Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

It's all down to the interpretation. Of course people interpret these passages as "HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG AND GAYS SHOULD BE KILLED." But that's not what it definitely says.

 

 

 

Exactly, taking the bible (or any religious text) literally is dangerous. My favourite passage to quote to people who take the text literally is;

 

 

 

Matthew 19:24: Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

 

 

 

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

[guss]

Nowhere in the bible does it say homosexuality is wrong, if you read it carefully, it talks about homosexual rape. Which of course is completely different because one of the parties is NOT consenting. And anyway, in the New Testament Jesus reaches out to and makes friends with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other members of the societal 'underclass' including homosexuals. There is a reference somewhere to a man with a slave, and the term they use in describing this slave, is just like the male equivalent of 'concubine' (essentially a sex slave).

 

 

 

 

 

Lev. 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

 

 

 

Lev. 20:13, "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

 

 

 

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

 

 

Rom. 1:26-28, "26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

 

 

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

 

 

 

 

Seems like there was something about it in the bible....

 

leviticus is optional, and the other ones arent actually saying homosexuality is a sin, but that being sexually immoral is.

 

The Rom 1:26-28 part seems like its about homosexuality, but if i remember right it was actually about sodomy and polygamy

 

 

 

Nice cattle Decapitation, also wouldn't most of us be sinners.

 

 

 

I see phobia and immoralities having something in common, If something is different It must be bad.

[guss]

 

 

 

It's all down to the interpretation. Of course people interpret these passages as "HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG AND GAYS SHOULD BE KILLED." But that's not what it definitely says.

 

 

 

Exactly, taking the bible (or any religious text) literally is dangerous. My favourite passage to quote to people who take the text literally is;

 

 

 

Matthew 19:24: Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

 

 

 

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

 

 

 

The Eye Of The Needle was literally a passage way, archway, I think in rome. I can see how people today can look at it in a different way/ it can have a different meaning.

[Wisp]

I maintain that homosexuality is neither right nor wrong.

 

Is having blue eyes "right"?

 

Is having brown hair "right"?

 

No, it simply is.

 

It's not right, but it's not wrong either.

 

Heterosexuality isn't right either, it simply is.

 

Saying one is right while the other is wrong is simply ridiculous.

[1_man_army]

[hide=]

 

 

 

It's all down to the interpretation. Of course people interpret these passages as "HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG AND GAYS SHOULD BE KILLED." But that's not what it definitely says.

 

 

 

Exactly, taking the bible (or any religious text) literally is dangerous. My favourite passage to quote to people who take the text literally is;

 

 

 

Matthew 19:24: Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

 

 

 

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

[/hide]

 

The Eye Of The Needle was literally a passage way, archway, I think in rome. I can see how people today can look at it in a different way/ it can have a different meaning.

 

 

 

So the "Gate of the Needle's Eye" notion has no firm historical basis. It looks like a way of getting around the plain (but inconvenient) meaning of the text.

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... f-a-needle

[Zierro]

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

 

 

 

Well, back in those days you were either born into wealth or born into poverty. You didn't work hard to become rich like how it mostly is today - you just got it handed to you. The poor were the hard workers and the rich were the ones who sat on their butts eating grapes all day. I can see why they would say the more spoiled a man is, the harder it is to follow the path of God. You wouldn't really need God if you were treated like one yourself, but as for the poor who have to work to death just to survive, believing God and having hope would be very useful to them.

[1_man_army]

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

 

 

 

Well, back in those days you were either born into wealth or born into poverty. You didn't work hard to become rich like how it mostly is today - you just got it handed to you. The poor were the hard workers and the rich were the ones who sat on their butts eating grapes all day. I can see why they would say the more spoiled a man is, the harder it is to follow the path of God. You wouldn't really need God if you were treated like one yourself, but as for the poor who have to work to death just to survive, believing God and having hope would be very useful to them.

 

 

 

My point was that taking the bible literally can backfire, the rights and wrongs of capitalism & the American Dream was just my way to highlight it (using that passage).

[Shinjula]

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

 

 

 

Well, back in those days you were either born into wealth or born into poverty. You didn't work hard to become rich like how it mostly is today - you just got it handed to you. The poor were the hard workers and the rich were the ones who sat on their butts eating grapes all day. I can see why they would say the more spoiled a man is, the harder it is to follow the path of God. You wouldn't really need God if you were treated like one yourself, but as for the poor who have to work to death just to survive, believing God and having hope would be very useful to them.

