Why does God care about Homosexuality?

[Darkness]

There have been special times in the past where God commanded a man to take one or more additional wives. This was done by the spirit of prophesy, was the Lord's will, and was not based on lust or anything other than a desire to comply with the will of God. God wanted to "raise up seed" unto him through the loins of Abraham. He commanded Abraham to reproduce through different women to become the father of many nations.

So God is exempt from moral authority? When God wants you to have many children it is acceptable, but if two guys or girls are madly in love it is immoral for them to have intimate relations?

It is these irrational ideas that prevent me from believing in the God of religion. God is the classic hypocritical dictator. "You cannot marry your sister/brother but when I need you to populate the Earth after I just drowned everyone it is okay."

 

[Autodidact]

There is one that I know of. Do you really want me to post it?

No, there are zero. Something that may, or may not, refer to lesbianism is mentioned once, that's right, uno times, in several pages, in a story related by Paul about some unGodly people, whom God punishes in this way:

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And there's no way on earth that can be read as any kind of prohibition. I mean, this is a God who knows how to prohibit! He's not shy about the "thou shalt not"s. So the fact, the objective, clear, undisputable fact, is that lesbian sex, let alone lesbian relationships, are not prohibited. That does not stop liars who think they can substitute their own judgment for that of their God from condemning it, all the while honoring unrepentant sinners like Newt Gingrich.

 

[MoonWater]

I've noticed that there has been much discussion as to whether or not God is actually against homosexuality but little or none about WHY God would be against it(if he were) and this is what the OP is asking... WHY would God be against it? Can any of those who feel God is opposed to homosexuality give a reason as to WHY he would or should be opposed to it?

 

[Scott C.]

So God is exempt from moral authority? When God wants you to have many children it is acceptable, but if two guys or girls are madly in love it is immoral for them to have intimate relations?

It is these irrational ideas that prevent me from believing in the God of religion. God is the classic hypocritical dictator. "You cannot marry your sister/brother but when I need you to populate the Earth after I just drowned everyone it is okay."

Yes, when there are only a few people on earth and they are closely related, such as brother and sister, that's a good example of when God would allow a brother and sister to marry, so they can reproduce. I can only think of two examples of when this happened, Adam and Eve and right after the flood. I can't understand why it seems irrational that God does not want two guys or two girls to marry each other under any circumstance. It's simply not in God's plan for His children. Sometimes life is hard and it takes discipline to comply with God's wishes. If I take your point of view, I would have to think God is irrational for allowing any hardships on humanity, such as mental or physical handicaps, poverty, war, to be a victim of a crime. We're in a tough world by design - to learn and grow and be strong. My personal experience with God is that He is good and kind. I trust in His wisdom. While gay marriage is not something I personally am attracted to, there are lots of things in life which I have given up or avoided, with the confidence that God knows what he's talking about and knows what's best.

 

[MoonWater]

Yes, when there are only a few people on earth and they are closely related, such as brother and sister, that's a good example of when God would allow a brother and sister to marry, so they can reproduce. I can only think of two examples of when this happened, Adam and Eve and right after the flood. I can't understand why it seems irrational that God does not want two guys or two girls to marry each other under any circumstance. It's simply not in God's plan for His children. Sometimes life is hard and it takes discipline to comply with God's wishes. If I take your point of view, I would have to think God is irrational for allowing any hardships on humanity, such as mental or physical handicaps, poverty, war, to be a victim of a crime. We're in a tough world by design - to learn and grow and be strong. My personal experience with God is that He is good and kind. I trust in His wisdom. While gay marriage is not something I personally am attracted to, there are lots of things in life which I have given up or avoided, with the confidence that God knows what he's talking about and knows what's best.

Can you explain why it would be "rational" for God to be opposed to same sex couples and/or sex?

 

[Darkness]

I can't understand why it seems irrational that God does not want two guys or two girls to marry each other under any circumstance. It's simply not in God's plan for His children.

Why should God have control over who we love? That is like my Father telling me who I can and cannot marry. "No, son. You cannot marry Ashley, you have to marry Brianna. It is my plan for you." Can you not see the insanity of that? Besides, we cannot control who we love. Also, you have to prove to me that not following God's plan is immoral.

 

[Scott C.]

Can you explain why it would be "rational" for God to be opposed to same sex couples and/or sex?

It all seems very rational to me...but I suppose that's because I accept the existence of God, his goodness, and wisdom. I accept his revelations which explain the purpose of life. Central to that purpose is the union of males and females in marriage. God is pointing us in the direction which leads to eternal happiness and that happiness is based on the happiness that comes from the family with husband and wife. It is what it is, and I accept it. If I didn't believe in God, then I suppose none of this would make sense to me.

 

[MoonWater]

It all seems very rational to me...but I suppose that's because I accept the existence of God, his goodness, and wisdom. I accept his revelations which explain the purpose of life. Central to that purpose is the union of males and females in marriage. God is pointing us in the direction which leads to eternal happiness and that happiness is based on the happiness that comes from the family with husband and wife. It is what it is, and I accept it. If I didn't believe in God, then I suppose none of this would make sense to me.

That still doesn't explain why GOD considers it "rational" to be opposed to same-sex couples and/or sex. Only why YOU think it is rational. This is the subject of the OP that has yet to be addressed. Why does God care about homosexuality? Why would he be opposed to it?

P.S. I do believe in God. But I also believe that they are vastly different from the God you proclaim. So just because I disagree with your point of view doesn't mean I don't believe in God. Which brings up the question of who's God is the real God if any and what not? But that's another topic for another thread.

