Sexual Orientation?

[Xiahou]

That did occur to me. However, it also occurred to me that Christians choose to embrace an ideology that makes an innate human characteristic sinful through its principle text, which is fundamentally abhorent.I will ammend the above text. Replace 'religious people' with 'religious people who follow biblical directives'.

It's not the "characteristic", it's the behavior. Promiscuity and pre-marital sex are universally frowned on by any Christian denomination I know of. This applies to hetero or homosexuals.

Of course, there are those who take it to a hypocritical extreme and use it as an excuse for harsh treatment- but you can't damn an entire religion for a minority that twist its teachings

[Beskar]

Of course, there are those who take it to a hypocritical extreme and use it as an excuse for harsh treatment- but you can't damn an entire religion for a minority that twist its teachings

Sorry, but Religion is not above criticism, this is the 21st Century, not the 14th. Especially as it is the majority that follow this view and not the minority. Religions are nothing special, they are myths and fairy tales, akin to Santa Claus but with a stronger commitment and dogmatic criteria.

[Rahwana]

*SIGH*

so I gave up my hope to gain first hand contact, and start to wrote my paper based on wikipedia articles and another internet sources...

BTW, there are even people who push for capital penalty to gay sex. Well... that was merely because recently, an Indonesian couple just get gay-married again in Netherland, and some close minded people try to destroy their hapiness.

[Lord of Lent]

I do respect Beskar's views but I'm tired of the prejudice. I am a christian but I support gay marriage. I think love between two men or two women is the same love that a man and a woman feel. I really do not understand why a lot of christians are against it; I do not think God wants us to judge each other only because they love each other. I am a progressive christian, I must admit, but I just cannot stand people who judge a whole group of people just because the majority has a certain view. We have in common that we all believe in God, but our opinions and ideologies can differ as much as between two non-religious people.

Euthanesia is another thing: I think it is wrong to prevent people to have a better life when their current live is unbearable. A lot of christians do not agree with me, but saying that all christians are against euthanesia is prejudice.

I may have a different religion and a different ideology, but I do not judge you. I may not agree with you but you have the right to express your opinions and I do respect your views and I ask you to do the same.

I wonder if there are LGBT members here. If you read this; do not be afraid to tell us (You do not have to though). I do support you even though I am not LGBT.

[Fragony]

Close minded works both ways, sometimes people see the meddling with tradition an act of agression, it often is and I doubt Hussies and Rhylfaer's very tolerant aproach would satisfy them. ('them' being pro activists)

edit: and lord of lent. How can anyone have problem with that.

[Lord of Lent]

edit: and lord of lent. How can anyone have problem with that.

I do not understand why but it seems that some people have. I made my point.

[Viking]

The Backroom is to HOMOgeneous for there to be any gays present, it's in the label. The poll does not ask whether I support marriage, so I cannot vote.

Sorry, but Religion is not above criticism, this is the 21st Century, not the 14th. Especially as it is the majority that follow this view and not the minority. Religions are nothing special, they are myths and fairy tales, akin to Santa Claus but with a stronger commitment and dogmatic criteria.

or akin to socialism. Or capitalism. Or any ideology out there that people believe in. This is the 21st Century, so any idea must stand up to scrutiny! (and some time in the future, it will be the 22th century! my God, what do we do then? will our tastes in ice cream no longer be above criticism, like they were in the now loathed 21th?)

[Cute Wolf]

I did actually support for Destigmatization and Worldwide Decriminalizations for gay and bisexuals, but never ever support gay marriage.

Marriage is for men and women only, and what is the point about homosexual marriage? inheritance? Oh please... we all know that they could use WILL, simple enough. Pension? hey, gay men is still a MAN isn't? so took up some work and made their own money. Adoption? What the hell a kid should be reared by 2 daddy? it won't necessarily worse, but the healthy psychological development of children needs both mom and dad's attentions and emotional / spiritual presence (they could be deceased, but still present spiritually).

Gay marriage is pointless, if a cpouple of gay men want to live close together, they should found a couple of lesbians who also want to do that, and each one gay marry each lesbians in 2 marriage of covenience, simple isn't?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Gay marriage is pointless, if a cpouple of gay men want to live close together, they should found a couple of lesbians who also want to do that, and each one gay marry each lesbians in 2 marriage of covenience, simple isn't?

I agree, this is the only way to protect the sanctity of marriage.

[gaelic cowboy]

If you want to sanctify marriage and keep reserved it for men and women then you will actually have to ban civil marriage altogether.

You can still have your religious marriage ceremony in front a crowd who worship Bongo the Moon God but it will have no civil weight.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If you want to sanctify marriage and keep reserved it for men and women then you will actually have to ban civil marriage altogether.

You can still have your religious marriage ceremony in front a crowd who worship Bongo the Moon God but it will have no civil weight.

The perfect solution, they didn't even have civil marriage in England until the Barebones Parliament introduced it in 1653, in Scotland it wasn't until even much later, you counted as being married if you had a couple of witnesses there.

