choosing to be gay/bisexual

[RadkeLover]

so people who are bisexual and gay chose to be that way? even though they knew what would happen? that they would be shunned? yeah, okay, no, when i first started realising i was bisexual, i didnt want to be, i wanted to be "normal". but i couldnt, i wasnt normal, people who think that we choose this life, are wrong, and people who yell at us that we are going to hell, are wrong, wrong wrong wrong, it pisses me off soooo much when they say stuff like that, how come the hard core christians can get away with yelling at people that they are going to hell, what they are doing is wrong, etc etc, yet they say THEY are the ones getting attacked, and no, i am not just assuming this, i used to be a devout christian, i went to church, i listened, and this is what i have learned from all of it, some of them are bias and hypocrits, others are nice,

[ReluctantPegasister]

The problem with religion is it melds to conform to whatever a believer already believes. And apparently, a lot of believers are homophobes, especially those bloody sheepherders who invented the Judeo-Christian God. Of course their God also thinks homosexuality is "ew gross". Never mind that it would be ridiculous to send even the worst person to hell for eternity, but to send a woman or a man to burn for forever for the crime of loving someone of the same gender?

Five words for you, religions that hate Queers: Screw. That. Bull. Crap. (beat) Bitch.

(.... and I'm a bisexual)

[aloharocker]

I'm bisexual and I'm also an atheist with Catholic tendencies. I was raised Catholic, I still say Hail Marys when I'm upset, I like saints... I would have never "chosen" to be bi, not after what I've been through for it, but I can understand the rationale.

When people truly believe in a religion, it's a source of comfort. It's a guide for his/her life. They want to believe that if they follow all the rules, their life will be good. They don't necessarily want to believe that if someone doesn't follow the rules that their life can be just as good.

[thebigmole]

Well and the most ironic thing about the hatred of gays, is that homosexuality was NOT uncommon in the past. It was pretty much the norm in the Roman and Greek days, in China it's been around forever. And in fact the very idea of homosexuality is something that has just come into being in the past century.

[Shawn K.]

Originally Posted by RadkeLover

so people who are bisexual and gay chose to be that way? even though they knew what would happen? that they would be shunned? yeah, okay, no, when i first started realising i was bisexual, i didnt want to be, i wanted to be "normal". but i couldnt, i wasnt normal, people who think that we choose this life, are wrong, and people who yell at us that we are going to hell, are wrong, wrong wrong wrong, it pisses me off soooo much when they say stuff like that, how come the hard core christians can get away with yelling at people that they are going to hell, what they are doing is wrong, etc etc, yet they say THEY are the ones getting attacked, and no, i am not just assuming this, i used to be a devout christian, i went to church, i listened, and this is what i have learned from all of it, some of them are bias and hypocrits, others are nice,

Hey Tyler, I'm reluctant to talk to much about this subject, especially the religious aspect, accept for giving my opinions against bullying homosexuals and obvious shit like that.

But I gotta try to make a quick point. My Uncle Jay, my Mom's brother is gay. He's 6'5 about [Edited by Gymnophoria]; he's served two tours in Iraq; he is the sole owner of one of the most exclusive men's salons on the west coast; His response to talk of being shunned, discriminated against, ridiculed is: "Kiss my ass till you can kick my ass."

Uncle Jay's partner, (my Uncle Kit) of going on 10 years or so is managing partner of his own corporate law firm and rolls a bentley continental GT. His response, to talk of being shunned, discriminated against, ridiculed is: "Kiss my ass till I can't buy or sell your ass."

They explained to me that the gay/bi men and women who give even the slightest hint of backing down from these bigoted hypocrite assholes are doing exactly what the assholes want. It's those two guys who have had the biggest influence on me regarding being myself and fuck who doesn't like it.

[Koharuchan]

I don't understand why the super devout Christians are against it either. I had a fight with my Christian friend a ways back, over the subject of homosexuality. I'm a Christian and a gay rights activist, and she's very against homosexuality. She claims that what they're doing is wrong and against god. I say that a gay person doesn't choose to be gay, that's just how they are, and she disagrees. I hate fighting with devout Christians, because you get nowhere. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

I don't believe gays choose to be gay. And I don't believe they should have to suffer for being gay. I honestly don't understand why gay marriage is so bad. Who are they hurting by loving each other? Nobody. So why is it a big deal? Our society is screwed up.

