Religion and Homosexuality

[Falconer02]

Stating assertively that Christians only remain Christians because they don't think critically, is setting the parameter of the box by which an intellectually honest person is allowed to think within.

You won't be able to talk sense into her, I and probably many others have tried

May I bump in and ask where you got that picture from?

"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma."

Go ahead and call it materialism or whatever, free-thinkers are not the ones preaching mythological stories and heroes to justify a questionable and outdated idea here. In this case for instance, most christians here are using a loophole to acknowledge the evidence for what it is and come to a what they think is a rational conclusion. It's furthest from. Consider that you said you sin by doing the most simplest things and that your god looks at all sin as the same. Then who in the mortal world gives a crap about 2 individuals who love eachother? Especially when they aren't hurting anyone else? Everyone here who religiously sin are usually aware of themselves doing it. Let them 'bathe in sin' as you or I...or anyone here does all the time while putting christian logic forward. Even though it's a sin to gossip, I'd still respect your right to gossip about people- if it were put to a vote, I'd vote for you to be able to do it, even though on both sides of the spectrum (christians and freethinkers) it can be deemed wrong as it can damage other people considerably and have a virus effect. I'd respect your basic freedoms to do it even though I think it's wrong.

But of course something like murdering someone isn't on par with gossip, so one would obviously have to be rational and adopt a method of 'grayscale-thinking' rather than black and white-- not doing so would make someone a loon.

Why would we want to sell pure gold for stone?

The gold! It's pyrite and it's radioactive!

Edit: GREAT post, Amy. Great post.

[amyrouse]

Thank you, Falconer.

[jordandog]

Conclusion

As a result of everything I have read, learned and experienced as a mental health worker, I long ago concluded that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. Instead, it seems quite clear to me that there is a combination of genetic and biological factors that cause people to become gay. Choice and willfulness have nothing to do with who does and does not become homosexual. Those who are gay have no more choice over their sexual preferences than those who are heterosexual.

I never claimed they have MORE choice than a heterosexual

That's NOT what that statement means. It's nothing to with who has 'more' of anything. It means they are drawn to the same sex, just like you are drawn to the opposite sex, and it is NOT because they are choosing it, but because it is how they are wired.

[queenofnines]

What happened to your belief that the majority gets to decide morality?

You're manipulating what I said and taking it out of context.  When I said "majority morality", I meant when it comes to the basic things that ALL people groups want, not just religious people.  Such things include the right to life and happiness (so long as said happiness doesn't detrimentally harm others).  A majority cannot overrule a minority if there's no practical reason to do so.

[jcribb16]

Conclusion

As a result of everything I have read, learned and experienced as a mental health worker, I long ago concluded that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. Instead, it seems quite clear to me that there is a combination of genetic and biological factors that cause people to become gay. Choice and willfulness have nothing to do with who does and does not become homosexual. Those who are gay have no more choice over their sexual preferences than those who are heterosexual.

I never claimed they have MORE choice than a heterosexual

That's NOT what that statement means. It's nothing to with who has 'more' of anything. It means they are drawn to the same sex, just like you are drawn to the opposite sex, and it is NOT because they are choosing it, but because it is how they are wired.

Jordandog, I have a question.  I happened to watch Tyra Banks this week and she had a show about children whose parents let them change their sexual orientation by hormone treatments, etc. These were children from 4 yrs. old to 8 yrs. old who told their parents they were not what they knew they should be and wanted to change themselves.  How do you feel about this (does it have something to do with what you were talking about regarding chromoshomes, and do the parents have the right to give or have these hormone treatments done and/or surgeries done?  Shouldn't they be in error of the law regarding how we treat our children?  These are just children and have not even grown up enough to get the whole picture.)  Thanking you ahead for your thoughts on this.

[Graeth]

Free will.
And the Bible was written by man.
It's God's word as he dictated. But to believe that any transcriber wouldn't add their own twist and rules is just naive.

[shernajwine]

What happened to your belief that the majority gets to decide morality?

You're manipulating what I said and taking it out of context.  When I said "majority morality", I meant when it comes to the basic things that ALL people groups want, not just religious people.  Such things include the right to life and happiness (so long as said happiness doesn't detrimentally harm others).  A majority cannot overrule a minority if there's no practical reason to do so.

