If homosexuality is not a choice...

[Ree]

Not sure why you interpreted that comment as such, but it was not intended that way.

I didn't take your comment to be sarcastic.

I understand what you were trying to say.

You were simply pointing out that you personally don't believe that it is right that the bible calls homosexuality a sin, as I'm sure many others don't, so it will be very difficult for you, and possibly others, to contribute to a discussion and maintain that stance.

[Peppergirl]

T.



. Not every conversation calls for sarcastic remarks and condescension, and I asked not to see them here.



.

That's a pretty tall order around here, my friend.

That aside, I don't think she was being snarky or condescening, she was merely stating that if the object is to assume homosexuality is a sin, she couldn't contribute, except hypothetically.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Exactly. Really, I thought it was an interesting conversation, and wanted to participate, but then realized I really couldn't. Due to my own beliefs, I have nothing to bring to the table.

I was just sort of backing out of the debate at that point.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

There is a scripture in which Jesus (At least I believe Jesus was the speaker, but I might be wrong) states that a man who is even THINKING about sex with another woman is committing a sin, even if he never acts on said impulses.

In that regard I would think homosexuality would be considered sinful, even if said desires are only in the mind. At least if we are going on a strict interpretation of scripture.

[Mytical]

As somebody who was at one time called "The Little Preacher"..I thought I would add my two cents in here, for what they are worth. While I am no longer a Christian, along with several other religions I've done some studying.

Now before I go with the premise of this thread, I must confess that I believe it is not correct. A being that is supposedly about love, would not care HOW you loved, as long as you loved. While some think religion is not about logic, it just doesn't make logical sense. "Love thy neighbor." "No not THAT way!"...


Anyhow..now to go on the premise that indeed God does care, and that it is a sin. Also that people are born without a choice in the matter...

It would be argued that God does not make sin. The great serpent, the prince of lies, the great deciever is the being who brought sin to humans. He was given power over the earth, and mankind is thus tempted to fall short in many ways.

God is not only about free will, but forgiveness. So even if they do sin, he forgives them...as long as they are sincere. Thinking and doing are just as bad, and we all fall to some sort of temptation or other. So somebody being homosexual will not exclude them from haven, just as somebody wanting a tv bigger then the neighbors won't. Homosexuality, sex before marriage, etc are all about desire. They are equal sins, not one greater then the other.

Even though Homosexuality is a sin, and the sin is lust (one of the seven deadly sins) that does not mean they are not welcome or loved by God. They have a choice. It is about free will. They can give in to the desire, or not. Just like people can give into any desire, or not. Though the question would become a bit more interesting if homosexual marriage was universally accepted.

[Slytovhand]

Jesus never had sex because he wasn't MARRIED

Are you sure????

[protege]

Are you sure????

Of course, we'll never know that. If he did, you can bet that it was never written down, or if it was...removed by whoever did the following translations. Can't have the Messiah going against the Bible (or at least how the whackos twist it), now can we

[LewisLegion]

I know this is an old thread, I just wanted to pipe up with my own take on matters, being both a Christian and a homosexual.

A couple points that were made:

If homosexuality is a sin it is the sin of lust, and is only a sin if acted upon outside the bonds of marriage.

Having the desires is not sinful but acting upon them is.

To that, I must put out this:

Love and affection is necessary to the continuation of life...not just procreation, but individual. It has been proven that babies and children that are in every other way perfectly cared for but prevented from being touched or shown love and affection will die. They just give up and die.

Grown adults who are/feel unloved and prevented from giving or recieving affection eventually do the same. They sink into depressive states, and eventually simply give up on life or actively commit suicide. I have been very close to this sad end myself.

People who are married live longer. They have less stress. They are happier on the whole. It is a natural part of being a human being to pursue and seek out romantic love, partnership, and bonding. I daresay it is vital to health, wellbeing, longevity, and life itself. To love and feel you are loved, to have that helpmate, someone devoted soley to you in their heart as you are devoted solely to them...vital.

Now you have two people. One is heterosexual (an inborn trait), the other homosexual (an inborn trait).

Person one, who is heterosexual, is told to be celibate until they are married but are:

Encouraged to find a partner attractive to them.
Encouraged to date, hold hands, share affectionate gestures in the form of touches, kisses, hugs and simply being together.
Encouraged to marry and then to have children and raise them together as a family.

Now, you have person two. They are told to be celibate.

But you can't show any sort of affection toward a person you are physically attracted to.
You can't hold hands. You can't hug them. You can't kiss them. You can't touch them affectionately.
You can't date. You can't get married. You cannot have or adopt children. You cannot have a family.

You're fine, so long as you're sad and alone for the rest of your life.

I do not see any kind of loving God making these mandates. If it is an inborn genetic trait, then it is as it is meant to be. It cannot be likened to other traits such as a tendancy toward addiction or violence. Why?

Because controlling those traits and not acting upon them does not rob the person of vital, life-sustaining, healthy resources.

Not becoming an alcoholic does not cause depression and suicide. Not acting on violent urges does not lead to a shortened life-span, depression, and misery. No one is ever abandoned to be alone for the rest of their life because of these harmful tendancies they must learn to control.

The nature of sin is that it is harmful. It is harmful to others, or to one's self. Homosexuality is not harmful to self or anyone else. Repressing it, denying it, and attempting to eliminate it IS.

If a homosexual is allowed to get married, then how is a loving act performed between other such married couples suddenly a sin when performed by this married couple?