[girlfromsocal]

as a muslim I don't care who makes it. I think that's the difference. Like christians think they can change everybody and that's what they're supposed to do. But in the Quran it even says it wasn't ever possible for the last prophet to even change everyone to do right. Therefore it's beyond human power. GOD has decreed that men and jinn will go to hell. So I don't get why I'd try to stop what he decreed. I can't. It's impossible. Therefore I'm not sure if that makes me against homosexuality or not. I just don't think it's my place to stop them. It may be a sin very well is. Like many other sins most people are sinful and most people are naturally evil as taught in my faith. So if that's your sin of choice idc. But truth is to me we're all sinners only those who harm each other aren't worthy of kindness and in some cases should probably die (example:mass murderers) otherwise between all of us sinners we should have freewill to do what we would have equal rights and deserving of kindness. Being gay is something you're born with but as I've said before all humans are born with a sin we desire. So essentually my faith teaches gays can be born naturally that way. Some tests are tougher than others. You can't fault me for what my faith teaches. It's simply my personal belief. I still believe in gay rights just like liar rights. I mean I don't think we should be cruel to liar or whores or nonmodest non praying people (myself). We have a flaw some of us subcumb some of us don't. I don't care as long as I don't fail....

[Sythan]

A lot of the time, it's people not wanting to admit to being wrong. Many anti-gay people will fool and lie themselves into thinking being LGBT is a choice that anyone can make at will based on what they've been told and indoctrinated into believing while growing up. Many even make the guess that their God must be against it to, for reasons unknown while often citing the Bible. Despite what the latest advances in understanding homosexuality from a proven scientific perspective. It truly astounds me, the mind of an anti-gay person.

[αγάπη]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

I hate fighting with devout Christians, because you get nowhere. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

I don't believe gays choose to be gay. And I don't believe they should have to suffer for being gay. I honestly don't understand why gay marriage is so bad. Who are they hurting by loving each other? Nobody. So why is it a big deal? Our society is screwed up.

Thank you so much, this is exactly how I feel.

I hate being bi and having my brother and mother say that it is a choice, or a sin. I can't tell them, no matter how much I want to.

It isn't a choice. I was born bisexual and I'm proud of it. If there is a God, I believe that I would go to heaven for being a good person, not go to hell because I can LOVE both men and women.

[Kate*]

To me the argument that people choose to be any sexual orientation but straight is used by the devoutly religious to defend their judgment of it. The idea that someone can judge, condemn, and hate someone for being different is bad enough, but to do it in the name of God or use religion as your excuse is a whole lot worse. It never made sense that the same entity that says "Love Thy neighbor as thyself" would also give His followers permission to discriminate against someone He created in His name. Apparently, that doesn't make sense to the devoutly religious either, so they say that being gay is a choice which would make it okay for them to judge them because they're living in sin. Judging is a sin too whether sexual orientation is a choice or not (and no I don't belive it is). I'm straight by the way, that just drives me crazy.

[MindBodySpirit]

Devout Christians that are strongly against homosexuality should also be against shaving, eating shrimp, wearing fabric made from more than one type of material, and being close to a women when they're on their menstrual cycle. I'm just saying. It's in the bible.

[Megan1]

I just said this in the other thread a few days ago, but when I personally say that homosexuality is a sin, I am talking about the action- not the feelings. You can say that the feelings and thoughts aren't a choice, and that may be true...but you do have the choice whether or not to act on them. I know you think it's mean to tell someone that it's right to ignore their tendencies and desires for God, but based on the bible, it's the same as telling someone who has a desire to murder not to act on their feelings (yes that's biblical, and yes I know that murder hurts other people while homosexuality usually doesn't). Should we make murder okay just so people don't have to deny their desires? No, wrong is wrong...it's just that the world has decided to give their own definitions of right and wrong because they didn't like God's definition and it didn't fit their life style (or they don't believe in God). Also, I know that I am going to get a response saying "I can't believe you compared gays to murderers!", so I'll save you the time and address that now. We are ALL sinners and ALL equal to murderers until we let Jesus save us ("all" includes me, I am no better because I have lied and lusted and lots of other things).

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by LostCause

Devout Christians that are strongly against homosexuality should also be against shaving, eating shrimp, wearing fabric made from more than one type of material, and being close to a women when they're on their menstrual cycle. I'm just saying. It's in the bible.

You have to read those laws in context. The purpose for those laws were only to keep people from being unclean (spiritually). The whole reason that Jesus died for us was so that we can be made clean...so once we receive that gift, those rules have no purpose any more. This is off topic though, so reply in a private message if you have anything else to add.

[MindBodySpirit]

Originally Posted by Megan1

You have to read those laws in context. The purpose for those laws were only to keep people from being unclean (spiritually). The whole reason that Jesus died for us was so that we can be made clean...so once we receive that gift, those rules have no purpose any more. This is off topic though, so reply in a private message if you have anything else to add.

