What do religions or you say about homosexuality?

[exothen]

From now on, how about anyone who "quotes" from the Bible post book, chapter, and verse or don't "quote" at all. It gets absurd when people can say they "heard" that this or that was in the Bible.

runlola,

quote:Homosexuals can & do love each other. We are talking about consenting adults. What I am referring to has nothing to do with molestation & bestiality. Gays are capable of love without destruction. Some people do not know what love is & confuse it with violation.

But you clearly said "love is never wrong." Are you now saying in some instances that it is wrong and in others it isn't? Does mere consent between adults make it right?

quote:But wouldn't you be afraid if people went out of control & suddenly gays were everywhere

No, why should I be? Are you projecting your fear of homosexuals onto me?

 

quote:If a wife disobeys her husband, strike her—something like that. I can't believe no one has ever heard this before?

Perhaps this will jog your memory:

Ephesians 5:25-30, "25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her....28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church."

quote:If you believe gays to be wrong & against nature, does that mean you hate them as well? How far does it go? Is it OK to beat them too?

No, I don't hate then and no it is most definitely not okay to geat them up; don't be silly. The Bible says to love everyone, just hate the sin. Jesus came for the sick, not those who are well.


Mystic Cloud,

quote:They also say in the old testament that it is right to own slaves if they are from another country.

Please provide a chapter and verse. I am not saying you are wrong, but just for the benefit of all so we can see exactly what it says and study it.

quote:I do not want any answer based from the bible, I just want to know why, and don't give me that crap that it is against nature, because it really is not, just check the behavior of some species and you will notice this.

Basically, you don't want an answer. You have cut off both my moral and philosophical arugments. That some animal species engage in homosexual behavior doesn't mean that it is natural behavior. These are animals, at most with basic reasoning and no moral judgment.

Perhaps you would like me to argue that evolution doesn't provide a sufficient reason for homosexual behavior since it does not, and cannot, result in propagation of the species. Where did it come from and why does it exist? Perhaps that it is among animals proves that homosexuality is just for self-gratification.

Well, I suppose that was just another angle of the argument from nature. That some species engage in homosexual behavior does nothing to my initial argument anyway. Perhaps you should read it again.


Moonburn33,

quote:happy is he who dasheth his little one's heads against the stones- psalms
(loosely quoted)

Yeah, that was a little loose. []

Psalm 137:9, "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock."

One of the most important rules of biblical interpretation is to take verses in their contexts. In this case, the Psalmist is speaking of the captivity of the Israelites in Babylon:

137:1, "By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion."
137:8, "O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us."

We see that the Psalmist, an Israelite, is looking toward Babylon's destruction for taking the Israelites into captivity. War in those days was exceptionally brutal; everyone was killed, even women and children.

2 Kings 8:12, "12 Hazael said, 'Why does my lord weep?' Then he answered, 'Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel: their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash in pieces, and their women with child you will rip up.'"

Here we see the prophet Elisha foretelling Israel's destruction by another country, including children being dashed "in pieces." A brutal fact of war, yes; a command to dash children on the ground, no.

[exothen]

I also want to address the argument used by runlola and James S.

quote:Now my question is how do you believe the bible when there are so many cleaned up versions, which one is right?
.....
One thing that interests me is when people staunchly use the bible to pass judgement on others, which one are the using? I mean, how many different versions are there, and how many different ways has the bible been translated to suite those that did the translating?
"Well ours is based on the original texts!"
Oh, yeah? Well show me the "original" texts you used then!
Is it the original texts that went into the Good News Bible, the NIV, the King James, the Watchtower bible (now that's an interesting one - the translations seem to change every time someone new comes into the head of the JW organisation), or any other of the 50 different translations?

How can anyone judge someone else based on a copy of The True Word Of God when there are so many different versions of The True Word Of God out there.

