What is your belief about homosexuality?

[Dirty Penguin]

Is homosexuality good? Is it bad? Is it neither? Is it a sin? Is it not a sin? Is it natural?

Just curious as to what everyone's outlook is.

Tis none of my business how two consenting adults live. I say be free...be who you are. That's how you were born so embrace your nature....

 

[Bunyip]

Love is love, and a good thing. Gay love, bi love, straight love - If it makes you both happy, it is a blessing.

 

[Nada]

 

[ChristineES]

Love is love, and a good thing. Gay love, bi love, straight love - If it makes you both happy, it is a blessing.

Sex and love are not synonymous with each other: People can have sex and not be in love while people can also be in love and not have sex.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Gay is a disease, and gays shouldn't be allowed to spread it.

Seriousness: I think homosexuality is okay, but I have no patience for the over obsessive protesters. Believe it or not, I know people who claim to be gay when they really aren't. It's strange.

 

[ChristineES]

Understood but it is not so simple. Certainly Christians recognize that David sinned in committing adultery and murder. But what about his imprecatory prayers? I have heard some say they are justified in doing the same because David did so.

Personally, I know of no Christians or Jews who believe it is perfectly OK to go out, have sex and get a woman pregnant, have her husband killed just because "David did it".

 

[Nada]

 

[Bunyip]

Sex and love are not synonymous with each other: People can have sex and not be in love while people can also be in love and not have sex.

Sure i know that, But being homosexual is not just about sex. You can be homosexual and celibate, I was talking abput love.

 

[ChristineES]

Sure i know that, But being homosexual is not just about sex. You can be homosexual and celibate, I was talking abput love.

The fact that homosexuality isn't about sex (to me, hardly at all). That's the reason I replied with that. We're not as far away from our thinking as people would think.

 

[nazz]

Personally, I know of no Christians or Jews who believe it is perfectly OK to go out, have sex and get a woman pregnant, have her husband killed just because "David did it".

Right. I agreed with that. I was talking about something else--imprecatory prayer. I DO know Christians who practice this.

 

[ChristineES]

Right. I agreed with that. I was talking about something else--imprecatory prayer. I DO know Christians who practice this.

That I can't deny.

 

[Bunyip]

The fact that homosexuality isn't about sex (to me, hardly at all). That's the reason I replied with that. We're not as far away from our thinking as people would think.

Of course not, I think we share similar positions on a great many things.

 

[ChristineES]

That I can't deny.

In fact, I've known too many people of my faith who think they can do whatever they want. They can't. It doesn't work that way. I think King David had a bout of lust and was thinking with his you-know-what instead of his brain, then he tried to cover it up with his murder of Uriah. David, however, did not make a practice of stealing men's wives and then killing them. And Nathan did tell him off for it.

 

[Madhuri]

I voted other as there was no selection for "natural, neither good nor bad". It is a natural orientation and I don't believe there is anything about orientations, in and of themselves, that is inherently "good" or "bad". They simply are.

I agree with this!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Believe it or not, I know people who claim to be gay when they really aren't. It's strange.

I have some gay friends who say that there are a lot of closet gays, men who get married to conform but still seek out gay sex.

 

[1robin]

1) Then we can agree that religious based law should be excluded from the law of the land as that would impede the right of religion yes?

I don't even know what that means. Including religious based law does not impede the right of religion. Was that a type-o or something. Christianity was not meant to govern a nation, it was meant to govern a Christian so I do not suggest it be used as the law of the land. It's principles are the foundation for most of western law but that is not something I suggest must be done.

2) Natural or unnatural isn't even the argument. It is extremely unnatural to take chemicals and put it in our body but somehow that cures diseases. Its not natural but its good. Snake venom is natural. Its not good for you. The point is actually is it a perversion or is it innate? All the information states it is innate.

It is a part of the argument that I made. It has also been part of a great many posts here so many feel it is relevant. Your right to suggest that it being natural or not is not to say it is good or not. I separated the two, It is unnatural IMO, and it is factually not good.

3) Male homosexuals who practice safe sex are no more likely to get HIV than a strait male. Women who practice homosexual sex are less likely to get HIV than women who only engage in heterosexual sex. So maybe its just men thats the problem? Lets outlaw all male sex and let only women have sex. Fertilization will happen in vitro. Or we could talk about pragmatic ways to limit the spread of STI.

The risk drops some what but they most certainly are more to contract STD's and all sorts of non-disease related injury as well. Homosexuals are also well noted for not practicing safe sex as often as heterosexuals. In fact in virtually every discipline based statistics their number are much worse. But even if they all did so, and even if the risk was no greater that for heterosexuality it still lacks any justification to offset any lethal risk. No matter how you paint the picture it still can't be justified. I do not believe making stronger cars has any effect on whether driving drunk is wrong or safer sex makes homosexuality right. Let me ask you this. Would you call for the cessation of the practice until it is actually made safe?

