Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[RichieMcD]

Unless homosexuals start reproducing with each other it is wrong.

 

 

 

Great idea, let's further increase the risk of population boom where we need to use more valuable resources and spend even more money on unneeded expenses :thumbsup: [/sarcasm]

[Agunimon979]

How can a person be an unneeded expense? Or am I not catching the drift?

[Sumpta]

How can a person be an unneeded expense? Or am I not catching the drift?

 

 

 

Considering that Tip.It posters have been known complain in the "How to get a girlfriend"-topic that maintaining a girlfriend is a costly business, I guess it actually ís possible for a person to be an expense.

 

 

 

Ha-de-ha.

 

 

 

Anyway, I think the sarcasm referred precisely to that kind of ridiculous logic ;).

[Agunimon979]

Well, this isn't the girlfriend topic, and people are necessary to advance in technology and continue the bloodline. And plus the fact that there will always be people shootin' out kids which says that humans will be continuing forever.

[Howlin0001]

Unless homosexuals start reproducing with each other it is wrong.

 

 

 

Well lesbians can(well kinda) but it's possible. Then by you being a woman with woman is ok but men with men isn't.

[issy2]

Unless homosexuals start reproducing with each other it is wrong.

 

 

 

Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I think you're basically saying - "Producing children is natural, therefore those who can't produce children are unnatural, and morally wrong in having relationships" I have to be careful what I say in case I'm accused of taking things too literally, but how can you use nature as an excuse to say that two people who love each other is wrong? Love for another human being is never wrong. (unless you love a murderer, or something... but you know what I mean...)

[Ginger_Warrior]

Unless homosexuals start reproducing with each other it is wrong.

 

Uh oh. Get out the incinerators guys... we've got some donkeys to cull.

 

 

 

I suppose by this logic, heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are also 'wrong'? In fact, how about a couple in which one or both members are sterile or incapable of having children?

[jackattack]

Unless homosexuals start reproducing with each other it is wrong.

 

Uh oh. Get out the incinerators guys... we've got some donkeys to cull.

 

 

 

I suppose by this logic, heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are also 'wrong'? In fact, how about a couple in which one or both members are sterile or incapable of having children?

 

 

 

I've been wondering that for a while.

[mmmcannibalism]

How can a person be an unneeded expense? Or am I not catching the drift?

 

 

 

The point hes making is the world is already overpopulated and straining its resources so we dont really need to keep driving the population up. (lets be honest a lot of people that have children shouldnt have made them)

 

 

 

Unless homosexuals start reproducing with each other it is wrong.

 

Uh oh. Get out the incinerators guys... we've got some donkeys to cull.

 

 

 

I suppose by this logic, heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are also 'wrong'? In fact, how about a couple in which one or both members are sterile or incapable of having children?

 

 

 

I've been wondering that for a while.

 

 

 

the whole argument of people needing to have kids is just designed to use against homosexuals. If you were actually going to say people should only do what makes kids then its immoral to be single, asexual, or surgically sterilized.

[RyderJ]

Yeah, by that logic, anyone losing the use of their sexual organs, or becoming infertile, should be shot. Right?

 

 

 

Like we really need more and more people added to the population, anyway...

 

 

 

Reproduction isn't important to our society, when you really look at it. We have lots of orphans in need of adoption. It's just an argument for lazy homophobes.

[Furah]

I think my two cents on homosexuality is different than most if not all other Christians. We Christians, ussually think we're better than everyone else, (but we're not, of course) and I think a lot of misconceptions about Christianity are protrayed by all the "Christians" in the public eye who portray their own veiws rather than the Bible's.

 

 

 

I believe that homosexuality is a choice, but it's ussually never a picked choice, most of people who are homosexual suffer from many psychological problems from their childhood, and most flamboyant gays are just perverse in nature. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone, their sin isn't any worse than what I've done, but the choice to continue in that sin is what's not right. I don't hate anyone for being gay, but I can't aggree with their life choice, mostly because it's hurting them in the long run. Homosexuals have a much higher rate of suicide than straight people, whether this results from public harrassment and abuse I'm not sure, these are just the statistics.

 

So summed up, your argument is "I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just think gays are worse than me for acting the way they do".

 

 

 

Whatever. See, I'm not anti-religious but this is what annoys me. You believing you're so much better than anyone else because a religion founded 2000 years ago tells you that you are.

 

 

 

What evidence, or even what right, have you got to call homosexuality a sin?

 

 

 

Unless of course what Jesus really meant was, "Love thy neighbour, hate thy gay". In which case, I apologise for my complete misunderstanding of Christianity.

