What is your belief about homosexuality?

[katiemygirl]

*
Did you have a comment? If so it didn't show up.

*

I am new to this forum. It's laid out different from other forums. I am having a bit of difficulty navigating. I did comment.

 

[Ingledsva]

You will have the opportunity to argue your case before God on the day of judgement. We all will. Each will give an account for himself/herself.

1 Cor. 6:9. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

You need to QUOTE so we know whom you are replying to. I will assume this is to me.

There are NO "homosexuals" in 1Cor. 6:9 either.

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.


*

 

[Nada]

Anything that occurs in nature is, of course, natural, and homosexuality can be found in a number of non-human species. Homosexuality does represent an evolutionary puzzle, because it is not entirely clear how such a trait would survive the evolutionary process, but there are a number of theories for why it would survive Darwinian natural selection.

What you are talking about is not nature, but teleology. There is really only one act that (imperfectly) results in procreation, but a much wider range of acts are natural. Moreover, not all things which are natural are functional. No one would suggest that an appendix is unnatural, but it is a vestigial structure that has lost most of its functionality.

Your moral and theological judgment of homosexuality has nothing to do with nature.

You said,"Anything that occurs in nature is, of course, natural, and homosexuality can be found in a number of non-human species."
So according to this view you have,you then think that cannibalism and killing is natural?
Because this occurs in the animal world, nature, or non human species,as you call it.


"Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?


In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man."

The Animal Homosexuality Myth
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo



You said,"Your moral and theological judgment of homosexuality has nothing to do with nature."

Your opinion has been noted.Thanks.

 

[dgirl1986]

I thought this thread about what your belief was, not trying to convert people to your god?

 

[Nada]

I thought this thread about what your belief was, not trying to convert people to your god?

I just scrolled through the last few pages on this forum.Everyone seems to be giving their opinions ok.What post do you have an issue with?

The OP says, "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."

So far everyone has been answering this OP ok.

 

[McBell]

There is nothing to make my mind up about. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God. God spoke through the apostle Paul. You can choose to accept or reject that. I choose to accept.

all that and you did not answer the question...

Are you claiming they are Gods words but it was Paul that wrote them down?

If so, why not simply state as such?

 

[McBell]

You will have the opportunity to argue your case before God on the day of judgement. We all will. Each will give an account for himself/herself.

I suspect that there are great many a person who will be most surprised with the outcome after arguing their case before god.

 

[McBell]

You said,"Anything that occurs in nature is, of course, natural, and homosexuality can be found in a number of non-human species."
So according to this view you have,you then think that cannibalism and killing is natural?
Because this occurs in the animal world, nature, or non human species,as you call it.

Yes, cannibalism and killing is natural.
Next?

"Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?


In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man."

The Animal Homosexuality Myth
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

Not impressed.
right and wrong have nothing to with natural or unnatural.
Which is why it makes no sense when theists claim that homosexuality is not natural as though making the claim makes homosexuality somehow wrong.

So the problem here is the theist trying to equate "not natural" with "wrong" in their sad attempt at justifying their homophobia.

You said,"Your moral and theological judgment of homosexuality has nothing to do with nature."

Your opinion has been noted.Thanks.

you have been shown just how badly you look with this "not natural equals wrong" line of bull **** you try using to justify your homophobia.
Why you would want to keep making a fool of yourself with it is anybody's guess.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I voted "Other." I think it is natural, but like any other natural phenomenon, it is neither "good" nor "bad" per se. Based on the scientific evidence we currently have, I believe it is not a harmful or "immoral" orientation at all.

There is nothing to make my mind up about. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God. God spoke through the apostle Paul. You can choose to accept or reject that. I choose to accept.

I genuinely think the Bible is more harmful and destructive than homosexuality has ever been or will ever be, and I think Paul was a deceiver who lied about being inspired by a god when spreading his hatred and ignorance.

It seems to me that it is extremely misguided to deny other people basic freedoms based on one's personal beliefs, especially when those freedoms don't impact you or those you care about in any way.

 

[nazz]

You will have the opportunity to argue your case before God on the day of judgement. We all will. Each will give an account for himself/herself.

Will we be able to use a Greek lexicon when doing so?

