Religion vs Homosexuality

Generalizing is bad. especially generalizing Christians. Christianity is a huge religion with many different sects and different beliefs. you're talking about the WBC an extremely small sect.

And i agree completely with Corina

 

i am actively ignoring this thread.

 

No way, no offense to girls but all girls know how to manipulate and ive seen tons of boys get manipulated by girls everyday and thats not even mentioning the dominating girls who boss their boyfriends around constantly and girls even try it with me, "Do you have a dollar? *puts on cute face*" "Will you help me on this test? *cute face*" and "Can I cut in front of you? *cute face*", ive noticed that being gay definitely helps me realize what they are trying to do and resist it, unlike the straight boys who fall for it every time

 

Dude I'm living proof? I went to Catholic Highschool, when the topic of homosexuality came up, you find out how accepting at least Catholicism is. Either way, i doubt how long this thread is going to stay open. I don't really want to be apart of it either.

 

It seems as though it scares them and goes against, "Replenish the Earth and subdue it, etc." Gay people don't actively make children without using anyone else, adopting, or otherwise.
The Christian 40something + 2.5 kids family is what they want, and we're not it.

Just what I've noticed/inferred.
The end.

PS: I thought this was hilarious. -- "the Hamster Lady"

 

its pretty hard to educate when people only listen to themselves (not directed an anyone, just in general)

 

*points out* Yes, we can debate, but please do keep it civil and tactful. Thank you!

That's seriously brilliant

---------------------------------------------

In regards to religion, I don't think you can say "You've got to pick between religion and homosexuality". It's not necessarily one or the other. One is who you love, and another is your way of worship.

There are a few passages in the Bible that are seen by many to justify their hatred for homosexuality, that supposedly confirm that homosexuality is not how God intended, however, remember the very important rule with the bible "A text taken out of context is pretext.":

Romans 1:21-28

In these verses, Paul condemns idol worshippers and God haters. According to Paul, these “God haters” experiment with gay sex only as a way of seeking new thrills or in cultic worship. Clearly, he is not speaking about modern, innately gay and lesbian people, who love God and want to honor God while living with integrity as who they are.

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

The text itself gives us a big clue as to the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did. The term Canaanites refers to the group of nations who lived in the land into which the Israelites migrated when they left Egypt. It follows, therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behavior was common among the Canaanites and Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses were meant to prohibit.
Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god or goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex.
This is what was going on in Canaan and Egypt at the time the Levitical rules were announced — homosexual temple prostitution. And as already noted, Leviticus 18 and 20 specifically say they were written to address pagan religious practices. Leviticus 18 begins with the admonition, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you.” (18:3) Chapter 20 is even more specific, beginning with an injunction against the pagan practices associated with a god named Molech. And both chapters include long lists of sexual practices common in the cultic rituals we mentioned above. However, neither of them speaks to the question of whether two people of the same sex can live in loving relationship with the blessing of God.
In fact, historians tell us our model of loving, long-term homosexual relationships did not meaningfully exist in Canaanite culture. This was a tribal culture in which it would have been virtually impossible to form such relationships. Offspring were essential to survival in this primitive agricultural economy. Moreover, there were rigid distinctions between women’s work and men’s work. If two men had lived together as a couple, for example, one of them would have been placed in the position of doing women’s work, and the presence of a man working among the women of the village would not have been tolerated.
It simply is not reasonable to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be applied.

(Genesis 19 and Jude 7) Sodom and Gomorrah

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is perhaps the best known of the "clobber passages" that some try to use against gay people. This story is told in one of the oldest books in the Bible, and has been a favorite among artists and writers for centuries. Even if you have never read the Old Testament account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, you have probably seen it portrayed in a movie or book.
Since the Middle Ages, many Christian theologians have viewed this story as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. They have perpetuated the idea that Sodom was destroyed for its sexual wickedness and that the proof of this wickedness was the desire of the men of Sodom to have homosexual sex. Let’s test this interpretation against both the facts relayed in Genesis 19 and the interpretation of the story by later authors of the Bible.
The text of the story tells us that “the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man” (vs. 4) gathered at Lot’s door and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group at Lot’s door was comprised of either all the people of the city (men and women) or, at a minimum, all the males of the city, both boys and men. This is a telling fact.
Today, San Francisco has the reputation for being the “gayest” city in the world. Yet even in San Francisco, gay men constitute far less than half the total male population. If the Scripture text had told us that “certain men of Sodom” or even “many men of Sodom” gathered at the door, we might then surmise that the men at the door could have been motivated by homosexual desire. But the text says “both young and old, all the people to the last man” gathered at the door. To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual), and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.
This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story. We are told that Lot, in a last-ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the men at the door. Although Lot’s offer is reprehensible, it does yield another important interpretive clue. Suppose you were hosting a dinner party, when suddenly a group of men that you knew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would it make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead? Of course not! If the men were motivated by homosexual desire, offering them heterosexual sex instead would be nonsensical. Lot knew the men of Sodom much better than any of today’s fundamentalist preachers do. And it’s obvious he believed the crowd outside his door was predominantly heterosexual. Why else would he offer his daughters?
From archeological records, we know it was also a common practice in the Near East during ancient times for soldiers to use homosexual rape as a way of humiliating their enemies. When victorious soldiers wanted to break the spirit of their defeated enemies, they would “treat them like women” by raping them. The practice was not driven by sexual desire, but by brutality and hatred toward the enemy.

The motivation to sexually abuse those we hate is, sadly, part of the general human experience (even if it is not part of each of our personal experiences). And it is this motivation, not homosexual desire, which stands behind the sin of Sodom. Perhaps the men of that city feared the two angelic strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot (a recent immigrant) had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of Sodom were at Lot’s house clamoring to brutalize the strangers. This is a story about attempted mob violence, not homosexual desire.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10)

This one is merely a translation error; The words sometimes translated "effeminate" and “homosexual” in these passages are obscure and difficult to translate. The first word identifies someone who is morally weak, and has nothing to do with nellie gay men. The second word probably means “people who use power to obtain sex,” though the word is so rare that a confident translation is impossible. Neither word refers specifically to gay men or lesbians.

This information I got mostly off http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com however there is another brilliant site http://www.godmademegay.com

Both of these offer explanations as to just why these passages do not apply in any way to modern homosexuality, as well as certain passages that appear to condone homosexuality and view it as normal:

Jesus affirmed a gay couple:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html

Jesus said that some people are born gay:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

The early church welcomed a gay man:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/early_church.html

David loved Johnathon more than women:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/david_jonathan.html

There is also a documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04AVRslVRbY&feature=PlayList&p=5AF735132EB1CEC6&index=0
(That link has all the video in a playlist on Youtube)

So with all this evidence, it almost seems futile that people still use the bible to condemn homosexuality. But the fact is that there will always be people on the other side of the fence. There is still racism and sexism and there will probably still be homophobia in 100 years time. And as long as there is homophobia, there will always be those who misuse things to back it up.

My grandmother is a devout Christian, and she accepted me almost straightaway. My grandfather (on the other side of the family) is an atheist and doesn't approve of it. My mom believes in God and Jesus (although doesn't label herself as Christian) and she is one of the most tolerant and accepting people I know.

Not to mention, for many people, religion isn't always about the text of the Bible or translating every single word properly. After all, they realise that it was written by man, and as man can make mistakes writing, we can also make mistakes in reading what has been written. It's man made and there are plenty of things that mean so much more. Faith, for example.

Religion gives many people meaning, a reason for their lives, and is used to help them with guidelines for their life. Many others don't need that, but it doesn't mean that one way is right or wrong. It should only matter what the end result is (their good actions), not how they got to it.