Religion vs Homosexuality

[mrswdk]

Second: homosexuals can already vote, work, get married, meet in public, march down the street. What more could they want?

They want to give your children AIDS.

[Dukasaur]

What happened to the Bollywood dude?

[waauw]

DY is flying high.

[KoolBak]

And why TF are you in rehab??? It's for quitters!

[tzor]

I think the question of "Religion" is a complex one. For the most part we can divide it into two problems, the Protestant view and the Catholic view. They are the only ones that make the media and get the attention of people. (I'm not sure I even know the Buddhist view on the matter from the media.)

On the Catholic side, this has always been a question of "chastity" which views sex as a integral part of the procreation process and thus has always opposed the separation of the act from its procreative function (note this can be taken to extremes as was seen in the Monty Python song, "Every Sperm is Sacred," but that is just abusing an argument into absurdity). Homosexual acts by their very definition have no procreative function whatsoever and thus is a gross abuse of chastity.

The problem is that this teaching is generally taught by celibate males, which doesn't particularly work. When married Catholics (like Scot Hahn) teach the same notion that "sex is sacred" they generally get ignored, especially when the echos of the "sexual revolution" can still be felt.

But it was the protestants who originally approved all sorts of offenses against chastity, from divorce and remarriage (forbidden directly by Jesus in the Gospels) to contraception. Thus, being "Bible" based, they are forced to play "scripture poker" with the Bible, pulling out one offense from a law which called a number of offenses equally wrong and use this like a sledge hammer against those who are attracted to their own gender. It's almost like a guilt trip, which is why it tends to be the most argumentative.

[Bernie Sanders]

I think the question of "Religion" is a complex one. For the most part we can divide it into two problems, the Protestant view and the Catholic view. They are the only ones that make the media and get the attention of people. (I'm not sure I even know the Buddhist view on the matter from the media.)

On the Catholic side, this has always been a question of "chastity" which views sex as a integral part of the procreation process and thus has always opposed the separation of the act from its procreative function (note this can be taken to extremes as was seen in the Monty Python song, "Every Sperm is Sacred," but that is just abusing an argument into absurdity). Homosexual acts by their very definition have no procreative function whatsoever and thus is a gross abuse of chastity.

The problem is that this teaching is generally taught by celibate males, which doesn't particularly work. When married Catholics (like Scot Hahn) teach the same notion that "sex is sacred" they generally get ignored, especially when the echos of the "sexual revolution" can still be felt.

But it was the protestants who originally approved all sorts of offenses against chastity, from divorce and remarriage (forbidden directly by Jesus in the Gospels) to contraception. Thus, being "Bible" based, they are forced to play "scripture poker" with the Bible, pulling out one offense from a law which called a number of offenses equally wrong and use this like a sledge hammer against those who are attracted to their own gender. It's almost like a guilt trip, which is why it tends to be the most argumentative.

Protestantism is more diverse than you give it credit for. The irony of the story you present: the bible is the way out, the lift up. By using it as a sledgehammer, it doesn't help and is in fact the opposite way The Bible should be used. Imagine a man stuck in quicksand and you have a stick to lift him up.instead, you are beating the man with the stick and he drowns. That is a problem there - people are drowning in homosexuality.

People are drowning in homosexuality?

How absurd.

Here's a picture of some gays kissing, entirely made of Rick Santorum's face.

[riskllama]

People are drowning in homosexuality?

How absurd.

Here's a picture of some gays kissing, entirely made of Rick Santorum's face.

[tzor]

Protestantism is more diverse than you give it credit for. The irony of the story you present: the bible is the way out, the lift up. By using it as a sledgehammer, it doesn't help and is in fact the opposite way The Bible should be used. Imagine a man stuck in quicksand and you have a stick to lift him up.instead, you are beating the man with the stick and he drowns. That is a problem there - people are drowning in homosexuality.

Lots of people are "drowning." But let's keep this just to sex and the problems of the contraceptive mentality which most (not all) Protestant denominations have embraced.