 

Then the same should apply to homosexuality. Today's homosexuals are (for the most part) responsible members of the community in loving relationships. If being rich was considered 'immoral' back then because the rich guys were jerks, then its understandable that the depictions of homosexuality in sodom and gomorrah were so looked down on (what with them raping angels and all) and the relationship between that and the modern gay lifestyle bear as much resemblance as the relationship between the rich back then and the rich now.

 

And then we are back to the idea that it is not homosexuality which is a sin but homosexual immorality (and indeed and kind of sexual immorality) which is the sin and nopt homosexuality itself.

[Saru Inc]

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

 

 

 

Well, back in those days you were either born into wealth or born into poverty. You didn't work hard to become rich like how it mostly is today - you just got it handed to you. The poor were the hard workers and the rich were the ones who sat on their butts eating grapes all day. I can see why they would say the more spoiled a man is, the harder it is to follow the path of God. You wouldn't really need God if you were treated like one yourself, but as for the poor who have to work to death just to survive, believing God and having hope would be very useful to them.

 

 

 

My point was that taking the bible literally can backfire, the rights and wrongs of capitalism & the American Dream was just my way to highlight it (using that passage).

 

 

 

 

 

Well at that point, you need to use your own discretion. Some passages SHOULD be taken literally ,while some shouldn't. And as that is very hard to do, leave it to the Bible Scholars to figure it out.

 

 

 

And yea, Zierro is right, there was this one instance when Jesus was talking to a rich guy who wanted to go to heaven. Jesus said "drop all your riches, and follow me" the guy said no. And he's in hell now probably lol. Jesus wasn't saying you can't be rich, but the guy was hoarding it. Not giving to the needy, nor to God. That's what Jesus meant.

[Plugpoint]

I don't understand the Christian argument against homosexuality. According to Christians, God creates every man and woman in his own image. This would include homosexuals because God knows they will end up gay.

 

Christian logic just fails and completely contradicts itself. You must "love thy neighbour" - what if your neighbour is gay?

[1_man_army]

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

 

 

 

Well, back in those days you were either born into wealth or born into poverty. You didn't work hard to become rich like how it mostly is today - you just got it handed to you. The poor were the hard workers and the rich were the ones who sat on their butts eating grapes all day. I can see why they would say the more spoiled a man is, the harder it is to follow the path of God. You wouldn't really need God if you were treated like one yourself, but as for the poor who have to work to death just to survive, believing God and having hope would be very useful to them.

 

 

 

My point was that taking the bible literally can backfire, the rights and wrongs of capitalism & the American Dream was just my way to highlight it (using that passage).

 

 

 

 

 

Well at that point, you need to use your own discretion. Some passages SHOULD be taken literally ,while some shouldn't. And as that is very hard to do, leave it to the Bible Scholars to figure it out.

 

 

 

And yea, Zierro is right, there was this one instance when Jesus was talking to a rich guy who wanted to go to heaven. Jesus said "drop all your riches, and follow me" the guy said no. And he's in hell now probably lol. Jesus wasn't saying you can't be rich, but the guy was hoarding it. Not giving to the needy, nor to God. That's what Jesus meant.

 

 

 

Then who decides what should be taken as a parable and what shouldn't - scholars? What happens when scholars disagree?

 

 

 

Also there is zero ambiguity in the passage I mentioned, it says "a rich man" - not some, there are no preconditions, no exceptions are mentioned - it suggests that all rich men would find it virtually impossible to get into heaven. I love how you say "that's what Jesus meant" like you were there to hear it in context.

[Italian5kamikaze]

I know that religion plays a big factor in how some people feel about homosexuality but don't make this whole topic about religion, it's really annoying and pretty much all bull anyways.

 

 

 

I don't really care about homosexuality. Nobody is forcing it on me so why should I care what they want to do with their lives.

[Saru Inc]

...which basically declares the American Dream of working hard and getting rich to be immoral. Do I believe that being rich is wrong - no - but that quote is always a good argument ended in these discussions.

 

 

 

Well, back in those days you were either born into wealth or born into poverty. You didn't work hard to become rich like how it mostly is today - you just got it handed to you. The poor were the hard workers and the rich were the ones who sat on their butts eating grapes all day. I can see why they would say the more spoiled a man is, the harder it is to follow the path of God. You wouldn't really need God if you were treated like one yourself, but as for the poor who have to work to death just to survive, believing God and having hope would be very useful to them.

 

 

 

My point was that taking the bible literally can backfire, the rights and wrongs of capitalism & the American Dream was just my way to highlight it (using that passage).

 

 

 

 

 

Well at that point, you need to use your own discretion. Some passages SHOULD be taken literally ,while some shouldn't. And as that is very hard to do, leave it to the Bible Scholars to figure it out.