The fact is, the vast majority of Bible translations agree with each other. Some are "dynamic equivalence," or thought-for-thought (NIV), and some are "formal equivalence," or "word-for-word" (can't translate any language into another word-for-word since it wouldn't make sense; they get as close as they can, keeping it comprehensible - NRSV, NASB). Then there is a whole range in between. Also, some are written in older English (KJV) and some in very current English, using current idioms and slang (NLT, The Message).

Archaeology has also constantly been providing more Greek manuscripts of the NT, some newer, some older, more variants of one reading, more of another, etc. Yet, there still isn't a significant contradiction or error.

This argument really is not an argument at all, but just a lack of understanding of the reason for the many Bible translations, for which I fault neither runlola or James. I'm sure many professing fundies wouldn't know either.

Having said that, I will say something about the Watchtower's translation, the New World Translation (NWT), used by the JWs. It is a very poor translation, ignoring much Greek scholarship, and is known to have verses twisted (from their Greek meaning) to fit particular doctrines. This is just one of the many reasons they are not considered Christians, but a cult or Christian heretics.

[exothen]

runlola,

quote:well, I did find this:

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

Exodus 21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as
a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the
slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.




do you belive in that?

Do I believe homosexuality is detestable to God? Yes. Should they die for their behavior? No. God will deal with them justly in due time. The use of punishment for such things died with Christ on the cross; the declaration of certain things as sin, did not.

Do I believe in slavery? No. Do I believe the Bible condones salvery? No. Did the Bible record the fact that people were held as slaves and considered property? Yes.

You have to remember that these laws were for a people that God had called to be his own; a people that were essentially wandering pagans. Read just how much God would prove himself, but they would sin, often turning to previous pagan practices or adopting new ones. God would then punish them, they would repent, God would restore them, but then the cycle would continue.

God is trying to purify his people to be who he wants them to be. These laws are meant to help keep them in line. Since this was a nation, God dealt with them as a nation. God knew that how quickly sin would spread among the people if it went unpunished; sin is a disease. He thus dealt with sin swiftly and forcefully to stop the spread of the disease.

Were some of these laws harsh? Absolutely. Was it for a better purpose? Yes. Do the punishments apply to today? No. Does the essence of those laws apply to today? Yes.

[kakkarot]

exothen, please use the edit button instead of replying to a thread three times in a row []

~kakkarot

[need]

Looking for validation in the "natural world" in animals for answers to whether homosexuality is right or wrong, consider this, what we take to be natural, may infact be unnatural, isn't it supposed , that we are living in a fallen realm. Ancient creation myths and most religions all speak of a mythical paradise or heaven where we came from, but they say we are not in that place anymore. Our natural world may not be all that wonderful but it is the thing that we know that we can take example from not knowing anything better.

[James S]

quote:Having said that, I will say something about the Watchtower's translation, the New World Translation (NWT), used by the JWs. It is a very poor translation, ignoring much Greek scholarship, and is known to have verses twisted (from their Greek meaning) to fit particular doctrines. This is just one of the many reasons they are not considered Christians, but a cult or Christian heretics.

Thank you Exothen, this is what I've been waiting for someone to say.

What would happen I wonder, if I were to put you in a room of JW's and let you explain this to them?

See, from their point of view, from the way they interpret the bible, they are right, and it is you who do not see things correctly.

This was my point behind mentioning how many different translations there are. Many are consistent, just using different dialect or rhetoric, but some are radically different in their translation.

But they are all versions of the christian bible.

I mean, geez, if christians can't agree with other christians about something, why shoud we listen to what they say when they speak against other people? It all smacks of very narrow, closed little mindsets.


Brynbstn,
Thankyou thankyou THANKYOU!!!
At LAST someone asking one of the really IMPORTANT questions here:
"What are the karmic effects?"

So far we've heard a multitude of mostly christian people going on and on about "sins of the flesh".
Come on guys! You're supposed to be following a SPIRITUAL path. Why are you sou bound down by what's happening with the PHYSICAL!

Brynbstn has now just asked what is probably the one real question you should be asking. What is the ramifications of homosexuality on YOUR IMMORTAL SPIRIT?

