How do you really feel about homosexuality?

[lvstephanie]

I am an agnostic, raised Christian, and I have never had a problem with homosexuals. I've always thought that sexuality isn't as important as being a good person. There are so many people who hate homosexuals and still call themselves Christians, I'm sorry, but those people are false Christians. Hatred does not belong in religion.

I agree, although to play Devil's advocate (or rather, the Christian's advocate as the case may be) most would say they love the person but hate the sin. To the Christian, they are being loving in that they fear a place in hell for the sinner who doesn't reform his/her ways. They see homosexuality as a sin that prevents a person from being a "good person" and getting into heaven. The problem is that because this is such a personal issue and a person's sexual orientation is, for the most part, inseparable from the person, targeting the sin feels like they are targeting the person too. It's the same issue that I have with most organized religion... Most will say that the only way to salvation is by believing in their tenants. A person's religious preference becomes a very intimate part of that person -- their core beliefs and values -- and so having someone else question (or even denounce) that religion actually feels like a personal attack, even though the other person may actually think they are showing love by showing the "true" path to salvation.

I think that laws should be based on some moral standard (otherwise, why even have laws), however I think that it should be based on how it effects the quality of life in this world for the country's citizens. Our country values many freedoms, esp. religious freedom even though some may think that believing in the wrong religion may be harmful to a person's soul. Thus as long as a person's free choice doesn't adversely effect themselves or others (in the here and now), I think they should be allowed that freedom. If a person chooses to love another person of the same sex, it isn't causing any harm to anyone. Therefore the state should allow this activity. Additionally, if the state is providing some benefit to a couple for living together and creating a stable household, then it should be provided to all couples in that situation while remaining blind to the person's sexual orientation.

[willow80834]

I am pagan i believe u are who u are  not to mention not EVERYONE is going to like your views or beliefs Who really cares it has no effect on my life to each their own

[trucktina]

I am an agnostic, raised Christian, and I have never had a problem with homosexuals. I've always thought that sexuality isn't as important as being a good person. There are so many people who hate homosexuals and still call themselves Christians, I'm sorry, but those people are false Christians. Hatred does not belong in religion.

I agree, although to play Devil's advocate (or rather, the Christian's advocate as the case may be) most would say they love the person but hate the sin. To the Christian, they are being loving in that they fear a place in hell for the sinner who doesn't reform his/her ways. They see homosexuality as a sin that prevents a person from being a "good person" and getting into heaven. The problem is that because this is such a personal issue and a person's sexual orientation is, for the most part, inseparable from the person, targeting the sin feels like they are targeting the person too. It's the same issue that I have with most organized religion... Most will say that the only way to salvation is by believing in their tenants. A person's religious preference becomes a very intimate part of that person -- their core beliefs and values -- and so having someone else question (or even denounce) that religion actually feels like a personal attack, even though the other person may actually think they are showing love by showing the "true" path to salvation.

I think that laws should be based on some moral standard (otherwise, why even have laws), however I think that it should be based on how it effects the quality of life in this world for the country's citizens. Our country values many freedoms, esp. religious freedom even though some may think that believing in the wrong religion may be harmful to a person's soul. Thus as long as a person's free choice doesn't adversely effect themselves or others (in the here and now), I think they should be allowed that freedom. If a person chooses to love another person of the same sex, it isn't causing any harm to anyone. Therefore the state should allow this activity. Additionally, if the state is providing some benefit to a couple for living together and creating a stable household, then it should be provided to all couples in that situation while remaining blind to the person's sexual orientation.

Another really thoughtful response in a thread that could easily turn very negative. Good stuff!

[davidf938]

Live and let live just as long as they don't come on to me. In that case murder should be legal for 5 minutes immediately afterward.

[Shahrukhlover]

I'm not Christian. I think everyone deserves to be happy.  It's a natural right. The right to the pursuit of happiness.  If marriage makes someone happy, they should be allowed to get married.  It's not right to tell homosexuals they can't do anything because of their sexual orientation.  They're people too! They're just as good as anyone else.

[swkstudent]

I feel that ones sexuality is their business.

[home_teachin]

There is a mix of religions in my family. I got the "Your going to Hell" side from a Fundamental Protestant Grandmother. Everyone else in the family believes in a god, though most don't go to church. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods.

I do believe in equality and basic human rights. I have no problem with gay people and I think they should be able to marry, adopt children etc. I'm also the only one in the family to feel that way. I don't think that's a coincidence.

