Christianity and homosexuality

[sledheavy]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

[micatala]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

wow dude i really dont see wut a prostate has to do with butt sex
but the prostate is what helps make cemene it functions with the dick (i tried to use the more properword but it came up as "xxx") not the anus
but on a different note
the idea that God dosnt like gays is inaccurate
God loves all mankind it is the ACT of homosexuality that He frowns on not the gay person
being gay and having gay urges is not sinfull it is acting on those urges that is the sin

I frankly don't think God "frowns on" all gay sex. After all, gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom as well, and so can be considered quite natural, if not the norm in the sense that only a small minority are even motivated to consider engaging in it.

In any event, I think it behooves us humans to let gay people address their situation with God on their own. It is none of our business. As long as a gay person does not act in such a way as to cause others to violate their own consciences and sin, then what they do is between them and God. I think Romans 14 applies here.

As far as civil society goes, I don't support making Biblical precepts into law unless there is a compelling non-religious reason to do so. In the U.S., we would never suggest that the law of the land should include the first two commandments. In fact, really only two of the 10 commandments are prohibited by law.

If we allow heterosexuals to marry, I believe we should afford homosexuals the same civil right.

[reality101]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

wow dude i really dont see wut a prostate has to do with butt sex
but the prostate is what helps make cemene it functions with the dick (i tried to use the more properword but it came up as "xxx") not the anus
but on a different note
the idea that God dosnt like gays is inaccurate
God loves all mankind it is the ACT of homosexuality that He frowns on not the gay person
being gay and having gay urges is not sinfull it is acting on those urges that is the sin

I frankly don't think God "frowns on" all gay sex. After all, gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom as well, and so can be considered quite natural, if not the norm in the sense that only a small minority are even motivated to consider engaging in it.

In any event, I think it behooves us humans to let gay people address their situation with God on their own. It is none of our business. As long as a gay person does not act in such a way as to cause others to violate their own consciences and sin, then what they do is between them and God. I think Romans 14 applies here.

As far as civil society goes, I don't support making Biblical precepts into law unless there is a compelling non-religious reason to do so. In the U.S., we would never suggest that the law of the land should include the first two commandments. In fact, really only two of the 10 commandments are prohibited by law.

If we allow heterosexuals to marry, I believe we should afford homosexuals the same civil right.

well you really cant use the animal kingdom as an example casue for on animals dont have souls and also they lick there asses and walk around naked but ya dont see us doin that

i agree with paraghaph 2 and 3 though
but not the last one for the simple reason of homosexuality is not somthing that i think should be encouraged and to grant an illigitament marraige would be encouraging

[Goat]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

wow dude i really dont see wut a prostate has to do with butt sex
but the prostate is what helps make cemene it functions with the dick (i tried to use the more properword but it came up as "xxx") not the anus
but on a different note
the idea that God dosnt like gays is inaccurate
God loves all mankind it is the ACT of homosexuality that He frowns on not the gay person
being gay and having gay urges is not sinfull it is acting on those urges that is the sin

I frankly don't think God "frowns on" all gay sex. After all, gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom as well, and so can be considered quite natural, if not the norm in the sense that only a small minority are even motivated to consider engaging in it.

In any event, I think it behooves us humans to let gay people address their situation with God on their own. It is none of our business. As long as a gay person does not act in such a way as to cause others to violate their own consciences and sin, then what they do is between them and God. I think Romans 14 applies here.

As far as civil society goes, I don't support making Biblical precepts into law unless there is a compelling non-religious reason to do so. In the U.S., we would never suggest that the law of the land should include the first two commandments. In fact, really only two of the 10 commandments are prohibited by law.

If we allow heterosexuals to marry, I believe we should afford homosexuals the same civil right.

well you really cant use the animal kingdom as an example casue for on animals dont have souls and also they lick there asses and walk around naked but ya dont see us doin that

i agree with paraghaph 2 and 3 though
but not the last one for the simple reason of homosexuality is not somthing that i think should be encouraged and to grant an illigitament marraige would be encouraging

If god wanted us to walk around naked, he would have us being born without any clothes.

There are plenty of cultures in the very hot regions that people walk around just about butt naked.