 

[nazz]

You need to QUOTE so we know whom you are replying to. I will assume this is to me.

There are NO "homosexuals" in 1Cor. 6:9 either.

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.


*

This is interesting. Do you have a reference?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Are you actually going to equate being against a practice that kills millions with being in favor of a political party who killed millions. Come on, liberals are the best at dishonestly setting up false moral high ground labels, and the practice is sickening.

It most certainly is a moral position to suggest a practice which has no compensating gain for the millions it kills and the billions it costs is wrong. If not the word morality no longer has any application and should be taken out of the dictionary.

Homosexual marriage is not the subject.

Homosexuality doesn't kill millions. A disease has killed millions. The reason that disease has been able to run so rampant has been because of CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES in power who simply "let it be" without any attempt to educate the people or take actions to assist those that might be involved. Back in the 60's if this had not been viewed as a "gay" disease that was doing "god's work" then there would not be millions of people dying.

It is not a false moral high ground it is the situation as it is. I am not even liberal by most standards (gun owning, fiscal conservative borderline libertarian). But when taking about human rights I defend them.
There is great good. The greatest good to gain from allowing humans to have their rights to happiness and love. That involves sex. Always has. Always will.

You can't possibly know if it natural. Even if it is you would not know it to be. You just declaring it is and insisting your declaration creates reality. All kinds of studies suggest it is not natural. There are even ones that show it is genetic yet still unnatural because it is a genetic mistake that causes a certain chemical to be produced in abnormal amounts. There is also mountains of evidence it is a moral perversion. Homosexuals statistically exceed heterosexual rates in all types of moral categories like spousal abuse, adultery, drug use, the length of marriage, etc...... It seems that homosexuals are in general less moral in many ways compared to heterosexuals.

Practicing a habit that is unnecessary and that does not have any compensating gain that kills millions is a moral failure. It is like your saying so what if some people shoot others without cause, that does not make it a moral issue.

I know first hand that it is natural. I am naturally bisexual. I have natural feelings for men and women. It is not a perversion or a "habit". The fact you would even call it that shows me you hardly have even a glimpse of an idea of what you are talking about.

How dare you state such bull about homosexual to hetrosexual morality. You have your opinion based upon obvious bias but not on facts. And then who is to say what is moral and what is immoral?

To recap. Doesn't matter if its natural or not. Its innate. It doesn't harm anyone. Diseases and unsafe practices harm people. Its not a "habit".

I am not arguing about any specific subgroup but about a behavior in general. Regardless your are perfectly wrong. There is no way to practice homosexuality that does not carry risk of both disease and especially no disease related injury. Homosexuals are statistically less likely to practice safe sex. The idea that sexual discipline causes people to practice unsafe sex is an incoherent idea. I did not say homosexuality causes STD's (though I would not be surprised if it did in some cases), I said it spreads them at rates astronomically higher than in heterosexual statistics. Add to that that heterosexuality does have compensating gains which justify the risk where homosexuality does not.

You seem to think that you stating something makes it true. There is something wrong with homosexuality. If a practice which does not have compensating gains kills millions and costs billions is not evidence of a moral failure then what ever could be. How many killed and how many billions that others have to pay does it take to make something unjustifiable? I object to sex outside of marriage between anyone and homosexuals in any context. However within the bounds of marriage heterosexual behavior has compensating reasons to justify the risk that homosexuality lacks.

You can't simply argue the general. If you do then you are making sweeping accusations that are mostly wrong about most of the people you are talking about.

You can practice safe sex as a homosexual. It can be just as safe as hetrosexual sex. In fact female to female homosexual intercourse is FAR safer than any heterosexual intercourse by the statistics. And now that we have in vitro fertilization there is no "benefit" to heterosexual intercourse that does not exist in homosexual intercourse.

Please pay strict attention to this. Homosexuality kills millions and does not have anything that can compensate for the cost that would justify the practice. Heterosexuality is necessary to keep the human race in existence. It has justification for the risks. The pleasure it gives homosexuals to practice it is no more justification for it than the pleasure it gives drug addicts to take drugs.

You make a great point. Wait...no you don't. Because homosexuality doesn't kill anyone. Homosexual intercourse does not kill anyone. HIV has killed people for example but that is a disease. It is not interchangeable with homosexual intercourse.