What will affect you karma, is not what you do in the flesh, it is what you do in your heart. If you show love for another person, if you show compassion, tolerance, understanding, acceptance, you are doing what is right as far as karma is concerned. Being at peace with who you are is what is really important, as this is necessary if you are to achieve the balance between you physical self and your spirit self. Berating, judging, condemning others based on a percieved set of "moral" rules is NOT good for your karma, and NOT good for your spiritual growth. Such negativity only distances you further from your spirit self, as you have become too rooted in the concerns of the physical world.

What of the astral? The astral deals purely with spirit, not flesh. Sex in the astral is between two spirits. It is far more intense a pleasure as it is not restricted in any way by what the physical body is capable of.

Thank you for your post Bryan. Your point of view is very refreshing.

Blessings,
James.

[exothen]

kakkarot,

My first post was getting long and I suppose I could have joined the last two together, but I wanted to keep the topics separate. Next time, I'll at least consider editing. []

James S,

quote:Thank you Exothen, this is what I've been waiting for someone to say.

Just doing what I can to keep you happy.[]

quote:What would happen I wonder, if I were to put you in a room of JW's and let you explain this to them?

Oh, they would get upset. I've done it to at least four of them.

quote:See, from their point of view, from the way they interpret the bible, they are right, and it is you who do not see things correctly.

Yeah, but they are wrong.

quote:Many are consistent, just using different dialect or rhetoric, but some are radically different in their translation.

Hows about some examples? Just because they are different, doesn't mean that they aren't saying the same thing. Some might be, there are so many versions one can't possibly keep up with them all. I would be interested if you could post some tidbits.

quote:I mean, geez, if christians can't agree with other christians about something, why shoud we listen to what they say when they speak against other people? It all smacks of very narrow, closed little mindsets.

I agree, but this doesn't necessarily come out of different translations of the Bible. When it comes to Scripture, it very often is the majority view which is correct. There are also those liberal theologians who really are not Christian at all who have been translating things to fit their views as well. They are probably a minority, but they are a very vocal minority who always manage to get in the media because of their sensational views.

The problem is that if all Christians agreed on everything, we'd be accused of being brainwashed and not being able to think for ourselves. We are already accused of that despite the numerous Bible translations and denominations that prove the opposite. This is very similar to other arguments used against Christianity in which the Christian cannot win.

There are many, many reasons why Christians don't agree on everything. It is a very complex issue that goes right back the full "2000" years. But there are also many things that Christians agree upon that makes a Christian a Christian. Many of these things JWs reject.

I'd just like to comment on this...comment:

quote:You're supposed to be following a SPIRITUAL path. Why are you sou bound down by what's happening with the PHYSICAL!

As a Christian, I believe that the physical affects the spiritual. I have no idea if this is your experience or not. But the Bible clearly teaches that what one does, or doesn't do, in the physical world, affects the spiritual world. And of course the spiritual world also affects the physical; the two cannot be separated. The spiritual world is seen as coexisting among us in the physical.

[James S]

LOL at flag!!

Hi Exothen,
"Oh, they would get upset. I've done it to at least four of them."
"Yeah, but they are wrong."
LOL []
Bet you liked putting firecrackers in ants nests as a kid too! [}:)] []

As to radically different bibles, try these ones:

the femenist "gender exclusive" or gender neutral bible"
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html

the cockney bible -
http://www.geocities.com/Axiom43/cockneybible.html

[]

I agree with what you say about the relationship between the physical worlds and the spiritual worlds. My belief is that there needs to be a balance sought between the two, as we are both physical and spirit. My greatest concern with so many of these anti-homosexual arguments is that their reasoning is all so much based in the physical, that they either detract from, or deny the spiritual aspects of homosexuals.

My point here is - who is more likely to be able to attain a more spiritually enlightened, or at least a better balanced physical / spiritual life? The homosexual who is at peace with his sexuality, his identity, and has a positive spiritual outlook, or the preacher who is committed to trying to force people to accept the errors of their ways? Seems to me that the latter is too distracted with scriptural technicalities to be able to embrace the bibles message of love and acceptance.