If the laws where changed so that two people of the same gender can marry, then
the marriage would not be 'illegitimate', but legal.

[micatala]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

wow dude i really dont see wut a prostate has to do with butt sex
but the prostate is what helps make cemene it functions with the dick (i tried to use the more properword but it came up as "xxx") not the anus
but on a different note
the idea that God dosnt like gays is inaccurate
God loves all mankind it is the ACT of homosexuality that He frowns on not the gay person
being gay and having gay urges is not sinfull it is acting on those urges that is the sin

I frankly don't think God "frowns on" all gay sex. After all, gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom as well, and so can be considered quite natural, if not the norm in the sense that only a small minority are even motivated to consider engaging in it.

In any event, I think it behooves us humans to let gay people address their situation with God on their own. It is none of our business. As long as a gay person does not act in such a way as to cause others to violate their own consciences and sin, then what they do is between them and God. I think Romans 14 applies here.

As far as civil society goes, I don't support making Biblical precepts into law unless there is a compelling non-religious reason to do so. In the U.S., we would never suggest that the law of the land should include the first two commandments. In fact, really only two of the 10 commandments are prohibited by law.

If we allow heterosexuals to marry, I believe we should afford homosexuals the same civil right.

well you really cant use the animal kingdom as an example casue for on animals dont have souls and also they lick there asses and walk around naked but ya dont see us doin that

i agree with paraghaph 2 and 3 though
but not the last one for the simple reason of homosexuality is not somthing that i think should be encouraged and to grant an illigitament marraige would be encouraging

If we could get everyone to accept paragraphs 2 and 3, we would be a lot better off I think.

On the last paragraph, I think this misses the point. I am not promoting gay marriage as a way to 'encourage homosexuality'. In general, people who are gay are going to be gay regardless of what the marriage laws say.

Try replacing the statement with 'heterosexuality' and see how it reads. Is allowing people of opposite genders to marry 'encouraging heterosexuality'? If so, how? What does it really mean to 'encourage homosexuality' or 'encourage heterosexuality'?

well you really cant use the animal kingdom as an example casue for on animals dont have souls and also they lick there asses and walk around naked but ya dont see us doin that

Certainly we are different from animals in many ways. However, biologically speaking, we are still similar in many ways, including our engagement in sexual activities. If homosexuality exists in nature, and is thus natural, and we also have evidence that exists naturally in humans, and if we assume God is the ultimate creator of the universe, how would we conclude that homosexuality is somehow unnatural or un-Godly?

Yes, we do overlay morality on our sexual behavior. We typically do not consider 'anything goes sexually' appropriate behavior, and this would not apply to animals. However, there is a great difference in how we apply this morality to heterosexuals and homosexuals. If we would simply apply the same moral rules in both cases, I would be happy. If we allow heterosexuals to marry, we should allow the same for homosexuals. That would be a fair and just moral or legal code.

[MagusYanam]

Yes, we do overlay morality on our sexual behavior. We typically do not consider 'anything goes sexually' appropriate behavior, and this would not apply to animals. However, there is a great difference in how we apply this morality to heterosexuals and homosexuals. If we would simply apply the same moral rules in both cases, I would be happy. If we allow heterosexuals to marry, we should allow the same for homosexuals. That would be a fair and just moral or legal code.

With regard to animals, I'd say 'anything goes sexually' is rather a broad generalisation, and kind of misses the point. Animals tend to act solely on instinct - whether that instinct is monogamy (especially in social, flock- or herd-based animals such as anserines, wolves and whales) or dominant-male polygamy (many hooved animals and seals) or something else. It isn't so much 'anything goes sexually' but 'instinct rules sexual behaviour'. Humans have instincts as well, but we tend to hedge them about with moral rules, as you say.

Still, I don't think it affects your conclusion any. If anything, it reinforces it - if we (as a species) truly are masters of our instincts, there should be no problem with legitimating homosexual relationships the same way we do with heterosexual ones, as social constructs even if they are not religious ones.