 

 

 

I myself do NOT hate anyone, only some things they do, and I know plenty of christians who think that, I do not see myself as better than anyone else I see myself just as equal as others and christianity (and the catholoics) were really part of the Judaism, it started out as Judaism, then the Jews rejected Jesus, those who didn't became Christians (they may have been called Catholics not sure :-k ) then later on they split into Catholics and Christians due to a pope adding some way of 'paying' for sins to lessen your time in purgatory, so technically it started 6,000-10,000 years ago

[issy2]

I think my two cents on homosexuality is different than most if not all other Christians. We Christians, ussually think we're better than everyone else, (but we're not, of course) and I think a lot of misconceptions about Christianity are protrayed by all the "Christians" in the public eye who portray their own veiws rather than the Bible's.

 

 

 

I believe that homosexuality is a choice, but it's ussually never a picked choice, most of people who are homosexual suffer from many psychological problems from their childhood, I'm not saying I'm better than anyone, their sin isn't any worse than what I've done, but the choice to continue in that sin is what's not right. I don't hate anyone for being gay, but I can't aggree with their life choice, mostly because it's hurting them in the long run. Homosexuals have a much higher rate of suicide than straight people, whether this results from public harrassment and abuse I'm not sure, these are just the statistics.

 

So summed up, your argument is "I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just think gays are worse than me for acting the way they do".

 

 

 

Whatever. See, I'm not anti-religious but this is what annoys me. You believing you're so much better than anyone else because a religion founded 2000 years ago tells you that you are.

 

 

 

What evidence, or even what right, have you got to call homosexuality a sin?

 

 

 

Unless of course what Jesus really meant was, "Love thy neighbour, hate thy gay". In which case, I apologise for my complete misunderstanding of Christianity.

 

 

 

I myself do NOT hate anyone, only some things they do, and I know plenty of christians who think that, I do not see myself as better than anyone else I see myself just as equal as others and christianity (and the catholoics) were really part of the Judaism, it started out as Judaism, then the Jews rejected Jesus, those who didn't became Christians (they may have been called Catholics not sure :-k ) then later on they split into Catholics and Christians due to a pope adding some way of 'paying' for sins to lessen your time in purgatory, so technically it started 6,000-10,000 years ago

 

 

 

Are Kilo and Mage Man the same person? If so or if not, can I just ask a Christian this, not criticising, but out of curiousity - Why is it that you think being gay is wrong, and is it related to your religion? As in, is it something you decided yourself, or does the Bible specificially say homosexuality is wrong?

 

 

 

Referring to what Kilo said... it's pretty much proven, or at least there seems to be alot of proof, that being gay is actually in your genes. Therefore, not a choice. I've posted some theories/experiments, I'll you links if you want them.

 

 

 

God's attitude towards the homosexual and towards homosexuality - He loves the sinner, but hates homosexuality, which is always sinful.

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).

[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=]

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

 

 

 

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and Pillard's by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a person's sexual orientation (8).

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=]

Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn't waste any time before getting down to business.

 

 

 

So it's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves.

 

 

 

With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

 

 

 

What's going on?

 

 

 

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

 

 

 

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation.

 

 

 

Such work stirs mixed emotions in the gay community. To some extent, gays and lesbians welcome the research because it supports what most of them have long felt: that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color, rather than a perverse life-style choice, as conservative moralists contend. And if that is true, then gays deserve legal protection similar to the laws that prohibit racial discrimination. "On a political level, genetic research does seem to move the debate along a certain path," says Denny Lee of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay advocacy group in New York City. "When people understand that being gay or lesbian is an integral characteristic, they are more open-minded about equality for gay Americans."

 

 

 

On the other hand, many gays are wary of the genetic hypothesis. It could, they fear, help promote the notion that gayness is a "defect" in need of "fixing." "Any finding will be used and twisted for homophobic purposes," says Martin Duberman, head of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the City University of New York. "If it does turn out that for some people, there is a genetic or hormonal component, the cry will then arise to take care of that." Indeed, the cry is already rising.

 

 

 

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition in Anaheim, California, says that if a biological cause of homosexuality is found, then "we would have to come up with some reparative therapy to correct that genetic defect."

 

 

 

No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners.

 

[/hide]

[issy2]

I think my two cents on homosexuality is different than most if not all other Christians. We Christians, ussually think we're better than everyone else, (but we're not, of course) and I think a lot of misconceptions about Christianity are protrayed by all the "Christians" in the public eye who portray their own veiws rather than the Bible's.

 

 

 

I believe that homosexuality is a choice, but it's ussually never a picked choice, most of people who are homosexual suffer from many psychological problems from their childhood, I'm not saying I'm better than anyone, their sin isn't any worse than what I've done, but the choice to continue in that sin is what's not right. I don't hate anyone for being gay, but I can't aggree with their life choice, mostly because it's hurting them in the long run. Homosexuals have a much higher rate of suicide than straight people, whether this results from public harrassment and abuse I'm not sure, these are just the statistics.

