Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jor-el

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

2,645 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ratte

I'm bi, but yeah :) Aww thanks, Grell is and I wish I looked like him!

That is exciting news! I'll keep the flirting to a minimum... For your sake. ;) I'd go for looking like Shizuo from Durarara if I had the choice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

That is exciting news! I'll keep the flirting to a minimum... For your sake. ;) I'd go for looking like Shizuo from Durarara if I had the choice!

Aww thanks :) That did make me smile (which is good after seeing what that idiot said), and are free to do so by pm if you want to ;) I had to google him since I wasn't familiar with him but ngh, good choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I was influenced in starting this thread due to an ongoing debate on the subject of Homosexuality and how the church sees this form of sexuality

Yet there are a number of things stated by individuals that need to be clarified.

1st, is homosexuality really a sin as seen by the church or is it merely a fallacious interpretation of the bible?

2nd Can homosexuality be a sin if it is determined by biology and or genetics?

3rd can we consider homosexuality a sin if it is not in fact determined by biology and or genetics, but is merely a choice based on inclination due to society and or sexual imprinting?

If our sexuality is in in any way determined by biology and or genetics, then I think one cannot consider it a sin since a sin as we classify it is an action made by choice on following a specific path or action, if it is actually embedded in our very fabric, we can no more judge it than we can judge people for breathing, but if it is a sociological factor that determines sexuality, can it then be considered a sin?

Your thoughts are welcome...

In modern society, neither homosexuality per se, nor homosexaul acts are a sin, if they have no other harmful consequences. Homosexuality is a genetic difference from the norm of human sexuality, in that the norm of human sexuality is evolved to reproduce humanity. That makes life hard for the 5% or so of people who are born homosexual, genetically. Such people need love, support, compassion and "protection ", more than the average citizen, because of their statistical scarcity and thus minority status. They are more vulnerable, as statistics in health and many other areas prove. Other wise they require the same human rights and protections as every citizen.

Not all homosexual behaviour is genetic. As with all sexual behaviour, some is a product of likes, preferences, pleasures, opportunity, etc. Inherently, in a modern world, homosexual acts of choice are not sinful, again unless they cause harm by their nature or their consequences. Anything we do which knowingly harms ourself or an other is a sin, because it his harmful to the wondrous entity that is a human being.

IN any case it is not the role of one human to judge another except, again, where one human harms another. Humans in a civil/secular society DO have the right to regulate behaviour which causes harm, including sexual behaviour There are many sexual practices which cause harm and require regulation. This might include some homosexual practices but certainly also includes many hetero sexual ones.

For example there have been a number of cases where heterosexuals and homosexuals have been charged with knowingly having unprotected sex with others, when they are carrying serious STDs, but tell their partners they are safe, or say nothing at all. This is considered a form of assault, even if the sex itself is consensual, because it can cause harm ranging up to death..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant

its funny, they can say whatever they like about God, about jesus, about those in the bible...and we christians have to sit and listen to there mindless dribble..time and time again..there basless arguments, but you call em on it, give only a fraction back or just repeat there words back and hold on! when are you going to stop insulting christians shadow and others?? athiests included...no, we sit and have to listen to your tripe... invading our threads and insulting our instituions...if your better or smartter or know more offer a greatter teaching than Jesus did, offer a greater life course..,or even defeat my points in this thread..your not born gay..sorry thats rubbish and you know it.. .the only thing gays represent is there own backsides..oh , is that offensive? refere to my previous statements..slander be dammed. thats dribble..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Irrelevant, to be fair you do believe mindless dribble after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Irrelevent, this'll be the last post I make to you. Largely because you decide to ignore most point I make to you. If you will listen and take what I say on board instead of ignoring it we may have something to discuss.

First, we don't live in a theocracy. We live in a secular society where no religion has control over society. Religious freedom ensures that people are free to practice their beliefs, but it does not mean they are free of criticism, especially when those beliefs are being used as a weapon against others

Second, it's easy to say someone isn't born gay when you are not. You were born straight. You never had to question it, you were never told by others that it was wrong. You just accepted it and you did so easily. The thing is, you can't put yourself in the position of a gay person. You can't concieve it and so, you write it off.

Third, we are smarter than people of jesus's day. We have a greater knowledge and undertanding of the world around us than they ever did. To not take that on board is a very grave mistake.

Of course it's offensive, but it seems you don't care not to be. You have a negative view of gay people, most likely as a result from your religious belief and lack of understanding. But instead of trying to actually understand you just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la. That's why your beliefs get called mindless. You follow what the bible says and ignore anything that contradict it. That sounds pretty mindless to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

1st, is homosexuality really a sin as seen by the church or is it merely a fallacious interpretation of the bible?