 

 

 

And yea, Zierro is right, there was this one instance when Jesus was talking to a rich guy who wanted to go to heaven. Jesus said "drop all your riches, and follow me" the guy said no. And he's in hell now probably lol. Jesus wasn't saying you can't be rich, but the guy was hoarding it. Not giving to the needy, nor to God. That's what Jesus meant.

 

 

 

Then who decides what should be taken as a parable and what shouldn't - scholars? What happens when scholars disagree?

 

 

 

Also there is zero ambiguity in the passage I mentioned, it says "a rich man" - not some, there are no preconditions, no exceptions are mentioned - it suggests that all rich men would find it virtually impossible to get into heaven. I love how you say "that's what Jesus meant" like you were there to hear it in context.

 

 

 

lol.

 

 

 

Is that really your argument? Well, what happens when scholars disagree with anything else in life? The same thing applies here. And I guess you never read what I posted. I stated, it's not the amount of money, it's the attitude about it. You said, all rich men go to hell. I don't see the correlation. And I suppose that's true, I wasn't there when Jesus said it. But most of the time, it's quite obvious what he means when he says things. I just don't understand why non Christians think it's their duty to defeat the morbid lie of Christianity. When they have no problem with Islam or anything religion. Kinda unrelated, but still loll.

 

 

 

 

 

And Plugpoint, when they say love thy neighbor, or love thy enemy and such, it doesn't mean love, like loving your spouse. But more of be kind to thy neighbor, and thy enemy.

[Plugpoint]

Yeah exactly, so be as kind to gay people as you would be to straight people. Because homophobia's not cool.

[Shinjula]

I just don't understand why non Christians think it's their duty to defeat the morbid lie of Christianity. When they have no problem with Islam or anything religion.

 

 

 

Um because it appears that you want to stop us gay folk marrying the loves of our lives (amongst other things)?

 

 

 

Theres loads of reasons why people think that religion is a bad thing and that it should be replaced. One of the big ones for me is the attitude that people are in someone 'not animals'. This separation between man and animal inevitably leads to a sense of arrogance on the part of people. I also find the idea that beliefs in some way matter to Christians quite repellent. I have beliefs of my own, as does everyone on the planet. But I dont act on those beliefs in regards to other people because they are just that, beliefs, and they could (obviously) be wrong. I think beliefs are fine when they just dictate how you live your life, but the moment they start interacting with other people you are in trouble.

 

 

 

And i think you'll find we have LOADS of problems with Islam, but there arent Muslims on these forums to debate with.

[Saru Inc]

I just don't understand why non Christians think it's their duty to defeat the morbid lie of Christianity. When they have no problem with Islam or anything religion.

 

 

 

Um because it appears that you want to stop us gay folk marrying the loves of our lives (amongst other things)?

 

 

 

Theres loads of reasons why people think that religion is a bad thing and that it should be replaced. One of the big ones for me is the attitude that people are in someone 'not animals'. This separation between man and animal inevitably leads to a sense of arrogance on the part of people. I also find the idea that beliefs in some way matter to Christians quite repellent. I have beliefs of my own, as does everyone on the planet. But I dont act on those beliefs in regards to other people because they are just that, beliefs, and they could (obviously) be wrong. I think beliefs are fine when they just dictate how you live your life, but the moment they start interacting with other people you are in trouble.

 

 

 

And i think you'll find we have LOADS of problems with Islam, but there arent Muslims on these forums to debate with.

 

 

 

 

 

Welll, I never told you this, so you don't know but. I have absolutely no problem with hoomosexuality at all, and have many gay friends. And I think you're problem is with the Christian Church, not Christianity. Just my opinion. And I do agree with your stance about enforcing other peoples morals on people. But here's my problem, what if someone thought that killing is a good moral to have. I know thats an extreme case, but what happens when your morals change other peoples lives whether they want to or not. (my example is abortion)

[Meta318]

I don't think people choose to be attracted to the same sex, but it just kind of happens. I know someone that didn't want to be homosexual but couldn't seem to be attracted to woman. Then one day they were like holy [cabbage] i'm gay. Now the act of doing homosexual stuff is a choice. The act, well i don't think its right but thats not my choice.

[Shinjula]

I just don't understand why non Christians think it's their duty to defeat the morbid lie of Christianity. When they have no problem with Islam or anything religion.

 

 

 

Um because it appears that you want to stop us gay folk marrying the loves of our lives (amongst other things)?

