ozoneocean
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that all religions should be forced to have gay members of clergy as well as women.
Just for the sake of argument!

All religions exist within our communities, and those communities are governed and certain things are just basic rights within those communities, you can't exclude people from positions based on things like sexuality or gender in almost everything else, the priesthoods should be no different:- either that or bugger off and go practice your religion in another country.
That goes for protestants, Catholics, evangelicals, morons, Jehovahs, fundamentalists (of any religion), Orthodox (Greek, Russian and anything else), Jews, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Janists, Muslims, whatever!
I don't care what clothing you wear- priest collar, purple robes, pointy hats, veils , hijabs, orange sarongs, giant turbans, yamakas, shtreimels, whatever- go nude for all I care, as long as you are equal opportunity!

No more tax free status either :)

Well said, I like the last bit especially.

I pretty much agree with the fact that regardless of sexual preference you should have the same rights as anyone else. In military don't ask don't tell is ridiculous. No, you should not have tosay whether you are or aren't gay, but you should have the choice to be open about it if you want to.

Even more so is the rights that come with a constitutional marriage. Religions should be allowed to keep there traditions, but it should not interfere with a persons right to the same protection and amenities the government gives a married couple as opposed to a civil union.

The worst thing I've been seeing in the news lately has been with protests that gay teachers will make people gay. I have tosay this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There have only been a few of these, but enough to where sonme politicians have been trying to use the issue as a political tool.

I also agree with the tax free status being revoked. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state dag nabbit. I wonder how much the US would actually be in debt if churches were actually taxed.

While I assume ozoneocean's post was meant to be more humorous, there is a darker side to that sentiment. Africa is seeing a few disturbing examples of what happens when modern religious prejudice is spread to countries which might be more receptive to letting missionaries influence their government.

Someone
That goes for protestants, Catholics, evangelicals, morons, Jehovahs, fundamentalists (of any religion), Orthodox (Greek, Russian and anything else), Jews, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Janists, Muslims, whatever!
I don't care what clothing you wear- priest collar, purple robes, pointy hats, veils , hijabs, orange sarongs, giant turbans, yamakas, shtreimels, whatever- go nude for all I care, as long as you are equal opportunity!

was that intentional?

No.

Though I saw it afterwards and decided not to change it because it looked pretty funny. :)

@Isukun- It wasn't really meant to be humorous, just gently provoking, since most posts in this thread are "Hey, I'm all for gay rights, but religion is a sacred cow. Hands off!".
I'm aware of the situation in Africa, particularly in Uganda thanks to the Vanguard documentary series on Current.com . That's an example of the situation in reverse- where religion is driving government, the old fashioned way.

sadly that situation isn't only limited to gays. there's actually been cases where children were abused or neclighted because they were accused of witchcraft by christian priests over there. no joke.

They're not just teaching people to hate gays, but also others who they fear to be different than what Christianity accepts. And since the bible also tells us to stone adultery, witches, and so on forth.... well, you get the picture here.

Sometimes I feel like there needs to be an prime directive for religion itself... like it shall not try influence foreign cultures in any way or form at all until they're ready for it or actually WANT the influence.

Aurora Moon
sadly that situation isn't only limited to gays. there's actually been cases where children were abused or neclighted because they were accused of witchcraft by christian priests over there. no joke.

They're not just teaching people to hate gays, but also others who they fear to be different than what Christianity accepts. And since the bible also tells us to stone adultery, witches, and so on forth.... well, you get the picture here.

Sometimes I feel like there needs to be an prime directive for religion itself... like it shall not try influence foreign cultures in any way or form at all until they're ready for it or actually WANT the influence.

A big part of that is actually the influence of the indigenous religions and cultural practices. What they have there is a melding of culture. If you looked into their pre-Christian days you'd still find instances of such things for different reasons. It's bad, but it's a different part of the world with different ways of looking at things.
"Witchcraft" means something very different in various places in Africa from what it does here, it's also regarded as something far more real and current.

But all that is really for another thread I think?

MAJOR EDIT

so this IS embarrassing. I just skimmed the top posts and jumped Incorrectly to the assumption that this was the religion thread. in my inadequate defense, it seems there's been a melding.

