The Obssession with Homosexuality

[Tribesman]

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Vuk is one woman chasing wolf.

Thats what Haggard used to shout , christians are viriile have lots of sex and really satisfy women . So then Vuk when are you going to drop the charade and come in the open about being fond of back door deliveries ?

[Fragony]

@luigi

I can think of no society where a bond such as marriage was between same sexes, even in ancient (wth??) Greece it was an tolerated vice despite being very publicly acceptable.

[Andres]

Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

[Vuk]

I must deem this Christian-centred.

The word 'marriage' is older than Catholicism. It is older than the church. It is older than Moses. It is older than the Israelites. The word 'marriage' is ancient, and common throughout the Indo-European linguistic world.
Christianity claims an exclusive right to a word that predates the church by millenia.


The act of marriage predates the church by countless generations too, nobody is entirely sure how old it is. Very certain is that Europeans have been wed to one another for millenia before the birth of Christ.


The church is a modern invention. A totalitarian institution that shamelessly claims monopolies on much older, truly ancient institutions, such as marriage, harvest feasts, burials.

It is not gays who want to take traditional marriage away from Christians. It is on the contrary, Christians who seek to take the ancient tradition of marriage away from any and all non-Christians.

First of all, your history is quite off. Second of all, Christians are not trying to have a monopoly on 'marriage' in the sense of pagans, but simply to preserve the meaning that the word has acquired in recent centuries. So what is the urgent need to go back to the neolithic age? Many other words have changed in meaning over the centuries through PEACEFUL evolution, and no one is saying "The Jurassic meaning of this word may be different! We need it changed!" The meaning of words change throughout history either by general consensus when the people start using it for something different, or when dictators or powerful organizations try to change it for their gain. While it is true that the Catholic church was responsible for extending its control over unwilling people, the definition of marriage was not forcibly changed by Christians, but came to refer exclusively to God's union through centuries of use with the absence of pagan marriages. It was not 'stealing' the word, because the word ceased to be used for all other purposes, so no one had a claim on it. Marriage simply means 'bond' anyway, so cannot the state define such unions as unions or bonds? They are synonyms of the original meaning of marriage. Marriage did not come to refer to what it refers to today by taking the word away from other people who used it for another purpose. If you go trying to change the meaning now, you are going to forcibly change the word that has a long established, common usage among several agreeing organizations and 100s of 1000s of people. Why? It is, as I said, like me trying to claim the word Rabbi. The roots of the word Rabbi have a linguistic history longer than the roots of the word marriage, and were used all throughout the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent. It simply means revered one, or lord. Why is it then that they should have a legal monopoly on it? All throughout history you have had non-religious leaders called Rabbi (or some form of the word), and then those totalitarian childeating Jews (half-brothers to the darker and more disturbed Christians) come along and try to claim it! Those evil Jews are trying to take my reveredness away! Oy vey! I will never truely be accepted or treated equally until I and humanity reclaim that word from evil religion!
I don't know what you bad is with religion, or if it is maybe just Christians you hate, but I think you need to put things in perspective a bit.

EDIT: And just wanted to put a note in to any Jews who see my Oy vey comment and get the wrong idea. I am not making fun of Jews. I am part Jewish myself, and my religious views are very much influenced by Judiasm (to the point where I may say that I am 'half-Jew' in a sense). :P I was just trying to play on the irony and be funny.

[Louis VI the Fat]

First of all, your history is quite off.

I don't know what you bad is with religion, or if it is maybe just Christians you hate, but I think you need to put things in perspective a bit.

Three remarks:

My history is quite correct.

I do not in the slightest bit wish to take away Christian marriage from Christians. I only resist Christians taking away non-Christian marriage from non-Christians.

My beef is not with Christians. It isn't with religion either. My beef is with discrimination.

[Fragony]

Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

I am neutral on the subject, I am not against it, and I am not for it, all fine with me what's it to me. But I don't understand why they want it.

[Vuk]

Thats what Haggard used to shout , christians are viriile have lots of sex and really satisfy women . So then Vuk when are you going to drop the charade and come in the open about being fond of back door deliveries ?

Nah baby, I couldn't do that without exposing you. I wouldn't cause you the embarrasment. Who knows, in this thread you may be lynched...or worse, we may not be allowed to marry!

Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

1) Person A considers himself a leader.
2) Person B considers himself a leader.
3) Person A is legally classified as a Rabbi and Person B is not.
4) Person A and Person B have the exact drrned same rights, but person A is using a word that has come to be associated with his religion and Person B is using the non-religious term.

Get my point? Couple A and Couple B have the same rights. Couple A uses a religious term to define their union if they want to (as meets criteria for both the legal and religious union), and Couple B use the legal word bond. Same rights, treated equally. Couple A may choose to identify with religon or not. Either way, they are gonna have the exact same rights and treated equally with Couple B.
All that matters as far as treatment goes is the legal definition, and if the legal definition is neutral (union, bond, etc) or if there is marriage and union and in every way but the name marriage=union then they will be treated equally and are equal. What is the obsession with highjacking the word? THAT is what I find hard to understand?

[Fragony]

lol Vuk if we agreed more we would have to get married

[Andres]

That's not really an answer to my question now, is it?

The question was about the justification for the unequal treatment that currently exists and adressed to those opposed to gay marriage.

I'd like to have a straight answer to my question from those opposed to gay marriage.

If I don't get a (non evasive) answer to the question, then the conclusion is simple: there is no justification.

If there's no justification for the unequal treatment, then the unequal treatment is unjust and must be ended immediately and gays should be allowed to marry.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

[Vuk]

Three remarks:

My history is quite correct.

I do not in the slightest bit wish to take away Christian marriage from Christians. I only resist Christians taking away non-Christian marriage from non-Christians.

My beef is not with Christians. It isn't with religion either. My beef is with discrimination.

You history is correct? Then in what culture was the word marriage used to describe marriage between the same sex? As far as I know, it was ALWAYS used to refer to marriage between the opposite sexes.

By redefining the word marriage, you are taking away Christian marriage, because the word marraige will no longer refer to the Holy bond that God sanctified. Then when people read their Bibles, they will have start to believe that God said something He didn't -... Hey! I found out whey they want the word so badly!

My beef is not with Christians. It isn't with religion either.

I must deem this Christian-centred.

A totalitarian institution that shamelessly claims monopolies on much older, truly ancient institutions, such as marriage, harvest feasts, burials.

If you say so...

[Louis VI the Fat]

@luigi

I can think of no society where a bond such as marriage was between same sexes, even in ancient (wth??) Greece it was an tolerated vice despite being very publicly acceptable.

Marriage predates Christianity. What Christians consider an ancient, inherently Christian tradition is in fact much older.

Not only that. This Christian 'tradition' has changed throughout the centuries, and throughout different places. Do not mistake a few centuries-old, northwest European practise for a timeless intitution.

What follows is from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript labeled Grottaferrata G.B.), and I have inserted some of the significant original Greek words in transcription.

Office for Same-Sex Union
[Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin]

I.

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

II.

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord. . . .

Have mercy on us, O God.

"Lord, have mercy" shall be said three times.

III.

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one another [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

IV.
Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union

O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

V.

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.

It is this ceremonial, and blessings like these, that Boswell claims to be part of a lost, or deliberately suppressed, tradition of church-legitimized same-sex marriages between men.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece, as described by the Towering Giant of Western philosophy, Plato. For Plato, as was the custom in Greece, male homosexuality was the most manly, most revered form of love:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Speech of Aristophanes
PLATO

From the Symposium, by Plato, translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff, 1989

In a dialogue on the meaning of love, Plato writes a masterpiece for his sometime sparring partner, the playwright Aristophanes, to explain the mystery of our desire for one other person. This passage follows Aristophanes's myth about the origins of human beings. In the beginning, Aristophanes conjectures, humans were essentially two people combined, each with two heads, four feet and four arms. There were three sexes: those with two male halves, those with two female halves, and those with one of each (the "androgynous" sort). At one point, however, Zeus, to punish humans for misbehaving, cut each human in two. Since then, each half wanders the earth in search of its lost other half, creating homosexual men, lesbians, and heterosexuals. Notice how same-sex love is put on the same plane as opposite-sex love, but also see how marriage is not identified with it.

