's disproportional costs it is no more a sin than any other.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Oh, for a facepalm smiley. It is as natural as any other orientation, the number is larger than 4%, and the largest demographic with HIV or AIDS right now in this country is African American women. Do tell how homosexuals are responsible for that. As for a gain, since homosexuals do not normally reproduce within committed relationships (without artificial means), then homosexual couples are largely helpful when it comes to adoption of unwanted children or children stuck in the foster care system...and who would be putting out these unwanted and neglected/abused children? Heterosexuals. So homosexuals, by virtue of not having their own children, care for the ones heterosexuals leave behind. Not to mention, that since they don't naturally have kids of their own, if homosexuals do have kids, you can be sure they are wanted and cared for kids as they wouldn't have them if they didn't truly want them. The same cannot automatically be said for heterosexuals with children.
Last edited:
It's not even something that deserves a word. It's a nonthing.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
1. I did not comment on, nor is it relevant what the largest demographic who has aids is. It is relevant what demographic spreads aids the most. Not that your claim was correct to begin with as I will show below.
2. No homosexuality is not as natural as any other orientation. No animal on earth is strictly homosexual and less than 10% of humans are.
3. I have no reason to explain how homosexuals are responsible for spreading aids to African American women, men, dogs, trees, or any other random group you invent. That simply has no relevance. I can show very emphatically how it is involved but that is not part of the issue or my claims.
4. Adoption does not cancel out the numbers killed and horrifically scared by the practice. I did not say homosexuals never do good. I said their good deeds don't even come close to equaling the misery they produce. If a unnecessary surgery produces far more injury and death than benefit no one would have it, and doctors who demanded others have it would be viewed as immoral and insane. Widows may adopt more children than married couples but being widowed is not a good thing because of that and being widowed does not kill anyone or cost others billions. You can't justify stealing a hundred dollars by giving twenty to charity.
5. I am not going to engage in hypotheticals about which groups want children the most. Or for that matter which homes (heterosexual or homosexual) produce the proper home environment.
Let me now post the numbers you questioned.
Male homosexuality in the US is 2%, they produce 73% of new aids cases among men age 13-24.
56% of all people who have aids are homosexual, the total homosexual population is 3.4% in the US.
CDC – Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men – Gender – Risk – HIV/AIDS
What percentage of the U.S. population is gay, lesbian or bisexual? - The Washington Post
So my numbers were pretty darn accurate. Not that even swings of 10% in you favor would change the argument one bit.
And by the way the group most affected by HIV is white males who are gay. They accounted for 11,200 new HIV cases in 2010. Next is Black male homosexuals at 10,600, followed by Hispanic gay men, only then by black women at less than half the one at number 1.
HIV Risk, Prevention, and Testing Behaviors Among Men Who Have Sex With Men --- National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, 21 U.S. Cities, United States, 2008
Also quote my post when you respond. If you do not do so I do not get an alert and only see your response based on luck. I have posted in several threads but since this format change has occurred responses are very slow. I saw the homosexual thread and new if any group would respond quickly it was the (over emotional and fanatic homosexual defenders) and was surprised to see it taking so long to get a response and so I went specifically to check and only then did I see you had responded and guessed you did so to me. Hit the quote button to respond and it will alert whoever you responded to.
Draka
Wonder Woman
@1robin , there, tagged you, don't feel like quoting that huge mess.
Well, last statistics I saw were different, but be that as it may. Even given the stats linked to...so what? It has to do with the type of sex performed and what precautions are taken. Whoop-Dee-doo. Still doesn't make homosexuality unnatural or bad. It simply means that they are more prone to contracting a certain disease. There are many diseases and many factors which make people prone to getting them. Those other factors aren't considered bad or unnatural. Asians may have a higher susceptibility to osteoporosis, blacks have more likelihood to be anemic, women are more susceptible to breast cancer, men to heart attacks. Those qualities of a person aren't considered unnatural or bad because of those susceptibilities. So why should homosexuality be considered thusly because of HIV/AIDS? And then, even with that...what of homosexual women? They certainly don't fall in the high risk group. What argument could be used for them? Using disease likelihood for a reason to call something unnatural or wrong is simply flawed.
Well, last statistics I saw were different, but be that as it may. Even given the stats linked to...so what? It has to do with the type of sex performed and what precautions are taken. Whoop-Dee-doo. Still doesn't make homosexuality unnatural or bad. It simply means that they are more prone to contracting a certain disease. There are many diseases and many factors which make people prone to getting them. Those other factors aren't considered bad or unnatural. Asians may have a higher susceptibility to osteoporosis, blacks have more likelihood to be anemic, women are more susceptible to breast cancer, men to heart attacks. Those qualities of a person aren't considered unnatural or bad because of those susceptibilities. So why should homosexuality be considered thusly because of HIV/AIDS? And then, even with that...what of homosexual women? They certainly don't fall in the high risk group. What argument could be used for them? Using disease likelihood for a reason to call something unnatural or wrong is simply flawed.
gsa
Well-Known Member
I was not going to respond, but I figured I might as well since you, like most Christian fundamentalists, are a **** poor interpreter of statistics and social science data.
1. If HIV was as damning to MSMs as you suggest (which is not the same as homosexuality and a far cry from LGBT), the global patterns should mirror the US patterns. But of course we know that they do not; anal sex between males is not a primary mode of transmission in Africa, to use just one example. Similarly, heterosexual contact and injection drug use are the primary modes of transmission in South and Southeast Asia.
2. You are conflating homosexuality with unprotected anal intercourse between men. That is actually the risk behavior associated with HIV transmission, NOT "homosexuality" which encompasses a range of male/male and female/female acts.
3. The estimates for self-identified gay men and lesbians varies considerably; your link references the NHIS study, which has a number of problems (as all studies on this topic do); a comparative examination of four national studies shows a range of between 2.2% and 4.0%, but note that this a) requires self-identification and b) does not examine the prevalence of homosexual sexual behavior. That latter number is much, much larger than the former number.
I think it unnatural. I kind of figure both heterosexual and homosexual folks have issues. The bi-sexual are the only sane ones.
Everyone has issues so it's not a big deal. I just think the bi-sexual have less issues then most.
As I said earlier, the men in the Bible were never described as perfect. They were human just like the rest of us. That makes it better, in my opinion, not worse. If they were all saints, we would see them as unbelieveable, not the other way around.
But that's just me.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
It's me too
For the record, if you take the religious element out of it, homosexuality is neither good nor bad, the same with any other sexuality. Sex isn't good or bad, I mean,is walking good or bad, is eating good or bad, etc? It's what you do with it.