And I have already explained that it does come with benefits.

Not only does it harm thousands against their will, it kills thousands without their knowledge. Homosexuals are promiscuous in general and many sleep with people of both sexes and there by transmit diseases to people they don't even know. Add to that that all of us have to pay the billions in medical care the unnatural habit makes necessary.

Homosexuals are not naturally any more promiscuous than hetrosexuals. I am bisexual and there has been a massive amount of stigma held by both homosexuals and hetrosexuals alike that I would be more permiscuous than a hetrosexual individual. This is simply not true. And it is not true for any of the other cases.

Also the bolded is a bold-faced lie. Please demonstrate how it is true and I shall show you how it is not.

Only in some contrived fantasy land is there no harm from homosexuality. I have posted in this thread entire lists of injuries and diseases that homosexuality causes in far higher amounts than heterosexuality. In reality it is extremely harmful and costly.

ONLY if done in an unsafe way and generally....ONLY done with male-male homosexual acts. Who knew shoving a something like that into different places could cause injury. It can cause injury in women as well as men.

However you are right on one thing. There needs to be better education to the risks and practices of sexual conduct in general for homosexuals. Not having any sort of guide to go by and no information about how to be safe and how to avoid diseases is missing in our school systems. We need to better educate sexual education to our GLBTQ youth and adults.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is interesting. Do you have a reference?

I got it from an Archaeology magazine article. I believe it was BR (Bible Review) which discussed many such controversial issues. They are no longer in print, but their sister publication (BAR) Biblical Archaeology Review keeps some of their articles archived. I did a quick search for TLG online and found Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

According to the article I read, it means rape and other sexual crimes against other people against their will. So it would also include pedophilia, sexual misuse of slaves, etc.

*

 

[KONDRU]

You can disagree all that you want. Homosexuality, however you define it, exists in nature, free of human interference. A male monkey having sex with another male monkey is homosexual behavior, just as a male monkey having sex with a female monkey is heterosexual behavior. Again, their subjective experience of the activity is not at issue, just the action itself.

Additionally, sexually non-procreative acts occur in nature. The fact that other acts lead to procreation is irrelevant. Consider the obvious: A heterosexually monogamous male could have sex with a female once every reproductive cycle, and spend the rest of his time having sex with other males, and there would be no effect on his ability to procreate. But the limitation is not due to homosexuality, but monogamy: In the context of monogamous heterosexuality, the actual "unnatural" restriction is monogamy, because that is what actually limits his ability to procreate by imposing barriers to reproduction. That being said, monogamy occurs naturally in nature, as does promiscuity, as does homosexuality (both varieties). If the ability to procreate is the standard, then monogamy is of course "unnatural" because it limits procreation.

The reality is that monogamous marriage, as we understand it today, is a cultural trait that is very rare, very recent and relatively or extremely rare in practice, both in human societies and the broader animal kingdom. Pair bonding for romantic reasons is also relatively rare, but that is a modification of a cultural practice. Either way, none of this demonstrates that homosexuality is unnatural, nor could it.

 

[KONDRU]

We

 

[KONDRU]

We are created in the image of god with Intelligence. To think and act where as Animals does not have This power God Given to human beings only. Freedom to all. How you can use that freedom is up to individual.For every thing Guide lines available in this universe. It is better to be a human than Animal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are created in the image of god with Intelligence. To think and act where as Animals does not have This power God Given to human beings only. Freedom to all. How you can use that freedom is up to individual.For every thing Guide lines available in this universe. It is better to be a human than Animal.

Humans are another animal. Sometimes better off than those that crawl on all fours, usually we're worse off though. And, FYI, many animals have this "higher" thought that we once that was exclusive to humans. Dolphins, elephants, dogs, these animals can think and even reason. Pretty much every animal is self-aware and conscious.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

1 Cor. 6:9. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

More evidence of homophobic attitudes in the people who wrote the Bible?

 

[katiemygirl]

God gave you the freedom to choose your path. I don't argue about His word. It is what it is. I believe and accept it. You will get your chance to argue your case when your time comes.
Katie

 

[katiemygirl]

Will we be able to use a Greek lexicon when doing so?

If you have an advocate, you won't need one.