Why is religion so fascinated with homosexuality?

[Unveiled Artist]

I fail to understand why this would mean I couldn't love such a person if I did not like their acts. All values people have influence how they see the acts of other people. Many do feel offended at the phrase but I still do not understand how one can not love someone if they want their acts to change.

It's your definition of love, though. If that friend feels you only love a part of him, to him that's one-sided. You have good intentions but your religious values influences how you see people who don't conform to christian religious edicts.

So if he were to bring home a boyfriend you may respect his boyfriend even the love has for his boyfriend but not insofar you accept he is not sinning because that is not what his love is based on.

It varies person to person. For me personally as a gay woman if I know my friend(s) see my hypothetical girlfriend and I as sinners and they love/respect me nonetheless it's offensive. Their belief but it makes me kind of icky inside to know they love part of me not the whole me.

Another example is defining a homosexual by same-sex actions. That influences christians opinions profoundly. But, yeah, it just depends on the person. Not specific to homosexuals but minorities in general.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I mean if he is conservative and believes it is sinful, but also is homosexual, I would be there to help him deal with that because I believe it.

That's good. It's interesting 'cause years ago I was about to date a Catholic lesbian. I found she was very very uncomfortable and I told her after talking a bit maybe she want to go to confession. I don't know her situation but if the other person is open to it then its appropriate.

I'm more talking about those who don't have your line of thinking. Loving someone that's "like you" is one thing but loving someone who is not spiritually is a totally different animal.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So as we natter away (yet again) in another thread about homosexuality, I'm curious about something: why are religious types, especially conservatives, so interested? Why do they care so much?

Here's a little quote from a gay priest, Malcolm Johnston, in his book "Diary of a Gay Priest: The Tightrope Walker:"

"It is condemned. It is expressly forbidden in Scripture...Four General Councils forbid it, Luther and Zwingli weighed in against it, and until recently it was distasteful to most people. What is it? Lending money at interest."

Shakespeare created one of his greatest villains (Shylock) based on the practice of taking usance (interest). Jews prospered all over the Christian world because kings and nobles needed to borrow money, but their own subjects, unable to charge interest, were unwilling to spot them large sums.

So why aren't conservative Christians railing against lending at interest?

American Christians were loathe to give up their slaves -- claiming it was permitted, even encouraged by Scripture. But they gave them up eventually, but long, long before they were willing to give up their hatred towards gays.

Even though Jesus couldn't even be bothered mentioning the subject!

So, Christians -- enlighten us. Why is this topic so important that it occupies so much of these forums?

Why are non-Christians so obsessed with what Christians are obsessed with?

 

[Secret Chief]

Why are non-Christians so obsessed with what Christians are obsessed with?

Dunno. Start a thread on that.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm confused why we(on the boards) have a tendency to view Christianity as representative of all religions.

I think this forum has a lot of people who didn't know other religions existed, and they have yet to reprogram their subconscious minds to allow for it. When i was a kid, 'What religion are you?' meant 'Which denomination of Christianity are you?'

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What about it do you not understand?

How about, "hey, hate the fact that you murdered somebody, but I love you -- so here's a little shot in the arm for you." The very last "shot in the arm."

 

[Lain]

It's your definition of love, though. If that friend feels you only love a part of him, to him that's one-sided. You have good intentions but your religious values influences how you see people who don't conform to christian religious edicts.

So if he were to bring home a boyfriend you may respect his boyfriend even the love has for his boyfriend but not insofar you accept he is not sinning because that is not what his love is based on.

It varies person to person. For me personally as a gay woman if I know my friend(s) see my hypothetical girlfriend and I as sinners and they love/respect me nonetheless it's offensive. Their belief but it makes me kind of icky inside to know they love part of me not the whole me.

Another example is defining a homosexual by same-sex actions. That influences christians opinions profoundly. But, yeah, it just depends on the person. Not specific to homosexuals but minorities in general.

I see, it also is the definition of "person," for the me a person is distinct from their acts and from their nature, and one can love a person but desire their acts to be changed (for example how my mother loved me but wanted me to do better in school, no one would say this was a lack of love or loving only part of me, for they recognize the distinction between person and acts). It would be interesting to see how these ideas came about through history and developed, for there has been a divergence here.

 

[Rival]

I think this forum has a lot of people who didn't know other religions existed, and they have yet to reprogram their subconscious minds to allow for it. When i was a kid, 'What religion are you?' meant 'Which denomination of Christianity are you?'

This is really strange. I was taught about other religions from a really young age. We teach 4 year olds about other faiths in this country.

 

[Lain]

How about, "hey, hate the fact that you murdered somebody, but I love you -- so here's a little shot in the arm for you." The very last "shot in the arm."

What about that?

 

[We Never Know]

So as we natter away (yet again) in another thread about homosexuality, I'm curious about something: why are religious types, especially conservatives, so interested? Why do they care so much?

Here's a little quote from a gay priest, Malcolm Johnston, in his book "Diary of a Gay Priest: The Tightrope Walker:"

"It is condemned. It is expressly forbidden in Scripture...Four General Councils forbid it, Luther and Zwingli weighed in against it, and until recently it was distasteful to most people. What is it? Lending money at interest."