Each of us, then, is a "matching half" of a human whole, because each was sliced like a flatfish, two out of one, and each of us is always seeking the half that matches him. That's why a man who is split from the double sort (which used to be called "androgynous") runs after women. Many lecherous men have come from this class, and so do the lecherous women who run after men. Women who are split from a woman, however, pay no attention at all to men; they are oriented more towards women, and lesbians come from this class. People who are split from a male are male-oriented. While they are boys, because they are chips off the male block, they love men and enjoy lying with men and being embraced by men; those are the best of boys and lads, because they are the most manly in their nature. Of course, some say such boys are shameless, but they're lying. It's not because they have no shame that such boys do this, you see, but because they are bold and brave and masculine, and they tend to cherish what is like themselves. Do you want me to prove it? Look, these are the only kind of boys who grow up to be politicians. When they're grown men, they are lovers of young men, and they naturally pay no attention to marriage or to making babies, except insofar as they are required by local custom. They, however, are quite satisfied to live their lives with one another unmarried. In every way, then, this sort of man grows up as a lover of young men and a lover of Love, always rejoicing in his own kind.

And so, when a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, whether it's to young men or not, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don't want to be separated from one another, not even for a moment.

These are the people who finish out their lives together and still cannot say what it is they want from one another. No one would think it is the intimacy of sex-that mere sex is the reason each lover takes so great and deep a joy in being with the other. It's obvious that the soul of every lover longs for something else; his soul cannot say what it is, but like an oracle it has a sense of what it wants, and like an oracle it hides behind a riddle. Suppose two lovers are lying together and Hephaestus stands over them with his mending tools, asking, "What is it you human beings really want from each other?" And suppose they're perplexed, and he asks them again: "Is this your heart's desire, then-for the two of you to become parts of the same whole, as near as can be, and never to separate, day or night? Because if that's your desire, I'd like to weld you together and join you into something that is naturally whole, so that the two of you are made into one. Then the two of you would share one life, as long as you lived, because you would be one being, and by the same token, when you died, you would be one and not two in Hades, having died a single death. Look at your love, and see if this is what you desire: wouldn't this be all the good fortune you could want?"

Surely you can see that no one who received such an offer would turn it down; no one would find anything else that he wanted. . . .

[Vuk]

That's not really an answer to my question now, is it?

The question was about the justification for the unequal treatment that currently exists and adressed to those opposed to gay marriage.

I'd like to have a straight answer to my question from those opposed to gay marriage.

If I don't get a (non evasive) answer to the question, then the conclusion is simple: there is no justification.

If there's no justification for the unequal treatment, then the unequal treatment is unjust and must be ended immediately and gays should be allowed to marry.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

I have answered your question before and will do so again in a very straightforward way. (get that Tribesy?)
There is no justification for it and they should be afforded the same rights under law. I have said this, and every Christian I have talked to who opposes gay marriage as well as politicians who do have said this. The argument isn't over them getting equal rights, it is about the word. That is why I said my solution would be to abolish the legal definition of marriage and rename the institution legal union/legal bond. It is church in the state where it shouldn't be anyway. Do this, and they will be legally equal, and the name of their legal bond will be the same for those who somehow think it makes a difference.

[Fragony]

Marriage predates Christianity. What Christians consider an ancient, inherently Christian tradition is in fact much older.

Not only that. This Christian 'tradition' has changed throughout the centuries, and throughout different places. Do not mistake a few centuries-old, northwest European practise for a timeless intitution.





Homosexuality in ancient Greece, as described by the Towering Giant of Western philosophy, Plato. For Plato, as was the custom in Greece, male homosexuality was the most manly, most revered form of love:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Speech of Aristophanes
PLATO

From the Symposium, by Plato, translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff, 1989

I am not completely unknowlegdable about all that crap, but, even in Greece marriage was between a man and a woman. You seem to be so very fond of institutionalised things, why do you think the concept of marriage in every culture is between a man and a woman. Baby's, reproduction.

[Andres]

I asked a very simple question:

Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

I only see some interesting posts about the history of the word "marriage", a bit of semantics, some proposals to replace the word "marriage" by something else, but I do not see any justification for the current discrimination.

Since non discrimination is the rule and there's no justification for this exception on the rule, gays should be allowed to marry.

Unless somebody comes with a serious justification, serious enough to justify unequal treatment.

I'm still waiting.

[Vuk]

Marriage predates Christianity. What Christians consider an ancient, inherently Christian tradition is in fact much older.

Not only that. This Christian 'tradition' has changed throughout the centuries, and throughout different places. Do not mistake a few centuries-old, northwest European practise for a timeless intitution.