The only reason we kept it is because the nuclear family became the basic social unit for so long. Gay couples aren't the basic social unit and they don't keep society running, so why should they get the privileges (which is what civil marriage is, it is a privilege not a right, negative freedoms and all that).

[gaelic cowboy]

The perfect solution, they didn't even have civil marriage in England until the Barebones Parliament introduced it in 1653, in Scotland it wasn't until even much later, you counted as being married if you had a couple of witnesses there.

The only reason we kept it is because the nuclear family became the basic social unit for so long. Gay couples aren't the basic social unit and they don't keep society running, so why should they get the privileges (which is what civil marriage is, it is a privilege not a right, negative freedoms and all that).

I suspect property rights/primogeniture and the whole idea of legitimacy had a big part to play too in the development of civil marriage.

I see the idea of civil marriage as a holdover that we dont really need anymore in a legal sense.

[PanzerJaeger]

It's not the "characteristic", it's the behavior. Promiscuity and pre-marital sex are universally frowned on by any Christian denomination I know of. This applies to hetero or homosexuals.

Of course, there are those who take it to a hypocritical extreme and use it as an excuse for harsh treatment- but you can't damn an entire religion for a minority that twist its teachings

Fair enough. My personal involvement has definitely left me with a less than objective stance. It is unfortunate to me that most modern Christian denominations selectively apply Leviticus, but I should not have lumped all of them together.

I'm glad you came to that conclusion that not only is it not a choice but that your homosexual friend was in fact a better man then those who tout that homosexuality is terrible (AKA most religious people).

My high school friends were all homophobic to an extreme measure (although since these were players on the football team, they did a lot of homoerotic things to each other as "pranks"). When people we all knew who didn't fit the stereotype came out sophomore, junior and senior year their bigotry simply found more excuses for them to look down at gays. Before they would say it was a choice and that they should just stop choosing to "suck ****", then when it became obvious it's who you are and not a choice they decided to go down the Social Darwinism path and claimed that a scientific journal had published a study where a gene altered in mice had "turned them gay". So their logic became that it wasn't a choice but instead their gayness was a genetic abnormality or "defect" because obviously a gene is defective if it prevents them from procreating and this "gay gene" does that so they are simply "defective" people with a neurological disorder. Yeah, I'm glad I am 400 miles away from those bigots now.

That is all too often the case in high schools across the country. The recent spate of gay teen suicides seems to finally be shedding some light on the issue, though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Fair enough. My personal involvement has definitely left me with a less than objective stance. It is unfortunate to me that most modern Christian denominations selectively apply Leviticus, but I should not have lumped all of them together.

There are 3 parts to the law in Leviticus, moral/ceremonial/judicial. Christians still only abid by the moral law, since the ceremonial law is said in the New Testament to have been fulfilled in Christ, and the judicial law was given specifically to the nation of Israel.

In any case, it is a myth that homosexuality is only mentioned in Levitcus.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

So who is selectively applying passages?

[PanzerJaeger]

There are 3 parts to the law in Leviticus, moral/ceremonial/judicial. Christians still only abid by the moral law, since the ceremonial law is said in the New Testament to have been fulfilled in Christ, and the judicial law was given specifically to the nation of Israel.

In any case, it is a myth that homosexuality is only mentioned in Levitcus.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

So who is selectively applying passages?

It is interesting that you bring up that Corinthians verse, as the meaning of arsenokoites(sic) is not at all clear cut and has been the subject of religious debate for centuries. It is more likely a reference to prosititution. You may want to check your facts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is interesting that you bring up that Corinthians verse, as the meaning of arsenokoites(sic) is not at all clear cut and has been the subject of religious debate for centuries. It is more likely a reference to prosititution. You may want to check your facts.

I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the wording. Paul himself makes it pretty clear what he meant if you read what he says elsewhere. Despite the theological gymnastics liberal Christians like to pull off whenever homosexuality is mentioned, even they haven't given an answer to what Paul wrote in the Epistle to the Romans:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27)

Well I have heard them say that Paul is really saying that this condemns homosexual behaviour for heterosexuals (wut?), but other than that...

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the wording. Paul himself makes it pretty clear what he meant if you read what he says elsewhere. Despite the theological gymnastics liberal Christians like to pull off whenever homosexuality is mentioned, even they haven't given an answer to what Paul wrote in the Epistle to the Romans:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27)

Well I have heard them say that Paul is really saying that this condemns homosexual behaviour for heterosexuals (wut?), but other than that...

I'm hugely confused Ted does that mean you a Paulian and not a Christian

[miotas]

I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the wording. Paul himself makes it pretty clear what he meant if you read what he says elsewhere. Despite the theological gymnastics liberal Christians like to pull off whenever homosexuality is mentioned, even they haven't given an answer to what Paul wrote in the Epistle to the Romans:

Luckily most Christians I know (what you would call "liberal" Christians I suppose) don't actually believe that the bible is literally true, it's book of metaphors written for people of a less knowledgable time. They don't kill their children when they are disobedient, for example.

