Is Homosexuality a sin?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:34:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Is Homosexuality a sin?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Being a gay is so gay.
#1
100% sure, it's a sin
 
#2
The deed is, but the attraction is not
 
#3
It might be a sin, but I'm not sure
 
#4
It's not a sin, Paul and Moses were refereing to something else
 
#5
100% sure, it's not a sin
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 99

Author Topic: Is Homosexuality a sin?  (Read 7940 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2014, 01:39:26 PM »
« edited: October 19, 2014, 01:41:39 PM by bedstuy »

Look, I want to first say that I don't think that Christianity should dictate a nation's laws, so I am not forcing gays to accept these 2 options.  Rather, I am simply saying that the religion of Christianity, as religions are based on their respective Holy Text, which in this case is the Bible, would give these 2 options.  This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people.  As I recall you being critical of prohibitions against premarital sex, you likely would call those lives "ruined" as well for straight people who don't want to marry.  And to this idea that scripture just becomes outdated, Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love me, obey my commandments."  2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 

While Christians can and do quibble about specific verses, the broader message seen in much of the Bible is that Christians should not march in tune with the world.  There are many, many Bible verses about this, and this would thus apply to people in modern day. 

If you don't agree with Christianity, that's fine.  I'm just making the case for why homosexual sex is a sin from a Bible-believing Christian point of view.

It's just foolish to make religion so dependent on these details and rules.  Religion ought to be this more individual spiritual thing where you don't make these sweeping specific claims.  These texts were all just written by people. And in all likelihood, the Christian God doesn't actually exist.  It's certainly a meme or a concept that exists, and people can care about their feelings towards this concept, but it's not useful to make these sweeping statements about what "God thinks."  God is just an idea that was created by human beings.  The point of religion rather is just to practice it and hopefully it makes you happy and teaches you about being a good person.
Logged
Maistre
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2014, 01:50:01 PM »

This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people. 

So it goes like this;

HETEROSEXUAL? Sex bad. Unless married.
HOMOSEXUAL? All sex bad. All intimacy bad. All romance bad.

What a cruel god this is. To f-ck up and f-ck with ten percent of his creation. And then to give free rein to the remaining ninety percent to f-ck with them as well.

Your going to have to take your complaints up with the big man upstairs.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 19, 2014, 01:57:41 PM »

This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people. 

So it goes like this;

HETEROSEXUAL? Sex bad. Unless married.
HOMOSEXUAL? All sex bad. All intimacy bad. All romance bad.

What a cruel god this is. To f-ck up and f-ck with ten percent of his creation. And then to give free rein to the remaining ninety percent to f-ck with them as well.

Your going to have to take your complaints up with the big man upstairs.

Big man? He's no better than a boy pulling legs off of spiders.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2014, 07:36:15 PM »

2nd point, Anal sex and oral sex -if they are wrong in any way- are equally 'wrong'
if done heterosexually. I'm not saying that they are wrong, but only what's the difference
between homo vs hetero?

First off, there are multiple passages in Song of Songs that are descriptive of oral sex, and otherwise the Bible is essentially silent on the topic, so I don't think any serious Bible scholar could argue that oral sex per se is bad.

Now to play devil's advocate on the anal sex part of your point, let me point out that while the Bible can be interpreted as having the viewpoint that the purpose of sex is procreation, it doesn't state that every single act of sex may only be undertaken for that purpose alone.  As the Song of Songs makes quite clear, the Bible acknowledges that sex is a way of strengthening personal bonds, so it isn't deed but the intent. Hence if one were to hold the view that homosexual love be a sin, it is not because of the physical act itself but because one has taken the intimacy intended to be shared with someone of the opposite sex as a means of strengthening the bonds of procreative matrimony and used it for illicit purposes.  In that viewpoint, adultery and fornication are just as bad as homosexual relations, but consensual anal sex within a heterosexual marriage would not be considered a sin.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2014, 09:03:29 PM »

Why would god create, at all times and in every culture a group of people; whether it's 5% or 10% who mostly have an exclusive attraction to the same sex, not just in a sexual fashion, but in terms of bonding, intimacy, love, commitment and being generally completed as a person by being with that other person...and then condemn it. What a stupid god. And what an even more stupid person you are for accepting that.

this is another form of the theodicy question, which is, in my mind, the central theological* question.



*central to all religions that proclaim the omnibenevolent/omnipotent God, not only Christianity
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2014, 03:16:18 PM »

Voters for option one are more likely to be trolls, but oh well.
 

If you follow the logic that A) The Bible is innerant and B) The Bible teaches that
all homosexuals go to hell, then, in my opinion, people who believe it to be a sin
are not bigots or trolls, just people who follow what they were raised on and
don't really think about or doubt it. I don't believe any of these things, I am just
saying one should try to see things from another's point of view. I am certainly not a religious conservative, but a religious conservative could argue that calling them a bigot or troll is as unfair as it is to hate someone simply because they are homosexual, if it's ok to "play" the devil's advocate. On the other hand, if it is ok to call religious conservatives bigots, how is that any different than what Dawkins or Harris say about all Theists?
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2014, 03:19:09 PM »

If the religious conservatives are right, on the other hand, why has no person ever been able to change their orientation? People talk about being "ex gay" but they don't actually change their orientation, they only change their behaviour.