You don't believe in a moral law giver, you don't believe there is any objective moral law to which people are subject to, therefore it falls on society to deem what is moral and what isn't. Societal morality is either going to be a dictatorship or a democracy. Therefore, either societal morals will be subject to an authority who themselves have no one to be subject to (yikes), or societal morals are up for a vote. By your own standard of deciding morals, majority gets to decide.

Now because the majority so happens to be politically active Christians who oppose gay marriage, suddenly...this should not be allowed (in which case now you want to over rule the majority for what you deem the good of society~hypocritical). Christians should not get a vote unless they vote the way you want them to?? Christians have a right to vote in this country just like everyone else. There are plenty of laws that get passed that Christians are not okay with, but we live it because this is how the country works.

Personally, I don't care if gays legally marry or not. It's not like just because there is a law preventing them getting married makes them decide not to be gay. However, I'm not going to vote for something I personally disagree with, so in this certain instance, I don't vote either way. What I AM concerned about is when they want to teach homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle in school to my children. That affects me and I am totally against it, and I WILL vote against that.

[shernajwine]

Free will.
And the Bible was written by man.
It's God's word as he dictated. But to believe that any transcriber wouldn't add their own twist and rules is just naive.

When the authors added something that wasn't commanded by God, they added that notation for the benefit of the reader. They assured the readers that they were making a suggestion for a better Christian life but it wasn't a commandment. Such as when Paul recommended not getting married, and added that it was better to get married if you couldn't control yourself...but he added that the recommendation came from him personally, it wasn't a commandment from God. Every writer of the bible had a unique personality and background that added different "tones and colors" to their writings, but when they wrote what God said they wrote under the direction of His Spirit.

[shernajwine]

May I bump in and ask where you got that picture from?

I'm not sure why it matters but I copied it and tweaked it to represent my point.

"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma."

Go ahead and call it materialism or whatever, free-thinkers are not the ones preaching mythological stories and heroes to justify a questionable and outdated idea here. In this case for instance, most christians here are using a loophole to acknowledge the evidence for what it is and come to a what they think is a rational conclusion. It's furthest from.

You have just defined your box.

Even though it's a sin to gossip, I'd still respect your right to gossip about people- if it were put to a vote, I'd vote for you to be able to do it, even though on both sides of the spectrum (christians and freethinkers) it can be deemed wrong as it can damage other people considerably and have a virus effect. I'd respect your basic freedoms to do it even though I think it's wrong.

Yes I respect peoples right to sin. So does God, that's why he gave us a CHOICE. Will I vote for someone's right to sin?? No, that's ludicrous! I am not an advocate of sin, I will actively promote a freedom from sin through Christ. However, as I said in my reply to queen, I just choose not to vote either way. Gay people marrying does not affect me, so whatever. But I will vote against laws that affect and infringe on the rights of me and my family and the innocent lives of others, (such as abortion laws).

[Falconer02]

I'm not sure why it matters but I copied it and tweaked it to represent my point.

I was just curious to know. No issues here!

You have just defined your box.

"Free-thought" being in a box sounds odd since it has the humility to state that it could be wrong. Please understand who argues morals from myths here and who also cannot fathom the idea of their side being wrong.

Yes I respect peoples right to sin. So does God, that's why he gave us a CHOICE. Will I vote for someone's right to sin?? No, that's ludicrous!

Well that's good that you respect homosexuals even on your religious terms. Cool.

I just choose not to vote either way. Gay people marrying does not affect me, so whatever. But I will vote against laws that affect and infringe on the rights of me and my family and the innocent lives of others, (such as abortion laws).

So it's a null argument for you then?

[shernajwine]

"Free-thought" being in a box sounds odd since it has the humility to state that it could be wrong. Please understand who argues morals from myths here and who also cannot fathom the idea of their side being wrong.

Here's the thing, I can be wrong, my interpretation of bible scriptures can be wrong. God is not wrong, He CAN'T be wrong, He is perfect. Do I always know EXACTLY what thinks about something? Absolutely not. I don't THINK people are born gay. I don't know for certain that I'm right, but I don't think I'm wrong.

