Is homosexuality a sin?

  • Thread starter mouseman
  • Start date
  • #26
greeneagle3000
nothing is real

i don't believe in sins [zz)] so there is no such thing. we should have the right to do whatever we want. so, what's wrong with that?
 
  • #27
191
0
Nope...homosexuality is not a sin...it's a cos...
 
  • #28
BoulderHead
Originally posted by kyleb
i don't see why you have to bring allegedly supernaturally inspired figurative translations of ancient Egyptian burial rights into this. :wink:
That's similar to the feeling had the first time I saw the reverse side of an American One-Dollar bill...
 
  • #29
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by FZ+
IMHO, what all this boils down to is people utilising the ambiguity of the scriptures to justify their own prejudices.
You know I never like to contradict you FZ+... but I don't really think the scriptures on this topic are 'vague'... I mean,
Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an obimination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:27
"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
say it pretty outwardly.
this isn't an interpretation problem on our behalf, but a problem with whoever wrote it. (IMHO)

And as for Entropia and Russ: Why is it a genetic flaw? Because in Biology, we have sex for one purpose: Reproduction. Reproduction between two males is impossible. It is therefore a genetic flaw. It creates an unfit creature as such (no offence meant to anyone, just trying to talk in objective Biological terms here ).

And so, yeah, biologically speaking, genetically flawed.

Societally speaking, just another individual.
 
  • #30
65
1
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry I haven't been back. WHY is a man generally attracted to a woman? Its genetic.

Interesting about the identical twins thing - if one twin is gay and another straight, it DOES mean their genes did NOT cause it. The study about the older brother also points to environmental influences. Doesn't that then make it a form of mental illness?
I think you have to be careful when trying to label homosexuality as a defect. This is in no way clear yet if this is the case. As for the mental illness issue - you have to ask, what is the definition of being mentally ill? Not such a clear answer I think.

As far as the bible goes I think selective quoting to reinforce a particular view point can cause some problems. I could probably pick a number of different passages which would not be appropriate for life today, for example:

Lev 15:19
And if a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even
...... on and on till:

Lev 15:29-30
And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.
So apparently all the women in the world have to go to the local church once a month with two turtles or pigeons for sacrifice :)
 
  • #31
kyleb
Originally posted by Another God
And as for Entropia and Russ: Why is it a genetic flaw? Because in Biology, we have sex for one purpose: Reproduction. Reproduction between two males is impossible. It is therefore a genetic flaw. It creates an unfit creature as such (no offence meant to anyone, just trying to talk in objective Biological terms here ).

And so, yeah, biologically speaking, genetically flawed.
i don't see that you can call it a flaw though. it seems quite possible to me that, assuming it is genetic, it might be a perfectly natural and intentional way to deal with overpopulation.
 
  • #32
BoulderHead
...and if it were a flaw..

...perhaps it lies within the Christian parents of the aflicted child?

...Just half teasing..
 
  • #33
238
1
How can one truly claim to know the intentions of God? If we have a god that is worth worshipping, then his intention would always be for our good?
This is one of the most annoying arguments I have come across. One knows the intentions of God through the Bible, and in the Bible it says woman was made as a companion for man, right at the beginning.

Also, as stated in the Bible, God's intentions are not always for us, for example, the Noation deluge. Aside from this, a God that was always doing things for us isn't worth worshipping, a God like that would be comparable to a pet Who would worship their pet??

Now, I'm not debating the validity of the Bible, as I find none in it. I'm simply saying, seeing as how this is a religious part of the forum, that the Bible doesn't speak specifically against homosexuality, but it does give obvious implications...NOW, as for your claiming it is not a genetic flaw, certainly this is not provable either way, as of now; but would you also claim that chemical imbalances are not also genetic flaws? I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that what "turns you on" is concerned with chemicals in your brain, and if a female doesn't turn a male on then how can you say that male doesn't have an imbalance? Therefore a genetic flaw.


---------------------------------------
THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT MY BELIEFS
---------------------------------------
 
  • #34
BoulderHead
I suppose it is good to understand the nature of as many things as possible, and this would include homosexuality. I question whether it is good to condemn them, especially if all the facts are not in and/or the condemnation comes from a source of questionable merit…
 
  • #35
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
Originally posted by Another God
And as for Entropia and Russ: Why is it a genetic flaw? Because in Biology, we have sex for one purpose: Reproduction. Reproduction between two males is impossible. It is therefore a genetic flaw. It creates an unfit creature as such (no offence meant to anyone, just trying to talk in objective Biological terms here ).