Homosexuality in ancient Greece, as described by the Towering Giant of Western philosophy, Plato. For Plato, as was the custom in Greece, male homosexuality was the most manly, most revered form of love:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Speech of Aristophanes
PLATO

From the Symposium, by Plato, translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff, 1989

2 things, first of all, while male relations in Greece were common, I have never heard of them being referred to as any derivative of the word marriage. They were, as far as I know, NOT marriages, simply unions.
Second of all, as far as church cults practicing marriage in a way other than what the Bible specifies, it is not marriage, because it goes against what the Bible defines as marriage. Many cults had many practices that went completely agains the Bible including human sacrafice. Because they claim it as a legitimate christian institution does not make it so. And again, they were claiming that it WAS legitimate CHRISTIAN marriage. So that hardly helps your point. Such cultic beliefs have consistently been proved false by Bible scholars.

[Vuk]

I asked a very simple question:



I only see some interesting posts about the history of the word "marriage", a bit of semantics, some proposals to replace the word "marriage" by something else, but I do not see any justification for the current discrimination.

Since non discrimination is the rule and there's no justification for this exception on the rule, gays should be allowed to marry.

Unless somebody comes with a serious justification, serious enough to be in proportion with the consequences of the unequal treatment.

I'm still waiting.

You are right that the current discrimination should end, but it should not end by changing the legal definition of marriage! It should end by something that has already been proven to work: legal unions. (Or, even better, as I suggested, getting rid of legal marriage)
We can agree that the current discrimination is wrong Andres, what we do not agree on is making gay marriage legal. There is another option that steps on no one's toes. (in fact, more than one option) And by doing so, we could make the system more constitutional.

EDIT: Actually, if gays were purpusing a more logical and less offensive solution, they would have my whole-hearted support. The solution that many of them are pursuing though, I judge as idiotic and will not support.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You seem to be so very fond of institutionalised things, why do you think the concept of marriage in every culture is between a man and a woman.

Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement.

From the Journal of Modern History


Medieval gay Europeans had more legal rights than modern gay Europeans. Back then, they had three options:
1 - join into a legal union with another man
2 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes and have mad gay orgies every night
3 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes within a Catholic Church.

Today, only the last two options are open to gay men.

[Vuk]

Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement.

From the Journal of Modern History


Medieval gay Europeans had more legal rights than modern gay Europeans. Back then, they had three options:
1 - join into a legal union with another man
2 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes and have mad gay orgies every night
3 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes within a Catholic Church.

Today, only the last two options are open to gay men.

This legal union was NOT marriage though, was it? I do not have access to the article now so I cannot read more than a little bit of the introduction, but that is not what I got from it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This legal union was NOT marriage though, was it? I do not have access to the article now so I cannot read more than a little bit of the introduction, but that is not what I got from it.

Indeed it was not a marriage. The affrèrement ('joining as brothers') is closest to what today would be called a 'civil union'.

[Fragony]

Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement.

From the Journal of Modern History


Medieval gay Europeans had more legal rights than modern gay Europeans. Back then, they had three options:
1 - join into a legal union with another man
2 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes and have mad gay orgies every night
3 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes within a Catholic Church.

Today, only the last two options are open to gay men.

Doesn't change anything. Marriage is a concept because marriage makes baby's. No matter how cheerful you are you are still too gay.

[LittleGrizzly]

So marriage was around before Christianity...

Christianity adopted marriage into its framework (as well as a bunch of other religions)

Christianity now has ownership off the word ?

What is this.... a numbers game... i remember some quote about the tyranny of the majority...

These days marriage is shared across plenty of religions, agnostics and atheists... what some dusty old book says on the matter is off no importance, i also remember some silly comments in some religious book about not talking to mensurating women, any members of that religion cn follow such out of date rules if they choose to but they are not allowed to enforce that belief on the rest of us through the state...

[Fixiwee]

Marriage is a concept because marriage makes baby's.

Marrige in the sense of the state is a legal procedure. It implies certain obligations to the married couple to the state, but also implies easier procedures of heritage and better taxes for both.
Marrige is to the state, not to biology. I can make babies without being married.

[Fragony]

Marrige is to the state, not to biology. I can make babies without being married.