Anyway, the following has been edited to address, if only slightly, the gay rights premise

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

OK. I'll bite. No, I don't think religions should be forced to change their membership rules to comply with societal mores. If there's been a consensus in this thread , it's this: folks should not force their belief systems on others. That's a two-way street.

This has had a great discourse because it includes opinions from those affiliated with organized religion, those who doubt the existence of a deity, etc. (not sure what Kyopul represents). But what's interesting is that religion has somewhat served as the base of the debate, and debates usually are based on logic, but religious belief is rarely logical.

It's faith. An opinion was stated that you can't know that a god exists because you can't prove it. In scientific terms, that's correct. But this presupposes that science is the answer to all questions. Faith healing, when it occurs in those rare cases, defies science. Science cannot explain a cure, a restoration of body tissues, etc., but the results are real.

Much exists in this world that is not logical and is not scientific and is not fair, and it will not be improved by forcing it through a funnel to create a homogeneous crap ready to spread throughout the globe.


I totally believe in the separation of church and state -first- so that a non-logical group cannot dictate law. But do we have such uber beings in government that they should mold religion? Can government serve every individual fairly when some individuals are born needier than others, or more gifted, or lazier, or luckier? If it can, then why isn't it doing so now? Would government, once invited through the doorway, really stop at only dictating the rules of who can be the religious leaders? I only ask because government has shown such great constraint historically *if it doesn't come thru, input sarcastic tone here*

Religion is not fair, it is not logical, but it is optional. (government isn't) If you don't like the religious rules, then don't play with those bad boys and girls. Go ahead and start your own -- how else do we explain the hundreds of different Protestant denominations? It's not as if religions don't change over time, or don't die out altogether. Anyone meet an anabaptist lately? Or a Shaker?

Forcing religion to adopt an outsider's belief system is not the alternative I could ever endorse. It is just as wrong as when a religion forces outsiders to believe their tenets.

mlai
Let me ask something... Where does it specifically say in The Bible that homossexuality is bad/wrong? I mean so bad/wrong that it damns you, and is against God's will. I guess it does say, but because I'm not Christian I don't know where/what exactly.

Also, does The Bible put any other "sexually immoral" acts in the same category? Like... "having sex before marriage makes you just as bad as a homosexual." Or... "having multiple partners (i.e. sleeping around) is just as immoral as homosexuality." Anything like that? Or is homosexuality one of the most grievous sins of perverse lust?

The Bible (and modern revelation) equate all sexual sins as big No-No's. It is not a sin to have hetero- or homo- inclinations or attractions. The sin comes in using your procreative powers outside of their intended place and purpose. So adultery, fornication, masturbation, and homosexual ACTS are all serious sexual sins. So sleeping around is just as bad. They are all sins and should be avoided. This does not mean that the people who commit these sins should be hated. All people sin, as Christ said, he who is without sin may cast the first stone. So we should love all people.

I know Ozone was likely be facetious with his comment of forcing all religions to accept gay clergy and perform gay marriages, however, it is not entirely off topic. There is a great fear in the religious community that there could be a push in that direction. Why? Because they are prejudiced? Not entirely. There are people who DO want that to happen. Not all are happy to let religions do as they will. I've seen and heard folks touting that kind of thing, very vehemently in some cases.

-serve openly in the armed forces?
I have no problem with gays SERVING in the military. I do think that studies should be done to preserve morale (because it is a delicate thing). If it is determined not to have a detrimental psychological effect on the soldiers, then I say: Absolutely! I have never been a soldier, but I know there is a special connection among soldiers put in constant danger together. So that should be decided by smarter folks than I.
Though, I kinda lean in the direction of them having separate quarters and/or shower areas. Not out of a desire to further separate them artificially. Men and women do not shower together. Not because they have different bits (or not entirely). I dunno. Maybe that wouldn't work, maybe it would. Like I said, it is an interesting conundrum.

-Marry their partner?
Again, we get into that fuzzy area of church rights. I absolutely believe that religions should NOT be forced to perform these.