And so, yeah, biologically speaking, genetically flawed.
Well except that if its not caused by your genes, then its not a genetic flaw. A person can become sterile as a result of a disease or injury for example. Their sterility is not a genetic flaw. The evidence others presented here seems to indicate the same is true about homosexuality - mental illness and/or mental injury (abuse).

It may or may not be genetic, but if it is genetic, its a genetic flaw. See the difference?

Either way, the question as to the root cause is far from answered.
 
  • #36
FZ+
1,561
3
this isn't an interpretation problem on our behalf, but a problem with whoever wrote it. (IMHO)
Well... maybe. But then again, the size of the scriptures gives the possibility for multiple viewpoints on the same idea. Someone with a different slant might instead highlight....

1 Samuel:
18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him tat day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

20:30: Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?

[Saul being a Very Bad Man]

Ok, tenuous as heck... But some ambiguity.

This is one of the most annoying arguments I have come across. One knows the intentions of God through the Bible, and in the Bible it says woman was made as a companion for man, right at the beginning.
Ah but Man asked for Woman from God. God did not consider it neccessary that women exist. So the intention that relations be with man only was absent. The intention of God, supposedly, was always for man's best. But identifying homosexuality as a sin and a flaw is certainly not for man's best, is it not? If we judge that by eating of the tree, man has the knowledge of good and evil, then we can be justified in thinking that man can decide for his own best. Primary assumption number 1: God is good. This is the basis of morality from God. And this is the pinion of saying that you cannot assume you knowledge of God's intentions as absolute. It is a matter of faith for most christians that religion cannot be out of fear. As a result, we must agree with God's laws, not follow them blindly.

Now, I'm not debating the validity of the Bible, as I find none in it. I'm simply saying, seeing as how this is a religious part of the forum, that the Bible doesn't speak specifically against homosexuality, but it does give obvious implications...
But we should not act on these implications, or take them parrot fashion.
(Oh, and contrary to appearances, I am an agnostic/atheist. I am making the case for religious tolerance from a theistic PoV)

NOW, as for your claiming it is not a genetic flaw, certainly this is not provable either way, as of now; but would you also claim that chemical imbalances are not also genetic flaws? I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that what "turns you on" is concerned with chemicals in your brain, and if a female doesn't turn a male on then how can you say that male doesn't have an imbalance? Therefore a genetic flaw.
No... Flaw implies a perfect state of being. But neither is perfect. So yes, I can claim that chemical imbalances are not flaws. They are differences. If they harm others, or the person himself, then they are problems. But variation between one person and another is a natural aspect of evolution. Homosexuality certainly isn't a new thing. And it does not harm society. Indeed, homosexuality has advantages in certain fields. So, if someone is hot tempered, is that a flaw? If someone has a good sense of humor, is that a flaw? Differences are typical. Flaws mostly are human inventions.

And as for Entropia and Russ: Why is it a genetic flaw? Because in Biology, we have sex for one purpose: Reproduction. Reproduction between two males is impossible. It is therefore a genetic flaw. It creates an unfit creature as such (no offence meant to anyone, just trying to talk in objective Biological terms here ).
Besides the overpopulation point, sexual attraction isn't just for reproduction. It's also for social co-existence. And reproducing rapidly isn't always an advantage in evolution - why then do we typically have 2 or so children, while say, frogs have thousands? Perhaps homosexuality makes the human population more sustainable? :wink:
And with modern technology, such problems are being less accentuated. Surrogate parents etc make the impossibility increasingly less so...
 
  • #37
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by FZ+
Well... maybe. But then again, the size of the scriptures gives the possibility for multiple viewpoints on the same idea. Someone with a different slant might instead highlight....

1 Samuel:
18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him tat day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

20:30: Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?

[Saul being a Very Bad Man]

Ok, tenuous as heck... But some ambiguity.

Yeah...i think the 'Don't be Homosexual' quotes are quite straight forward, and the 'Be naked with men, and love them' are quite ambiguous... The 'laying with men as you would a woman' definately refers to sex, and it distinctly claims it to be an abomination. The first quote you have up there is the better of the two for your point, and it only shows 'love' between men, and absolute trust. No homosexuality at all...

Besides the overpopulation point, sexual attraction isn't just for reproduction. It's also for social co-existence. And reproducing rapidly isn't always an advantage in evolution - why then do we typically have 2 or so children, while say, frogs have thousands? Perhaps homosexuality makes the human population more sustainable? :wink:
And with modern technology, such problems are being less accentuated. Surrogate parents etc make the impossibility increasingly less so...
Why do we have 2 instead of thousands? Well, because society has reached a point where we only want to have that many....genetically we would probably still be have 6 or 7, but thats another point. Anyway, the silly thing is, we only have 5 or 6 children or whatever, because our genetics have made us into a creature which has this many children for entirely practical reasons. Homosexuality is not genetically created as a means of population control. That is simply not a realistic option. It can only be taken as a joke, so if u mean it as such 'Lol' and now just let me know that you all understand that homosexuality is not a population control mechanism.