How is that any different from homosexuality? The most commonly quoted verses in the bible about homosexuality are from Leviticus, only a few verses away from the ridiculous laws I stated earlier.

Anyway, even the new testament has little to say about homosexuality. There are at the max, 4 references to homosexuality in the new testament. In fact, there are no words in the new testament that actually directly translate into "homosexual" or "homosexuality".

Yes, I realize there are references to certain homosexual behavior, but even those are a little bit iffy. The references are paired with other sinful actions, and actually focus on those. So really, those actions aren't about homosexuality per se, but rather about insatiable lust, idolatry, or denial of one's self. Yes, if homosexuality is used for exploitative reasons, if it is rooted in idolatry, and if it causes you to lie about your true self, of course it's sinful according to the teachings in the bible. How is that any different from heterosexuality though?

People (Christians) that say homosexuality is a sin must admit that shaving, eating shrimp and pork, wearing fabric made from 2 different threads, and being around a female on her menstrual cycle, are also sinful actions. They're based on the same "old regime morals" in the old testament. My point is, either stop choosing which rules you want to follow, or be a little more accepting.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. If it was, I don't know why anybody would choose to be a homosexual. It's not worth it to face the ridicule from religious fanatics that can't get rid of old values that aren't relevant in the world today.

[Megan1]

If the verse in Leviticus was the only verse that indicates homosexuality being a sin, then I could see how you could group that together and say that it is also a law about uncleaness and therefor doesn't apply any more. However, there is one direct reference in the new testament (1 Timothy 1:10, which even says "homosexual" in the most literal translation), and many indirect references (such as the one that says for men to have one wife, not one wife or husband).

[αγάπη]

I don't see how it would be wrong to act on your feelings/desires. Murder hurts people, sex does not. There is a difference.

Just sayin.

[Megan1]

A sin isn't just something that hurts other people; it could also be something that hurts God. Not that God can be "damaged" by us or anything, but we can upset Him. His feelings are just as important as (well, no, more important than) any human who you could hurt through murder. I know that doesn't mean much if you don't believe that He even exists, but hurting someone is hurting someone whether you acknowledge their existance or not. We should care about hurting God more than about hurting people (though we should care about both).

[MindBodySpirit]

Originally Posted by Megan1

If the verse in Leviticus was the only verse that indicates homosexuality being a sin, then I could see how you could group that together and say that it is also a law about uncleaness and therefor doesn't apply any more. However, there is one direct reference in the new testament (1 Timothy 1:10, which even says "homosexual" in the most literal translation), and many indirect references (such as the one that says for men to have one wife, not one wife or husband).

Sorry, but that reference to homosexuals is just from a phrase that's hard to translate. It's unsure whether or not Paul was even referring to homosexuals at all. Some translations of the bible do not include the word homosexual, but rather male prostitutes, adulterers, and perverts.

The translations are not black and white. It's even possible that it could just be referring to certain sex acts, that both homosexuals, and non-homosexuals would participate in. Translating old manuscripts is not an easy task, and even the experts aren't sure of the proper translations at times.

[Megan1]

What is the original word that they translated into "homosexual"? I'll do more research on that before replying. Also, it doesn't matter what "most translations" say, it only matters what the original said.

Plus, there are still the many indirect referances. I know that's not enough for most people, so I won't debate on that...but it's enough for me.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

I hate fighting with devout Christians, because you get nowhere. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

My philosophy of this thread.

Basically, who cares? If it's fine with your religion, who cares what some narrow minded religion believes? I don't. Christians can say whatever they want about me, I believe what I want, I do what I want, I say what I want, and I love who I want. And honestly, I think I'm a fairly good person. Not perfect, but nobody is.

[Iris. ♥]

Honestly, you're right. Some Christians suck, others are nice. I like to think that I fit into the second category, but that's up to your choice. Personally, I think being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is just a part of who you are. No one, and I mean NO ONE, should be condemned for loving someone else. This is one of those things that bugs me about the church.

I'm gonna take a hint from Traci: be who you are, love who you are, and screw the haters.

[MindBodySpirit]

Originally Posted by Megan1

What is the original word that they translated into "homosexual"? I'll do more research on that before replying. Also, it doesn't matter what "most translations" say, it only matters what the original said.

Plus, there are still the many indirect referances. I know that's not enough for most people, so I won't debate on that...but it's enough for me.

There aren't any concrete references that say being homosexual is a sin. . Also, the original "translation" doesn't matter. It's the original text that does. However, the original text is hard to translate properly. That's why it's open to so much interpretation.