-Adopt children? -Have children by a surrogate?
I do not think that same sex couples (or single people of either sex) should be allowed to adopt. This is not due to the lack of the ability of ANYONE to love a child, provide for them, raise them, etc. I think that a child needs the direct influence of both a man AND a woman in a stable relationship to perfectly raise a child. Their are societal roles (traditional and modern) and biological roles. I believe that adoptive children need as close to a perfect situation as possible.

What about divorcees, widows, etc, you ask? Obviously not an ideal situation, but they make due. They should not have their children taken from them, but neither should they seek to add new children to such an arrangement.

Again, single women and same sex couples while perfectly capable of love are not the best arrangement for child development.

Again, this is not to say a same-sex couple or a single person cannot love, raise, etc. However, I think that it better for the emotional, social, etc development to have a mother and a father. A same sex couple is not going to "turn" the child gay, but neither is it the perfect situation in which t rear a child.

Often at this point people bring up the numerous examples of failed marriages and broken homes. These are bad. They should not happen. I am not, however, comparing these to singles or same-sex couples. Bad examples of hetero marriages do not mean that a same-sex couple is better than a hetero couple, only that they are better than a broken home. Again, love is possible no matter what your sexual preference. I still hold that we should shoot for the best possible when starting a child out on the path for the rest of their life. The formative years are important. Therefore, the hetero couple seems to have the advantage.

-become priests?

That is up to the religion. If a religion considers homosexual acts to be a sin, they most likely will not be allowing it. This is not something against gays in particular. Priests aren't allowed to have sex outside of marriage either. So someone who sleeps around won't be allowed to be a priest no matter whether they sleep with a member of the same gender or different.

It's true that that the bible considers casually sleeping around to be a bad thing. In fact one of the biggest reasons why they seem to be against homosexuality is because it's sex outside of marriage, and not because of two men or two women sleeping together.
although, some homophobic priests and Christians may see it that way.


so.... if two gay men were allowed to get married, and or stay in an committed relationship for 50 years (which has happened, btw).... then Homosexuality wouldn't be such a huge sin ANYMORE.

The only sinners then would be the homosexuals who were acting exactly the same way as the Heterosexuals who were sleeping around with a lot of people. of course there are some people who claim that homosexuals are just naturally ten times more promiscuous than heterosexuals, but that is just that: a stereotype that isn't even correct half the time.

that's like saying Bisexuals are never faithful and cheat a lot. in reality there's a lot of bisexuals who are extremely faithful to their husbands and wives. Hell, I know a lot of bisexual women, and they've been happily married to the same men for over 20 years without cheating. Most of them don't even "swing" or consent to threesomes with their willing husbands, like some of the stereotypes say about bisexual wives.

This is a part of the reason why I think some people are against gay marriage... because they don't want homosexuals in general to be accepted, even if they're been fully committed to each other for 40+ years, and pretty much faithfully follows the bible in every way but one.
They want EVERY homosexual to be seen as sinners, period. it wouldn't matter if an homosexual hasn't been promiscuous and got married to his male love before having sex together, just as the bible dictates that every person do in order to not be sinners.

Aurora Moon
They want EVERY homosexual to be seen as sinners, period. it wouldn't matter if an homosexual hasn't been promiscuous and got married to his male love before having sex together, just as the bible dictates that every person do in order to not be sinners.

The problem with that is that God has stated "that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Basically, a big thing people don't understand is that religion is not just about this life here. One of the purposes of life is to create families that will last forever. These relationships are meant to extend beyond the grave. It is not only that promiscuity is a sin, but all sexual deviations from the proscribed rule.

Homosexual feelings, urges, or temptations are not sins. It is a sin to commit a homosexual act, whether or not the persons are married according to the law of a nation.

Now I believe in agency and cannot nor will not force any man/woman to believe that what I say is true, nor live by my standard. Nor should they try and change what God has said on the matter. There are many homosexuals that become enraged when we call homosexual acts sins. Thinking that God is singling them out. This is not true. God loves each one of them, however he has told us not to engage in such acts, along with other sexual sins (those listed in my previous post). A sin is a sin and God wants all of us to stop sinning of our own accord. Many people have a favorite vice/ sin. Many try to rationalize it away, saying "it doesn't hurt anyone". They are free to do as they wish, but to get offended when someone says it is a sin and to try to get people to remove that from the list of sins is not right.

