The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Danny]

Shouldn’t Christians treat all people with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation?

Absolutely. The Bible says: “Honor men of all sorts” or, as Today’s English Version renders it, “Respect everyone.” (1 Peter 2:17) Therefore, Christians are not homophobic. They show kindness to all people, including those who are gay.—Matthew 7:12.

Highlighted the part that's total bullcrap. Out of many great parts to choose from.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Don't know what the general stance on homosexuality in the UK is, but in America the people who were most disrespectful/misunderstanding/intolerant of homosexuality were conservative Christians. Note, it's not a two way street, there are plenty of conservative Christians who are fine with gays, but there are lots of very outspoken Christian fundamentalists who get a scary amount of people to believe them.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

You're not going to get anything balanced out of the JW's. Well-written, yes. Balanced, not a chance.

I saw the URL and was tempted not to even bother, I got halfway through it before I couldn't take any more of their BS.

Agreed. Read about half and had enough. I like how they decided to paraphrase the Bible instead of using direct passages for most of what I read. Nothing backs a solid argument like vague paraphrasing

 

[BobK]

Actually, as I understand it, that's their normal modus operandi. Their "Bible study groups" don't study the Bible itself so much as the Governing Body's interpretation of the Bible. Which is also their own unique translation.

 

[DK]

For those who are interested in what the the Bible says on the subject, I found this article to be balanced & well written; How Can I Explain The Bible's View Of Homosexuality?

Does that include Romans 1:28-32?

 

[FoolKiller]

I saw the URL and was tempted not to even bother, I got halfway through it before I couldn't take any more of their BS.

I must have read a different article than you guys. No hateful comments, no attacks on homosexuals themselves (ignorance about them, yes), and a full on message of tolerance toward homosexual people.

If someone asks: “What’s your view of homosexuality?”

You might reply: “I don’t hate homosexuals, but I can’t approve of their conduct.”

✔ Remember: If you’re guided by the Bible’s moral code, then that is your lifestyle choice, and you have a right to it. (Joshua 24:15) Don’t feel ashamed of your view.—Psalm 119:46.

Shouldn’t Christians treat all people with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation?
Absolutely. The Bible says: “Honor men of all sorts” or, as Today’s English Version renders it, “Respect everyone.” (1 Peter 2:17) Therefore,Christians are not homophobic. They show kindness to all people, including those who are gay.—Matthew 7:12.

Agreed. Read about half and had enough. I like how they decided to paraphrase the Bible instead of using direct passages for most of what I read. Nothing backs a solid argument like vague paraphrasing

Weird, the version I'm looking at has hyperlinks to the verses, placing them in a pop-up, with other hyperlinks to view the whole chapter in context. It was the JW revised edition, but then it is a JW author writing for a JW audience.



But saying the bible disapproves of homosexual acts, but does not teach intolerance or violating rights, is not BS. I've long said in this thread that is the stance anyone claiming to be a Christian should have. I've even pointed out that the Bible equally disapproves of extramarital heterosexual sex acts.

Either you guys saw something I missed or you had a knee-jerk reaction based on religious prejudice, which would be deliciously ironic.

 

[Carlos]

I really don't get why this is such a discussion. People like whatever they want, it's no ones right to say something is or isn't normal. Just respect each other.

For example, my best friend is a Muslim. I don't support his believe in any way, as I don't support any believes because I'm not in to those things, I am more materialistic you could say. But I respect him and it's his thing, so why should I care? He is happy, he is a good friend, I am happy

 

[FoolKiller]

I really don't get why this is such a discussion. People like whatever they want, it's no ones right to say something is or isn't normal. Just respect each other.

For example, my best friend is a Muslim. I don't support his believe in any way, as I don't support any believes because I'm not in to those things, I am more materialistic you could say. But I respect him and it's his thing, so why should I care? He is happy, he is a good friend, I am happy

Ask your friend what his religion says about homosexuality. It might explain why this is such a discussion.

Being an atheist, or materialist(?), you don't have the same point of view as many of those who have an issue with homosexuality.