Also, I'm going to save you the work. There are 3 sections in the New Testament that are up for interpretation on whether it says that homosexuality is a sin. Those are 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and Romans 1:26-27

Romans 1:26-27 is the ONLY verse in the New testament that certainly does talk about homosexuality. However, if you look at the rest of the passage, the passage as a whole is not about homosexuality, but idolatry and lust, not about homosexuality being a sin. Since this verse actually addresses homosexuality, lets have a look at it.
____

I'll start out earlier in that passage.

(21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

As you can see, the sinful people in this passage actually knew God, but they decided to worship idols. They replaced god in their life with "images made to look like human beings and birds and animals and reptiles".

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

In these two verses, it is explained that God has allowed the people to give into their lust. Lust, one of the seven deadly sins, is the sin described here.

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

Now these are the verses I was talking about. If you read the last verses carefully, you can see that God is gives them over to their lust, because of their idolatry. The sin is not homosexual activity. Homosexual activity is the punishment for their idolatry. The people in this passage have a strong lust for sexual impurity.

In verse 27, it explains that men naturally preferring women (ie. heterosexuals) give into their strong lust, and so do females. The lust is so great that they even lust over things they don't naturally prefer. Again, it is emphasized that the part that is shameful is the lust. The "shameful acts" committed by men are just acts of sex beyond marital sex.
_________

So, if you break down that whole passage, you can see that the entire point is that the people are worshipping false idols, and the people are filled with lust. It says NOTHING about homosexuality being a sin.

Also, if you want to continue reading into Romans 2, Paul starts to talk about how you should not judge others. In Romans 2:11, Paul says "God shows no partiality". By telling people that they are sinful, you are judging them, just as people do in the beginning of Romans 2.

____

The other two passages I posted earlier don't even necessarily refer to homosexuality at all. They likely refer to male prostitutes, and/or adulterers.

The final place in the new testament that could potentially be referring to homosexuals is Matthew 19:12. There is a reference to "born eunuchs". Even anti-gay scholars agree that it's quite possible that in this case, "born eunuchs" could refer to homosexuals. In Matthew 19:12, It is explained that born eunuchs are a gift from God- and those are the words of Jesus.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

I couldn't care less what you believe so long as you don't go trying to force it on others. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, fine, don't engage in homosexual actions if you are homosexual. But don't force it on the rest of us who don't necessarily share your beliefs.

[αγάπη]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In other words, don't be like my brother, mother, grandmother, and pretty much my whole family.

[αγάπη]

Originally Posted by Megan1

A sin isn't just something that hurts other people; it could also be something that hurts God. Not that God can be "damaged" by us or anything, but we can upset Him. His feelings are just as important as (well, no, more important than) any human who you could hurt through murder. I know that doesn't mean much if you don't believe that He even exists, but hurting someone is hurting someone whether you acknowledge their existance or not. We should care about hurting God more than about hurting people (though we should care about both).

But WHY does homosexual sex hurt God? Because he says so? Why does he say so? Where is his proof? Why?

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by LostCause

Also, the original "translation" doesn't matter. It's the original text that does.

I meant the original text. Sorry, that was my bad on the wording.

Originally Posted by LostCause

Romans 1:26-27 is the ONLY verse in the New testament that certainly does talk about homosexuality. However, if you look at the rest of the passage, the passage as a whole is not about homosexuality, but idolatry and lust, not about homosexuality being a sin. Since this verse actually addresses homosexuality, lets have a look at it.
____

I'll start out earlier in that passage.



As you can see, the sinful people in this passage actually knew God, but they decided to worship idols. They replaced god in their life with "images made to look like human beings and birds and animals and reptiles".



In these two verses, it is explained that God has allowed the people to give into their lust. Lust, one of the seven deadly sins, is the sin described here.



Now these are the verses I was talking about. If you read the last verses carefully, you can see that God is gives them over to their lust, because of their idolatry. The sin is not homosexual activity. Homosexual activity is the punishment for their idolatry. The people in this passage have a strong lust for sexual impurity.

In verse 27, it explains that men naturally preferring women (ie. heterosexuals) give into their strong lust, and so do females. The lust is so great that they even lust over things they don't naturally prefer. Again, it is emphasized that the part that is shameful is the lust. The "shameful acts" committed by men are just acts of sex beyond marital sex.
_________

So, if you break down that whole passage, you can see that the entire point is that the people are worshipping false idols, and the people are filled with lust. It says NOTHING about homosexuality being a sin.