4) Except for the mental well being of all individuals who are homosexual, bisexual or other. The fact that human rights and the ability to purse happiness. By your logic we should outlaw McDonalds, Motorcycles, Smokes, alcohol, piercings, art ect. But life entails risk and having people live it how they need to live it is one of the most important aspects to being humane.

No one has, no one intended, and no one will ever allow any human to ever pursue any means by which to achieve happiness. It is always tempered by other factors. The same with free speech, the same with the right to assemble, basically no right is ever cart blanche. We are not discussing McDonalds, smoking, or piercings. This is a homosexual thread. The moral insanity required to attempt to allow a practice which has no justification to compensate for the millions it destroys and the billions it causes by indicting McDonalds is proof of my position. I could say that by your logic thermonuclear release for the fun of it, cancer, and serial rape should be allowable but that is too ridiculous and intellectually dishonest to bother with. I am afraid I a troubled by the pesky desire to be reasonable.

 

[ShivaFan]

I believe it exists.

I also believe fish exist. Some fish are bad and some fish are good, some in the midfle. Some may not know how to swim even. Whales are cool.

 

[Awoon1]

Personally, I know of no Christians or Jews who believe it is perfectly OK to go out, have sex and get a woman pregnant, have her husband killed just because "David did it".

Then Christians should never say anything or action is God's plan. Because that is how the David story in explained in the Bible and Jesus genealogy goes through Solomon.

 

[ChristineES]

Then Christians should never say anything or action is God's plan. Because that is how the David story in explained in the Bible and Jesus genealogy goes through Solomon.

I don't see that at all. But...

 

[Midnight Rain]

I don't even know what that means. Including religious based law does not impede the right of religion. Was that a type-o or something. Christianity was not meant to govern a nation, it was meant to govern a Christian so I do not suggest it be used as the law of the land. It's principles are the foundation for most of western law but that is not something I suggest must be done.

If you simply believe homsexuality to be wrong then I can't stop you. I can't stop you from being a NAZI if that is your thing. It doesn't make it a moral position. Though if this conversation was to shift into a marriage equality argument you would have to defend against this position.

It is a part of the argument that I made. It has also been part of a great many posts here so many feel it is relevant. Your right to suggest that it being natural or not is not to say it is good or not. I separated the two, It is unnatural IMO, and it is factually not good.

To a homosexual it would be both "natural" and "good". It is natural because it is innate within them (not the product of perversion or abuse) and it would be "good" as any sexual feelings/actions a heterosexual would have. It is unfortunate that there have been diseases that have been spread around but such as been since before humans. It wouldn't make the act of homosexual sex immoral or wrong.

The risk drops some what but they most certainly are more to contract STD's and all sorts of non-disease related injury as well. Homosexuals are also well noted for not practicing safe sex as often as heterosexuals. In fact in virtually every discipline based statistics their number are much worse. But even if they all did so, and even if the risk was no greater that for heterosexuality it still lacks any justification to offset any lethal risk. No matter how you paint the picture it still can't be justified. I do not believe making stronger cars has any effect on whether driving drunk is wrong or safer sex makes homosexuality right. Let me ask you this. Would you call for the cessation of the practice until it is actually made safe?

If there were two homosexual men who had never had previous sexual relationships before in their life and they practiced safe sex then they would not obtain an STI. However the repression of the sexuality has caused individuals to practice unsafe sex. Once an incurable disease that is easily transmitted got into the "pool" of people passing it around it would become incredibly difficult to maintain. However it is being controlled far better now. Though nothing innate about homosexual sex causes STI. That is important to note. Your argument should be geared against unsafe sex in general. There is nothing innate about a homosexual that makes him or her practice less safe sex. The stigma, self loathing, sexual repression, psychological torture and media portrayal of homosexualty has caused all of this.

So there is nothing more "wrong" about homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. Would you object to having sex with a member of the African American community? That is a slight increased risk of coming across someone with HIV.

But again the "good" that comes out of it is having a healthy sexual life which is profoundly important to individual happiness. There is no greater good than that.

No one has, no one intended, and no one will ever allow any human to ever pursue any means by which to achieve happiness. It is always tempered by other factors. The same with free speech, the same with the right to assemble, basically no right is ever cart blanche. We are not discussing McDonalds, smoking, or piercings. This is a homosexual thread. The moral insanity required to attempt to allow a practice which has no justification to compensate for the millions it destroys and the billions it causes by indicting McDonalds is proof of my position. I could say that by your logic thermonuclear release for the fun of it, cancer, and serial rape should be allowable but that is too ridiculous and intellectually dishonest to bother with. I am afraid I a troubled by the pesky desire to be reasonable.

No you can't. Homosexual sex is not a crime. It harms no one against their will. In fact if done correctly it harms no one at all.

If there is no harm why would it be considered "not good"?