Gays and Homophobia

[Sacman]

I'm strongly against gay acts because they go against Jesus.

I don't hate gays. I love them - just the same as I love any other person. However, I am against gay acts, such as marriage.

You forgot The Village People

In the navy, yes you can sail the seven seas...

In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy
...*clears throat*...

Come on he's leaving out the good parts... like where God instructs a man to murder his enemies and take his virgin daughters... or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

 

[Kimarous]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

 

[Gigaguy64]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

 

[Sacman]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

Yeah... but you can say the same thing about the entire Old Testament...
besides she was included in several different variations and was used by the Church to explain crib deaths up until the about the 1600's...<.<

 

[Andrew Bohan]

It was a joke. Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. Also with romans wasn't it written like an epilogue? Like the letters written after the times of jesus? Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

I figured it was a joke; just was making sure.

Anyway, I really don't think that the possibilities you listed are what the scripture is describing. It said that women felt lust for one another, so, yeah... seems kind of obvious to me.

You really don't think that it meant that? I'm not being rude or anything; I'm merely wondering.

I'm not going to get into an argument over this, feel free to dismiss it entirely as you almost surely will, but I can't stop myself from pointing out one thing:

You are letting a book written at least 2,000 years ago make your decisions for you. Whether or not that's a bad thing remains to be seen, but I can say that it's an abandonment of free will (you know, that thing YHWH granted humanity to raise us above beasts). If you're against gays, that's your right and all the more power to you. Just make that choice yourself.

I'm following a book which is the Word of God. It was written by men, but it was inspired by God, a being who still exists (and always has and will). A being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

You may not believe this, but understand why I consider the Bible to be infinitely more than just "a book written a long time ago."

Yes - we have freewill. And I am exercising mine by choosing to follow God's Word. I am not being forced.

It was just a possibility that came to mind reading the bit about men. Also. Lust is one of the deadly sins, it doesn't necessarily mean it was two women. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Iunno. I've heard outrageous twistings of the same text for years as a lapsed catholic who now identifies as an agnostic. Some parts of it are so broad they can mean about anything. The bible also mentions shit about incest being fine. I just don't see why certain bits are maintained over others myself. What I see there is to my mind more of a fetish issue than a gender one, but that's one interpretation. It says they abandoned their natural sexual relations, it doesn't say explicitly how and doesn't DIRECTLY say that it was in their turning to their own gender they wronged god. You could infer that meaning from it, yeah, but it's broad enough to mean either to me.

 

[Andrew Bohan]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

That's one sexual act in a whole city. You take a crossection of your city alot of shit will go on. It doesn't mean it was purely homosexuality that Sodom & Gomorrah were said to have been destroyed for.

Genesis also tells us the world's only about 3000 or so years old. Just saying.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

While it's not my post you quoted, I would like to say that I'm not a fan of homosexuality either. I like plenty of homosexual people but the act of homosexual sex is something I'm not a fan of. I wouldn't do it and don't want to see it, and thinking about it puts me off a little.
Does that make sence?

Now, I don't share Kimarous' view but I did share his lack of support for the gay community. I've always had gay friends (I just didn't always know they were gay) but I always felt that marriage was something that men and women do and that gay couples didn't need it, then earlier this year I realised that even though I may not necissarily want gay people to get married, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.
And since then I realised how much of a douche I was being, now I fully support gay marriage along with gay rights in general (as far as I'm aware the only discrepancy in my country is marriage and adoption laws.)

I think you'll find plenty of people who support gay rights think this too, they just don't say it because it can often be misinterpreted.

StBishop, what about homosexuality puts you off? Is it the idea of a same-sex relationship or intercourse and, if intercourse, is it only man-to-man, femal-to-female or both? And why did you feel that same-sex couples shouldn't marry?

I suppose I worded that wrong, I'm not put off by homosexuality, it's fine, I mean seeing people of the same sex staring lovingly into each others eyes, it's not off-putting as much as strange, like seeing a fish with legs walking on land.
I don't think it's bad, it's just so alien that I'm a little uncomfortable.

Where as homosexual couples kissing I'm fine with.

Now onto the same sex intercourse. I don't find lesbian sex offputting because I don't see it as sex. Does that make sence? I know it is sex to them, and probably everyone else in the world, but there's no penetration by genitalia, maybe that's why.
But if we took, say lesbian porn, I wouldn't be put off by that, nor would I be put off by gay (as in male only) porn. Because it's porn. Which is weird I know.

It's homosexual love-making that I don't really like (not dislike, just don't like) and I think it's that same, alien feeling.

Also, I think it's because if someone talks about say, oral sex, I think of what it would be like, and I don't really like the idea of performing oral sex on a dude. Same with if people talk about vasectomies, I feel like someone's talking about doing it to me, not plesant.