You're pretty much arguing with yourself here, because I never said that Romans 1:26-27 said that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, I never mentioned the book of Romans at all. I know that that verse is complicated and is debatable, so I didn't claim that it said homosexuality is a sin. I mean, I do personally think it says something because it says that men being with women is the "natural" way...but I know that verse is debatable, which is why I didn't try to argue that. The only verse that I claimed directly spoke out against homosexuality is 1 Timothy 1:10, and then you said that that may have been translated wrong. Here's the thing: I use the New American Standard Bible, because they translate each individual word straight from the original bible text. So, I know that when it says "homosexual", they translated that straight from one word in the original text. If you are claiming that that verse may not be accurate, I asked you if you could tell me what that Greek (I think it's Greek) word was in the original text so I could look it up and see if that word has any other possible meanings. Instead of either doing that or telling me that you couldn't, you started arguing a verse is Romans that I never even mentioned. So I'll ask you again: do you know what that original word was so I can look it up? If you don't it's fine; I'll do some research and find out.

Originally Posted by LostCause

Also, if you want to continue reading into Romans 2, Paul starts to talk about how you should not judge others. In Romans 2:11, Paul says "God shows no partiality". By telling people that they are sinful, you are judging them, just as people do in the beginning of Romans 2.

In Romans 2, Paul was talking to those specific people who were being hypocritical by commiting the same sins that they were judging others for. Romans 2:1 says "for you who judge practice the same things." And Romans 2:3 says "when you pass judgment and do the same thing yourself, you will not escape the judgment of God." I'm not practicing the same things that I'm judging people for, so this doesn't apply to me. Don't get me wrong, I've judged people for things that I've also done before, I'm not perfect...but that's not the case when it comes to homosexuality.

Originally Posted by LostCause

So, if you break down that whole passage, you can see that the entire point is that the people are worshipping false idols, and the people are filThe final place in the new testament that could potentially be referring to homosexuals is Matthew 19:12. There is a reference to "born eunuchs". Even anti-gay scholars agree that it's quite possible that in this case, "born eunuchs" could refer to homosexuals. In Matthew 19:12, It is explained that born eunuchs are a gift from God- and those are the words of Jesus.

Have you read the whole chapter of Matthew 19? I just read through it right now. They start out by talking about divorce and if a man divorcing his wife is okay or not. Jesus said "Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery". So, upon Jesus telling them that they can't just divorce their wives whenever they feel like it unless the woman is cheating, the disciples say "It's better not to marry then!". That is when Jesus answers them by saying "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are enunchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Then the conversation ends. So you're trying to tell me that is response to "we don't want commitment, we want to be able to divorce" Jesus responded with "some people are born gay and that's a good thing" ????? That makes no sense and has nothing to do with what the conversation was about. My guess (and this is a guess, so take it with a grain of salt) is that Jesus is referring to men who can/can't make commitments, or who are/aren't meant to get married. I don't know exactly what it means, but homosexuality doesn't really fit.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by LoVeMeHaTeMeBeAutIfUlMe

But WHY does homosexual sex hurt God? Because he says so? Why does he say so? Where is his proof? Why?

God created us and we are HIS creations. He made us to be a certain way. The clay can't tell the potter that He is wrong and they should have been made to do something else. God doesn't have to prove anything; He's God. I'm sure that's not a good enough answer for you, and there's nothing I can do about that...but I can't make up an answer just to please you.

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by Megan1

God created us and we are HIS creations. He made us to be a certain way. The clay can't tell the potter that He is wrong and they should have been made to do something else. God doesn't have to prove anything; He's God. I'm sure that's not a good enough answer for you, and there's nothing I can do about that...but I can't make up an answer just to please you.

So, then God created homosexuality.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

So, then God created homosexuality.

Yep. Unless you deny that people and other creatures, by way of genetics, are bisexual or homosexual, then God created homosexuality as well as all people who are homosexual, therefore he wants us to be this way and is not hurt by it.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

So, then God created homosexuality.

No, when I said "God created everyone to be a certain way", I didn't mean that God created everyone exactly how they are now. Satan and the sin that is in the world had a hand in how people turn out too. I meant that God created us to be who He tells us to be, because we are His creations, and that that is a good enough reason for me- God doesn't have to prove that something is a sin.

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by Megan1

No, when I said "God created everyone to be a certain way", I didn't mean that God created everyone exactly how they are now. Satan and the sin that is in the world had a hand in how people turn out too. I meant that God created us to be who He tells us to be, because we are His creations, and that that is a good enough reason for me- God doesn't have to prove that something is a sin.

Alright, blame Satan. Hows it feel to know you're now debating against a Satanist?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Megan1

No, when I said "God created everyone to be a certain way", I didn't mean that God created everyone exactly how they are now. Satan and the sin that is in the world had a hand in how people turn out too. I meant that God created us to be who He tells us to be, because we are His creations, and that that is a good enough reason for me- God doesn't have to prove that something is a sin.