 

 

 

Theres loads of reasons why people think that religion is a bad thing and that it should be replaced. One of the big ones for me is the attitude that people are in someone 'not animals'. This separation between man and animal inevitably leads to a sense of arrogance on the part of people. I also find the idea that beliefs in some way matter to Christians quite repellent. I have beliefs of my own, as does everyone on the planet. But I dont act on those beliefs in regards to other people because they are just that, beliefs, and they could (obviously) be wrong. I think beliefs are fine when they just dictate how you live your life, but the moment they start interacting with other people you are in trouble.

 

 

 

And i think you'll find we have LOADS of problems with Islam, but there arent Muslims on these forums to debate with.

 

 

 

 

 

Welll, I never told you this, so you don't know but. I have absolutely no problem with hoomosexuality at all, and have many gay friends. And I think you're problem is with the Christian Church, not Christianity. Just my opinion. And I do agree with your stance about enforcing other peoples morals on people.

 

Almost, my problem is with certain individuals, often includes people who call themselves Christian. I never have a problem with an idea, just someone who holds an idea and then does anything about it.

 

 

 

But here's my problem, what if someone thought that killing is a good moral to have. I know thats an extreme case, but what happens when your morals change other peoples lives whether they want to or not. (my example is abortion)

 

Well thats a clear case of someones beliefs interacting external to them, and then I have a problem with it. Actually I dont have a problem with abortion though, because I'm a man and will never have an abortion, and even more, as a gay man I will never have a partner who will have an abortion, so my morals have no reason to interfere with anyone elses choices.

[Dragoon5464]

I've never understood why professed Christians care. I mean, really. If some guy and some other guy are having the naked times of their lives in a house in a completely different section of town, what the heck do I care? Now, if I live in an apartment with thin walls and they're next door and the time of their lives is keeping me up at night, I'd be mad, but I'd be just as mad if it were a straight couple in that case.

 

 

 

Regarding Christianity, and a bit off-topic, I think that if you just gave a person the ten commandments and never let them set foot inside a church, they'd turn out okay. It's the organization that's flawed, not the base philosophy.

 

But then, this is the way I feel about every organization in human history: the process of changing that which came before you is inherently flawed, and will always work in some corruption which won't get worked out. Militaries, education systems, law, banking, every last one of them.

[Guy]

100% right. im not homosexual, but people have a choise and if that's their chose, then so be it. the law shouldn't prevent them, that's just plain wrong. as for the bible.. eh, wasn't there some study that proved that you were born homosexual? i dunno.

[Giordano]

I just found out one of my teachers is a lesbian. :lol:

 

 

 

Never woulda guessed neither. So not all gays are out-of-the-norm-attention-seekers.

[Nenga]

I just found out one of my teachers is a lesbian. :lol:

 

 

 

Never woulda guessed neither. So not all gays are out-of-the-norm-attention-seekers.

 

You thought that? I'm ashamed to call you a TIFer.

[sphinxor86]

So not all gays are out-of-the-norm-attention-seekers.

 

 

 

In fact the vast majority are NOT "out of the norm attention seekers" and its that very reason why you seem surprised to discover that your teacher is a lesbian. Its the "flaming queen" minority that give the negative stereotype for the rest of us.

 

 

 

It is similar to the way you seem to always see "gun-toting gangster" black music artists perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people, when I know full well that the vast majority of black people are not gun-toting gangsters.

 

 

 

The ones in a group that are most prominent give you a false impression of the group as a whole.

[warri0r45]

I just found out one of my teachers is a lesbian. :lol:

 

 

 

Never woulda guessed neither. So not all gays are out-of-the-norm-attention-seekers.

 

 

 

Those with the loudest voices are heard the most, but that doesn't mean they're present in higher numbers. It's a fairly common reason for false statistical inferences.

[PastyGangsta]

Well being an E.C. Christian (Google for a full description, don't bloody PM me) it's against my religion, and therefore a sin. However I don't hate homosexuality, I'm not gonna join in, but I won't spite people for it. It's just one of those things that really isn't a choice, if you are you are, and you shouldn't fake it.

 

 

 

Although (and you all know these people) the kids in high school that say "Oh yeah I'm bi" are 95% of the time doing it for attention. They've typically obnoxious and just make you wanna punch them in the face (DO IT! PUNCH THEM!!). Also, they give real homosexual people a bad name, because the REAL ones I've met aren't obnoxious or annoying at all. They're just... people. I dated a fake one once, and I think I may just hate her now because she's just so annoying. Different story for a different time... moving on.

 

 

 

Now for the marriage/civil union thing, marriage is a RELIGIOUS term and civil union is the LEGAL one. Don't mix them, homosexual people should be allowed a civil union, not a marriage, since homosexuality goes against most sections of Christianity/Judaism/Islam/etc.