The "Hookup" culture which recently swung the other way into the "cry rape" culture.
The significant divorce rate which tears families apart and tears at the hears of their children.
The beginning of a growing acceptance of child pornography and the rape of young adults.

The Bible should be used, as you say, to lift people up. Even then it's not easy; although the burden is light it is still the narrow gate. It is important to call people to go through that narrow gate and call them again and again.

In December, the Catholic Church will start a Jubilee year of Mercy. This lifts people up, because anyone and choose to do what is right at any time.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

"The growing acceptance of child pornography and rape of young adults."

lol quid?

-TG

[PLAYER57832]

But it was the protestants who originally approved all sorts of offenses against chastity, from divorce and remarriage (forbidden directly by Jesus in the Gospels) to contraception. Thus, being "Bible" based, they are forced to play "scripture poker" with the Bible, pulling out one offense from a law which called a number of offenses equally wrong and use this like a sledge hammer against those who are attracted to their own gender. It's almost like a guilt trip, which is why it tends to be the most argumentative.

Not so fast...

What Jesus actually said was that to divorce was wrong because in so doing you made a woman a prostitute. In that time and day, this was essentially true. Even so, he also said "for anything except adultry". In that case, even the Roman Catholic Church has always approved divorce.

The issue of homosexuality is a bit more complex. Chastity is only one aspect. You ignored the part where Roman Catholic Doctrine also held for many years that the only purpose of sex was to procreate, that even heterosexual couples who could not procreate were to remain chaste. The Old Testament has clear laws against homosexuality. However, when Christ came he set up a framework that moved us from strict legalism, which as he showed many times, can easily be misinterpreted and skewed, into a greater understanding of the true intent of the law -- namely to love God and each other.

It is that doctrine to which Protestants and others look when they say not so much that some laws should be simply discarded, but that we need to look at why the laws were there and then work towards the intent, rather than just the strict adherence. In the case of divorce, just as an example, at one time, everyone was essentially abused. When a man could be beaten by his employer, then a man beating his wife was not such a grave ill. Now, though, we call that abuse/violence and (mostly) agree that no woman should have to endure a husband who is abusive. There are other similar situations where fulfillment of the law actually violates the intent.

Anyway, to get back to homosexuality. Religiously, I am on the fence. That is, I believe the primary reason why homosexuality is decried is that we are essentially 2 parts of one whole. We need both the male and the female to be fully complete. That said, evidence is clear that such linear definitions don't apply to everyone. Old ideas of what men are and women are just are not correct, plus there are likely people who are more, well, "mixed" than used to be thought or acknowledged. I mean, just as a clear example, some people are born with both types of genitalia or parts of different genitalia. A child who looks like a boy on the outside, but is actually female on the inside is clearly biologically different from a "standard" girl or boy. It makes sense that such changes might be found in the brain, etc. This means there is clear ambiguity in our ideas of gender. Is this reason enough, belief/faith-wise to say homosexuality is OK? That is an individual decision with each faith/church. Faith is not always about what is easy. For churches, this is one of many difficult decisions/choices. We may, in the future, see this much like the transformation that lead many living in slave-holding societies to see that slavery was wrong until it has become a new paradigm. Or, we may see it as more of a choice of conscience about which there is just disagreement, similar to how faith lead some to become conscientious objectors to war and others to join armies and fight.

Legally, though, I am well over the fence. Laws are about protection, not religious morality. Religion is individual. Too many today want to cry "freedom for me" when what they really mean is "right to deny others". Sorry, your freedom ends when it interferes with someone else. Allowing homosexuals to live as they wish is no different from allowing both Roman Catholics and Protestants practice as they wish, along with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and any other religious practitioners. So homosexuality disagrees with your religion? Fine.. don't do it. That doesn't give you the right to tell others not to do so. (and sorry, if you take a job to issue marriage licenses and it violates your religion.. QUIT YOUR JOB!!!! When you work for taxpayers, you are a public official responsible for ALL, not just those in your church.)

"The growing acceptance of child pornography and rape of young adults."

lol quid?

-TG

I am not sure where you think this is happening, except that the internet is allowing it. The internet is also pretty quick to find all sorts of growing negative trends.