 

[hogger129]

I accept the sinner, not the sin. As stated previously, the Bible disapproves of these acts. It doesn't teach intolerance or hatred.

 

[Carlos]

Ask your friend what his religion says about homosexuality. It might explain why this is such a discussion.

Being an atheist, or materialist(?), you don't have the same point of view as many of those who have an issue with homosexuality.

That's the whole point. People have different views on how to live their life. You may live your life as you please. If you think it's a bad thing to be gay, don't be gay. I respect what you believe and I have nothing against that, I'm not going to protest saying you shouldn't be anti-gay (for example), but I think it's fair to 'forgive' them for what they are.

You said atheist, I don't see myself that way. I love the possibility that there could be something. I just don't believe in the way you do..

 

[Blitz24]

I accept the sinner, not the sin. As stated previously, the Bible disapproves of these acts. It doesn't teach intolerance or hatred.

What if said sinner though was part of religion that said the given action was a sin? Wouldn't it be unwise to therefore ignore the situation and teach him about his wrongs so he doesn't appear heretical?

 

[FoolKiller]

That's the whole point. People have different views on how to live their life. You may live your life as you please. If you think it's a bad thing to be gay, don't be gay. I respect what you believe and I have nothing against that, I'm not going to protest saying you shouldn't be anti-gay (for example), but I think it's fair to 'forgive' them for what they are.

Do you respect that some believe their religious beliefs (correct or not) should be forced by law? Some even believe that non-believers should be killed.

You don't see that as the issue because you don't see their point of view. Until you understand that you can't possibly approach them in a way that they will respond well to. Just saying, live and let live, will not make them change their minds. You have to be able to discuss their religion and views with them and show them the error of their ways. Even then, you may not get through. If they refuse rationality in favor of ingrained beliefs or hate then you will have a hard time reaching them.

You said atheist, I don't see myself that way. I love the possibility that there could be something. I just don't believe in the way you do..

Call it what you will, it doesn't change the fact that it is the root cause of not understanding those you disagree with.

What if said sinner though was part of religion that said the given action was a sin? Wouldn't it be unwise to therefore ignore the situation and teach him about his wrongs so he doesn't appear heretical?

I know a few people like this, homosexual Christians. One is my cousin. She had her commitment ceremony in a church. My mom loves her like a daughter but is very devout in her faith and heavily bothered by the moral conundrum my cousin creates. She is a moral and kind person who few can find fault with, but she is gay. My mom loves her and they had a long heart to heart, and today they get along and my mom goes with my cousin to her church and has met a large number of people who she was raised being taught are immoral sinners, but whom she now can't think why they should be damned. Her biggest shock was finding out someone she knew previously was transgender. She still doesn't understand it, but doesn't hate her.

Ultimately, if that person is part of the church they already know the teachings on homosexuality. You can reach a point where they know you disagree with their life but still love them or you can suddenly hate someone you loved your whole life, but any good Christian will not fill their heart with hate. They believe Jesus hung out with some of the worst of society, who became his most devout followers and disciples. Why they would think they know better, I do not know.

 

[Carlos]

Do you respect that some believe their religious beliefs (correct or not) should be forced by law? Some even believe that non-believers should be killed.

You don't see that as the issue because you don't see their point of view. Until you understand that you can't possibly approach them in a way that they will respond well to. Just saying, live and let live, will not make them change their minds. You have to be able to discuss their religion and views with them and show them the error of their ways. Even then, you may not get through. If they refuse rationality in favor of ingrained beliefs or hate then you will have a hard time reaching them.


Call it what you will, it doesn't change the fact that it is the root cause of not understanding those you disagree with.

I'm not sure if I respect that, but if that is what they believe then that's their thing. If they start killing people because they are non believers, that's a different story. If you can't accept other people for who they are I don't think you are realistic, because we (non believers) accepted you (believers), so why can't you accept others? It is their right, as it is your right to believe in what you want. If gay people would make life worse for all of us, then I understand. But they are not.

