Homosexuality

[cacian]

To be honest I think the Bible has issue with everthing that is not single minded.
It has issues with people liking each other regardless of gender race and sexuality.
I think that it is devisive and influences people to think and act differently from others who are bound to be different.
I am pretty sure the Bible is not so much about who is gay or not but it is about the underlaying ideology that all are to comply to one thing and one thing only. It is a pretty devisive power trip.
I believe it uses homsexuality as a base to divide people's ideas opinions . It does not allow room for one to reflect and think without being influenced by this terrifying god it makes out to be and brings in concepts of hell and heaven to keep people influenced and scared.
I do not believe that God is that terrifying or indeed punishing I would say it is the total opposite.
Had the Bible not been I am pretty sure would have totally accepted and lived side to side with other people with different aspirations and sexual orientations without a single issue.
I think the Bible uses God as a tool , a punisher, in order to ensure that people who think may be different would comply a guilt trip it imposes and it does work but not all the times.
This is my honest opinion and is not meant to offend any Bilble believers.

[Shea]

Just to clarify what I said to you before I said under the impression that you were against gay marriage, I apologize if I mistook what you said.

No worries, Alex. The veiw I take on the matter isn't a common one. I can see how I had been misunderstood.

Look, if you believe being gay is a sin, that is your belief, but then again drinking and gambling and divorce are pretty big sins too from the biblical perspective;

I just want to say here, that drinking is not a sin, drunkenness is. As far as I can tell, gambling is not specifically a sin either, but the Bible teaches Christians to be responsible with finances. And the only biblical grounds for divorce is marital unfaithfulness.

To sum that up, everything in moderation.

alcohol gambling and divorce are all legal though, so I fail to see from a religious perspective how gay marriage somehow would undermine the morality of the state. Furthermore the majority of western nations are all secular states and as such law and religion should not mix. Until drinking and gambling and divorce are made illegal I fail to see how using the law to prevent gay marriage is an un-hypocritical stance.

But that's just it, I'm not using the law to prevent gay marriage. If a politician I like (how can you really wholly agree with any of them ) wants to make gay marriage legal, I'll still vote for him/her. If the issue of gay marriage is on the ballot by itself, I'll probably skip over it for the same reason I wouldn't play my harp for the lesbian ceremony.

I think this where I'd gotten misunderstood: when the head of Chick-Fil-A said that he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, I didn't see that as a political statement against gay marriage. I saw it as him stating his personal beliefs which happen to fall in line with mine and I know that it's a "Christian company". If he did actually make a political statement against gay marriage, then I missed it, sorry. But even if he did, I'm not going to boycott his restaurant for it. If I started boycotting companies because they support gay marriage, then I might as well go join the Amish.

This is my honest opinion and is not meant to offend any Bilble believers.

I can see and respect your opinion. But I'm curious, do you believe this way because that's what you read in the Bible (because I can think of passages that actually are the opposite of some of the things you say), or is it because you've come across too many "Bible thumpers"? I only ask, because I've come across a miriad of people, "Bible thumpers" and "quiet quoters" alike, who will completely take verses out of context to fit their own adjenda. So I can see how so many people come up with your conclusions.

I'll never forget the time I was talking to a coworker and she was telling me about how interracial marriage is a sin. After I picked up my slacked jaw, I asked her where it says that. She quoted 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked." She apparently was not a good speller. She explained to me that we shouldn't be mixing our "eggs" with other races. I tried to explain to her that first of all, the "yoke" in that passage is talking about a yoke of oxen, not egg yolks. And secondly, the context of the passage is Paul warning the Christians in Corinth to not accept idolaters into Christ's assembly and has nothing to do with race.

Her adjenda was a racist one, so that was how she was going to read and teach that passage. I've heard similar things come from other people depending on their adjenda.

[tonywalt]

Did the business they bring help? If there's one thing that sorts people's minds out it's money.

Paulclem, I wish it would have changed their views. One has to consider their ignorance being stemmed from a lack of application to ample educational opportunity along (and more importantly) with the dangerous religious dogma they happily subscribe to without critical thought.

Their views were brought over and passed on from their distant forefathers whose sub-saharan point of origin still retains those views-to point of systemic violence. It is embedded in that culture, which is not my own.

I purposely said "If ONE doesn't want gay people . . . " because I knew your stance. I wasn't calling you a bigot. I was purposely not doing so, actually. I was just stating my view of what constitutes bigotry. It seemed earlier that you were suggesting not wanting gays to marry was not a bigoted mindset (even if you don't think so yourself).

And thanks for answering. But you don't believe in everything the bible says, right? As you admitted earlier? The bible says all kinds of crazy things.

Also, I'm 99.9% sure Tony isn't gay.

Thank you Mutatis. I was trying to say that gays always seem to have a good time - it's hard to deny - and I'm not a little bit envious.