I consider many things a sin.
Homosexual acts, masturbation, promiscuity, adultery, drinking alcohol, smoking, and a host of other things. Whether or not these things are natural is immaterial. All of God's commandments regulate how we live our lives, controlling our body and urges in almost all aspects.

I also believe that everyone has the freedom to choose how to live their lives. To sin or not to sin. That is not to say I agree with their actions, nor condone them, or support them in any way shape or form.

It is not homophobic to think homosexual acts are a sin. It IS homophobic to treat gays as less than human. To hate, or despise them. Just as it would be a terrible sin to treat any of God's children in a manner contrary to Christ's teaching.

True homophobia (IE. hate, unkindness, etc.) is a sin. We are to love all no matter what they are dealing with personally.

Whatever one's religious beliefs, imo, they should/must remain or become separate from the body of governing laws that guarantee individual rights. As far as how these rights are implemented, some commonsense should be used in how, and how much, and when and where innovations and advances are introduced and encouraged. That may not be "fair", but a gradual revolution may leave less loss at then end of the day than a radically global one.

However, when the area of rights crosses into changing a religion's belief structure, then the government's influence should stop simply because membership in any specific religion, for the most part (as Oz has pointed out, some countries have national religions), is optional.

Last, citing the Bible as God's Word when this collection has contradictions in abundance is probably an insult to God. The Bible was not written by God. MAYBE the ten commandments were, if one is comfortable with a literal interpretation of the scriptures, but the rest of it was written by human beings. By human, human beings. It's not a perfect work.

I've heard that same argument about creating families with lineages,etc.

but if homosexuality is against god's rules on that basis of creating children and having a family...

then it would also be against god for a barren heterosexual couple to get married, much less have sex.

After all, they can't have children naturally, so what's the point of letting infertile couples marry and love each other, right??

And then there's the fact that homosexual people still manage to have children despite the fact that they're gay.

And if it is against god's will, then how do you account for the fact that in nature there's a lot of gay animals too?

Homosexuality isn't just some sin that's committed with freewill... it's obviously a part of nature if you got two male bulls rutting each other, two male penguins taking each other as mates for life and rearing adopted baby chicks together, etc.

Now, if God was so against Homosexuality why the hell would he create a world that was so full of such "sinuous" animals?

AND, you gonna keep in mind that it has been brought up before that priests has deliberately mistranslated and twisted the original bible texts around to their own liking! in the ORIGINAL BIBLE, god himself has never said to the humans in a direct manner that being Gay was evil etc. In fact he has been awfully quiet on this subject... and whatever verses written by the apostles in the bible was usually taken out of context by modern people today.

It is for this reason that Unitarian Christians do not believe that homosexual acts is an sin... they believe that particular misconception was doctored by impure religious leaders who had an homophobic adengda, etc.

Aurora Moon
AND, you gonna keep in mind that it has been brought up before that priests has deliberately mistranslated and twisted the original bible texts around to their own liking! in the ORIGINAL BIBLE, god himself has never said to the humans in a direct manner that being Gay was evil etc. In fact he has been awfully quiet on this subject... and whatever verses written by the apostles in the bible was usually taken out of context by modern people today.

It is for this reason that Unitarian Christians do not believe that homosexual acts is an sin... they believe that particular misconception was doctored by impure religious leaders who had an homophobic adengda, etc.

That's where the problem lies - there really isn't a clear line to draw as to whether it's considered "sinful" or not. It's all up to interpretation. Some groups choose to take the scriptures at face value and logically conclude that nowhere does it explicitly deny sanction of a male and a male or a female and a female spending their lives together.

Yet, still other groups will take a passage and make the claim that there's more to it. The common argument I've heard from clergy is that scriptures from the past were filled with metaphors so as to be scaled into today's diction by the help of appointed figureheads (I'm sure it's a bit of an exaggeration, since they want their position to seem important).

I've seen this same form of interpretation used by some of my science friends to link scripture to what we're actually discovering in the physical world today. If I ask why it doesn't specifically point out key events, they always come back with the fact that our advanced knowledge couldn't have possibly been understood at such an early stage of human knowledge. Because of that, scripture had been composed mostly of metaphors that could be applied still later to an ever-evolving society.

