Why does God care about Homosexuality?

[Reverend Rick]

The harm to me is that I am denied equality under the law. It's real harm. Being offended because people don't accept your superstitions isn't real harm, or rather, there is real harm, but it's harm you do to yourselves.

If it offends me that I'm not allowed to steal from you, do you think I should be allowed to steal from you once in a while, because I have a right not to be offended? Or do you think your rights should take precedence?

No, my rights end where your rights begin.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in that order.

We both have a right to life first and foremost. My liberty and happiness don't take precedence over your right to life.

Liberty comes second. Your liberty is more important than my happiness.

I hope our discussions don't cause a discourse in our on line relationship here at RF.

The day you receive your full rights and privileges will not be a sad day for me at all. :no:

I hope you can also understand that while I will be glad for you, I just cannot condone or support it because of my religious beliefs.

 

[Fluffy]

I know.

That's what we call fascism.

My view on your view of homosexuality is identical to your view on fascism.

Actually perhaps not entirely identical as I don't feel hatred towards anything.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, Spinkles, I'm not angry with you. I understand where you're coming from, and I even agree that taking the time to patiently explain things to these people is a better approach. But I'm tired of it. It gets old, it gets really old, to go through your life explaining that you're a person, too, and explaining why you ought to have the same rights as heterosexuals. It gets old especially because a substantial percentage of the people you explain it to will never understand it, because their devotion to religion has made them incapable of reason or compassion on this issue. I'm just tired of it.

On these forums, we have the same thing over and over again: People come here thinking they can prove that their sect is the true one, that their prophet was the true messenger of god, that their sacred text is the true word of god, that evolution is a myth, that homosexuality is wrong and that LGBTs shouldn't have the rights of other citizens, that their group has the right to kill people they feel threatened by (whether it's Muslims or Americans they fear really doesn't make any difference); in short, it's a constant parade of mentally and morally deformed victims of religion who nevertheless desire nothing more than to fight in defense of the very religion that has deformed them. Sometimes, over time and with great patience from people like you, they're able to become a bit more reasonable, a bit less hateful. But it's slow, mind-numbing work. I'm not saying it's not good work, but it's inefficient, and maybe I'm just not up to it.

I don't think any human being is up to the task of patiently explaining to others that they, too, are human beings. I don't have any right to demand that such a victim be "patient" with his/her antagonists. Given the circumstances, I'd say you've demonstrated extraordinary character. Of course you're sick and tired--who wouldn't be?

I have a lot of respect for you. I hope you and Autodidact and everyone else enjoy long, happy lives together with your loved ones.

 

[Voltaire]

Ok i'll start off first by saying this, i am not in any way one bit Christian/Islamic/Buddhist or any other type of religion established here upon earth. Though i have talked about this topic amongst many Christian friends of mine. Now since i am not religious, i am clearly talking hypothetically here. The reason i even care about this matter and address it is strictly because i hate the way homosexuals (though i am far far from one myself)in todays society are treated, discriminated, and genuinely ostracized by today's church. So for the sake of supporting this oppressed group of people, i will hypothetically tell you exactly (according to morals, principles, the bible and learned knowledge) what GOD's stance on homosexuality is (and remember i am speaking very hypothetically here especially since speaking of GOD's very potential existence is contradictory to my entire belief) . GOD loves ALL of his children. Simple as that, there are few things people can do be sent to hell and be held in the bad favor of GOD (though very speculated exactly what these things were). One of them is NOT homosexuality. Though i have heard differently from many Christians i know, in no place in the bible does GOD specifically state, Homosexuality will send you to hell. Not to mention that though he was supposed to have guided those who wrote it, it was people, sinning, lying, cheating human beings that wrote the bible. If high ruling priests can rape little boys it is just as possible that some drunken priest could have added one of his personal beliefs in to he bible while translating it for the umpteenth time being assured that it was placed in his head by the word of GOD but this is a whole different topic entirely. It is extremely frustrating when people say that GOD hints to his dislike with homosexuality and then consider that a rule set in stone. Not only was the bible written hundreds of years ago, making many of its ideals somewhat outdated in our modern society, but it was also written in a land where killing an infidel in the name of GOD made things A OK. But back to the original topic. Homosexuality is NOT a choice made by someone. Yes there are many cases where people decide that they like guys and convince themselves that they are homosexuals and live their lives that way by there own choice. But true homosexuality, genuine homosexuality is completely genetic and is as unavoidable as the color of one's hair. Sure you can dye it a different color, or cut it up to make it almost unrecognizable but there is no hiding the fact that deep down in the lowest roots, your hair is brown, or black or red... If you happen to have had the opportunity to know a homosexual from a young age and watched them live life, grow and eventually come out of the closet you can not for a second say that it was all their choice. You can tell from grade school that they are different than your normal run of the mill school boy. At this age, a child doesn't know what a penis is let alone whether they prefer it to a vagina or not. Every generation needs there scape goats. From Jews to blacks to Muslims, it is now just homosexuals turn on the racist machine that is society. I apologize that you have fallen victim to our societies own insecurity but i know that a hundred years from now the world will be more open minded with their accusations and you will end up as just another minority in the mixing pot that is the world. Yet all is not bad, for it is far better to walk tall in your own mind than to be stepped on on a worn path.