Is it because children can't be produced? Maybe not through direct homosexual sex no, but homosexuals can and do have children. They can even now have biological children with each other (moving the genetic information from the egg of one lesbian into a sperm casing that has been sterilized of its own genetic information, or doing the same with a sperm to a sterlized egg in the matter of a gay male partnership).

So what then is the issue? Where is the harm? From what I've seen, the only sinful harm that has come about because of homosexuality is directly because of activity used to control it, not because of the trait itself. Promiscuity exists in any sexual orientation. Extramarital sex exists because we aren't allowed to be married. Depression, anger, lonliness, despair, sickness, and death come because of being forced into the unnatural state of celibacy.

Saying that homosexuality is fine so long as you don't act upon it is, to me, the same as saying 'being left handed is fine so long as you never use your left hand', or 'being blue eyed is fine so long as you never look at anything'.

Homosexuality is a trait, not a disease, a tendancy, an inclination or a choice. It is a TRAIT. Like race, color, hair color, eye color, handedness.

It is not a disease such as blindness, alcoholism, cancer, diabetes, or various physical and mental handicaps. To lump it in with diseases people have to overcome lends the dangerous notion that a) it's a disease and b) it can be overcome. Neither are true.

I don't believe God labels it as a sin. I do believe in God. I believe God is love, and I believe God is a hell of a lot smarter than we are.

Love =/= hate. God cannot and does not hate because He is love, and not contrary to His own nature.

God is smart. If we've figured out it's wrong to call this a sin, then He knew that a hell of a long time ago. If it WERE a mortal sin than it would be A) not a genetic trait and B) mentioned a hell of a lot more frequently than it is in the scriptures. Heck, it would be in the Ten Commandments. If it's 'second only to Murder' then it would be IN there...since Murder is in there, and a bunch of other things that are LESS than second to Murder...like theft, and lying.

Homosexuality is not a sin, and I cannot even hypothetically surmise that it is. To do so would be to hypothetically surmise that need of food, shelter, water, and medical care is a sin. The only sin is in how homosexual people are being treated and asked to live lonely, miserable, unnatural lives because of other people's discomfort.

[LewisLegion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ree
but I'm pretty sure the church does not see the homosexual desire as sinful, but it's the acting on that desire that makes it a sin, in the same way that acting on improper heterosexual desires is a sin.

Sorry, wanted to address this specifically and ask a couple things.

Homosexual desire is not sinful but acting on that desire is, just as acting on IMPROPER heterosexual desires is a sin.

If homosexual desire is not a sin, then what constitues acting on a PROPER homosexual desire? If acting on homosexual desire is equal to acting on IMPROPER heterosexual desire, then it seems to me another brush is just being used to paint 'sin' on the desire itself by calling it improper from the get-go.

This is very much in line with what my church teaches also. They teach that sex is reserved only for marriage. Chastity is required of all members. So being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin, acting on it is. Being heterosexual and having sexual desires is not a sin, but acting on those desires outside marriage is. Being married but with a spouse who is incapable of participating is sex does not allow that person to seek those things outside of his/her vows.

Chastity is required for all members to a POINT. Chastity is required from heterosexual members UNTIL THEY MARRY. Chastity is required from all homosexual members FOREVER. The chastity being required is not the same, there are provisos plastered on to it.

You cannot have sex until you are married.
You cannot BE married.
You cannot ever have sex. <--- this is NOT what is being asked of heterosexual members.

A church claiming not to ask anything of their homosexual members that they do not ask of their heterosexual members is outright lying...unless they allow homosexual members to marry like everyone else.

[Rageaholic]

I do not see any kind of loving God making these mandates. If it is an inborn genetic trait, then it is as it is meant to be. It cannot be likened to other traits such as a tendancy toward addiction or violence. Why?

Because controlling those traits and not acting upon them does not rob the person of vital, life-sustaining, healthy resources.

You'd think believing that we were all created by a perfect God would make people more accepting, but instead it has the opposite affect. Why would God make people with tendencies that he deem unacceptable and worthy of damnation?

Oh yeah, original fucking sin. We're all born "fallen" and need to be saved. I say fuck that shit. If it weren't for such a dumbass, detestable doctrine, than maybe more good would come out of religion.

I'm considering starting a thread on that very topic.

[powerboy]

You all do know that over the years, there have been people taking text out and adding text. Just saying

[bex1218]

I really think all this hate was created by man, not by some supposed loving all powerful being. And if it is a sin to make love with my girlfriend (if I ever find one again), I will not ask for forgiveness.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't know why God would create people with homosexual tendencies, and I don't know why homosexuality seems to be so much more prevalent today.

Wrong way around. Homosexuality was always prevalent, it was only the rise of the Catholic church that shoved it into the closet. Take a look at the Roman empire before and after the rise of Christianity.

Homosexuality's current position in modern western cultural is a direct result of the Catholic Church for the most part.

[Ree]

Wrong way around. Homosexuality was always prevalent, it was only the rise of the Catholic church that shoved it into the closet. Take a look at the Roman empire before and after the rise of Christianity.

Actually, that's pretty much what I said in the next line of my post that you quoted.

Perhaps it has always existed to the degree that it exists today, but people feel able to speak more freely about it and admit to it, while before, there was a fear for their life for admitting or acting on it.
It certainly must have existed during the times of the Bible, to a significant enough degree, or why was it even mentioned?

[Gravekeeper]

Actually, that's pretty much what I said in the next line of my post that you quoted.

And I'm just confirming it for you. Homosexuality is only an issue now because Christianity made it one.

In reality, Mother Nature is gay as all get out.