Homosexuality is a mortal sin in Christainity, Islam and Judism.

That means only God can grant you forgiveness but you must give up your sin and be trully repentive to get it. Are you strong enough to overcome your sin and do that?

If not you dont even get puragtory you're off straight to hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

its funny, they can say whatever they like about God, about jesus, about those in the bible...and we christians have to sit and listen to there mindless dribble..time and time again..there basless arguments, but you call em on it, give only a fraction back or just repeat there words back and hold on! when are you going to stop insulting christians shadow and others?? athiests included...no, we sit and have to listen to your tripe... invading our threads and insulting our instituions...if your better or smartter or know more offer a greatter teaching than Jesus did, offer a greater life course..,or even defeat my points in this thread..your not born gay..sorry thats rubbish and you know it.. .the only thing gays represent is there own backsides..oh , is that offensive? refere to my previous statements..slander be dammed. thats dribble..

irony there, considering how much, if not mindless, then certainly irrelevant dribble has been put forward as "Christian" doctrine & dogma by people who really have taken very little notice of anything that Jesus said about anything, and prefer to base their entire doctrines on the opinions of those who wrote about a whole lot of things, not all, in fact sometimes very little, of which have anything to do with the views or teachings of Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

Homosexuality is a mortal sin in Christainity, Islam and Judism.

That means only God can grant you forgiveness but you must give up your sin and be trully repentive to get it. Are you strong enough to overcome your sin and do that?

If not you dont even get puragtory you're off straight to hell.

Says, in the words of the playground, who? Can you find any remarks by Jesus* on the subject?

* the one who, it's easy to forget, "Christianity" is suppsoed to be based on

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

its funny, they can say whatever they like about God, about jesus, about those in the bible...and we christians have to sit and listen to there mindless dribble..time and time again..there basless arguments, but you call em on it, give only a fraction back or just repeat there words back and hold on! when are you going to stop insulting christians shadow and others?? athiests included...no, we sit and have to listen to your tripe... invading our threads and insulting our instituions...if your better or smartter or know more offer a greatter teaching than Jesus did, offer a greater life course..,or even defeat my points in this thread..your not born gay..sorry thats rubbish and you know it.. .the only thing gays represent is there own backsides..oh , is that offensive? refere to my previous statements..slander be dammed. thats dribble..

I really wish I had seen what you said to me before it was snipped. I'm guessing it was all insults and no scientific argument vs what I posted since all you do is talk outta your ass...who here has bashed religion? I'm not religious (thank god) so I look nature for my answers...like it or not, homosexuality exists in animals - in nature - so if you believe in God, you HAVE to believe that God made homosexuality too. Otherwise, why else are there animals out there told by nature to partner with the same sex? Don't tell me Satan leads the animals astray too or that they choose to be gay...after all, (and forgive me if this is wrong) but does the Bible not say that God put animals on the Earth as a gift of sorts for humanity? If God makes some gay to test the faith of humanity...you got one sick God. Jesus didn't say a thing about homosexuals and in fact homosexuality was fairly accepted in his times (ironically more than it is now...) so Jesus probably even had gay friends...who knows what sorta stuff he coulda been up to after a couple of beers down the local tavern with the boys ;) you don't have to "sit and listen to our tripe" you can always stop posting in this thread and accept that not everyone shares the medieval views of the church? Unfortunately for you, you have ZERO scientific reasoning on your side that says people decide to be gay but there is plenty to say that people are born with it. Be a good Christian now and love thy neighbour :tu:

Homosexuality is a mortal sin in Christainity, Islam and Judism.

That means only God can grant you forgiveness but you must give up your sin and be trully repentive to get it. Are you strong enough to overcome your sin and do that?

If not you dont even get puragtory you're off straight to hell.

Who gives a toss who says it is a "mortal sin"? The core of religious teachings has been completely destroyed by bigots who want a reason to hate somebody else, to feel like they are a better human being. If what they say is true...then it will be the individual's business when they die, not for the judgment of others (I believe the Bible even explicitly says you may not judge another man..) If God exists, he/she is responsible for homosexuality and it would be greatly unfair for him/her to have inflicted it upon some people, to "overcome", and not others. I have gay friends and if I were to see them cast to Hell because of the way God made them, I'd be telling God where to shove his paradise and he can send me off to Hell too. I can't think of anything worse than spending eternity with a bunch of people like Irrelevant. I'd rather spent eternity in Hell with my friends than eternity in paradise with bigots. At least I could get a much needed tan... *sings* always look on the bright side of life! :tu:

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I think, in general, that promiscuous sex is undesirable and that relationship sex -- preferably within legal marriage -- is to be preferred. I think this is the worldwide view of all religions.