 

[goraya15]

This view, that disease is a punishment from God, is an ancient, primitive view of disease. The modern view is that disease is caused by germs, viruses, and so forth, and can be prevented and treated by learning these causes and treating them. In general, we have found the more modern, scientific approach more effective in treating disease than the older, religious view. This difference may contribute to many Muslim countries having relatively lower life expectancies than the world's more secular countries.

Of course. You are merely stating the all-encompassing law of God for this universe that we live in: Cause and effect. God merely tells us what to avoid so we can avoid the effect it will have. For example, if you drink poison, you will die, regardless of whether you are a holy man or a sinner. But, God does have special cases in his Laws that allows him to show miracles that seem to be against the law of cause and effect (i.e. science that has not been discovered yet).

So, living hygienically stems disease and viruses. Islam gives an excellent example of physical cleanliness that I have not found anywhere else (ablution 5 times a day, bath on friday, brushing as often as possible, and many others).

So in regard to homosexuality, for every cause, there is an effect. Whether that effect is physical (disease) or spiritual (out of favor of God) or both, God tells us about it, and helps us prevent it through religious teachings.

 

[MoonWater]

It's been a few pages with no replies so I thought I'd bring this up again in case anyone wanted to respond to it.

For those who use scripture(particularly the bible) I offer some food for thought. I recently picked up a book entitled "What the Bible Really says about Homosexuality" That goes into great detail examining the passages that are often taken as condemnation of homosexuality, taking them in the context of the time period in which it was written and who wrote it. Here is a bit of the summary and conclusion from the end of the book. Mind you it's a bit lengthy. I welcome any who wish to offer their thoughts.

The literal approach to the bible claims not to interpret the bible but merely to take it for what it obviously says. The words of the bible in modern translation are taken to mean what they mean to the reader today. On THIS basis the bible is said to condemn homosexuality in a number of a places. But an historical-critical approach reads the bible in its original historical and cultural context. This approach takes the bible to mean, as best as can be determined, what its human authors intended to say in their own time and in their own way. Understood on it's own terms, the bible was not addressing our current questions about sexual ethics. The bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today. The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Jude condemns sex with angels, not sex between two men. Not a single bible text clearly refers to lesbian sex. And from the Bible's positive teaching about heterosexuality, there follows no valid conclusion whatsoever about homosexuality. Only five texts surely refer to male-male sex, leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 timothy 1:10. All these texts are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself, and these five texts boil down to only three different issues. First Leveticus forbids homogeniality as a betrayal of Jewish identity, for supposedly male-male sex was a canaanite practice. The leveticus concern about male-male sex is impurity, an offense against Jewish religion, NOT violation of the inherent nature of sex. Second, the Letter to the Romans presupposes the teaching of the Jewish Law in Leveticus, and Romans mentions male-male sex as an instance of impurity. However, Romans mentions it precisely to make the point that purity issues have no importance in Christ. Finally, in the obscure term arsenokoitai, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy condemn abuses associated with homogenital activity in the first century: exploitation and lust. So the bible takes no direct stand on the morality of homogenital acts as such nor on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships. Indeed, the bible's longest treatment of the matter, in Romans, suggests that in themselves homogenital acts have no ethical significance whatsoever. However, understood in their historical context, the teaching of 1 corintians and 1 timothy, make this clear: abusive forms of male-male sex, and male-female sex, must be avoided.... That is all that can be honestly said about biblical teaching on homosexuality. If people would still seek to know outright if gay or lesbian sex in itself is good or evil, if homogenital acts per se are right or wrong, they will have to look elsewhere for an answer. For the fact of the matter is simple enough. The bible never addresses that question. More than that, the bible seems deliberately unconcerned about it.