 

[Smoke]

If I didn't believe in God, then I suppose none of this would make sense to me.

It didn't make sense to me when I did believe in god. Eventually, I realized that a god who was so cruel, and such a fool, could only be the creation of humans.

 

[Scott C.]

That still doesn't explain why GOD considers it "rational" to be opposed to same-sex couples and/or sex. Only why YOU think it is rational. This is the subject of the OP that has yet to be addressed. Why does God care about homosexuality? Why would he be opposed to it?

P.S. I do believe in God. But I also believe that they are vastly different from the God you proclaim. So just because I disagree with your point of view doesn't mean I don't believe in God. Which brings up the question of who's God is the real God if any and what not? But that's another topic for another thread.

My apologoes for suggesting you do not believe in God. You are correct that I'm telling you why I think it is rational. But, what more can I do? I can't speak for God. I can only tell you what I believe He has said.

 

[MoonWater]

My apologoes for suggesting you do not believe in God. You are correct that I'm telling you why I think it is rational. But, what more can I do? I can't speak for God. I can only tell you what I believe He has said.

I'm glad that you admit that. Most would make more assumptions or ignore the question all together. Frubals for being honest. But it doesn't change the fact that this thread IS about trying to discern why God would care about homosexuality. Darkness (I think it was Darkness) made a good point in that we can't choose who we fall in love with and (correct me if I'm wrong in this) I'm assuming you believe that love comes from God? Well if that's the case then a man falling in love with a man or a woman falling in love with a woman would be just as holy, just as "from God" as the love between a hetero man and hetero woman.

 

[goraya15]

First thing to understand about God is that no matter what we do, God is independant of us and we can't benefit Him in any way. Therefore, the only reason that God would tell us (i.e. care) not to be gay would be because he cares enough about us to tell us it must be harmful to the individiual and/or society as a whole and degrades us.

In the Qur'an, God tells us of another culture where homosexuality was widely accepted, I believe it was the people of Lot. God destroyed their township after they refused to listen to Lot's warnings. I, personally, find it very interesting that in this day and age, the AIDS virus has been proven to have stemmed from homosexual behaviour and is almost exclusively transmitted through promiscuous and homosexual behaviour. Just an observation...

 

[Bathsheba]

I, personally, find it very interesting that in this day and age, the AIDS virus has been proven to have stemmed from homosexual behaviour and is almost exclusively transmitted through promiscuous and homosexual behaviour. Just an observation...

I, personally, find your observation based on outstanding ignorance.

 

[Bathsheba]

That still doesn't explain why GOD considers it "rational" to be opposed to same-sex couples and/or sex.

Homophobics ... I am so sick of listening to their rationalization for hate and intolerance, these people are twisted and warped.

 

[MoonWater]

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]

I, personally, find your observation based on outstanding ignorance.

Now Now...

I haven't said anything wrong, I merely stated a fact that most early HIV and AIDS patients were homosexuals, practically exclusively, and from there it spread to the general promiscuous public. Instead of just declaring me ignorant, do some research...then you can call me ignorant

 

[Bathsheba]

Now Now...

I haven't said anything wrong, I merely stated a fact that most early HIV and AIDS patients were homosexuals, practically exclusively, and from there it spread to the general promiscuous public. Instead of just declaring me ignorant, do some research...then you can call me ignorant

That is not what you said the first time. You didn't talk about most early HIV patients. The statement you made early was most certainly ignorant. If you want to change that statement to reflect something less ignorant, like what you are trying to come up with now, that would be a good idea.

One suggestion, drop the "promiscuous public" label...again, that is demonstrating your ignorance on the topic. You can get the virus having had sex only once, there is no need to be promiscuous.

 

[MoonWater]

Now Now...

I haven't said anything wrong, I merely stated a fact that most early HIV and AIDS patients were homosexuals, practically exclusively, and from there it spread to the general promiscuous public. Instead of just declaring me ignorant, do some research...then you can call me ignorant

You left out the rest though. It was first REPORTED in homosexuals, shortly after it was reprted as being found in haiten(?) immigrants, and the fact that the research also said that those who were reported also had histories of drug abuse or some other such thing. And there's the fact that there are numerous other STDs out there few if any of which would have started in the homosexual community. Besides if your going to use disease to condemn homosexuality then surely you must realize then that that only furthers the case for FEMALE-FEMALE sex as that is the safest in terms of being the lowest risk for sexually transmited diseases. If having a disease makes something bad then heterosexuality is the worst as it is responsible for the creation and spread of nearly all STDs(AIDS being the one possible exception though that is debatable) and Lesbian sex is the best as it carries the lowest risk of STDs.

 

[Bathsheba]

You left out the rest though. It was first REPORTED in homosexuals, shortly after it was reprted as being found in haiten(?) immigrants, and the fact that the research also said that those who were reported also had histories of drug abuse or some other such thing. And there's the fact that there are numerous other STDs out there few if any of which would have started in the homosexual community. Besides if your going to use disease to condemn homosexuality then surely you must realize then that that only furthers the case for FEMALE-FEMALE sex as that is the safest in terms of being the lowest risk for sexually transmited diseases. If having a disease makes something bad then heterosexuality is the worst as it is responsible for the creation and spread of nearly all STDs(AIDS being the one possible exception though that is debatable) and Lesbian sex is the best as it carries the lowest risk of STDs.

Two thumbs up!

 

[MoonWater]

Two thumbs up!

thanks.