Why isn't it? Because Evolution works through the fact that there are always more mouths to feed than there are resources. Evolution needs excessive populations. It is through excessive population that the best are selected. The weak starve, die, and fall by the wayside of evolutionary progression.

Homosexuality is not a 'Selected for' state in evolution. It is either a social abberation, or it is a genetic flaw, or most likely, a dance of the two.
 
  • #38
238
1
Ah but Man asked for Woman from God. God did not consider it neccessary that women exist. So the intention that relations be with man only was absent. The intention of God, supposedly, was always for man's best.
How could man ask for something he didn't know, it would be MORE likely that he would ask for another man because he DID know man, himself.

Nor am I familiar with where you are getting this.

But, as was quoted before, Leviticus makes it very clear what the Biblical God thinks of homosexuality, I am not debating anything but the Biblical God's point of view either.

Religion is foolish anyways (to me), there are arguments both ways, as is demonstrated in this forum, no one can know what God knows/wants (as FZ+ stated), but the arguing continues. People need to give up believing in something that isn't real, or at least constant and clear, and rely on themselves, then there would be no moral [religious] issues and we would all be better off I think religion is a cop-out for stupidity, a reason for living, and a way to relieve oneself of any stress, guilt, etc. Of course this is all my opinion:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #39
73
0
Ah but Man asked for Woman from God. God did not consider it neccessary that women exist. So the intention that relations be with man only was absent.
"And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.'" - Genesis 2:18

Doesn't this suggest that God did consider it necessary that women exist?
 
  • #40
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
Originally posted by Another God
Homosexuality is not a 'Selected for' state in evolution. It is either a social abberation, or it is a genetic flaw, or most likely, a dance of the two.
Sorry, I know I'm nitpicking here, but people keep forgetting the 3rd possibility: illness.
No... Flaw implies a perfect state of being. But neither is perfect. So yes, I can claim that chemical imbalances are not flaws. They are differences. If they harm others, or the person himself, then they are problems. But variation between one person and another is a natural aspect of evolution. Homosexuality certainly isn't a new thing. And it does not harm society. Indeed, homosexuality has advantages in certain fields. So, if someone is hot tempered, is that a flaw? If someone has a good sense of humor, is that a flaw? Differences are typical. Flaws mostly are human inventions.
And FZ+, as usual I seem to be splitting hairs with you, but a flaw doesn't have to be a deviation from PERFECTION, simply a deviation from NORMAL (destructive). Example: "normal" men produce a certain amount of sperm. A man who produces significatnly less sperm is "flawed" in that he can't procreate as well. Obviously normal is subjective and often a range, nevertheless you can measure deviaitons from it through statistical analysis (unless of course its binary like sex, then its easy). I wouldn't call a chemical imbalance a flaw either, but for a different reason: flaw implies you were born with it. A chemical imbalance can occur through illness or injury.
 
  • #41
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, I know I'm nitpicking here, but people keep forgetting the 3rd possibility: illness.
Illness? What is an illness? It is something which comes from a genetic 'flaw' :wink:, or a bacterial infection, or a viral infection, or parasitic infection, or damage to the body/mind.

I doubt homosexuality is caused by bacteria or viruses, I do know that parsites do exist which cause their hosts to act strangely, but if homosexuality was caused by some such parasite, i am sure it would have been discovered by now. Damage to the body seems highly unlikely, and damage to the mind sounds like 'abusive parents' 'societal pressure' etc sort of stuff.

So, I think we can forget illness, since illness just takes us back to genetics and social influences. (IMO)
 
  • #42
65
1
Besides ..... as far as I am aware a large number of other species exhibit homosexual behaviour.
 
  • #43
138
1
http://www.pinktink3.250x.com/essays/homo.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by Entropia
http://www.pinktink3.250x.com/essays/homo.htm [Broken]
OMG! Entropia! Brilliant. That essay made me realise something which you already know has been on my mind recently.

I have been trying to get my head around relationships, and what they are, and how we should actually interact with one another etc and I've been having a real hard time figuring it all out exactly.

One of my 'idealisations' was that I should be able to interact with 'people' equally, finding those who I happen to appreciate more than others, and spending more time with them. Relationships in the normal sense are not required, and I wil be able to 'love' heaps of people instead of just one...and stuff like that (Don't really want to go into details here)

Anyway, after coming up with this idealisation, I subsequently had to admit to myself that this simply isn't true, because I naturally find myself more 'appreciative' of females, than I do of males. That is, put me in a situation where I am meeting two new people, one male and one female, and even if the male is slightly more impressive at everything than the female, I will still prefer to be around the female than I will the male.