You are defining my entire beliefs by your own terms (mythological, delusional, irrational etc) thereby defining the only rational terms to think on, are your own. This is not free thought, this is not allowing for free thought. That is my point.

So it's a null argument for you then?

If we're talking about political issues, then yes, to a point it is (for me). If we are talking whether it is natural, acceptable, immoral, sinful, wonderful, beautiful....these are things that "un-nullify" the argument for me. But these are subjective terms based on my own religious faith....so in another regard it would be null anyway because I'm not going to convince you of subjective ideas from a religious perspective you believe is delusional. Although I did present scientific studies that show contrary evidence to the "gay gene" theory, but again, it's research with no definitive answer.

[jcribb16]

Free will.
And the Bible was written by man.
It's God's word as he dictated. But to believe that any transcriber wouldn't add their own twist and rules is just naive.

When the authors added something that wasn't commanded by God, they added that notation for the benefit of the reader. They assured the readers that they were making a suggestion for a better Christian life but it wasn't a commandment. Such as when Paul recommended not getting married, and added that it was better to get married if you couldn't control yourself...but he added that the recommendation came from him personally, it wasn't a commandment from God. Every writer of the bible had a unique personality and background that added different "tones and colors" to their writings, but when they wrote what God said they wrote under the direction of His Spirit.

great example from the Bible!

[Falconer02]

You are defining my entire beliefs by your own terms (mythological, delusional, irrational etc) thereby defining the only rational terms to think on, are your own. This is not free thought, this is not allowing for free thought. That is my point.

I understand your point here...maybe I'm being a bit hypocritical in some aspects, but at the same time you're practicing the exact opposite of a free thinking process since your view is primarily influenced by traditional religious thinking and an authoritative book.

If we're talking about political issues, then yes, to a point it is (for me). If we are talking whether it is natural, acceptable, immoral, sinful, wonderful, beautiful....these are things that "un-nullify" the argument for me.

Cool. Ultimately your argument here is just for your opinion which I can respect.

Although I did present scientific studies that show contrary evidence to the "gay gene" theory, but again, it's research with no definitive answer.

I'll just be blunt and sum up the thread- it's all fine until one introduces a deity with standards!

[Annella]

Considering what God says about homosexuality in his Word leaves not doubt to it's interpretation.  There is none...it's spelled out!  No doubt about it.  qon herself list some at the beginning of this post (about the 3rd or so).  God is not wrong.  His Word is not wrong.  There's no compromise to it.

What offends me is the fact no matter how many times we say we don't hate gays, we don't gay bash, We don't want gays dead.  We are still "saddled" with that by you non believers.  That's incorrect, but you don't want to give us even that.  Some day (soon), I'm going to stand before my God, and give account if I stood for His Word. I can't say it's okay, when God's law says it is not.  I'll even make it easier....I speak only for myself.  I can't dictate what Sherene, Jcribb, Mackenzie, etc., says.  I can't answer for them on that day, and they can't answer for me on that day.

I can't call good bad, and bad good, if it's written so.  If you want to apply a label of hate, or discrimination, or whatever to me, well.......  There's nothing I can do about it.  That's my stand, I can't answer for the rest.  I do want to say that we can't sin anything that God cannot wipe out with forgiveness.  His love is unfathomable.

[shernajwine]

I'll just be blunt and sum up the thread- it's all fine until one introduces a deity with standards!

Lol! Yes, but this where the moral argument comes in, and Christians believe, obvisously, that we get our "standards" from a moral law giver. We don't get to decide what's right and wrong for ourselves, or it leads to chaos, because we are ultimately selfish beings. But it also goes beyond societal morals to personal morals that set us apart from unbelievers (and I don't mean set apart in a superior way, only in identifying a follower of Christ by their "fruit"). God has very high standards, ones we fall short of because of our sin, but we still know and understand what God expects and try our best to live the holy life He called us to live.

But despite that sounding burdensome, it isn't. I want to please God, I love Him and through that, I love people. If you love God and love people, you are not likely to WANT to be a sinful person. (I say you in general terms). So loving God and accepting Christs sacrifice, frees me from having to try and perform to standard I can't possibly live up to, and live for Him without shame.

I know this got a little preachy but I wanted to clarify my position as a whole.