[reality101]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

wow dude i really dont see wut a prostate has to do with butt sex
but the prostate is what helps make cemene it functions with the dick (i tried to use the more properword but it came up as "xxx") not the anus
but on a different note
the idea that God dosnt like gays is inaccurate
God loves all mankind it is the ACT of homosexuality that He frowns on not the gay person
being gay and having gay urges is not sinfull it is acting on those urges that is the sin

I frankly don't think God "frowns on" all gay sex. After all, gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom as well, and so can be considered quite natural, if not the norm in the sense that only a small minority are even motivated to consider engaging in it.

In any event, I think it behooves us humans to let gay people address their situation with God on their own. It is none of our business. As long as a gay person does not act in such a way as to cause others to violate their own consciences and sin, then what they do is between them and God. I think Romans 14 applies here.

As far as civil society goes, I don't support making Biblical precepts into law unless there is a compelling non-religious reason to do so. In the U.S., we would never suggest that the law of the land should include the first two commandments. In fact, really only two of the 10 commandments are prohibited by law.

If we allow heterosexuals to marry, I believe we should afford homosexuals the same civil right.

well you really cant use the animal kingdom as an example casue for on animals dont have souls and also they lick there asses and walk around naked but ya dont see us doin that

i agree with paraghaph 2 and 3 though
but not the last one for the simple reason of homosexuality is not somthing that i think should be encouraged and to grant an illigitament marraige would be encouraging

If god wanted us to walk around naked, he would have us being born without any clothes.

There are plenty of cultures in the very hot regions that people walk around just about butt naked.

If the laws where changed so that two people of the same gender can marry, then
the marriage would not be 'illegitimate', but legal.

in the book of creation it says that adam and eve when in there state of perfection were naked and only wen they found sainten did they become aware of it. don't get me wrong im not sayin we should all be naked but im just pointing that out.
in those regions they also piss in there fresh water supply and have serious issues with AIDS and HIV .

anyway religious legitamacy of a marraige is not based on law it is based on church recognition. Christian churchs do not recognize gay marraige as real
there are 2 types of marraige , i cant remember the actually name for them but in the end it is religious marraige and legal marraige
all re3ligious marraige is recognized as legal marraige but not all legal marraige is religious marraige. People who are divorced cannot be marriage by the church untill an anullment is granted making the religious marraige knull and void. But divorced people can remarry legally but there marraige will not be recognized by the church

[micatala]

anyway religious legitamacy of a marraige is not based on law it is based on church recognition. Christian churchs do not recognize gay marraige as real
there are 2 types of marraige , i cant remember the actually name for them but in the end it is religious marraige and legal marraige
all re3ligious marraige is recognized as legal marraige but not all legal marraige is religious marraige. People who are divorced cannot be marriage by the church untill an anullment is granted making the religious marraige knull and void. But divorced people can remarry legally but there marraige will not be recognized by the church

I would be fine with each church deciding on rules for the marriages they sanctify. Yes, those who have church weddings nearly always also have a legal wedding as part of the same process, and the reverse is not necessarily true. How different churches deal with divorce and remarriage is also their business, in my view. The legal situation here is different. Divorce is typically ONLY a legal proceeding, which the church may or may not recognize. From a legal standpoint, a divorced person can always remarry, even if they cannot have it done in the same church as their first wedding.

Legal marriages should not be bound by religious doctrine. Thus, the state should sanction gay marriage just as it does heterosexual marriage unless there is some compelling non-religious reason for not doing so. I have yet to see any such compelling reason.

[McCulloch]

anyway religious legitamacy of a marraige is not based on law it is based on church recognition. Christian churchs do not recognize gay marraige as real

Some do. However, many people get married without reference to Christian churches. Surely you could have no objection to non-Christian same-sex marriage, could you?

[reality101]

anyway religious legitamacy of a marraige is not based on law it is based on church recognition. Christian churchs do not recognize gay marraige as real
there are 2 types of marraige , i cant remember the actually name for them but in the end it is religious marraige and legal marraige
all re3ligious marraige is recognized as legal marraige but not all legal marraige is religious marraige. People who are divorced cannot be marriage by the church untill an anullment is granted making the religious marraige knull and void. But divorced people can remarry legally but there marraige will not be recognized by the church

I would be fine with each church deciding on rules for the marriages they sanctify. Yes, those who have church weddings nearly always also have a legal wedding as part of the same process, and the reverse is not necessarily true. How different churches deal with divorce and remarriage is also their business, in my view. The legal situation here is different. Divorce is typically ONLY a legal proceeding, which the church may or may not recognize. From a legal standpoint, a divorced person can always remarry, even if they cannot have it done in the same church as their first wedding.