I'm not saying that the core of christian beliefs are wrong. In fact the core of the christian faith (and I did study the bible as a "christian" for approx 16 years of my adult life) is a wonderful message of hope and love which can allow the spirit to rise above the boundaries of the physical world. What I feel though, what I always felt, even in church, was the dogma, the politics of the church, which showed no compassion or acceptance towards homosexuals, is wrong.

I feel this way particularly because through a friend who at the time was a fellow christian, I knew of a homosexual who committed suicide after the one place left he thought he might find a bit of human compassion and acceptance - the church, rejected him because of who or what he was. The heartless minister of that church was so bound up in the church's dogma that he could not show any of the compassion or acceptance that Jesus showed for all, so that one poor guy felt he had no where left to turn.

I know that sounds a little severe, but it happened, probably about 8 - 9 years ago now. This is why I so dislike people leaning on bits of the bible like Leviticus to tell someone just why it is they are wrong. That doesn't show compassion, it doesn't show love, or any of the things that are signs of spiritual growth, or even a heartfelt belief in the ways of Jesus. We treat homosexuals today the way people treated lepers two thousand years ago. It only shows judgemental intolerance of people who are different. The same kind of things that have caused holy wars for thousands of years.

The way I see it, it's time to stop using things like the bible to justify why someone else is wrong, and show unconditional acceptance of other people, no matter what their sexuality might be. It's the only way we'll achieve anything resembling peace in this world. If you truly believe that following Jesus will correct any sexual "abnormalities", then show people the positives of what a spiritual life such as this can bring them. Don't give them the negatives. If it the will of God that a homosexual be changed, then it will happen. But it won't happen through jugdement and condemnation.

I apologise if anyone thinks I'm attacking them here. Please nobody take what I'm saying personally. I'm not pointing a finger or accusing anyone in specific. I'm accusing a dogma that would turn a book with a message of peace, love, acceptance and hope into a tool for judging and condemning others.

[Nay]

YIKES James! [:O] You didn't edit that flag??  

*runs over and takes the flag down*

Nay

[exothen]

runlola,

quote:When I said, "Love is never wrong" you misinterpreted it as, "Sex is never wrong"

Not at all.

quote:By the way, did it ever cross your mind that arguing whose bible is right might be wrong?

In some cases, such as the one James brings up, yes. When it comes to JWs, no.

quote:Do you think the bible was intended to be used with so much arrogance?

No, the Bible is not intended to be used with arrogance at all, but it is meant to be defended otherwise one ends up with all sorts of abberations, such as JWs.

Jude 3, "I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints?"

Gal 1:6-9, "6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

The JWs and Mormons preach a completely different gospel than that held by Christianity. The JWs have twisted their translation of the Bible to try and fit their erroneous doctrines.

James S,

quote:LOL at flag!!

[?] Confused, but otherwise okay. What is a "flag?"

quote:Bet you liked putting firecrackers in ants nests as a kid too!  

Where I am in Canada, firecrackers were (are?) illegal. I used sticks and stuff.

quote:As to radically different bibles, try these ones:

the femenist "gender exclusive" or gender neutral bible"
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html

the cockney bible -
http://www.geocities.com/Axiom43/cockneybible.html

The can of worms has been officially opened.

James, James, James...did you put firecrackers in ants' nests when you were a kid? [] I'm sure you've seen a lot of stuff on that AV1611 site. I've debated other Christians regarding the position held by that site. That is ultra-fundamentalist stuff. And very wrong. Just take most of what they say with a grain, or block, of salt.

However, yeah, I've heard of the TNIV. These are the debates in Christianity - does one change the literal wording of the texts so that it becomes gender inclusive? Any good student of the Bible can tell when "men" refers to men only or is inclusive of women. Unfortunately, there are some bad Bible teachers out there.