You have to hate way too many groups of people to be a christian. I just don't have that kind of hate in me.
As long as people aren't hurting others, Live and Let Live. 

 

[nettapop23]

Well you ask the question on how do I really feel about homosexuality? Look I see it like this only God is the judge on that an as of reading the bible back in the bible days it tells me that God is totally against it and that he destroyed to cities in the bible that was during these thing's if God intended for two men and two women to do thing's like this then he wouldn't have destroyed those cities when they were doing it, and also I believe it would have been mention in the bible by God that is ok to to have Adam and Steve, Sally and Lucy, and not Adam and Eve. So as of knowing how God feel for this to be happening now I know that he is totally disgusted with this going on in our world today so God is still the same and if he said it back then from the bible then it is the same now that he is totally against it now and that just how it is no matter how people try to change it, but don't get this twisted God still love these people that are doing these act he just don't like what they're doing.

[Frank08NJ]

God created Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve..LOL

[gaylasue]

I publically stand against homosexuality.  It is an abomination to mankind.  We would have all been made the same sex or asexual if that were meant to be like that.

[amrapali]

I am a Christian, but this issue has always stumped me... From a religious aspect, I tend to look at the Bible as a guide for our lives so that we as humans can live happy, healthy lives. Many of the ideas in the Bible that may have been important for ancient cultures may no longer be relevant for today's world. Take, for example, the Jewish food laws (which BTW are in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which is the same place that first mentions how it is wrong for a man to sleep with another man). When the food laws were first established, we humans had many problems from food-born illnesses. Lack of refrigeration, sanitation, and knowledge about how to properly prepare and cook foods all caused to people being sick and even dying from what they ate. The food laws were therefore a primitive attempt to determine how to properly prepare and cook foods so as to limit the food problems that afflicted these people. Instead of trying to determine what temperature to properly cook and thereby killing the worm causing trichinosis, it was just easier to proscribe the consumption of pork. Instead of determining proper sanitation and washing techniques to decrease the problems of cross-contamination, it was just found that forbidding the mixing of utensils for meat and dairy would cut down on this problem. If looked at from this perspective, then the sex laws of the old testament (homosexuality, bestiality, promiscuity, etc.) were an attempt to regulate sexual health so as to prevent (or at least limit) sexually transmitted diseases. Take, for example, the modern example of HIV/AIDS. It is thought that the disease was first introduced into our species when someone had sex with some monkey (*bleep*), and was eventually transmitted to others via promiscuity as well as homosexuality (the latter being that there is more possibility of rippage of the colorectal lining causing direct access for the virus to enter the bloodstream). Yet today we have access to contraceptives as well as screening / testing for most known STDs which can help decrease the spread of STDs. And the main issue with the spread of STDs has always been the problem of promiscuity in our culture. However there never seems to be as loud of a cry against promiscuity (at least among the general public) as there is against homosexuality. From a religious perspective, I can understand how the Church can see all of these practices as being wrong, and that the best way (from a sexual health perspective) to engage in sex is from the context of marriage.

However, because we don't live in a theocracy where we are rules by Biblical laws, our laws must account for people that want to live free of these laws. Since homosexuality really becomes an issue in sexual health if it also includes promiscuity, then I think what would be best would be for a way to allow it it a more monogamous manner (I know, "monogamy" really means a marriage between one couple, but I can't think of the appropriate word). As for how the government should handle this, I therefore think there should be a way to provide the same benefits to homosexual couples as with married couples (to encourage stable couples). I can understand that the term "marriage" may be held with higher esteem in religious circles, so I'd rather the laws would allow for "civil unions" of which "marriage" is just just one means by which the government can recognize a "civil union" between a couple.

i totally agree with you...

[gateway46]

It's not right but most people always stress that but sin is sin.

[mjdoug03]

It's really a shame that homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens because of who they are.  Keep in mind Matthew Shepard's story.  It's a painful reminder of someone who wasn't accepted for who he was and was brutally murdered because of it.  Everyone should be more accepting.

[catherinedwhite]

There are so many people who hate homosexuals and still call themselves Christians, I'm sorry, but those people are false Christians. Hatred does not belong in religion.

AGREED

[marcar1008]

At the beginning God created Adam and Eve. I believe Adam is male and Eve is female. Then He said multiply  ......Too bad 2 Adams can't multiply or 2 Eves can't multiply.