Legal marriages should not be bound by religious doctrine. Thus, the state should sanction gay marriage just as it does heterosexual marriage unless there is some compelling non-religious reason for not doing so. I have yet to see any such compelling reason.

i see what your saying and it makes sense a few things though:
1) religious marriage is ALWAYS recognized by the state
2)divorce is ALWAYS only a legal process and is NEVER recognized by the church
3) they can always remarry but it CAN NOT be done in any church until an anullment is granted (atleast for Roman Catholics not too sure bout other christianity)

One non religious reason is simple and i think i stated this before:
the point of marriage is to have a family agreed?
But a child cannot be reared into a good full citizen without the parental influence of a man and a women, both contribute many aspects and lessons that cannot be taught by the other.
I think it is the responsibility of a widow with young children to find a proper mother/father figure for those children
how can a young boy learn to be a man when he has no real male figure in his life.
Lets be honest gay guys cannot truly be called real men and im not saying that as an insult just a fact. If you look at the population of male convicts and drug dealers and drug heads etc you can easily notice a popular trait in each of them, they were raised by a single mother, now not all children of single mothers turn out bad but a great number do and it isn't the fault of the mother, its just a matter of a boy cant grow up to be a man without a man's influence

[Cathar1950]

anyway religious legitamacy of a marraige is not based on law it is based on church recognition. Christian churchs do not recognize gay marraige as real
there are 2 types of marraige , i cant remember the actually name for them but in the end it is religious marraige and legal marraige
all re3ligious marraige is recognized as legal marraige but not all legal marraige is religious marraige. People who are divorced cannot be marriage by the church untill an anullment is granted making the religious marraige knull and void. But divorced people can remarry legally but there marraige will not be recognized by the church

I would be fine with each church deciding on rules for the marriages they sanctify. Yes, those who have church weddings nearly always also have a legal wedding as part of the same process, and the reverse is not necessarily true. How different churches deal with divorce and remarriage is also their business, in my view. The legal situation here is different. Divorce is typically ONLY a legal proceeding, which the church may or may not recognize. From a legal standpoint, a divorced person can always remarry, even if they cannot have it done in the same church as their first wedding.

Legal marriages should not be bound by religious doctrine. Thus, the state should sanction gay marriage just as it does heterosexual marriage unless there is some compelling non-religious reason for not doing so. I have yet to see any such compelling reason.

i see what your saying and it makes sense a few things though:
1) religious marriage is ALWAYS recognized by the state
2)divorce is ALWAYS only a legal process and is NEVER recognized by the church
3) they can always remarry but it CAN NOT be done in any church until an anullment is granted (atleast for Roman Catholics not too sure bout other christianity)

One non religious reason is simple and i think i stated this before:
the point of marriage is to have a family agreed?
But a child cannot be reared into a good full citizen without the parental influence of a man and a women, both contribute many aspects and lessons that cannot be taught by the other.
I think it is the responsibility of a widow with young children to find a proper mother/father figure for those children
how can a young boy learn to be a man when he has no real male figure in his life.
Lets be honest gay guys cannot truly be called real men and im not saying that as an insult just a fact. If you look at the population of male convicts and drug dealers and drug heads etc you can easily notice a popular trait in each of them, they were raised by a single mother, now not all children of single mothers turn out bad but a great number do and it isn't the fault of the mother, its just a matter of a boy cant grow up to be a man without a man's influence

I couldn't disagree with you more.
Tell us how gays are not real men or male role models. I have found many Christian male role models less manly then some gays. So what?
Most people in our culture get married for love or money but I don't think it is just to produce children. So no we don't agree the main reason to get married is to have a family. There are many cases of people that have a father or mother missing or even both where they grow up to be a fine "good full citizen".
Maybe you should be blaming our culture and communities instead of single mothers and homosexuals.