That Cockney translation is interesting. Take note of the Lord's Prayer:

HELLO, Dad, up there in good ol' Heaven,
Your name is well great and holy, and we respect you, Guv.
We hope we can all 'ave a butcher's at Heaven and be there as soon as possible: and we want to make you happy, Guv, and do what you want 'ere on earth, just like what you do in Heaven.
Guv, please give us some Uncle Fred, and enough grub and stuff to keep us going today, and we hope you'll forgive us when we cock things up, just like we're supposed to forgive them who annoy us and do dodgy stuff to us.
There's a lot of dodgy people around, Guv; please don't let us get tempted to do bad things. Help keep us away from all the nasty, evil stuff, and keep that dodgy Satan away from us, 'cos you're much stronger than 'im.
Your the Boss, God, and will be for ever, innit? Cheers, Amen.

Do you see how terrible translations like this are? One loses the whole sense that one is even speaking to God. There is no reverence or awe for God and as such, the real meaning of the prayer is lost. On the other hand, the gospel has been known to be reworded so that others in foreign cultures can understand it.

For example, "he will make our sins as white as snow" is useless to anyone who doesn't know what snow is. This shows the adaptability of the Christian message to any culture in any time, something which I don't think that any other religion can do. Islam, for example, must force it's way of life onto people in order for it's religion to take root and be maintained. Anyway, I digress.

The main thing is, is the essential message and teaching of the Bible being transmitted, or has it been changed? I can't tell from the Cockney version what is being said, but I know the TNIV gets the essential message across.

quote:What I feel though, what I always felt, even in church, was the dogma, the politics of the church, which showed no compassion or acceptance towards homosexuals, is wrong.

Agreed.

quote:The way I see it, it's time to stop using things like the bible to justify why someone else is wrong, and show unconditional acceptance of other people, no matter what their sexuality might be.

Agreed; to a point (see below).

quote:If you truly believe that following Jesus will correct any sexual "abnormalities", then show people the positives of what a spiritual life such as this can bring them. Don't give them the negatives. If it the will of God that a homosexual be changed, then it will happen. But it won't happen through jugdement and condemnation.

I couldn't agree more, very well said. If I have come across as condemning homosexuals, I apologize to all.

I've said it ealier and I'll say it again because it needs to be said. The problem is this: the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, not the homosexual person. As a result, the Church doesn't know how to react. On the one hand, we have to accept the homosexual, it is commanded of us to love all; on the other hand, we cannot accept homosexual practice.

The reason we cannot and do not want to accept such behavior is because it is condemned and therefore separates that person from God. One of the goals of the Church is to bring people into a loving relationship with God and sin (a willing, deliberate, continual life of sin), separates us from God. So when people in the Church see an obvious sin that they feel is keeping someone from God (ultimately God alone judges the heart), they typically condemn it in hopes the person will change and "get right" with God.

However, why some churches won't let homosexuals through its doors all the while allowing the adulterer, idolator, greedy, etc., to have "fulfilling" lives in the pew as they are lead by a power hungry minister at the pulpit, is beyond me. Why some Christians seem to think that shouting hateful remarks at homosexuals or beating them up is okay, is beyond me.

The typcial Church doesn't know what to do with homosexuals when they come through its doors. This is something that is changing, but needs a lot more work.

Do I condemn homosexual behavior? Yes, as much as I condemn wrong behavior in myself. Do I condmen the homosexual? No. I accept them as I accept myself, realizing that I still need to grow.

[James S]

You are indeed a person with a good heart in the right place. [^]
I see that you are definitely more interested in the spirit of the bible than the dogmas of the church. For me, even though I no longer follow the ways of christinity, the words of Jesus to me are still as wise as powerful and as relevant as ever.

When I feel to argue some of these points, I do not argue against christianity - it is a very good and productive spiritual path that truly brings people closer to oneness with God, that which the primary goal of all true spiritual paths. My arguements have always been against the hypocracy, the control and the politics of church dogma.