What I require is factual data. The data I have seen does not show an increase in this.

Then again, less than a century ago, women were commonly married at age 17, and the standard "fix" for a woman who got pregnant, even unwillingly so, was for her to get married. So....

[mrswdk]

The significant divorce rate which tears families apart and tears at the hears of their children.

You think it's better for a couple who get along badly to stay together and make their kids put up with their parents' crappy marriage all the way through childhood?

[Phatscotty]

"The growing acceptance of child pornography and rape of young adults."

lol quid?

-TG

The elitists at NAMBLA call it 'going under the rainbow'

pedophiles will be a protected class, and soon you will hear public education students saying 'can you believe sharing love with a young child was illegal? love is love, love wins, no hate, soon we will make the rules, your bigoted anti-pedophile days are numbers'

[waauw]

"The growing acceptance of child pornography and rape of young adults."

lol quid?

-TG

The elitists at NAMBLA call it 'going under the rainbow'

pedophiles will be a protected class, and soon you will hear public education students saying 'can you believe sharing love with a young child was illegal? love is love, love wins, no hate, soon we will make the rules, your bigoted anti-pedophile days are numbers'

Now that's the most depressing thing I've read on here up until now.
I predict a rise in homicides if such a thing were ever to pass.

[mrswdk]

"The growing acceptance of child pornography and rape of young adults."

lol quid?

-TG

The elitists at NAMBLA call it 'going under the rainbow'

pedophiles will be a protected class, and soon you will hear public education students saying 'can you believe sharing love with a young child was illegal? love is love, love wins, no hate, soon we will make the rules, your bigoted anti-pedophile days are numbers'

Now that's the most depressing thing I've read on here up until now.
I predict a rise in homicides if such a thing were ever to pass.

Presumably you also think we should go back to hanging gays.

[waauw]

"The growing acceptance of child pornography and rape of young adults."

lol quid?

-TG

The elitists at NAMBLA call it 'going under the rainbow'

pedophiles will be a protected class, and soon you will hear public education students saying 'can you believe sharing love with a young child was illegal? love is love, love wins, no hate, soon we will make the rules, your bigoted anti-pedophile days are numbers'

Now that's the most depressing thing I've read on here up until now.
I predict a rise in homicides if such a thing were ever to pass.

Presumably you also think we should go back to hanging gays.

No I have nothing against gays. They can marry and adopt as much as they want.
Are you telling me you're pro-pedophilia?

[mrswdk]

I support the freedom and rights of pedophiles just as I support the freedom and rights of all sorts of other minority groups.

[khazalid]

[waauw]

I support the freedom and rights of pedophiles just as I support the freedom and rights of all sorts of other minority groups.

Just to be certain I understood you correctly. Let me rephrase: Do you support pedophiles comitting an act of pedophelia? For instance a 30yo having sex with an 11yo?

[Bernie Sanders]

I support the freedom and rights of pedophiles just as I support the freedom and rights of all sorts of other minority groups.

Just to be certain I understood you correctly. Let me rephrase: Do you support pedophiles comitting an act of pedophelia? For instance a 30yo having sex with an 11yo?

I think we all read and understood where he stands on pedophilia. Guess he'll squirm his way out with some excuse or our misunderstanding of what he said.

What about a child's right to be protected from monsters?

[mrswdk]

I support the freedom and rights of pedophiles just as I support the freedom and rights of all sorts of other minority groups.

Just to be certain I understood you correctly. Let me rephrase: Do you support pedophiles comitting an act of pedophelia? For instance a 30yo having sex with an 11yo?

I support the right of two individuals to consensually engage in sexual activities with any other individual who consents to engage in those activities with them.

[Bernie Sanders]

I support the freedom and rights of pedophiles just as I support the freedom and rights of all sorts of other minority groups.

Just to be certain I understood you correctly. Let me rephrase: Do you support pedophiles comitting an act of pedophelia? For instance a 30yo having sex with an 11yo?

I support the right of two individuals to consensually engage in sexual activities with any other individual who consents to engage in those activities with them.

[mrswdk]

Welcome to the new world.