 

So summed up, your argument is "I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just think gays are worse than me for acting the way they do".

 

 

 

Whatever. See, I'm not anti-religious but this is what annoys me. You believing you're so much better than anyone else because a religion founded 2000 years ago tells you that you are.

 

 

 

What evidence, or even what right, have you got to call homosexuality a sin?

 

 

 

Unless of course what Jesus really meant was, "Love thy neighbour, hate thy gay". In which case, I apologise for my complete misunderstanding of Christianity.

 

 

 

I myself do NOT hate anyone, only some things they do, and I know plenty of christians who think that, I do not see myself as better than anyone else I see myself just as equal as others and christianity (and the catholoics) were really part of the Judaism, it started out as Judaism, then the Jews rejected Jesus, those who didn't became Christians (they may have been called Catholics not sure :-k ) then later on they split into Catholics and Christians due to a pope adding some way of 'paying' for sins to lessen your time in purgatory, so technically it started 6,000-10,000 years ago

 

 

 

Are Kilo and Mage Man the same person? If so or if not, can I just ask a Christian this, not criticising, but out of curiousity - Why is it that you think being gay is wrong, and is it related to your religion? As in, is it something you decided yourself, or does the Bible specificially say homosexuality is wrong?

 

 

 

Referring to what Kilo said... it's pretty much proven, or at least there seems to be alot of proof, that being gay is actually in your genes. Therefore, not a choice. I've posted some theories/experiments, I'll you links if you want them.

 

 

 

God's attitude towards the homosexual and towards homosexuality - He loves the sinner, but hates homosexuality, which is always sinful.

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).

[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=]

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

 

 

 

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and Pillard's by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a person's sexual orientation (8).

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=]

Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn't waste any time before getting down to business.

 

 

 

So it's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves.

 

 

 

With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

 

 

 

What's going on?

 

 

 

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

 

 

 

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation.

 

 

 

Such work stirs mixed emotions in the gay community. To some extent, gays and lesbians welcome the research because it supports what most of them have long felt: that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color, rather than a perverse life-style choice, as conservative moralists contend. And if that is true, then gays deserve legal protection similar to the laws that prohibit racial discrimination. "On a political level, genetic research does seem to move the debate along a certain path," says Denny Lee of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay advocacy group in New York City. "When people understand that being gay or lesbian is an integral characteristic, they are more open-minded about equality for gay Americans."

 

 

 

On the other hand, many gays are wary of the genetic hypothesis. It could, they fear, help promote the notion that gayness is a "defect" in need of "fixing." "Any finding will be used and twisted for homophobic purposes," says Martin Duberman, head of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the City University of New York. "If it does turn out that for some people, there is a genetic or hormonal component, the cry will then arise to take care of that." Indeed, the cry is already rising.

 

 

 

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition in Anaheim, California, says that if a biological cause of homosexuality is found, then "we would have to come up with some reparative therapy to correct that genetic defect."

 

 

 

No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners.

 

[/hide]

[Roberthree]

Can someone point out to me where the bible says being gay is bad?

[Range_This11]

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

 

 

But according to Jewish scholars, the bible should NOT list homosexuality as a reason for why the cities were destroyed. It only lists that they were cruel to others.

 

 

 

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.

 

Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195

 

 

 

 

It's only the modern christian churches that have turned them into the leading reason why god hates homosexuals. Imagine that, christians twisting truths!

[Kiriyama]

Can someone point out to me where the bible says being gay is bad?

 

 

 

Something along the lines of: "Thou shalt not lay with a man as thou would with a woman."

[feedmetotheforest]

Homosexuality is neither right nor wrong it is simply another way... What a hypocritical nation we live in to state we are the land of the free yet turn around and say sorry if you live a certain lifestyle you are not free to engage in the act of marriage. As far as homosexuality being called "wrong" in the bible, does it matter? no I think not, the bible has claimed in the past that we should stone people, but we certainly do not follow that anymore, besides that the bible has been edited by man which allows for personal ideals to influence the content of the bible. What has been read by church goers has not been the complete work of the bible, the church in the past has often held pieces they felt the community not ready to see or not in favor with the current position of the church. Like many other major literary works the bible leaves large room for interpretation, for example I will take a random bible passage I searched for using google and interpret it to an idea favorable of my position

 

Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

 

Isaiah 6:3b

 

 

 

The whole earth is full of his glory, so being homosexuals are part of this "whole earth" they are part of his glory, so by damning homosexuality, you are damning god's work, his glory, so you damn god.