Hence my amazement that they want to get married, why.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It seems they just can't keep out of other people's religion

I am absoutedly disgusted about this, I never thought I would see the day when such a solid church would consider such things. If this guy gets to keep his position, then I think that I will be forced to leave. Ideally, many in the church will break away to form a new rival Church of Scotland, which I will join. If not, it looks like I'll be joining the local fundamentalist Baptists because I'm not staying in a church that mocks the scripture like this.

[Brenus]

Anyway. nowadays only clergymen and gays wanted o get marriage... (for the French: Mis a part les cures, plus personne ne veut se marier... -Jean Ferrat-)

For the Catholic Church, marriage in one of the holly sacement, confirmed by the Concil of Trente, along side the baptism (followed by the confirmation), confession, the last rites, forget the last one.

[Louis VI the Fat]

it looks like I'll be joining the local fundamentalist Baptists because I'm not staying in a church that mocks the scripture like this.

Hmm...I usually refrain from engaging in theological disputes. However, I think that there are a great many Christians out there who think of their religion as one of love, not of bigotry. They worry about their own soul. Might pray for the salvation of others. And will abstain from making final judgements of others - people like themselves, struggling with what's right and what's wrong.

Scripture says not to judge prostitutes, leppars. Not to cast the first stone. Many Christians see their religion in this manner. What is it about homosexuality that you feel one must hate them so much that one can not even be part of a kirk that refuses to ostracise gays? Didn't Jesus himself took pity on prostitutes, the outcasts, the lowest?

I still maintain that hatred of gays is not an inherently Christian duty. What's more, even amongst those Christians who do think homosexuality sinful, many are forgiving, or will leave judgement to a higher authority.
[/theological dispute from internal Christian perspective]

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have mixed feelings on homosexual clergy (though generally I advocate a don't ask don't tell policy - a Catholic priest shouldn't be having sexual relations with anyone, so it isn't anybody's matter whether he is gay or straight), and as I have stated, I can see both sides of the issue on gay marriage.

However, there is one thing about gay marriage that I can never compromise on. Gay marriage must never be forced on a Church, and if the Catholic Church allows gay marriage voluntarily I will consider leaving.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know that we all need forgivness, homosexuals are no different. I would be delighted if they would attent our churches as part of the congregation, and seriously listen to sound gospel. I don't care if they are homosexuals, prositutues, heck even murderers - they are always welcome to join the congregation and I would not want them to think otherwise.

The problem is that this fellow who wants to become a minister is denying that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Yes God is forgiving, but a sign of forgiveness is realising the state of your sin, whether it is due to being homosexual, or just general flaws that we all have.

You may have noticed I am pretty anti-clerical, and so I would not even have a problem with a homosexual being a minister, since ministers are no different from the rest of us - so long as he/she acknowledged that homosexaulity is wrong according to the Bible.

It's the fact they are saying that homosexuality is OK that is annoying me. I know some of us Christians come across as having a "holier than thou" type attitude, but I am not judging this man as lesser than myself, God forgive me if I should ever think such a thing. But that does not mean that I am not aware of sin for what it is, otherwise I could not have realised my own sins. I do not want the Kirk to teach that sinful deeds are in any way godly, and this dispute is threating to cause the biggest single blow to the Kirk since the disruption of 1843.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That is a good post, Rhy.

Your theological beliefs are your own. By their nature they elude me agreeing or disagreeing with them. Maybe I should have done what I usuall do, and refrain from taking an internal theological position. I mostly wanted to point out that some Christians do not think homosexuality a sin. And that many more will leave judgement to God. Likewise, homophobia is not a Christian invention. Many non-Christians are bigots, unmitigated too by any Christian concepts of forgiveness or the passing on of judgement. (Yes, I was standing up for Christians. ;-) )

From an external, non-theological perspective, I think that an ideology that names homosexuality 'sinful', ie, inferior, is disgraceful and bigoted. (Yes, attacking Christianity here again)

Earlier in this thread, I named provincialism as the main culprit behind homophobia.

[Scurvy]

Yes God is forgiving, but a sign of forgiveness is realising the state of your sin, whether it is due to being homosexual, or just general flaws that we all have.

Not sure I get this, its all very well recognising your own sinful behaviour, but not then attempting to change that behaviour is surely worse than not recognising it at all?

From an external, non-theological perspective, I think that an ideology that names homosexuality 'sinful', ie, inferior, is disgraceful and bigoted.

my thoughts exactly...