 

[goraya15]

And, as we keep telling you, the lowest rate is among lesbians. So what.
btw, does the Qu'ran take a position on female-female sex?

I admit, there seems to be very little hard data about the rate of STD's and AIDS in lesbian couples, except the observation that disease seems to be less prevalent among lesbian partners. Therefore, without hard data, your opinion that lesbians have it safest is just that: just an opinion. But like I said, whatever the actual numbers be, they fall short of heterosexual couples who don't practice pre-marital sex.

But, you can not ignore the fact that for at least male homosexuals, that prevalence of AIDS among them is much, much higher, both in actual numbers and as a percentile, then the general heterosexual public.

In regard to your question about what the Holy Qur'an specifically says about female to female conjugal relations, it is not spelled out that "women will not take women as partners". Rather, it lets us know that men can only take women as partners, and that muslim men and women should remain chaste before marriage. The Holy Prophet has also commented on this in a Hadith where he has forbidden any man to look on another man who is naked, and any women from staring at another women who is naked. So, I would say that I speak for all muslims when I say that female female sex is strictly forbidden in Islam.

 

[goraya15]

That's not what you said, here, let me remind you.

"So, it is wrong to punish gay people, it is merely our job to educate them. The Muslim countries who do so are under wrong assumptions."

Name one Muslim country that in your opinion is ruled by true Islamic Law. If you can't then your statement above is basically meaningless IMO.

I meant SO-CALLED muslim countries, as I have elaborated in a previous post.

 

[MoonWater]

Of course. You are merely stating the all-encompassing law of God for this universe that we live in: Cause and effect. God merely tells us what to avoid so we can avoid the effect it will have. For example, if you drink poison, you will die, regardless of whether you are a holy man or a sinner. But, God does have special cases in his Laws that allows him to show miracles that seem to be against the law of cause and effect (i.e. science that has not been discovered yet).

So, living hygienically stems disease and viruses. Islam gives an excellent example of physical cleanliness that I have not found anywhere else (ablution 5 times a day, bath on friday, brushing as often as possible, and many others).

So in regard to homosexuality, for every cause, there is an effect. Whether that effect is physical (disease) or spiritual (out of favor of God) or both, God tells us about it, and helps us prevent it through religious teachings.

Homosexual sex is no less sanitary than heterosexual sex. This whole time you've been trying to argue that AIDS is Gods punishment for homosexuality. However your argument is pointless if it turns out that God is not against homosexuality. And that is the subject of this thread. Not simply if God is against homosexuality but why he would care about it at all. So can you prove that homosexuality is a sin? Can you explain why God would be against it?

 

[Sunstone]

Even if I were a theist, I'd still have a hard time believing in a God who was both petty enough to worry Himself about homosexuality and emotionally stupid enough to be careless of the love between people.

 

[goraya15]

Unless otherwise noted, the data above is from the CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report: HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2005.

Did you look at the world wide numbers?

You are going to have a hard time proving that world wide HIV is spread mainly by homosexuals.

I'll just remind you of what you said earlier,

"HIV is mainly spread through people who are promiscuous, with the highest concentration being in homosexuals." You didn't qualify your statement or restrict your statement to a particular region.

No, I didn't, but as you can imagine, America is a very large population (>300million). So...I think it can qualify as a fairly good sample of the world population. And, finding hard, detailed data on homosexuality statistics in relation to the disease in impoverished African countries, where the disease is most widespread, would be next to impossible.

You seem to be picking at straws here. Argue the claim at hand, which is homosexuality in western society, about which you gave a graph and statistics yourself. Stop trying to move the argument over to other nations about which, I suspect you know, there is little hard data.

 

[MoonWater]

I admit, there seems to be very little hard data about the rate of STD's and AIDS in lesbian couples, except the observation that disease seems to be less prevalent among lesbian partners. Therefore, without hard data, your opinion that lesbians have it safest is just that: just an opinion. But like I said, whatever the actual numbers be, they fall short of heterosexual couples who don't practice pre-marital sex.