This post implys that you think that homosexuality is a choice. I mean God creates everyone right? Then you said that Satan has a hand in how people turn out. But people are born homosexual, nothing makes them turn out that way, except for their creator, God.

[RiseFromTheAshes]

Oh man, I could totally rant about this topic. Instead I'll leave you with this video which does a much better job than I would http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ytlNBbRgAg I love these guys. Honestly, their videos are so amusing to watch. Oh, and here's a bleeped version if you have an aversion to listening to swearing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUM8O...1&feature=plcp

[αγάπη]

Originally Posted by Megan1

God created us and we are HIS creations. He made us to be a certain way. The clay can't tell the potter that He is wrong and they should have been made to do something else. God doesn't have to prove anything; He's God. I'm sure that's not a good enough answer for you, and there's nothing I can do about that...but I can't make up an answer just to please you.

So if God said that we should murder people, then that would be ok too? That's what we should do? He wouldn't have to give us a good reason WHY, but we would HAVE to do it, because as you said the clay can't tell the potter that He is wrong. Therefore, we would just have to murder said people, according to your logic.

[Koharuchan]

Okay, I've got to put my two cents in here. First off, I do NOT believe homosexuality is a sin. Love is love, nobody should be denied the right to love someone and they shouldn't be shunned for loving someone. That being said, I have to ask this.

Let's say you're right, and homosexuality is a sin. First off, we all sin. Nobody is perfect. My question for you, Megan1, is this. Why do the Christians make such a huge deal out of it? We have a thing called freedom of religion, and we can believe what we want to believe. So yes, you can believe homosexuality is a sin, but why do Christians constantly shun homosexuals? They're following their own beliefs, and being Christian shouldn't give anyone the right to persecute another because their beliefs go against your own. You can't stop them from being homosexual, so why try? Why persecute them? Doesn't the bible preach love? Persecuting and shunning others for their beliefs is certainly not love. It's not our job to judge, it's god's.

[bitesize]

Oddly enough I was scrolling absent-mindedly through TH threads and spotted this one just at the moment that I'd been wishing to myself that I wasn't bisexual, it can be such a pain in the ass. Definitely not a choice and I can't believe there are people who still think it is....catch the fuck up, it's 2012 like.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

Let's say you're right, and homosexuality is a sin. First off, we all sin. Nobody is perfect. My question for you, Megan1, is this. Why do the Christians make such a huge deal out of it? We have a thing called freedom of religion, and we can believe what we want to believe. So yes, you can believe homosexuality is a sin, but why do Christians constantly shun homosexuals? They're following their own beliefs, and being Christian shouldn't give anyone the right to persecute another because their beliefs go against your own. You can't stop them from being homosexual, so why try? Why persecute them? Doesn't the bible preach love? Persecuting and shunning others for their beliefs is certainly not love. It's not our job to judge, it's god's.

That's right--I feel like a lot of people don't seem to get that we have both freedom of religion and separation between church and state. People may believe and do what they wish so long as their actions are not illegal, and religious groups are not supposed to involve themselves in politics--you aren't supposed to make laws that force your beliefs on other people, but that's exactly what a lot of religious groups try to do. Sorry, but belonging to a particular religion doesn't give you the right to make your religious beliefs the LAW. That's not how our system of government works. So if you want to live in a society where homosexuality is illegal, move to a developing country or create one with a constitution that says its laws will be based on religion. Otherwise, you have ZERO right to force those beliefs on us by way of the law. Not everyone thinks it's a sin, nor does everyone care.

[MindBodySpirit]

Originally Posted by Megan1

You're pretty much arguing with yourself here, because I never said that Romans 1:26-27 said that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, I never mentioned the book of Romans at all. I know that that verse is complicated and is debatable, so I didn't claim that it said homosexuality is a sin. I mean, I do personally think it says something because it says that men being with women is the "natural" way...but I know that verse is debatable, which is why I didn't try to argue that. The only verse that I claimed directly spoke out against homosexuality is 1 Timothy 1:10, and then you said that that may have been translated wrong. Here's the thing: I use the New American Standard Bible, because they translate each individual word straight from the original bible text. So, I know that when it says "homosexual", they translated that straight from one word in the original text. If you are claiming that that verse may not be accurate, I asked you if you could tell me what that Greek (I think it's Greek) word was in the original text so I could look it up and see if that word has any other possible meanings. Instead of either doing that or telling me that you couldn't, you started arguing a verse is Romans that I never even mentioned. So I'll ask you again: do you know what that original word was so I can look it up? If you don't it's fine; I'll do some research and find out.