I feel like some of these religious groups have a mindset similar to that. You can throw passages at them all day, but since there is no vivid evidence of doubt, they will constantly deny it.

That's kind of the problem with the bible (and religion) in general. Wait, what thread was this again?

It's interesting that someone brought up gay penguins. Yunno, if homosexuality is a genetic condition, then that has some fascinating implications because in order to find a common ancestor between birds and humans you have to go back 340 million years. So homosexuality is older than the dinosaurs. I'm just waiting for an archaeologist to dig up a pair of T-Rex size assless leather pants!

El Cid
It's interesting that someone brought up gay penguins. Yunno, if homosexuality is a genetic condition, then that has some fascinating implications because in order to find a common ancestor between birds and humans you have to go back 340 million years. So homosexuality is older than the dinosaurs. I'm just waiting for an archaeologist to dig up a pair of T-Rex size assless leather pants!

Because gender and sexuality is binary, it really doesn't take much to mix things up. There IS a genetic component to sexuality, but a "gay" gene is unlikely... You don't need one. All that has to happen is an alteration in the genes that determine sexuality, coupled with the chemical and other environmental factors to necessary to make that change.
That being the case, homosexuality is possible in all creatures (great and small, haha), from humans to fruit-flies, to blue whales, to ants, and even plants! :)

Such is my understanding.
So, while a traceable genetic roadmap is unnecessary for this, it is very likely that there were homosexual T-Rexs.

Aurora Moon
I've heard that same argument about creating families with lineages,etc.

but if homosexuality is against god's rules on that basis of creating children and having a family...

then it would also be against god for a barren heterosexual couple to get married, much less have sex.

After all, they can't have children naturally, so what's the point of letting infertile couples marry and love each other, right??

Like I said before, this life is not just about our earthly existence. Nor is it all about loving another person. There is no doubt that tender feelings can exist. This is about a rule given by God to his human children to help them learn to grow and become more like him. Not give into desires and emotions but learn to control our bodies, no matter who we are attracted to. Not to act upon our hormones alone.

Aurora Moon
Homosexuality isn't just some sin that's committed with freewill... it's obviously a part of nature if you got two male bulls rutting each other, two male penguins taking each other as mates for life and rearing adopted baby chicks together, etc.

All sins are committed with freewill. You are confusing homosexuality (ie. the urge) with homosexual sex (ie. the act). The urge is not a sin. Only the act. We have free will to avoid the act. Two bulls rutting together are not bound by the same laws that we are. We are held to a higher standard. He still allows us to choose how to react to our individual stimuli, but our reactions are still committed with freewill. You may say you don't like the commandment. That is your choice. But any person wishing to join themselves to God's church must forsake all actions which are contrary to His teachings. For my church that includes a LOT of things (of which homosexual ACTS are just one of MANY). All of these sins are things we committ with our freewill. Whether it is drinking alcohol or sleeping with someone the Lord has told us not to (a person of the same gender, or someone who is married to someone else, or whatever).

Aurora Moon
Now, if God was so against Homosexuality why the hell would he create a world that was so full of such "sinuous" animals?

When God created the world it was perfect. At the fall it fell from perfection. That is one explanation. The other is that humans are God's children and as such are held to a higher standard than the beasts of the field.

Aurora Moon
AND, you gonna keep in mind that it has been brought up before that priests has deliberately mistranslated and twisted the original bible texts around to their own liking! in the ORIGINAL BIBLE...

First of all. There is no such thing as the "ORIGINAL BIBLE". The Bible is merely a collection of smaller books bound in one. Each book was written at a different point in history, detailing the lives of different people at different times. Second of all, I agree, there HAVE been many mistranslations, ommitions and additions to the text over the long period of the middle ages. It is a very valuable book, however, it does have issues. Which is why we cannot come close to God by way of the Bible alone. It contains the instructions for (a) bygone age(s). Still valid, but not geared specifically towards us in these times. This is why current, modern-day revelation is a must in deciding what God's will is for His children today. Without that we are stuck with the varied interpretations on a 2000+ year old book.

God does communicate to his children today. The bolded quote in my previous response is part of the revelation He has given us. God's commandments are a way of life. Not all of them have to do with how we treat eachother. Many are concerned with how people enter this world, and how people exit this world (IE promiscuity or murder).