I don't really know why I was against same sex marriage. Maybe because I was afraid of change?
I can't explain it, and am a little embarrased of the fact that I was actually against it.
Perhaps it has to do with me wanting marrage to remain the way I saw it as a child?
My view of marriage was shaken alot by the circumstances of my parent's break up, and I feel like my mother's subsiqunet re-marriage is immoral and I was, and still am, very angry that she was married in a church, the state marriage didn't offend me but the fact that a preist sanctioned it is a pretty slanderous act in my mind.
Maybe that had a hand. Who knows?

Have I answered all of your questions?

EDIT: Having thought more about it, I remebered the realisation I had about 3 years ago that homosexuality isn't just, "Being attracted sexually to the same gender" it's "Being attracted to sexually and falling in love with the same gender."

I found that a shocking realisation and perhaps as I've only realised it pretty recently it's taking me longer to get use to it. I mean, I've always known that people can be attracted to the same sex, It was explained to me at the same time as the birds and the bees at about age 4 or 5 when my mum became pregnant with my sister.

The first time I saw two guys say "I love you" in a non-platonic way was at age 17 and it spun my head. I hadn't really thought about homosexuality all that much and it just hadn't occured to me.

Perhaps that's why I'm put off by same sex lovemaking.

So the "Alien" nature of same-sex love and relationship is what puts you off and for marriage you were holding onto childhood ideals

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

You forgot The Village People

In the navy, yes you can sail the seven seas...

Hmm?

What of Jesus' teachings that you follow condemn Homosexuality? Do you base your opinion solely on your religion?

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

My religion is why I am against homosexual acts, yes. Man was meant to be with woman. Simple as that. To go further, ONE man and ONE woman. I am against polygamy, too.

So it is not Jesus but that the leaders of your faith have taught homosexuality is wrong and not part of the social norm?

 

[Kimarous]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

That's one sexual act in a whole city. You take a crossection of your city alot of shit will go on. It doesn't mean it was purely homosexuality that Sodom & Gomorrah were said to have been destroyed for.

Genesis also tells us the world's only about 3000 or so years old. Just saying.

Right, because the entire male populate of a city wanting to gangbang a pair of visitors totally counts as ONE sexual act. >_>

Your other "point" is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

I really couldn't care less about gay people/marriages. But, when they start complaining over a name and social security benefits, then it starts to annoy me. Let me put it in context. I'm from California, yet I voted to for that gay marriage ban. Why? Because they already have something in California that is almost exactly the same as marriage. It's called a civil union, and the only differences between marriage and civil union (besides the names) is that marriage gets you social security benefits and is recognized most, if not all, religions.

But why can't Gays have the exact same as Straight couples, why do you believe there should be any discrepancy?

My strong catholic upbringing tells me it's wrong. But really I don't care. As I said, my biggest complaint is when they complain. I believe in a strictly "Don't ask, Don't Tell" ideology and it works pretty well. Don't even get me started on how that San Francisco judge banning it is fucking up our military...

But why do you believe they should keep an intricle part of who they are a secert? Why do you believe they shouldn't be able to express that they're gay as freely as you can say you're a Catholic?

 

[Gigaguy64]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

Yeah... but you can say the same thing about the entire Old Testament...
besides she was included in several different variations and was used by the Church to explain crib deaths up until the about the 1600's...<.<

True.
But Lilith isnt even in the OT, the passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation.
Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl".
Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context.
Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

I'm gay and I support equal rights, of course.

I personally don't give a toss about you either way.. as a section of society you've managed to legitimise yourselves, you're accepted.. Get over yourselves... This hasn't been an issue in 20 years.

I hope you don't really believe that. Gays still do not have equal rights in the slightest. We are just starting to be allowed to marry people of the same sex and there is still a long way to go on that. Homophobia is very common especially in high school; you may have heard about all the suicides recently. I frequent a forum for gay teenagers, and you would not believe how many people from all over the world have experienced bullying due to homophobia or are still waiting for equal rights. It is very much still an issue.

 

[Snotnarok]

You forgot Asexual OP.

I'm not against much besides pedos, that's just a bit beyond okay (by a few lightyears). I figure as long as you're not forcing it on me then fair enough do what ya want.

I don't get why people are so strongly vocal against people with different sexualities. Does a girl who likes girls guy who likes guys really effect you much?

 

[Andrew Bohan]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

That's one sexual act in a whole city. You take a crossection of your city alot of shit will go on. It doesn't mean it was purely homosexuality that Sodom & Gomorrah were said to have been destroyed for.

Genesis also tells us the world's only about 3000 or so years old. Just saying.