First of all, you said you would do research about what verses in the new testament had anything to do with homosexuality. I was just providing you with all 4 of the verses, to save you time from researching. You claimed that there are many verses in the bible that provide "indirect references" to homosexuality being a sin. Those are YOUR words, not mine. However, you haven't been able to provide one of these indirect references.

Next, I would like to address your idea about the accuracy of the New American Standard bible. While it is true that the New American Standard bible was made to be an accurate translation from the original text, it is literally impossible to translate it word for word. If it was translated word for word, it would sound like a jumbled mess. Greek grammar is not exactly the same as English grammar. Not only is it impossible to translate it word for word, but attempting to even make the overall meaning accurate is quite hard without considering the history of both languages.
Yes, the greek word arsenokoites could be indirectly translated as "homosexual" when the New American Standard Bible was made. This translation was made according to assumptions by translators of the bible. However, the use of the word arsenokoites likely wouldn't have been used by Paul to describe a homosexual. If Paul wanted the transcript to say homosexuals, he would have used much more common technical terms. According to historical context, arseno koiten (directly translated into man bed) was used to describe a shrine of prostitution. This is NOT a new idea. This is NOT an idea made from gays and lesbians. This Jewish viewpoint was coined 2000 years ago, BEFORE Paul combined the two words to make arsenokoites. The "new" idea is one coined by conservative anti-gay christians. It shows a complete lack of regard to the historical context of the word.
_________________

Thankfully, I can use the English Language to accurately show how the understanding of a word can change over years. Modern English is less than 500 years old, so we have a much smaller window to work with.

Take the word "weed" for example. An archaic definition for the word weed is actually a type of clothing worn during the morning. If you asked somebody 100 years ago what a "weed" was, they would answer a type of pesky plant that they needed to take out of their garden. Today, if you ask some people what "weed" is, they'll say it's a type of drug.

Now, have a look at compound words. A compound is formed when two words are combined together. However, the compound word is not necessarily the exact sum of the two words that were combined. For example, a ladybug is not literally a female bug, but a specific type of bug.

This is the sense in which you must approach the bible. Taking the literal meaning of everything simply does not work. In many cases it's actually more accurate to look at the bigger picture, and then work out the details so that they make sense in our modern tongue. That is one of the main problems with translating old text into modern language. If you take all this into consideration, 1 Timothy 1:10 can't refer to a homosexual.
_____
Finally, I would like to address your definition of the word natural. Your ideas about what is natural, are preconceived, and prejudice. You are basing your opinions on verses of the bible that you were taught, but don't understand. Homosexuality does occur in nature. However, I am not going argue over scientific evidence, since I am sure it does not appeal to the likes of you in this case. Natural has many definitions. When something isn't natural it could simply mean it isn't normal. In that sense, it is not natural for a heterosexual male to have sex with males because of insatiable lust.

Originally Posted by Megan1

In Romans 2, Paul was talking to those specific people who were being hypocritical by commiting the same sins that they were judging others for. Romans 2:1 says "for you who judge practice the same things." And Romans 2:3 says "when you pass judgment and do the same thing yourself, you will not escape the judgment of God." I'm not practicing the same things that I'm judging people for, so this doesn't apply to me. Don't get me wrong, I've judged people for things that I've also done before, I'm not perfect...but that's not the case when it comes to homosexuality.

If you want to get technical, Matthew 7:1 says "Do not judge so that will not be judged". I'm not even going to argue with your nitpicking. The new testament tells you not to judge others, and to be accepting in multiple places.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Have you read the whole chapter of Matthew 19? I just read through it right now. They start out by talking about divorce and if a man divorcing his wife is okay or not. Jesus said "Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery". So, upon Jesus telling them that they can't just divorce their wives whenever they feel like it unless the woman is cheating, the disciples say "It's better not to marry then!". That is when Jesus answers them by saying "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are enunchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Then the conversation ends. So you're trying to tell me that is response to "we don't want commitment, we want to be able to divorce" Jesus responded with "some people are born gay and that's a good thing" ????? That makes no sense and has nothing to do with what the conversation was about. My guess (and this is a guess, so take it with a grain of salt) is that Jesus is referring to men who can/can't make commitments, or who are/aren't meant to get married. I don't know exactly what it means, but homosexuality doesn't really fit.

I don't think you quite understand what's being said in Matthew 19. If you break down the "literal" meaning, what it says is that not everybody has the opportunity to marry and have kids. Eunuchs and born Eunuchs couldn't marry and have kids then. If these people lived morally, they gave up on marriage because of god's kingdom. They gave themselves up for god's kingdom.