All of this is part of why it is a sin. And I will reiterate there is NOTHING wrong with the mantra of "Love the sinner, hate the sin". The mantra has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. And everything to do with treating ALL of God's children with love and respect. We are ALL sinners in one way or another. God despises ALL sin, whether it be homosexual acts OR lying, OR failing to show gratitude. We are all guilty of something and the mantra is there to remind us not to feel superior to someone else because we perceive them to be a sinner. Someone who does that in the name of righteousness doesn't havea leg to stand on.

ozoneocean
Because gender and sexuality is binary, it really doesn't take much to mix things up. There IS a genetic component to sexuality, but a "gay" gene is unlikely... You don't need one. All that has to happen is an alteration in the genes that determine sexuality, coupled with the chemical and other environmental factors to necessary to make that change.
That being the case, homosexuality is possible in all creatures (great and small, haha), from humans to fruit-flies, to blue whales, to ants, and even plants! :)

Such is my understanding.
So, while a traceable genetic roadmap is unnecessary for this, it is very likely that there were homosexual T-Rexs.

Yeah I know, I was just making an elaborate joke which (as usual) bombed miserably! Personally I don't think there is any gene for being gay, at least not in the same sense as there's a gene for having brown eyes. It's probably just a trait or combination of traits more akin to what makes some people predisposed to liking vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream. And sometimes predisposition doesn't even matter. Obviously, everybody in prison wasn't born a chocolate lover; they're just eating what's on the menu! :)

Again, we get into that fuzzy area of church rights. I absolutely believe that religions should NOT be forced to perform these.

Actually, you don't. That argument is almost exclusively used by the people who are against gay marriage for religious reasons. No proponents of gay marriage (except for maybe ozoneocean) would ever suggest that religious institutions should be forced to marry people who fall outside their particular faith.

This is not due to the lack of the ability of ANYONE to love a child, provide for them, raise them, etc. I think that a child needs the direct influence of both a man AND a woman in a stable relationship to perfectly raise a child. Their are societal roles (traditional and modern) and biological roles. I believe that adoptive children need as close to a perfect situation as possible.

Once again, the problem with this argument is the alternative. There are more children who need to be adopted than there are adults willing to adopt. Is it better for a child to have NO parents as opposed to dedicated gay or single parents?

Obviously not an ideal situation, but they make due.

That kind of describes life in general. It's very rare (if it's even possible) for someone to be brought up in an ideal situation. Would you suggest castration for those with low IQs, the poor, or others less capable of offering the ideal homestead for their children? What makes a middle class gay couple living in the suburbs worse candidates for childbirth than a lower class straight couple living in the inner city surrounded by drug dealers and gangs?

The problem with that is that God has stated...

Gordon B. Hinckley was never God.

There are many homosexuals that become enraged when we call homosexual acts sins. Thinking that God is singling them out.

Actually, it's not God they feel is singling them out, it's the people who judge them in his name.

They are free to do as they wish, but to get offended when someone says it is a sin and to try to get people to remove that from the list of sins is not right.

First off, there is no direct statement within the Bible that outlaws homosexual activity. People over time have come to infer it from certain passages taken out of context (and before you jump to Leviticus, go back a few posts and read my previous post about biblical passages referring to homosexuality), but there is no direct statement claiming it is a sin. It is also hypocritical to say that people should be free to choose their own path and then also claim the government should restrict them to your chosen path. The LDS church has been known to do just that, look at the fiasco surrounding Prop 8 in California.

Not give into desires and emotions but learn to control our bodies, no matter who we are attracted to.

Which is just contradictory. On the one hand, homosexuality is bad because it goes against our nature, but on the other hand God wants us to deny our nature and go against our inclinations to follow an arbitrary set of rules.

There is no such thing as the "ORIGINAL BIBLE".

Sure there is. Each book was written at a specific time, for a specific people, and in a specific language, most of which is still available, but is almost never refrerenced for modern "interpretations." Well, not unless you're Jewish.

@Lound_G

Isukun said it all for me, really.