In other words, I had to admit to myself: I am a biological creature, and I have been programmed to appreciate females more than males.

This essay reminded me of this realisation, and has since made me realise that if I was genuinley bisexual, my idealisation of the situation would be closer to reality. If we were all completely bisexual, then relationships in society would be much more genuine. There would be less aggression between 'competitors' because every competitor is just as likely a mate with each other as they are competitors for another mate...

In the more recent stages of evolution, the high status 'Society' has over individualness, means yes, it is quite possible that Homosexuality has been an evolutionary biproduct in the pursuit for a perfectly stable society...

This should not be discussed here though, and instead taken up in the Other Sciences Forum.

...


Yeah...homsexuality isn't a sin... because I said... Ner...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
181
1
Well where obviously overlooking the obvious.God decided who was going to be gay and who was going to be straight.God just made the genetical information on the DNA the way he intended it to be when the person was born.so if God made people gay,do you still think being gay is a sin?
 
  • #46
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,297
Originally posted by Another God
So, I think we can forget illness, since illness just takes us back to genetics and social influences. (IMO)
Social influences and other environmental influences cause illness. Since many mental illnesses are entirely a reseult of envrionmental influences, I don't think we can discard it that easily. And don't forget injury.
Well where obviously overlooking the obvious.God decided who was going to be gay and who was going to be straight.God just made the genetical information on the DNA the way he intended it to be when the person was born.so if God made people gay,do you still think being gay is a sin?
Well there is nothing to discuss there, since it depends entirely on your particular religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well there is nothing to discuss there, since it depends entirely on your particular religious beliefs.
LOL, and thus is the entire 'God and Religion' forum religated to nothingness....
 
  • #48
238
1
Originally posted by Another God
This essay reminded me of this realisation, and has since made me realise that if I was genuinley bisexual, my idealisation of the situation would be closer to reality. If we were all completely bisexual, then relationships in society would be much more genuine. There would be less aggression between 'competitors' because every competitor is just as likely a mate with each other as they are competitors for another mate...
I agree with everything before this but for a bisexual relationship to be genuine, as you describe, wouldn't that relationship have to be capabable of reproduction? As the point of evolution is not to love and have a relationship, but to reproduce?

Originally posted by russ_watters
Social influences and other environmental influences cause illness. Since many mental illnesses are entirely a reseult of envrionmental influences, I don't think we can discard it that easily. And don't forget injury.
You aren't suggesting these people be in a mental insitute, being treated for a mental disorder? It appears you are. On this argument I don't see how social influence, other then parenting, could influence your sexual preference. How can society tell you which gender you prefer?

Originally posted by chosenone
Well where obviously overlooking the obvious.God decided who was going to be gay and who was going to be straight.God just made the genetical information on the DNA the way he intended it to be when the person was born.so if God made people gay,do you still think being gay is a sin?
This is the very nature of this thread:
a) Is homosexualty a sin?
If it was then certainly God would not create us with a handicap to sin (although it appears he DID, but not in the homosexual category).

and

b) How do people 'become' homosexual?
...Pending clarification
 
  • #49
Religions, like societies, only have a problem with homosexual MEN.
All religious books make references to men bt I've never read the same for women. No, it's true.

Of course when pushed, clerics will mutter about it. But the fact remains they don't really mind if women wish to be....... intimate
 
  • #50
Freemagic
I agree with much of Entropia's post (although I have heard other definitions of sin .... probably because it's one of those words wide open to multi-level-interpretations).
I most certainly lean towards the non-sin-ness of homosexuality ( *leaning towards* --> never holding or owning a fixed opinion for longer than the now-moment ... and I don't type fast enough to allow for change within this paragraph :wink:)

I do have one much more "burning" question (and it's personal for me):
What about bi-sexuality ??
Wouldn't the concept of *genetic flaw* (which I have no objection to ... Russ' exclusion-theory sits fine with me) raise another sub-question ? (Like ... is it a smaller flaw .. or just half-a-flaw ... or even just a passing fancy ??)

I remember Boy George once saying: "There is no such thing as homosexuality. There is only Sexuality. All else is in the eye of the beholder".

(Or maybe: "homosexuality is as homosexuality does" ? ... free after Forrest Gump)

My question is serious, though ....
I have been bi-sexually oriented ALL my earth-life ... and have been experiencing intimate relationships with both genders (sometimes simultaniously) .....

Am I moving away from topic with this question ??

Love and sunshine,
Freemagic
 

Related Threads on Is homosexuality a sin?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
115
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top