Shakespeare created one of his greatest villains (Shylock) based on the practice of taking usance (interest). Jews prospered all over the Christian world because kings and nobles needed to borrow money, but their own subjects, unable to charge interest, were unwilling to spot them large sums.

So why aren't conservative Christians railing against lending at interest?

American Christians were loathe to give up their slaves -- claiming it was permitted, even encouraged by Scripture. But they gave them up eventually, but long, long before they were willing to give up their hatred towards gays.

Even though Jesus couldn't even be bothered mentioning the subject!

So, Christians -- enlighten us. Why is this topic so important that it occupies so much of these forums?

Why is the left obsessed about the right?
Why is the right obsessed about the left?
Why are non-religious obsessed about the religious?
Why are the religious obsessed about the non-religious?
Etc...
In my opinion its simply different ideologies.

People fear others who are different. The question should be why do people fear those who are different from themselves?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I notice you talk as if homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible, yet I've met numerous homosexual Christians. I'm not sure they have to be exclusive to one another.

But surely many Christians do think they're incompatible, don't they? Some Christian posters in this very thread certainly seem to suggest as much.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It isn't.

It's homosexuals who made a massive issue of it.

And Lord knows, if you're different, you should just accept the opprobrium of the masses and get over it. Yes, I know that one. I've lived that one. You should try it -- I'll bet you wouldn't like it, and might even move to tell everybody else to get over their stupid selves.

 

[Segev Moran]

So as we natter away (yet again) in another thread about homosexuality, I'm curious about something: why are religious types, especially conservatives, so interested? Why do they care so much?

My guess that if you ask 50 people, in a calm, rational talk, you will find that there many reasons that will be presented to you.
Imo, I would say, mostly, fear.
It is something they don't understand.
They think it is a deviation of nature because most of them don't understand that nature is filled with sexual behaviors, homosexuality included.

"It is condemned. It is expressly forbidden in Scripture...Four General Councils forbid it, Luther and Zwingli weighed in against it, and until recently it was distasteful to most people. What is it? Lending money at interest."

What scripture?

Shakespeare created one of his greatest villains (Shylock) based on the practice of taking usance (interest). Jews prospered all over the Christian world because kings and nobles needed to borrow money, but their own subjects, unable to charge interest, were unwilling to spot them large sums.

So why aren't conservative Christians railing against lending at interest?

Because in its basics, it is forbidden.

American Christians were loathe to give up their slaves -- claiming it was permitted, even encouraged by Scripture. But they gave them up eventually, but long, long before they were willing to give up their hatred towards gays.

The hatred for gay is not related to religion rather ignorance.
Some people, as much as you wished was not true, are not able to understand that, so they assume it is bad, or a "sin".

Even though Jesus couldn't even be bothered mentioning the subject!

That's because there is no basis to do so in the OT. Most of the "ancient" Rabbis, did not write about it, almost at all (comparing to other subjects).

So, Christians -- enlighten us. Why is this topic so important that it occupies so much of these forums?

I can try and answer.
Because it is a "none issue" in the OT, making this much more "open" to human interpretations.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If any are interested in a detailed and historically researched Catholic view on the matter.

That might make an interesting debate -- I'd certainly contribute -- but not here. Since you seem keen on it, you might consider starting a thread...

 

[JustGeorge]

But surely many Christians do think they're incompatible, don't they? Some Christian posters in this very thread certainly seem to suggest as much.

My feelings on the matter(based on my own experiences with Christians in my region) is that there are more who don't really oppose homosexuality than that do, but those who do are much more vocal about it.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is really strange. I was taught about other religions from a really young age. We teach 4 year olds about other faiths in this country.

You're in UK?

 

[Rival]

You're in UK?

I am indeed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Although weirdly lesbians often got away with it even back during the Middle Ages. Which is a bit odd but whatever.

For a long time, people thought semen contained the entire "seed" for a baby. It was assumed that the woman only contributed a place for the man's semen to grow. That's probably part of it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I notice you talk as if homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible, yet I've met numerous homosexual Christians. I'm not sure they have to be exclusive to one another.

But surely many Christians do think they're incompatible, don't they?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it's rooted in sexism, fundamentally.

The idea that the only sort of sex that is allowed is procreative sex within a marriage comes out of the sexist idea of marriage as a breeding arrangement.

The idea of two men or two women in a marriage together just doesn't compute for people whose model of marriage requires one spouse to be subservient to the other on the basis of gender; how can two equals enter into a relationship that's - in their view - fundamentally unequal?

That's my take on it, anyhow.

I get it -- but this is how change happens!

In many countries around the world, the notion that marking an "X" on a piece of paper could make their lives better (eventually) is total nonsense. But I'm a committed democrat (lower case) as I suppose you are, too.

There was a time when the idea that a commoner didn't have to bow, curtsey or give way to a noble was unthinkable. I don't think that anymore, do you?

And a lot of younger people (straight ones, even) live in marriages that are fundamentally equal. My best friend and his wife do not see themselves as unequal, and sometimes the discussions about going forward can take some time and effort -- because at no time does one get to say, "well I'm the man, so I get to decide!" Those sorts don't actually have much difficulty understanding the possible dynamic of a life-long same-sex relationship.