Right, because the entire male populate of a city wanting to gangbang a pair of visitors totally counts as ONE sexual act. >_>

Your other "point" is irrelevant to this conversation.

The "entire" population. We're talking about a story that was originally passed down by word of mouth. It could've been as little as 10 people. You know how hyperbole works surely. It's used often to make a point. It's like saying "the entire school watched the fight when really only about 10 people did. It happens. Chinese whispers. Yes, my other point is irrelevant but it was intended to be more of a flippant remark on my personal view of genesis. Just because the common consensus is that all those people were damned to fire for their sexuality doesn't mean it's exactly what the book says. The ark. Most people believe the animals were taken in twos, while it was two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean. Clean, I assume, refers to kosher law but I cannot confirm this.

 

[Andrew Bohan]

I'm strongly against gay acts because they go against Jesus.

I don't hate gays. I love them - just the same as I love any other person. However, I am against gay acts, such as marriage.

You forgot The Village People

In the navy, yes you can sail the seven seas...

In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy
...*clears throat*...

Come on he's leaving out the good parts... like where God instructs a man to murder his enemies and take his virgin daughters... or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

I love you already.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I really couldn't care less about gay people/marriages. But, when they start complaining over a name and social security benefits, then it starts to annoy me. Let me put it in context. I'm from California, yet I voted to for that gay marriage ban. Why? Because they already have something in California that is almost exactly the same as marriage. It's called a civil union, and the only differences between marriage and civil union (besides the names) is that marriage gets you social security benefits and is recognized most, if not all, religions.

But why can't Gays have the exact same as Straight couples, why do you believe there should be any discrepancy?

My strong catholic upbringing tells me it's wrong. But really I don't care. As I said, my biggest complaint is when they complain. I believe in a strictly "Don't ask, Don't Tell" ideology and it works pretty well. Don't even get me started on how that San Francisco judge banning it is fucking up our military...

But why do you believe they should keep an intricle part of who they are a secert? Why do you believe they shouldn't be able to express that they're gay as freely as you can say you're a Catholic?

I don't prefer them to keep it hidden, I just don't want to know. Say I'm going hunting with this guy, and I know he's gay. I'm going to fear sleeping in the same tent as him, it's not logical, but there it is. If I don't know if he's gay, I won't care because we're two guys out hunting in the woods, I won't see him as any different than me. Religion has bred us to see gay and straight as two complete opposite things, and America has helped it along.

 

[Glamorgan]

I am straight, but am completely for homo and bisexuality.

I think that it is simply their choice. I cannot deny them that privilege, even if I wanted to. They're still people, and they deserve the same rights as us, no matter what most religions say about them.

I was hoping for a diversity of opinions; some based in faith, some in logic.

On that note, I have always wondered exactly why the religious are so opposed to same sex couples, and anything other than heterosexuality in general. Even then, a good deal wont have sex before marriage...

EDIT: Some other questions:

I don't prefer them to keep it hidden, I just don't want to know. Say I'm going hunting with this guy, and I know he's gay. I'm going to fear sleeping in the same tent as him, it's not logical, but there it is. If I don't know if he's gay, I won't care because we're two guys out hunting in the woods, I won't see him as any different than me. Religion has bred us to see gay and straight as two complete opposite things, and America has helped it along.

So how is it different from sleeping in a tent with someone of the opposite sex?

I'm strongly against gay acts because they go against Jesus.

I don't hate gays. I love them - just the same as I love any other person. However, I am against gay acts, such as marriage.

But why are you against it? I know that it is against Jesus, as you say, but why is it?

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

I don't prefer them to keep it hidden, I just don't want to know. Say I'm going hunting with this guy, and I know he's gay. I'm going to fear sleeping in the same tent as him, it's not logical, but there it is. If I don't know if he's gay, I won't care because we're two guys out hunting in the woods, I won't see him as any different than me. Religion has bred us to see gay and straight as two complete opposite things, and America has helped it along.

So, your entire opinion of an individual has been altered due to one characteristic because of Religion and American society. Why do you see the gay as a threat? Do you think women would have the same opinion to a straight man? What about religion and American Society has bred this view?

 

[Sacman]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

Yeah... but you can say the same thing about the entire Old Testament...
besides she was included in several different variations and was used by the Church to explain crib deaths up until the about the 1600's...<.<

True.
But Lilith isnt even in the OT, the passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation.
Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl".
Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context.
Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

Actually her existence is pointed at in the story of Gilgamesh popular in several religions before the old testament, which the Old Testament rips off with all of the shame and decency of the Move ripping off the wii... and since there roll in the story was basically the same it sort of just got ported over and given Lilith her name later... and for some reason it was generally accepted...

I just had to brush up it's been a while since I've read either stories...<.<