[Paulclem]

Paulclem, I wish it would have changed their views. One has to consider their ignorance being stemmed from a lack of application to ample educational opportunity along (and more importantly) with the dangerous religious dogma they happily subscribe to without critical thought.

Their views were brought over and passed on from their distant forefathers whose sub-saharan point of origin still retains those views-to point of systemic violence. It is embedded in that culture, which is not my own.

A difficult situaton. In the UK, those old attitudes are embodied into modern mind sets at least. It must be more difficult in societies like yours.

[JuniperWoolf]

First of all, I DON'T watch Fox news. I have no interest in opinion media and will certainly not let it dictate what I should think.

Oh please, you articulate the lingo like it was your college major. "I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle" - do you realize that that sentence doesn't make sense, and that no one outside of the American opinion media uses it? What you've brought to the table so far has really just been very typical religious right rhetoric. That's not necessarily a bad thing, we really do need a replacement for Bien.

I hope this isn't too political a statement, but as you're the one that brought it up, if I agree with with a politician on everything but he/she supports gay marriage, I'm not going to vote (and I do vote) for the other candidate on that reason alone. I do my very best not to let my religious veiws sway my politcal ones. (I know, what a radical concept!).

I did say:

I also "believe" that if (bolded word: if) you vote to restrict the legal rights of other citizens based on their sexual orientation you're committing a human rights violation which will be abhored by your descendants, in the same way that people today are ashamed of their ancestors who voted against the civil rights of non-whites and women, because in voting [clarification: against gay marriage] (if you do) you're actively taking part in their oppression.

And then I further elaborated:

Even if you don't vote [clarification: against gay marriage], you're still going along with a modern social movement which restricts human freedom for your own personal religious reasons.

See, your homophobic stance is contributing to the whole modern anti-gay hate machine, which means you're doing your part to dehumanize people into having their rights denied to them. Plus, you know, you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect.

Oh, and Juniper, if that's your opinion, then fine, you are entitled to it. But you don't seem to be respectful of mine.

Why should I be? You value a few passages in an obviously convoluted old book more than you do the physical and mental health of your fellow human beings (and just so that we don't have to waste a few posts clearing up this particular subtext: the belief that homosexuals are at the very least "unclean" or "abominations" and at worst will literally burn for all eternity because of the way they are, and the casual malice inherent in and violence inspired by that belief, obviously causes very much suffering). And for what reason? where is the logic behind being anti-homosexual (or, if you want the faux-lighthearted rhetoric, "against the homosexual lifestyle")? They're not hurting anyone. Also, why is it immoral for me to vocalize my strong disagreement? How much harm does opposing homophobia cause? No where near as much as your "belief" which I'm supposed to respect without question for some reason. You did choose this belief you know, and so I hold you accountable for it.

[Babyguile]

Shea, so in other words, you disagree with homosexuality but keep your opinions to yourself? You would for instance abstain from voting on a ballot specifically addressing gay marriage in your home state?

While that's good news for your country, as a science-minded person, I do have a problem with you stating it has not been proven that homosexuality is genetic. The problem here is you are claiming your beliefs subscribe to the scientific method, but of course your opinions, as you have made clear, are gathered from a book. In other words, you get to the conclusion first, then try and find justifications for it. This is where your ignorance shows, both in the above example, and also in your use of the term 'gay lifestyle' (you haven't explained what you mean by that).

Would you re-think your opinion of homosexuals if, somehow, scientfic evidence provides proof that homosexuality is not a choice?

It's a false dichotomy anyway, but it's your fault that we are being made to go down this route. People do indeed choose who they want to partner and can indulge in sexual curiosity as they like, as long as it is with consenting adults, and that for me is completely fine.

[cacian]

Well being gay is clearly natural because it is not a belief like we believe in religions.
It is a not choice or a trend it is a fact of life.
I think that people who have issue with someone different from them have issue with god too.

[JuniperWoolf]

Would you re-think your opinion of homosexuals if, somehow, scientfic evidence provides proof that homosexuality is not a choice?

It'll never be "unbiased" enough (because whenever science doesn't corroborate your opinion, it's biased).

[Shea]

I really want to respond to everything here, but I'm very busy today.

But I just wanted to say, Juniper, I think I know why you believe I watch Fox news (when seriously, I really don't). My parents do. Everytime we go to visit them (which is maybe once or twice a year), it's on ALL the time. I disagree with A LOT of what my parents believe religiously and politically, but not everything, and maybe I've "picked up" a few phrases that flagged me as a Fox news viewer without realizing it.

Honestly, the channel that's mostly on our TV, is Disney Jr.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Can I also just mention that not all Christians agree on the 'cause' of homosexuality or exactly what the Bible says about it.

[cacian]

Can I also just mention that not all Christians agree on the 'cause' of homosexuality or exactly what the Bible says about it.

so what is their thoughts on this if they do not agree with the Bible?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

so what is their thoughts on this if they do not agree with the Bible?

Many Christians don't see the Bible as a literal history book, but a book of stories and metaphors and use it as guide for life rather than a dictum to be blindly followed.