But, you can not ignore the fact that for at least male homosexuals, that prevalence of AIDS among them is much, much higher, both in actual numbers and as a percentile, then the general heterosexual public.

In regard to your question about what the Holy Qur'an specifically says about female to female conjugal relations, it is not spelled out that "women will not take women as partners". Rather, it lets us know that men can only take women as partners, and that muslim men and women should remain chaste before marriage. The Holy Prophet has also commented on this in a Hadith where he has forbidden any man to look on another man who is naked, and any women from staring at another women who is naked. So, I would say that I speak for all muslims when I say that female female sex is strictly forbidden in Islam.

And you have been told before that marriage only works if neither partner has the disease. You have also been told that yes promiscuity enhances your risk of getting the disease. That is promiscuity NOT homosexuality. studies may show more homosexuals with the disease than heterosexuals but this is not because they are homosexual. It is because many(not all, maybe not even most) are promiscuous and they are promiscuous BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED. You have also been told that even if everyone got married before having sex those infected would still be able to pass the disease on to their partners. So it might slow the disease down a bit but it would not stop it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It is because many(not all, maybe not even most) are promiscuous and they are promiscuous BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED.

Are you saying getting married is the cure for promiscuity?

 

[goraya15]

You keep fogetting or ignoring the fact the HETEROSEXUAL sex is responsible for the creation and spread of far more STDS than homosexuality and that lesbian sex is responsible for far less than homosexual sex and carries the least amount of risk. We have brought this point up many times and your one counter was torn down easily. It is true that promiscuity has the greatest risk of transmitting AIDS and other STDS. And it also seems to be true that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. However, did it ever occur to you that perhaps their promiscuity stems from the fact that they aren't allowed to be married? Did it ever occur to you that if homosexuals were allowed to get married they might be less promiscuous and therefore less likely to get AIDS? The other problem with your logic is that being married doesn't automatically make you immune to getting the disease. The only time marriage gets rid of the risk of getting an STD is if neither partner has an STD. If you happen to marry someone with an STD then your just as likely to get it having sex with that person as your likely to get it if you had sex with that same person and you weren't married. Making everyone get married before would not stop the spread of disease as those infected would still be able to spread it to their partners and their children. It might slow it down a bit but it would not stop it. The only way to truly stop the spread of STDS would be if those who had an STD became celibate. And that's not likely to happen.

I don't think you truly understand my stand, or the Islamic stand, on promiscuity, marriage and homosexuality. Let me explain, as I have done before...

First off, the Islamic Concept:

Men can only marry and have conjugal relations with women. They are not allowed to intermingle freely, as this can lead to pre-marital complications. They are advised to be chaste before marriage, keep their eyes bowed in front of the opposite sex, and generally try not be tempted to commit adultery or fornication. That's it in a nutshell. Now...

Islam's View on Current Affairs of Sexuality

In Western society, Islam condemns ANY KIND of pre-marital relationship with someone of the opposite sex that is based on sexual attraction.

In many societies these days, people routinely have sex outside of marriage, meaning before marriage, with any number of boy/girlfriends. This, in the eyes of Islam, is promiscuity, regardless of whether it is hetero or homosexual in nature. As you can well imagine, having multiple partners increases the chance of contracting STD's and AIDS, as most people do have over their lifetime. So, your view of married couples getting STD's is still from this concept of having partners before marriage; promiscuity in the eyes of Islam. In Islam, this problem does not arise, as premarital sexual relations, even close relations b/w members of the opposite sex who are strangers, is very heavily discouraged and taught against.

The Cure to AIDS and STD's Islam Proposes

Now, this is a sensitive topic. If every newborn or virgin person were to suddenly practice the Islamic concept of relationships b/w men and women, these people would never have to worry about STD's and AIDS if they only married each other. The ideal, or close to it, Islamic solution. the spread of STD's and AIDS would drop very significantly. But that only covers virgins.

About those already infected, this is where I say that more research has to be done. If these people also followed Islamic Law, and settled down, no adultery, no fornication, the level of new infections would also significantly drop. In the meantime, we would focus on a cure for their ailments.