If God is Love, would God put any human being in such a stressful conundrum?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 27, 2014, 04:10:46 PM »

If God is Love, would God put any human being in such a stressful conundrum?

Read the Book of Job.

More generally, each of us is placed in stressful conundrums during our life, many of which are beyond our ability to resolve.  Yet since God is Love, why does he allow that to happen?  The argument against a loving God ever allowing us to be placed into unpleasant circumstances depends upon the false presumption that God's omnipotence means that he can do the impossible.  It's a simple exercise in basic to logic to construct a set of statements in which it is logically consistent for any two of the statements to be true, yet impossible to make all three statements be true.  Not even God can do the impossible.

If one is going to argue the impossibility of sexual orientation being a sin, one needs a better argument than mere logic.  Logic is silent on this topic.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 27, 2014, 05:35:03 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2014, 05:40:31 PM by afleitch »

If one is going to argue the impossibility of sexual orientation being a sin, one needs a better argument than mere logic.  Logic is silent on this topic.

No it isn't. Logical is very vocal here. You have a god that allows evolution to run rampant in which a small but continuing minority of animals attempt to copulate with the same sex. The greater the degree of bonding in an animal group, the greater the instance of same sex bonding all the way up the chain to us. And that steady percentage persists generation after generation; a group of individuals who are completed emotionally, regardless of sexually, by bonding with the same sex. And after millions of years and countless human generations later God releases his one and only 'Greatest Hits' and says that it's wrong. It is punishable by death. This is later downgraded by several hundred years of Christian handwringing to 'okay we won't kill you because Jesus, but it's not right'. Later, for some, there's a tacit admission that sexuality is inherent and unchangable but don't have sex. In fact don't even form a couple, because that has sexual connotations. Live alone, love Jesus and stay celibate. Celibacy is masked as some sort of 'calling', when actually it's a demand. There is no choice in the matter; there is not one single way in which coupling or sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex is acceptable. Even though that's how you were born. Even if it means being alone, all the way till you die alone in your bed having never experienced love, in Jesus' loving embrace.

Logically, that's f-cked up. Logically, that's not love. Because he gives heterosexuals a choice; it could be a very constrained anti-sex choice but he gives them one. You can feel, and love and be loved and be intimate but only if you marry. To homosexuals he offers no choice, at all. Period. Despite there sexuality being 'gifted' by him.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 27, 2014, 10:49:25 PM »

So?  Your argument is based upon the premise that a loving God must give each human an equal shot at happiness and self-fulfillment.  It's a wonderfully egalitarian premise, but frankly it is illogical to assume as you have that it must be a premise that God uses to maximize either human happiness or universal good.

If one is going to mount a valid argument against the legitimacy of Bible-based homophobia, it isn't going to be made by attacking the logical results that one gets if one starts with premise that the entire Bible is both inerrantly received and the infallible word of God.  Nor do the homophobic results of Leviticus by themselves create any sort of logical contradictions.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 29, 2014, 12:21:12 AM »

This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people. 

So it goes like this;

HETEROSEXUAL? Sex bad. Unless married.
HOMOSEXUAL? All sex bad. All intimacy bad. All romance bad.

What a cruel god this is. To f-ck up and f-ck with ten percent of his creation. And then to give free rein to the remaining ninety percent to f-ck with them as well.

Your going to have to take your complaints up with the big man upstairs.

If one accepts that God created the Universe, then one must also ascribe to Him  the inability of some people to conform to alleged Biblical prohibitions of homosexuality.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 29, 2014, 08:27:24 AM »

Homosexuality itself, whether you are talking about the attraction or the behavior itself is definitely not a sin. Could it be a sin for some other reason? Probably. Do I think God will punish people because they are gay and have sex with people of the same sex? Not if they were truly created that way by God.  If God wanted them to be celibate, he could have made them attracted to no one as there are people who are truly attracted to no one.

I think that most likely Homosexuality isn't a separate sin from Original Sin. Which means that in the frame of this question, its definitely not a sin in itself. 
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 15, 2014, 05:56:11 PM »

I'm pretty sure it's sin (normal, Bible-believing Christian.)  But that being said, I have nothing against homosexuals as people.  God loves them as much as everyone else, and Jesus died for their salvation, just as He did for everyone else.  Showing homosexuals love and respect as people does not mean we accept or condone their behavior and lifestyle choices.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2014, 06:01:02 PM »

I'm pretty sure it's sin (normal, Bible-believing Christian.)  But that being said, I have nothing against homosexuals as people.  God loves them as much as everyone else, and Jesus died for their salvation, just as He did for everyone else.  Showing homosexuals love and respect as people does not mean we accept or condone their behavior and lifestyle choices.

Is a strong forty year exclusive relationship between two men or two women based on selfless mutual love, support and care, continuing through sickness and through nursing and tending to another in death, a sinful act?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2014, 12:13:55 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQf5jL3a4iU
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: December 20, 2014, 03:49:35 PM »

I'm pretty sure it's sin (normal, Bible-believing Christian.)  But that being said, I have nothing against homosexuals as people.  God loves them as much as everyone else, and Jesus died for their salvation, just as He did for everyone else.  Showing homosexuals love and respect as people does not mean we accept or condone their behavior and lifestyle choices.

Is a strong forty year exclusive relationship between two men or two women based on selfless mutual love, support and care, continuing through sickness and through nursing and tending to another in death, a sinful act?

As long as they don't have sex.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 14 queries.