[Shea]

Okay, so I'm sorry that suddenly my life is very full at the moment. As much as I want to respond to everyone, I simply don't have time right now and probably won't be on much at all the next couple of weeks.

So I'm going to generalize my answers.

Some of you began discussing the differences on what many Christians believe about the Bible. I just wanted to reiterate, many other Christians have an adjenda. If they come across something that they personally disagree with or thing they have a "better" idea on, they'll either ignore the passage completely or find some other way to "explain" it so that they can continue on with what they believe. I don't do this. If I don't understand something in the Bible, I study it deeper. I'll even look up the meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words if I have to. I don't change the Bible to fit me. I try to change me to fit the Bible.

That said, I'm going to give you my bottom line.

I believe that (maybe it will be easier if I say it this way) homosexual acts are a sin. I believe that a heterosexual couple living together as married but are not (which is a lifestyle), is a sin. I believe it is a sin to get drunk (which can be a lifestyle). BUT I WILL NOT TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE. Therefore, I appreciate NOT being called a bigot because I won't write gay fiction and I choose to publish with a company that doesn't accept gay fiction. I actually chose them because they don't publish anything that has harsh language or "pink parts" in them. I like that I can pick any of their books to read and not be made to feel uncomfortable. I'd much rather be called a prude than a bigot.

[Charles Darnay]

Okay, so I'm sorry that suddenly my life is very full at the moment. As much as I want to respond to everyone, I simply don't have time right now and probably won't be on much at all the next couple of weeks.

So I'm going to generalize my answers.

Some of you began discussing the differences on what many Christians believe about the Bible. I just wanted to reiterate, many other Christians have an adjenda. If they come across something that they personally disagree with or thing they have a "better" idea on, they'll either ignore the passage completely or find some other way to "explain" it so that they can continue on with what they believe. I don't do this. If I don't understand something in the Bible, I study it deeper. I'll even look up the meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words if I have to. I don't change the Bible to fit me. I try to change me to fit the Bible.

That said, I'm going to give you my bottom line.

I believe that (maybe it will be easier if I say it this way) homosexual acts are a sin. I believe that a heterosexual couple living together as married but are not (which is a lifestyle), is a sin. I believe it is a sin to get drunk (which can be a lifestyle). BUT I WILL NOT TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE. Therefore, I appreciate NOT being called a bigot because I won't write gay fiction and I choose to publish with a company that doesn't accept gay fiction. I actually chose them because they don't publish anything that has harsh language or "pink parts" in them. I like that I can pick any of their books to read and not be made to feel uncomfortable. I'd much rather be called a prude than a bigot.

In one sense I can respect you for not forcing your beliefs on other people, or as you put it: "not tell[ing] anyone how to live their life." But there is a mixed message in your post here.

I don't think people should be condemned for not supporting something. I do not understand why people are so offended by the notion of gay marriage: I know all the biblical logic and it still baffles my mind. But if you don't agree with something you don't agree with something - beliefs are not in of themselves logical. So you don't agree with homosexuality - fine.

But not agreeing with something and calling it a sin are two separate things. Saying you don't agree with something can at least acknowledge that the opposing view has some legitimacy, but you will not partake in it. Labeling it a "sin" is judging it from a superior position and condemning someone as inferior - and this is where, as Juniper alluded to, the line of promoting hate comes from. I don't know if you are very vocal about the matter or not, that is irrelevant. If you want to stay completely out of the matter at least accept that you are just following your own belief and don't judge those who don't share your belief. Part of the right-wing conservative hate stems from the fact that people don't realize the impact of their words, how even just the word sin carries with it a connotation that they may not mean.

The pastor who said that homosexuality is a sin and all "them gays" should be put in a fenced area until they die off - in this case, he meant that homosexuality is a sin. He put himself as a superior power talking about inferior beings. You may not wish to kill every homosexual in the world (I would guess you probably don't) but by recognizing it is "sin" you are participating in the same dogma.

Let it be known that I am not attacking you or your beliefs and I stated, I can respect your disagreement with homosexuality (even if I don't understand it) - I'm just questioning your language.

[Shea]

Let it be known that I am not attacking you or your beliefs and I stated, I can respect your disagreement with homosexuality (even if I don't understand it) - I'm just questioning your language.

No, I get what your saying. I guess the issue here is, I'm not vocal about it. But the minute I say that I believe it's a sin, I'm suddenly lumped in with bigots, which is why I posted here in the first place. I actually have to disagree with your explaination of "sin". You're describing what a right-wing preacher would do. Jesus ate and kept company with "tax-collectors and sinners". He didn't behave in the way you're suggesting. My bi-sexual friend knows what I believe. But she also knows I'm not going to shove my beliefs down her throat because I feel she needs to be a "better person." She IS a good person and we have fun on our "Mommy-day-outs." If she one day comes to agree with me biblically, then that's great. If not, that's her choice, and she won't be any less my friend for it.