Yes I'm old enough that I got to stick firecrackers in ants nests when I was a kid.[}:)]

Anyway, since they are illegal now, you keep on using that stick to stir up JW's nests.[]

The flag I LOLed at was the one Runlola posted.

Blessings,
James.

[Hiebreed]

This is for mature people only, please do not make any silly comments. What do you say about loving someone of the same sex? I find it absolotely understandable and ok. I believe you do fall in love with the person and not the gender. U take away the physical body and the soul does not posses much of a physical gender.

[fuji257]

Well, I won't even touch what the Bible "teaches" on this as there are VALID arguments, on BOTH sides.  (If you are thinking WTF!?!? but the bible obviously condemns it!  Then you should do some research.  There ARE valid biblical arguments FOR homosexuality. But I digress)

I am personally disgusted at the thought of sex with another man.  However, I think that if some dude wants to go bump wee wee's or whatever that is his own business.  Now women that are gay; thats just awesome.  I can agree with them that women are sexy, so I share something in common with them.

As for those people who say "It's against nature!" - I don't think so.  If we could just do things against nature as we pleased, I think a lot more people would sprout wings and fly.

And for people who thinks gay animals do not exist, I beg to differ.  I had a queer cat.  I'm dead serious.  He had another male cat he paled around with all the time, and they fornicated quite frequently.  He was indoor/outdoor and with NO shortage of females in the neighborhood, the only activity I witnessed him or his boyfriend doing with them is hissing at them.  You can believe what you want, but I believe what I witnessed, first and foremost.  Animals can be gay.

As far as gay marriage goes, I don't think the government should keep track of marriages to start with.  Give HOUSEHOLDS tax breaks for however many WORKING people live in it and/or how many children live in it.  Once tax breaks for being married is gone, then marriage would become a 100% secular issue and anyone could have whatever religious or non-religious ritual they saw fit.  And they could call it marriage or civil union or whatever the hell they wanted.  Marriage is personal and should not be a government concern.  And for those people who believe that it is against their religion; keep it in your church - it YOUR beliefs/religion, NOT everyone else's.

Lastly, I do not like it when somebody is gay and they have to mention it every five seconds.  OK, your gay - now get over it already.  I don't go around telling everyone my sexual desires every freakin' five seconds!  I'm not trying to be intolerant, its just this is what gays do a lot in my experience, I'm not saying all gays do it - just the ones I'm around.

[You]

Nice bumping up an old post there.

Well... I'm all for homosexuality, I might even try it some time. You find it disgusting, heh, you're a homophobe. Don't try and mask your hatred with 'modern' thinking, it only hides it, to truly be tolerant you must understand it, and you do not.

The bible's pretty much all against it, there are pro-arguments out there?

Marriage tax breaks should all be taken away, I agree. Religious ones too I think, churches shouldn't get tax breaks. Churches shouldn't have to be forced to marry homosexuals if it's against their religion though, that's just ridiculous.

[karnautrahl]

I wonder how many alternative sexual/sensual lifestyles are represented by the people posting on this thread? I'm just curious. Tyciol I can see your points, religion and government in general need to be well seperated by now.
No one can truly judge you harder than you'll judge yourself. So in terms of spirit, karma and sin in general people don't really have the right to do this. Of course in the real world, we have to have judgement of people going on when certain things are committed-murder, theft, etc. But outside of these things religion should stay out of it. Love is love, and whoever/whatever is the truth about our creator, the being is not going to agree with very narrow human dogmas definitions and arguements really are they? Hmm..that said, if that being is also us and everything else maybe it would..
I don't know..
Me, I have a same sex partner and I cannot say that my intuition has a problem with it. Not all relationships are about the sexual basis of it.
Damn too much wine tonight. Maybe I'll write some more for the hell of it tomorrow.