I'll add this though...

you mention that we have to become more like God. Uh, I don't know about you but last time I looked we couldn't actually become an actual deity or become something close to that. We are only mortals....

and if we try to force ourselves towards some impossible goal this will only cause us to fall hard.

Just look at those priests in the catholic church. The bible said NOTHING about priests needing to be unmarried, single and celibate.

Yet, Catholicism arbitrarily decided that Priests needed to fit those guidelines in order to become a man of god.

As an result, the catholic church has one of the worst histories of sexual abuse that came to light. You had Priests who were raping women and children of both genders.

The other branches of churches that allows priests to marry, however.... they have an significantly lower count of sexual abuse going on. Granted, there are still sex offenders dressed in priest clothing out there who preys on women and children alike in those churches, but the low number is still rather astounding compared to that of the catholic church, wouldn't you say?

You know what this tells us? instead of forcing everyone to reach for impossible ideals while we're still alive... just simply have us stick to the basics alone:
1)Be neighborly and nice to other human beings.
2)Don't murder, steal, etc.
3)Don't be promiscuous or have casual sex.
4)Most importantly.... don't assume that anybody who does not follow the rules of your own religion is an sinner or whatever. You're playing at being God by thinking that those people will go to hell, etc. By denying them their rights, you are playing God.
Only God can judge those people, not you. So leave them alone, let them have their marriages and such.

Someone
3)Don't be promiscuous or have casual sex.

Why not?

If people are honest ,willing and careful what is the problem?

Kind of like people being gay, their lives let them live it. It is only when their lifestyle affects others you should have a concern, hence my slight reservation about adopting but those doubts have been mostly erased since I raised them earlier in this thread.

I agree 100% with Genejoke. If anything, promiscuity can simply have negative side-effects. Quite unlike killing, stealing, raping. But why you'd include "promiscuity and causal sex" in your list is completely beyond me.

Just chalk it up to my personal experiences. I've seen what how much such behavior affected the people around me.

Even if people were honest and open about it, and were careful about it.... complications still arose anyway no matter what they did. There was Jealousy once people started getting attached to each other after sex, which leads to super clingy and insanely possessive people. Despite the fact that they actually had an agreement to be only Fuck buddies or be in an open relationship.

Jealousy and the feel to be insanely possessive of people leads to fighting. AND that fighting leads to violence.

Not to mention that even if some people were using protection correctly, they still caught some STDs, simply because the condom broke or whatever.

it just creates completely unhealthy relationships all around. which is why I don't think it's a good idea to start with.

plus, it's actually in the bible as opposed to the topic of homosexuality, which does not exist in the bible at all unlike what our Christian friend believes. so there's that.

Aurora Moon
4)Most importantly.... don't assume that anybody who does not follow the rules of your own religion is an sinner or whatever. You're playing at being God by thinking that those people will go to hell, etc. By denying them their rights, you are playing God.
Only God can judge those people, not you. So leave them alone, let them have their marriages and such.

I'm sorry, when did I judge anyone?

If anything I've been quite sympathetic. No where did I say gays are going to hell. Never have I cast judgment on anyone. To call something a sin is not to condemn the sinner to eternal damnation. Only God can do that. He see into the hearts of each of his children. I have constantly compared homosexual acts to any number of other sins which are prevalent the world over. Sin is sin. We are all guilty of something.



(I find this obsession with the exact passage in the Bible quite off-putting. People keep thinking that God spoke once and never spoke again. That makes no sense. It is almost as bad as saying "if it isn't in the Bible, God prohibits it" I've seen the translations for many of these passages. Just because it is not in the Bible, does not mean it isn't God's will. )

@isukun:
I have nowhere argued about the governments role in all of this. Nor will I.

All of my comments are on the religious end of things. Saying it is a sin, without persecuting the sinners. I hold that homosexual acts are a sin. It is immutable. However, I hold that ALL men are sinners in one way or another. So we should ALL get over it and just love one another.

I take umbrage when people try rationalize their actions and claim that things aren't sins. Aurora claims that I am acting God, but trying to call a sin good is actually doing that.