 

[goraya15]

Homosexual sex is no less sanitary than heterosexual sex. This whole time you've been trying to argue that AIDS is Gods punishment for homosexuality. However your argument is pointless if it turns out that God is not against homosexuality. And that is the subject of this thread. Not simply if God is against homosexuality but why he would care about it at all. So can you prove that homosexuality is a sin? Can you explain why God would be against it?

I answered this previously as well. Since God is not a human, why would he care about us at all? The answer is very simple. God loves us as a mother loves a child. If you see a child trying to put his hand in the fire, would you not try to stop it. Likewise, if you see humanity trying to do something that would harm it, would you not try to stop it?

God only ever does anything, or commands us to do things, that are for our own benefit. In Islam, the teaching given by the Promised Messiah is that of all the attributes of God, one overshadows the rest: Al-Araheem, which is, the Merciful. So, even when God is punishing us, he does it out of his love, just as when a mother punishes a child, she does not do it because she hates the child, but she wants to teach the child something because she loves it. God is the same. Now, divine punishment vs. the natural laws in the universe, namely cause and effect (which are also created by God)...is for another thread.

 

[MoonWater]

Are you saying getting married is the cure for promiscuity?

If you were to get married and remain faithful to your partner then yes it would be. What I meant was that many homosexuals are promiscuous because they can't get married. If homosexuals could get married there would certainly still be those who would be promiscuous but there would also be many who would choose to settle down and thus the number of promiscuous homosexuals would likely decrease.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I respectfully disagree. I know many unmarried couples gay and straight who have no problems being monogamous.

 

[goraya15]

And you have been told before that marriage only works if neither partner has the disease. You have also been told that yes promiscuity enhances your risk of getting the disease. That is promiscuity NOT homosexuality. studies may show more homosexuals with the disease than heterosexuals but this is not because they are homosexual. It is because many(not all, maybe not even most) are promiscuous and they are promiscuous BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED. You have also been told that even if everyone got married before having sex those infected would still be able to pass the disease on to their partners. So it might slow the disease down a bit but it would not stop it.

I'm sorry, I seem to have completely forgot about addressing homosexuality and Islam. My apologies. Here I go...

Islam, specifically the Holy Qur'an, gives us a warning about a previous people who also indulged in promiscuity and were openly homosexual:

[7:81] And We sent Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do you commit an abomination such as no one in the world ever did before you? [7:82] You approach men with lust instead of women. Nay, you are a people who exceed all bounds.' [7:83] And the only answer of his people was that they said, 'Turn them out of your town, for they are men who take pride in their purity.' [7:84] And We saved him and his family except his wife; she was of those who stayed behind. [7:85] And We rained upon them a rain. Now see, what was the end of the sinners.
Now, from here we see that God sent a specific punishment to this group of people, as I am fairly certain that nowhere else in the Qur'an has God referred to punishment as rain. So, it would seem that homosexuality was the limit at which God unleashed his punishment. It would make sense that those who were the greatest transgressors would be affected the most by God's punishment. In this context, that would be homosexuals. And so, we see the same happening today.

Now, about promiscuity and homosexuals...irrelevant in my opinion. A homosexual is one who indulges in something that serves no purpose biologically, and misuses his God given faculties of reproduction. Even if gay marriages were allowed, I would expect that the rate of the disease in this particular demographic would not abate. If you can find such a study regarding this in such countries where Gay marriage is allowed, such as the netherlands or belgium, it would be greatly appreciated.

Next, you say that those infected would still pass it onto their partners. Well, looking at it logically, they would only be able to infect one person in their entire lives, instead of countless others if they had not settled down. Seems like a lot of lives saved, don't you think? But these people are also human. Research must continue to be done to help find a cure for these people, and unfortunate kids who are born with the disease.

 

[goraya15]

I respectfully disagree. I know many unmarried couples gay and straight who have no problems being monogamous.

It's alrite...you don't have to be respectful if you don't want to

 

[goraya15]

If you were to get married and remain faithful to your partner then yes it would be. What I meant was that many homosexuals are promiscuous because they can't get married. If homosexuals could get married there would certainly still be those who would be promiscuous but there would also be many who would choose to settle down and thus the number of promiscuous homosexuals would likely decrease.

Are you saying that you need the institution of marriage, or a formal marriage licence, to keep you faithful to your wife? Ridiculous, and the same can be said for homosexuals. If they do choose to be promiscuous, it's not because they can't get a piece of paper saying they are legally married to someone else.