[Beskar]

Luckily most Christians I know (what you would call "liberal" Christians I suppose) don't actually believe that the bible is literally true, it's book of metaphors written for people of a less knowledgable time. They don't kill their children when they are disobedient, for example.

Then it starts to degrade into "what is a true Christian?" and thus, you have started the creation of a new branch.

[Xiahou]

Fair enough. My personal involvement has definitely left me with a less than objective stance. It is unfortunate to me that most modern Christian denominations selectively apply Leviticus, but I should not have lumped all of them together.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27)

Howabout Romans 2:1.. "1 Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

[miotas]

That could explain alot...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Luckily most Christians I know (what you would call "liberal" Christians I suppose) don't actually believe that the bible is literally true, it's book of metaphors written for people of a less knowledgable time. They don't kill their children when they are disobedient, for example.

As I said, that is part of the judicial law given to ancient Israel as a nation, why would I follow that?

I'm hugely confused Ted does that mean you a Paulian and not a Christian

If by "Christian" you just mean some novel definition of the word that you made up right now to not include Paul's writings as part of the scripture, then yes.

Fun fact... when is the term Christian first applied in the Bible? Answer... to the followers at Antioch, in Acts 11:26, the same verse which describes how Paul came to stay with those same people.

Howabout Romans 2:1.. "1 Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

And so by your use of that verse, you just condemned Paul, Matthew, John, the rest of the disciples, and called Jesus a sinner.

If you read on even two verses from the one you quoted, you would see that Paul was condemning the double standards of those he was writing to:

"And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" (Romans 2:3)

And if you read further into the chapter, you would see that this double standard was being used by Gentiles, who thought they had not sinned because only Jews were under the law:

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12)

And so what Paul said is actually that we are all judged by the same law, whether Jew or Gentile, and not that we should never take any sort of judgment or stance on moral issues whatsoever (for those who try to do that with Romans 2:1 and Matthew 7:1 with the judge not lest ye be judged thing, they are are of course, ironically, passing judgment on you for judging people ).

And his message can be reconciled with various other verses, such as:

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." (1 Corinthians 6:2-4)

Which liberal Christians apparently disagree with.

[Fragony]

It's kinda funny how a text that is claimed to be only to be interpreted can be molded into absolutist rethorical mathematics anyway. It's a collection of texts not a formula.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's kinda funny how a text that is claimed to be only to be interpreted can be molded into absolutist rethorical mathematics anyway. It's a collection of texts not a formula.

But Fragony, that doesn't fit self-help rhetoric at all: I mean if they're just a bunch of disparate texts you must accept inconsistencies, uncertainty and doubt instead of One True Path to Answers! I mean what use is The Word of God if it is by definition fallible?

[gaelic cowboy]

If by "Christian" you just mean some novel definition of the word that you made up right now to not include Paul's writings as part of the scripture, then yes.

Fun fact... when is the term Christian first applied in the Bible? Answer... to the followers at Antioch, in Acts 11:26, the same verse which describes how Paul came to stay with those same people.

So what your saying is that Paul is more important for you and not your supposed Jesus thats what I'm getting at. Paul is nice and handy for the whole control of large groups of people what with his rules and regs and all that sort of stuff.

Sermon on the Mount bah never mind that lark Paul says blah blah

[Xiahou]

And so by your use of that verse, you just condemned Paul, Matthew, John, the rest of the disciples, and called Jesus a sinner.

How on earth would you arrive at that conclusion? Me quoting a passage that cautions us not to judge others equals me judging the gospel writers and Jesus in your mind?

Matthew 7 is indeed another great example. "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."

for those who try to do that with Romans 2:1 and Matthew 7:1 with the judge not lest ye be judged thing, they are are of course, ironically, passing judgment on you for judging people

Once again, I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at this conclusion. There is a huge difference between saying "Passing judgment on others is bad" and "You're passing judgment on others and you are bad." The second is hypocritical and the bible repeatedly cautions against this. Not passing judgment on others is a common biblical theme seen again in John8 "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." The common thread is that we're all sinners (unless you're claiming to be a saint), and as such, we need to concern ourselves with our own failings rather than busying ourselves with condemning others.

[Samurai Waki]

I couldn't care less, I don't think the institution of marriage (In the Judeo-Christian sense) has a place in politics to begin with, as it directly conflicts with the Separation of Church and State. If people want to be joined in a contractual sense then by all means they should be able to seek a Civil Union, gay, straight, or otherwise. If people want to be "married" in the spiritual sense, they should certainly be free to do that as well, of course keeping in mind that it has no actual legal precedence. That way bigots can keep being bigots, and people can shut up about it already...

[Louis VI the Fat]

G...guys...I...I...I have a confession to make.

I'm sorry, but I can no longer live a lie...

You've all seen me act way tough in threads discussing sex or girls. Well, that was just a pose. Sorry. Reality is different. I must come out of the closet. I am not like other guys. I don't like girls. Well I like them of course but I mean I'm not attracted to them. I am:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An anatidaeophile