Again, I am not asking you to change your mind on how you think you should live, I ask you to accept people for who they are and accept you are not alone in this world. You can not tell me being atheist is the root of not understanding you, I am aware you live your life as you have been told and I live mine the way I want to, without doing others harm. Just like gay people

 

[FoolKiller]

Are you think am an anti gay religious guy because I'm trying to explain them to you? I'm not. Quite opposite.

The issue is there are enough religious people in the US who think their belief should be law to make it a political issue. And that is why there is the discussion. Homosexuals do not have equal rights in the US and you need to be able to understand and change the minds of voters who would prevent you from giving them equal rights. And trust me, just saying, "I ask you to accept people for who they are and accept you are not alone in this world," will not get that done. Some think gay marriage affects their own marriage and that making it legal violates their own rights. To them understanding they are not alone in this world means others shouldn't offend them.

 

[hogger129]

Are you think am an anti gay religious guy because I'm trying to explain them to you? I'm not. Quite opposite.

The issue is there are enough religious people in the US who think their belief should be law to make it a political issue. And that is why there is the discussion. Homosexuals do not have equal rights in the US and you need to be able to understand and change the minds of voters who would prevent you from giving them equal rights. And trust me, just saying, "I ask you to accept people for who they are and accept you are not alone in this world," will not get that done. Some think gay marriage affects their own marriage and that making it legal violates their own rights. To them understanding they are not alone in this world means others shouldn't offend them.

If you legalize gay marriage, what's next? Polygamy? Incest? Marrying your pets? We are a nation based on Christian morals whether you agree or not.

 

[Famine]

If you legalize gay marriage, what's next? Polygamy? Incest? Marrying your pets?

If you don't, what's next? Banning overseas marriage? Interracial marriage? Bringing back slavery?

We are a nation based on Christian morals whether you agree or not.

And as Foolkiller - a Christian - has been trying to tell you, it's not very Christian to deny people equal rights.

 

[DK]

If you legalize gay marriage, what's next? Polygamy? Incest? Marrying your pets? We are a nation based on Christian morals whether you agree or not.

I suppose you haven't heard of the Treaty of Tripoli?

 

[Carbonox]

Slippery slope logical fallacy detected.

 

[FoolKiller]

If you legalize gay marriage, what's next?

Oh lord, here we go.

Polygamy?

Like Abraham, Jacob, King David, Solomon and many others in the Bible? You realize monogamy was a pre-Christian Roman custom that clashed with Jewish custom and only became a Christian custom because the Roman empire adopted Christianity, right?

Incest?

Two consenting adults? Who cares? I mean, Cain had a wife, but if Adam and Eve are truly the first humans...was his wife Eve or a sister? Lot's daughters seduced him. If you read the genealogy bits you find many characters in the Old Testament married cousins and half siblings. Jesus was ultimately the descendant of many incestuous (by today's standards) relationships.

Honestly, the only issue I see in adult incest are the possible genetic issues with kids.

Marrying your pets?

Really? REALLY? Two consenting adults is in anyway the same as a human and an animal, how? What form of rational logic allows the jump from two humans to beastiality? I like boobs, but that doesn't mean I'm up for sucking a cow's, or any other mammal's, teat.

We are a nation based on Christian morals whether you agree or not.

But we still created a separation of church and state. For a reason. We are not the Christian version of Syria or Iran. We are a melting pot nation welcoming of believers of all faiths, as well as non-believers. We cannot create laws based solely on religious grounds and claim to be a free nation.

 

[BobK]

If you legalize gay marriage, what's next? Polygamy? Incest?

As long as everybody involved is a consenting adult, why not? What's wrong with it?

 

[Dennisch]

Christian morals

I like how you think.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.



Nice, and kinky.

 

[Danoff]

@Dennisch, Sounds like a fantastic deal for her.

 

[Brett]

We are a nation based on Christian morals whether you agree or not.

Except the intent was not to have a theocracy. More importantly, this right here:

But we still created a separation of church and state. For a reason. We are not the Christian version of Syria or Iran. We are a melting pot nation welcoming of believers of all faiths, as well as non-believers. We cannot create laws based solely on religious grounds and claim to be a free nation.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

I must have read a different article than you guys. No hateful comments, no attacks on homosexuals themselves (ignorance about them, yes), and a full on message of tolerance toward homosexual people.