Whether or not you believe that the phrase "born eunuchs" refers to homosexual people is up to you. However, even some anti-gay scholars will agree that homosexuals could be included in the category of born eunuchs, because they do not reproduce.

[Megan1]

Okay, so I once again realized that this is one of those aimless debates that the bible says not to get into (it says to preach the gospel, but don't argue over the technical rules with non-Christians). I really need to work on not doing this. I don't want to ignore what I've already started, so I'm going to reply to these posts that are directed twards me. Afterwards, I'm only going to reply if it is a serious question that someone is asking because they want to know about God, not just if they want to debate with me.

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

Alright, blame Satan. Hows it feel to know you're now debating against a Satanist?

I don't know much about satanism and I don't know if the satan of satanism is the same as the satan of the bible. So....it doesn't feel like anything?

Originally Posted by thebigmole

This post implys that you think that homosexuality is a choice. I mean God creates everyone right? Then you said that Satan has a hand in how people turn out. But people are born homosexual, nothing makes them turn out that way, except for their creator, God.

Satan has a hand in your life from the second that you are conceived (one of the Psalms says that we have had sinful nature since we were in our mothers' wombs), so even if people are born gay (not saying they are or aren't), that doesn't mean that God did that.

Originally Posted by LoVeMeHaTeMeBeAutIfUlMe

So if God said that we should murder people, then that would be ok too? That's what we should do? He wouldn't have to give us a good reason WHY, but we would HAVE to do it, because as you said the clay can't tell the potter that He is wrong. Therefore, we would just have to murder said people, according to your logic.

That's a hard question because God WOULDN'T tell me to murder someone. Hypothetical questions about things that would never happen are hard to answer. God did instruct murder in the old testament to avenge sin, but not today. It's hard to answer what I would do "if God told me to murder someone", because since that's not my God's character, He wouldn't be the same God if He was telling me to do that. So...yeah.

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

Okay, I've got to put my two cents in here. First off, I do NOT believe homosexuality is a sin. Love is love, nobody should be denied the right to love someone and they shouldn't be shunned for loving someone. That being said, I have to ask this.

Let's say you're right, and homosexuality is a sin. First off, we all sin. Nobody is perfect. My question for you, Megan1, is this. Why do the Christians make such a huge deal out of it? We have a thing called freedom of religion, and we can believe what we want to believe. So yes, you can believe homosexuality is a sin, but why do Christians constantly shun homosexuals? They're following their own beliefs, and being Christian shouldn't give anyone the right to persecute another because their beliefs go against your own. You can't stop them from being homosexual, so why try? Why persecute them? Doesn't the bible preach love? Persecuting and shunning others for their beliefs is certainly not love. It's not our job to judge, it's god's.

You're right that homosexual acts are no worse than lying, stealing, or any other sin. I don't condem homosexuality any more than I condem lying or anything else. Homosexual acts are no worse than the things that I've done. I would be just as passionate in this thread if it was a thread trying to say thta lying wasn't a sin. We are all sinners. The only difference is whether or not we get saved from our sins by having faith that Jesus died on the cross to take the punishment for our sins, and whether we have repentance (which means "change of mind"...so basically changing our minds to realize that Jesus is the truth and that sin is sin). The thing with people who commit homosexual acts is that most of them refuse to believe that it is wrong, so they don't really have repentance. The same would go for a liar who refused to accept that lying is wrong or any other type of sin.

LostCause, I didn't forget your post. I'm putting my reply to that separately since it's so long.

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by Megan1

You're right that homosexual acts are no worse than lying, stealing, or any other sin. I don't condem homosexuality any more than I condem lying or anything else. Homosexual acts are no worse than the things that I've done. I would be just as passionate in this thread if it was a thread trying to say thta lying wasn't a sin. We are all sinners. The only difference is whether or not we get saved from our sins by having faith that Jesus died on the cross to take the punishment for our sins, and whether we have repentance (which means "change of mind"...so basically changing our minds to realize that Jesus is the truth and that sin is sin). The thing with people who commit homosexual acts is that most of them refuse to believe that it is wrong, so they don't really have repentance. The same would go for a liar who refused to accept that lying is wrong or any other type of sin.

You still didn't answer the question. Why shun and persecute homosexuals if we're all sinners? Just because they "don't have repentance?" A lot of people don't have repentance. With your logic that would make them just as bad as homosexuals, so why are homosexuals in particular constantly targeted by Christians? It doesn't make sense. Give me a real, good reason why the so-called "sin" of homosexuality is so bad compared to other sins.

Also, just letting you know, I AM a Christian. I just don't believe you should be shunned and persecuted for loving someone.