[fuji257]

>>You find it disgusting, heh, you're a homophobe. Don't try and mask your hatred with 'modern' thinking, it only hides it, to truly be tolerant you must understand it, and you do not.<<

Yes I find it disgusting.  It is not hatred, it is preference.  I understand what being gay means and have no problems with it.  If you read my post you'll see that I think gay marriage is OK, and I also believe homosexuality is natural.  Just because I don't want hear about gay peoples sexual escapades does not make me hateful. Please.  I guess one would have to rent gay porn to be tolerant?


>>The bible's pretty much all against it, there are pro-arguments out there?<<

Again if you read my post before you responded to it, I stated that I have found a LOT of really good arguments on why the bible does not actually condemn homosexuality.  Of course anyone interested should do their own research and draw their own conclusions.  I don't use the Bible as my "holy book" or moral guidance anyways, so for me whatever the Bible "says" just doesn't matter (to me).


>>Nice bumping up an old post there. <<


Just bored to death and thought I would read old posts.  Its a relevant topic, still - right?  Are you having a bad day? Your posts are usually intelligent or thought provoking.

[karnautrahl]

Nah finding someone else's sexual acts disgusting or distasteful in a personal way is natural if they differ a lot from your own. Especially if you've had a fairly straightforward experience in your own life.
I couldn't call a heterosexual man who felt gay sex was disgusting a homophobe on that basis alone. If he had problems with gay people in general then yes. But the potential sexual acts between 2 guys? No that's not homophobia.  There are sexual acts and fetishes I find distasteful and worse myself, but they are ultimately harmless and none of my business, but I wouldn't say I had a problem with the participants ever I just don't want to think about or witness the acts.
I don't rent any porn myself, but if I did, you know I'm unlikely to enjoy heterosexual porn.
To me tolerance doesn't have anything to do with being interested in alternative lifestyles sexual acts, but being able to just accept people exactly how they are. fuji257, you sound as tolerant of homosexuals as a straight man is likely to be in general. BTW you have a point on the "political" gay scene, there aren't too many straight men who make such a fuss about being a straight guy as far as I know, But I have the most annoying cousin whos' discovered he's gay. He's decided because he is, he needs to be camp, and push it out for all to see. That grates on me.  Don't see the need for it these days.  I have some unusual interests etc, but I am proud of the differences-of being able to live with those. I don't think it needs "wearing" like a badge 24/7 though.
I missed this discussion as I've joined the board not that long ago, so

[clandestino]

Nice bumping up an old post there

hear hear !

I agree, it is natural to be revolted by things that are so far displaced from one's own experiences.

However, accepting homosexuality as a part of how men & women co-exist, in terms of love (not sex), is a different matter. It shouldn't create any revulsion at all.

Time and time again, I see people who don't accept gay men/women. It soon turns out that those people have never even met, let alone know, anyone who is gay.

The Old testament is quite homophobic... but I'm not sure about the new testament ?

kind regards
Mark

[You]

Probably in a bad mood at the time. I questioned your bible reference in an attempt to ask what these biblical references are. I don't follow it either, but I figure since we're in the Christianity forum it would be a nice thing, especially to throw on homophobic Christians (not you).

I wouldn't say it's homophobic to find it unpreferable or awkward, but 'disgusting'? Yes, watching some gay porn might be a good idea for you Not to say you you have to want it, but you should try and appreciate the erotic qualities in it. You like lesbian sex so it has nothing to do with sexual normalcy. You like heterosexual sex, so it has nothing to do with seeing a man nude and having sex, so why not two men? The only reason not to would be that you'd feel threatened watching it, or feared what other people might think, or didn't want it to 'turn you gay'. Not to say you have to make a habit, but exposing yourself to some media (or attempting to imagine it in detail) could give some interesting new perceptions.

[karnautrahl]

This is about personal choice isn't it however?
Someone who's not willing to expose themselves to depictions of erotic acts of alternative sexualities doesn't need a label to explain their choice. This is emotive enough for them. I'm not a heterophobe because I don't choose to watch straight porn.