Of course homosexual marriage is not generally possible, so the homosexual has the difficult task of maintaining a relationship without social and legal confirmation. (With the advance of divorce heterosexual couples are finding this steadily more difficult too).

This does not mean that promiscuous sex is bad in of itself, but only that the chances of it doing harm in the end are greater. In karmic terms, the net pluses of love and sharing in all sex can be more than offset by the dangers and emotional problems often associated with promiscuous (and especially exploitive) sex -- not that *spam filter* does not require care too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady

Using the bible to justify prejudice is still prejudice because the bible is interpreted in vastly different ways by even christians themselves otherwise there would not be different denominations. So to say that the bible says it's wrong is more an extension of PEOPLE being wrong and just using the bible to attempt to validate their own personal prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Says, in the words of the playground, who? Can you find any remarks by Jesus* on the subject?

* the one who, it's easy to forget, "Christianity" is suppsoed to be based on

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

lets let him speek..

?, sorry, you are a person with an honorary doctorate, so is there some hidden meaning to this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Sin is not "sin, plain and simple." That is a distorted -- even perverted -- concept. Murder is a worse sin than theft. Lying for profit is a worse sin than lying to protect someone's feelings. In the balance scale of life we are constantly brought to choose between evils -- even to stay alive we must kill.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

Strange then how many christians then believe divorce is perfectly acceptable and no one is going to hell for it but if you are in a committed gay relationship you're doomed to hell.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

Surely if he thought it was a Sin against God that would have been the time to slip in a mention, to back up what had been said in the OT. I really don't know if you can use not saying something in approval of something as evidence that he considered it to be a bad thing. Anyway, if he was talking about marriage, then obviously he would talk about male-female relationships, wouldn't he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Sin is not "sin, plain and simple." That is a distorted -- even perverted -- concept. Murder is a worse sin than theft. Lying for profit is a worse sin than lying to protect someone's feelings. In the balance scale of life we are constantly brought to choose between evils -- even to stay alive we must kill.

In practical terms, you are correct. Some sins have greater physical consequences. If I am angry at my brother, I sin and then I can apologise to him and make amends. If I murder my brother, I go to jail for the next 20 years and never fix my life up properly. However, in spiritual terms, both are deemed sinful, and therefore are handed judgement by God (for the wages of sin is death, if you believe Romans 3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

The problem with this is you're interpreting the Bible in a certain way by saying that Jesus condemns something...because he never mentioned it? He also never mentioned a lot of things, so there must be a lot more sins in life than we care to acknowledge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Strange then how many christians then believe divorce is perfectly acceptable and no one is going to hell for it but if you are in a committed gay relationship you're doomed to hell.

Divorce is not perfectly acceptable By Jesus' own words, a person who divorces, unless they then remain celibate for life they turn their partner into an adulterer. One man I went to university with was 24. He'd been married and divorced and had pledged to remain celibate for the rest of his life because he wanted to stay true to God.

I don't personally know a single Christian who says divorce is ok in God's eyes. It's a sin, and I will agree that a divorced couple can receive forgiveness for their sin, but it is in anyway ok, certainly not "perfectly acceptable".

If you know any Christian that believes otherwise, then they are a liberal Christian who has chosen not to believe Jesus' own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

How long after the fact were those words written down? If the bible had been written by Jesus, or even during his lifetime, those words would probably carry some weight, but the fact that it was done much later.. .well.

As a second thing. At the time only hetrosexual people could marry and get divorced. So why would he mention homosexuality in a discussion about something wouldn't apply to them anyway?

I do wish jesus had said something clearly one way or the other, but as such all we're left is he didn't say anything about it which some take to mean 'he said nothin, so it's ok' but you take to mean 'by virtue of his silence it's not'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

I don't personally know a single Christian who says divorce is ok in God's eyes. It's a sin, and I will agree that a divorced couple can receive forgiveness for their sin, but it is in anyway ok, certainly not "perfectly acceptable".

If you know any Christian that believes otherwise, then they are a liberal Christian who has chosen not to believe Jesus' own words.

I think a christian would deem divorce as being acceptable if there was abuse involved. If someone was in an abusive marriage divorce would be the acceptable solution as opposed to keeping that person in a situation where they could be abued, harmed and possibly raped or killed. Jesus may have said divorce was bad but most people would say that such ause was much worse and damn what anyone, even jesus, says.

That's one of the things where the real world come in and makes things not all as black and white as the concept of sin would like to make out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Surely if he thought it was a Sin against God that would have been the time to slip in a mention, to back up what had been said in the OT. I really don't know if you can use not saying something in approval of something as evidence that he considered it to be a bad thing. Anyway, if he was talking about marriage, then obviously he would talk about male-female relationships, wouldn't he.