(Also, GBH, was a prophet of God, whether or not you believe that, therefore under the belief of the church he speaks for God. )



I've noticed you lot seem to be attributing old, trite anti-gay arguments to mine. Most of the arguments isukun and aurora have made had almost nothing to do with mine. Merely assuming that since I call homosexual acts sins, then I must hate gays, and be a terrible terrible person. I've made no reference to Biblical passages. Nor should I have to. I never said homosexuality was against our nature, so I never contradicted myself. It would be best to actually read the posts of people who disagree with you rather than assign to them the arguments of others.

You CAN call gay sex a sin and not be homophobic.
I call promiscuity a sin, I do not hate/fear "swingers"
I call drinking a sin, I do not hate/fear people who drink alcohol.
I call looking at porn a sin, I do not hate/fear people who look at porn.

I am trying to show that the believers who shun the gays are wrong. We should not shun, hate, persecute ANYONE. The Christian who does this is in fact sinning. They are wrong. They need to learn to love. They need to take the beam from their own eye before helping take the mote from gays.

I wish for BOTH sides to get over themselves.

(And FYI, I HAVE known several people who think (and actively support the idea) that all churches should be FORCED to perform gay marriages.)

Someone
Jealousy and the feel to be insanely possessive of people leads to fighting. AND that fighting leads to violence.

that stuff happens anyway regardless of people sleeping around. I used to put it about a lot, I don't regret anything. What I do regret was when in my mid to late teens when I had the same outlook you seem to, I missed out on a lot of opportunities, not just for a quick lay but potentially for more. Yes even those playing the field may find something more comes from a one night stand or some such. I'm not saying you should go and sleep around but I don't see it as a bad thing. People make mistakes and get hurt, shit happens, we just have to learn to deal with these things. People have all manner of unhealthy relationships regardless of promiscuity, actually I would go as far to say that less promiscuous people are probably more clingy and insecure than those that play the field.

Also whether it is in the bible is irrelevant to me, you know bot being a christian and all that.

The problem with calling things a sin is that many people think of a in the terms I have put in bold text. Therefore they take it to mean that you think their life and actions are utterly wrong, shameful or offensive.

sin (sn)
n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
intr.v. sinned, sin·ning, sins
1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation.

that directory definition is exactly why so many people take offense to people calling it a sin.

By calling it a sin, you're basically still casting judgment upon those people even if you claim you aren't. After all, the definition clearly says a Sin is something that is super horrible, wrongful, etc.

How would you feel if somebody out there decided that you loving your wife and being married to her was a sin? That it was completely and utterly wrong in the eyes of their own religion?

That's why I'm of the opinion that Love can never be wrong, much less a sin.
Two men or two women loving each other and wanting to get married is therefore not a sin.

And before anybody brings up beast-sexuality, child molestation, etc.... I gonna say those things are non-consental... and anything that is Non-consental cannot be real love.

GeneJoke@ Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that promiscuity thing. From what I've seen, people who aren't promiscuous aren't as jealous, as possessive,etc. If anything else they're far more secure in their own relationships.

People who's slept around, on the other hand, thinks that if they did it then that means that anybody who they entered into an exclusive relationship with will do the same exact thing.
It's pretty much the same mentality as Cheaters who cheated on their husbands/wives. They think that their spouses already cheated or will cheat on them back even if they have no proof that their spouses are the type who would actually do it.
Then big surprise there, it turns out that their Spouses were the innocent ones while The cheaters were just being paranoid bastards who thought that because they were the type who would do that, that their husbands or wives would.

let's just agree to disagree, okay?

Someone
And before anybody brings up beast-sexuality, child molestation, etc.... I gonna say those things are non-consental... and anything that is Non-consental cannot be real love.

spot on.




Happy to agree to disagree, so much is down to the individual.

To be clear though, by sleeping around I did not mean cheating that is something else entirely.

Having numerous partners and sex before marriage etc... all fine by me. Cheating... not so much.

Loud_G
stuff boiling down to:

"calling something a sin does not entail judging the person committing it."

Well, that's an extraordinary use of the word sin, for sure.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of calling everyone a sinner, either. And defending the use of the word sin in connection with gays by saying that everybody else is a sinner too doesn't work. Because apart from my personal aversion to the use of the terms "sin" and "sinner", it still means that the mere fact of being gay entails being a sinner. Which IMHO is ridiculous.