Actually since most porn is pretty boring really I don't see much that's mind expanding about it really. To find something disgusting often starts in feelings before reaching the reasoning mind. A man finding gay sex disgusting to watch is not choosing to find it disgusting, it's a product of his life experiences to that point.

Him trying to watch more of it to be less disgusted probably won't help. Him getting to know gay couples etc in a purely social context is by far and away the best possible way I know to reduce any unconscious homophobia.

His feelings for their act would be blunted somewhat to the point of well he'd rather not think hard about it, but it doesn't make him react too much either.
Having an empathy for people in relationships is more mind expanding as is socialising with a nice wide variety of people of all kinds. Something at the moment I'm not doing anything like enough of!

[You]

It's not porn in specific I mean, but exposure to eroticism. Heterosexual eroticism is everywhere, you don't need porn to see it. Comparatively, other than the gay marriage issues on the news and stupid shows like Ellen, you really have to look to find it.

Attending a pride parade might work too, I should do that sometime. I'm ugly, so they won't hit on me, so my straightness is preserved!

[andonitxo]

Well,

From my viewpoint there's nothing against homosexuality in the bible. Except that passage about Sodoma in which, I think, they were punished due to their uncontrollable lust (both het and homo lust, of course). We should take in count that the old testament is a mess of ideas, based on a brutish god avid of sacrifices and blood.

There's no human who can speak about God or about his rules. By definition God is inconceivable, a human mind is unable to even understand him. Thats why theology is but a great lie.

The only way to understand the universe is to experience it and the only philosophy which offers it, free of human stupidity, is yoga. Yoga doesn't speak about God, it just worries about enlightment. What may come after enlightment is something up to us.

If someone has asked to himself why so much sex abstinence in religions will find answers in energy-related schools, taoist yoga or just plain yoga. But that has nothing to do with homosexuality, energy is discharged in both cases.

Anyway, once I read about what happens in a het sex encounter. When orgasm arrives an energy circuit is closed between a man and a woman. This process doesn't happen on a gay encounter, so a gay guy maintains his astral virginity through all his life and he's able to drive energy in differents ways and het can't. Another theory for the sack.

[Joerii]

Allrighty then. I've something to remark on the matter, please excuse me for not being politically correct...

Notice how many American people are against homosexuality and judge gay people, compared to people from other parts of the world ? Why is that ? Because the rest of the world is perverted and your not ?!

I'm not a Christian but i do believe in god. I know that He or It loves us all, no matter what gender we feel attracted to....

It never seems to amaze me how many people are hypocrite like that. ESPECIALLY people that hide behind some ancient store book called the bible ( although it has a lot of good bits )  I know one thing god don't like people that are judging and unconsidered towards other people feelings !

SO THERE ! Have a good night,  this Dutchman is going to sleep. See you in the Astral, boy AND girls heheh ( hint hint )

[fuji257]

Tyciol,

I think you have some small problem with the word "disgusting".  Thats just how I see Man on Man sex.  But I also think eating pumkin pie is disgusting as well.  Really, thats just plain nasty.  You can eat all the pumkin pie you want, and I won't hold it against you.  But I won't touch it.  I will not rent videos of others eating it   .  If I'm eating dinner and someone at the table is eating pumkin pie - - I won't pay attention.  But if they get in my face and chew with their mouth open saying "mnnya mmmhhnya GOOD!" that will like totally tinkle me off.  Though, I do like apple pie.  

You see where I'm coming from?  The video thing really gets me.  I'm not afraid I'll "turn gay" (I don't believe anyone can - your eaither gay or not IMHO).  I'm sure being gay has certain things that are nice (for gays), they certainly have more partners to pick from and thats never a Bad Thing (tm) hell in that respect I wish I were gay.  I'm pretty "in touch" with myself and do not believe my revulsion towards gay sex is deep rooted psychological problem, its just kind of like pumkin pie:  I don't like it.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[You]

I think everyone's a potential homo and heterosexual

You are pretty messed up, I'll never understand you. Pumpkin pie kicks butt.