You made my point for me, he was talking about marriage - you know, the only relationship God allows sex with! Since gays could not get married, they were not in a God-sanctioned relationship. Unless Jesus taught something to change that, which he did not.

That said, the Old Testament says very little about homosexuality in a relational setting. The only references come from Leviticus 18 and 20, and it's a little known fact that these passages are actually about homosexual sex in the context of idol worship (a common practice in neighbouring cultures at the time of writing). So Jesus didn't need to "back up" the Old Testament, it said little on the matter except - Genesis speaks of a man and a woman leaving their homes and joining together to become one flesh. No mention of male and male leaving their homes or female and female leaving their homes to become one flesh. Jesus quotes that very same Genesis passage in Matthew 19.

As I said, by virtue of silence, he condemns it. It was a non-issue for him, so much so that he simply took it for granted that it was wrong for a follower of God.

The problem with this is you're interpreting the Bible in a certain way by saying that Jesus condemns something...because he never mentioned it? He also never mentioned a lot of things, so there must be a lot more sins in life than we care to acknowledge.

In the context of Matthew 19 this is quite a bit different. Consider also that elsewhere in the Bible it does condemn it (Romans 1:26-27, for example - granted, it's Paul's writings rather than Jesus, but it does not in any way contradict Jesus' message from Matthew 19). But to an extent you are absolutely right - there are more sins out there not specifically mentioned by Jesus or even by the Bible. Paedophilia is not explicitly addressed. However, by referring to any sexual act outside of marriage, we can fill in the gap and say that this obviously includes prepubescent children (no one in the Bible ever married a prepubescent simply so they could justify bedding a child, they married at 13 or 14 years old, the earliest age possible to start making babies to keep the tribe strong).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

How long after the fact were those words written down? If the bible had been written by Jesus, or even during his lifetime, those words would probably carry some weight, but the fact that it was done much later.. .well.

Oral tradition of the Jesus story was in circulation very shortly after the events. Remember that the earliest believers were Jews, who were used to the oral tradition of many many Rabbi's (compiled around 200 AD into the Mishnah). They were therefore used to memorising the teachings of their Rabbi's. Compared to the Jews, the Christian tradition only had one teacher, and once you had several Jews to learn it by rote (it was not like a story you'd tell at the pub that would get told differently every time) then you had a tradition - Jesus often spoke the same sermon several times to different crowds, so the followers of Jesus had plenty of time to rote learn his teachings (the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew vs the Sermon on the plains in Luke - same sermon different locations, sceptics argue it's the same story and therefore a "contradiction", believers argue that Jesus like all preachers had several "favourites" he kept away for rainy days, either could be true, or oral tradition could have simply kept the details and changed the non-essential nature that was the location).

It's strange to our modern ideas, but in the ancient world, people trusted the spoken word far more than the written word. Only 5% of the people could actually read, so it's actually someone something of a minor miracle that the writings of Jesus are as early as they are.

As a second thing. At the time only hetrosexual people could marry and get divorced. So why would he mention homosexuality in a discussion about something wouldn't apply to them anyway?

I do wish jesus had said something clearly one way or the other, but as such all we're left is he didn't say anything about it which some take to mean 'he said nothin, so it's ok' but you take to mean 'by virtue of his silence it's not'.

Because God sanctions no other relationship BUT marriage, so if he didn't speak of it he must therefore not have recognised its legitimacy.

I think a christian would deem divorce as being acceptable if there was abuse involved. If someone was in an abusive marriage divorce would be the acceptable solution as opposed to keeping that person in a situation where they could be abued, harmed and possibly raped or killed. Jesus may have said divorce was bad but most people would say that such ause was much worse and damn what anyone, even jesus, says.

That's one of the things where the real world come in and makes things not all as black and white as the concept of sin would like to make out.

I tend to agree, abuse is probably a valid reason for divorce. I doubt God would demand a person stay in a relationship that was potentially harmful. Of course, they still have the option not to remarry. I do think perhaps if you look at the marriage covenant outlined in Ephesians 5, Paul lays out the expectations of husbands and wives. Husbands are to "love their wives", in the same manner as Christ loved the church. I don't recall Jesus ever bashing the church in the head. What I remember is Jesus lay down his life, died for her with humility and honour.

If we think of these words in Ephesians 5 to be a form of "contract" between a husband and wife, it could potentially be argued that if a man is not honouring his side of the bargain, then should the woman be expected to honour her side (thus nullifying the contractual obligations of both). I don't necessarily agree with that. I don't disagree with it either, it's an issue I've been thinking about on and off for some time without a real answer popping forth. So take it or leave it as you like it.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarkmBha

Look. The Bible has been re-written so many times so "The Church" will have more power over people. It is hard to say that this is the word of God.

As for homosexuality, there are over 300 species of animals which practice it. Mankind is just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.