Weird, the version I'm looking at has hyperlinks to the verses, placing them in a pop-up, with other hyperlinks to view the whole chapter in context. It was the JW revised edition, but then it is a JW author writing for a JW audience.



But saying the bible disapproves of homosexual acts, but does not teach intolerance or violating rights, is not BS. I've long said in this thread that is the stance anyone claiming to be a Christian should have. I've even pointed out that the Bible equally disapproves of extramarital heterosexual sex acts.

Either you guys saw something I missed or you had a knee-jerk reaction based on religious prejudice, which would be deliciously ironic.

Poor choice of words on my part. While, yes, the article supported acceptance, and did provide links, they weren't really pertaining to an argument of why the Bible condemns homosexuality; more so just why someone is entitled to his or her own opinion against homosexuality. So yes, I made a poor choice of words by saying it paraphrased the Bible. What I meant was it was using passages as arguments instead of proof. By no means did I intend to offend anyone, and apologize if I did

 

[FoolKiller]

Um, it is titled "How Can I Explain the Bible's View on Homosexuality." It then uses Bible quotes (what other proof can there be?) to show what the Bible says, and how followers of a religion that views the Bible as the Holy Word should act in accordance.

It's like you saying that if I quote the 1st Amendment I'm not proving what the Constitution says about free speech and press.

He never presented it as a reason for why the Bible says what it does. To add to that @VBR didn't claim that's what the article was either.

The article wasn't written with non-believers as the audience to explain to them why Christians can be a-holes about homosexuality. It was written to a JW audience about why they shouldn't be a-holes about homosexuality.

I think you went in looking to find something that was never advertised as being there.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

The very title says "How Can I Explain the Bible's View on Homosexuality," and the article went on to do nothing more than say why you can say you disagree with homosexual acts. Neither the New or Old Testament specifically mention the word homosexuality, yet one of the final links provided does. So as I stated in my last post, despite the title itself implying why the Bible says homosexual acts should be condemned, it doesn't affirm that but instead says why a person is entitled to the right to believe as such.

 

[FoolKiller]

The very title says "How Can I Explain the Bible's View on Homosexuality," and the article went on to do nothing more than say why you can say you disagree with homosexual acts.

...if you believe the Bible is holy scripture. Keep the audience in mind.

Neither the New or Old Testament specifically mention the word homosexuality, yet one of the final links provided does.

So the JW revised English version translated the term for male prostitutes and sodomites to mean homosexuals? You find an issue with that? Women at the time didn't have possessions to pay for male prostitutes, so...

Other translations may also say catamites. Many newly revised versions for modern English translate it to homosexuals.

So as I stated in my last post, despite the title itself implying why the Bible says homosexual acts should be condemned,

No, it doesn't. It says the author is trying to explain what the Bible says. This is the root of your issue. You are looking for something that isn't advertised.

it doesn't affirm that but instead says why a person is entitled to the right to believe as such.

...if they believe the Bible is Holy Word.


Let me add this to explain why audience is important. They don't expect an explanation of why the Bible says what it says. They have faith and belief it is right. Explaining the Bible's view to believers is clarifying what it says.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

I understand your points, and agree, but they did generalize the audience by simply saying "Christians," so I think it's fair to expect the article to remain generalized.

 

[Tesla]

Seeing as this is probably the right thread for it: Why is the government involved in marriages of any kind, other than prohibiting the obvious (marrying someone who is underage for example) and having the marriage in the records?

 

[Pupik]

Why is the government involved in marriages of any kind...having the marriage in the records?

To put it bluntly, in a legal sense: For the purposes of property records, wealth, assets, taxation, contracts, and to potentially trace lineage in the event of a legal dispute of transfer and ownership. You could mention other intangibles, but typically only numbers can be used on tax forms (except for words like EXEMPT).

Why is marriage be regulated so strictly in some places? There's no valid reason, since there's little to no reason to prohibit consenting adults (or whatever the local legal age is for marriage).