 

 

 

see this passage can be interpreted numerous ways and who would be right? no one it is simply just different ideas on what something could mean.

 

 

 

Now moving on I would now like to talk about the church, god, freewill and conditional love. Throughout the ages man has known only conditional love, even with our own parents has many experienced a conditional love, this along with many other human qualities have been applied to god over the years, certainly if love I have experienced has been conditional then god too must uphold a conditional love, something I have seen many churches preach to the masses time and time again; "you must be good Christians", "you must go to church every Sunday", etc... God is depicted as a jealous human like individual who becomes jealous if others worship something else or do not worship at all. I have always been confused that people do not realize this sort of thinking cannot breed "love of god" all it simply brings forth is conventional morality. This brings me to the topic of free will; having free will then being told if you do any of these things you will be damned for all eternity is not free will at all, for those of you that believe in god do you think such a spiteful contradiction would be made by that which you call "all perfect". Free will is what allows you to truly know "the love of god" for without it like I have said before it just becomes conventional morality. The teachings of man however have covered much of these simple ideas up with their teachings of slave morality, the group ideals have become more important than that of the individuals. For example a Man who lives his life by what the church calls "good", he goes to church every Sunday, helps around the community, carries a respectful job, has a loving family, and is a kind hearted individual who never shows another hostility. this man happens to be gay and eventually decides he can no longer live lying to everyone and comes out to the community that he is indeed a homosexual. The church , his community, and family all soon shun him due to their teachings from the bible that "homosexuality is wrong"... they allow rules to become concrete and focus on upholding their beliefs instead of focusing on the individual and the situation. doesn't seem very "godly"? This example also goes for abortion as well.... catholic churches uphold that it is wrong, even in the face of situations were a thirteen year old girl is raped and impregnated by her uncle, the family are church goers and face either having their young girl giving birth to her uncles rape baby or having an abortion and being shunned by the church... again does that seem "godly"?

 

 

 

I will be tacky :lol: and conclude my post with a quote I once read that I feel rings true...

 

 

 

"Hitler went to heaven, when you understand this, you understand god"

[Roberthree]

Can someone point out to me where the bible says being gay is bad?

 

 

 

Something along the lines of: "Thou shalt not lay with a man as thou would with a woman."

 

 

 

I meant like "john:3:13" or whatever. You know, so I can look it up in MY copy of the bible.

 

 

 

Actually its my Grandmothers but she won't mind.

[Lateralus]

Can someone point out to me where the bible says being gay is bad?

 

 

 

Something along the lines of: "Thou shalt not lay with a man as thou would with a woman."

 

 

 

I meant like "john:3:13" or whatever. You know, so I can look it up in MY copy of the bible.

 

 

 

Actually its my Grandmothers but she won't mind.

 

 

 

Leviticus 18:22 is the one people usually cite.

[Roberthree]

*Looks it up*

 

Holy crap, the Bible actually says that. I always thought that was just something King James or some other loon added.

[llcoolguy972]

 

 

 

Something along the lines of: "Thou shalt not lay with a man as thou would with a woman."

 

 

 

I meant like "john:3:13" or whatever. You know, so I can look it up in MY copy of the bible.

 

 

 

Actually its my Grandmothers but she won't mind.

 

 

 

Leviticus 18:22 is the one people usually cite.

 

 

 

Yes, but Leviticus is in the Old Testament.. which also says not to touch the skin of a dead animal, wear mixed fiber blends of clothes, etc.

[Roberthree]

Or eat pork.

[BlueLancer]

Or eat pork.

 

 

 

I actually know plenty of christians that don't eat pork at all, conservative as they may be, it doesn't seem like that rare of a phenomenon. Not all christians have a slice of bacon & eggs at breakfast while sipping coffee and reading New York Times.

 

 

 

But the point stands, average christians don't usually adhere to anything in the Old Testament or even belittle it, so why pick pieces of it that suit their targets of hatred such as gays?

[jackattack]

Or eat pork.

 

 

 

I actually know plenty of christians that don't eat pork at all, conservative as they may be, it doesn't seem like that rare of a phenomenon. Not all christians have a slice of bacon & eggs at breakfast while sipping coffee and reading New York Times.

 

 

 

But the point stands, average christians don't usually adhere to anything in the Old Testament or even belittle it, so why pick pieces of it that suit their targets of hatred such as gays?

 

 

 

Average Christians don't hate gays.

[magekillr]

Well 51% of Americans (on average) oppose gay marriage. This is a majority. There are no secular arguments for this opposition but fear that was instilled by a people who were afraid of heterosexual sex that discovered the land mass now known as "America, land of the FREE".