Is it harmful to teach gay youths that homosexuality is a sin?

[Evandr]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is not at all what I suggested but thank you for insights in to how you think. Why are you so dead set against someone having a will and being able to make decisions and choices for them self and why do you suggest such draconian ideas? It is irrational reactions like this that make we wonder about proponents of homosexuality and their capabilities to have an open and honest discussion without blatant and hateful prejudice.

I would rather kill myself than not embrace who I am. Sexual orientation is not chosen. You can look it up in any credible psychology book. You will also read that repression of your sexual identity (or just straight up sexual repression) is very unhealthy.
It's not about taking responsibility for your actions, it's not about "not having will," it's about being yourself.

 

[McBell]

Calling it bigotry that wouldn't change the minds of those who believe homosexuality is a sin.

I completely agree.
There is nothing worse than a bigot who honestly thinks their bigotry is sanctioned by god.

You have not thought that claiming it's bigotry might be nothing but ignorance?

The only ignorance involved in calling a bigot a bigot is that of the bigot not accepting/realizing/admitting that they are a bigot.

I'm no expert on how schools work in the US, but from the little information i have, it depends on the state, and also it depends whether the law allow public schools to call it a sin or not. If public schools are free to teach such a thing, then i don't see any problem with that.

Actually it depends upon what kind of school it is.
Private religious schools are allowed to teach whatever bigotry they like.
Public schools have to deal with this thing called "separation of church and state".

On the matter of being harmful or not to the gay youth, i believe it's on the contrary, they might be enlightened somehow if those youth were Christians, because that's what the bible says right?

Huh?
I do not understand what you asking here.

Hello Christians! can anyone clarify whether it's mentioned that homosexuality is a sin or not in the bible?

Depends upon which Christian you talk to.
Some will tell you that merely being attracted to the same sex is a sin.
Some will tell you that being attracted to the same sex is not a sin, but any sexual act between two persons of the same sex that is a sin.
And then there are the ones that fall in between the two.

 

[Smoke]

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

"...intolerant of those who differ."<<<<<<< It seems to me that many who are calling people a bigot may in fact be a bigot themselves.

On the contrary. I think the anti-gay crowd are ignorant bigots, but I'm not intolerant of them. I fully support their right to wallow in ignorance and bigotry, and would never try to treat them as shabbily as they treat us, by trying to deprive them of their civil rights. I don't claim to follow the Golden Rule unfailingly, but I'd never dream of breaking it as consistently and enthusiastically as such Christians do.

 

[Sunstone]

On the contrary. I think the anti-gay crowd are ignorant bigots, but I'm not intolerant of them. I fully support their right to wallow in ignorance and bigotry, and would never try to treat them as shabbily as they treat us, by trying to deprive them of their civil rights. I don't claim to follow the Golden Rule unfailingly, but I'd never dream of breaking it as consistently and enthusiastically as such Christians do.

~Zing~!

 

[Jeremiah]

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

"...intolerant of those who differ."<<<<<<< It seems to me that many who are calling people a bigot may in fact be a bigot themselves.

I am not intolerant of those who differ. But I am intolerant of causing youths such mental anguish that it drives them to suicide.

 

[Badran]

I am not intolerant of those who differ. But I am intolerant of causing youths such mental anguish that it drives them to suicide.

I don't think merely telling your children that something is a sin, even if its part of who they are, would lead to suicide. I mean sure it would not be a good thing to hear at all, but its not necessarily negative, especially when you consider that those who say so to their children, believe that it is a sin to be a homosexual or to satisfy those sexual needs. So for them and their children (if they both follow the same faith which view homosexuality like that), the first step to overcoming that, would be for their children to understand that. So, at worst it would be something negative, that bothers him/her, but i don't think it would lead to suicide. If the youth do not agree with his parents that homosexuality is a sin, and do not follow their beliefs or agree with them. The harm here would be his knowledge that his parents do not approve of something that is a part of him, which would be quite negative, but i don't think it would lead to suicide. (assuming the parents didn't express any ill-feelings, anger or any kind of excessive feelings on the matter).

I think what would lead to so, is the extra trimmings that people like to add when they state their view of homosexuality, and how bad it is in their eyes. When that is said to the youth in such a negative way, it sure would be destructive, and would very possibly lead to suicide. In other words what i think would be harmful and would cause serious damage is the excessive and uncalled for degradation that is sometimes displayed when people state their view of it. But if merely told that it is a sin, i don't think thats destructive or harmful.

 

[no-body]

homosexual sex = homosexuality ?

Christ you guys are so straight it's embarrassing this thread is like a bunch of pasty white guys commenting on being black

 

[MysticSang'ha]

On the contrary. I think the anti-gay crowd are ignorant bigots, but I'm not intolerant of them. I fully support their right to wallow in ignorance and bigotry, and would never try to treat them as shabbily as they treat us, by trying to deprive them of their civil rights. I don't claim to follow the Golden Rule unfailingly, but I'd never dream of breaking it as consistently and enthusiastically as such Christians do.

I am not intolerant of those who differ. But I am intolerant of causing youths such mental anguish that it drives them to suicide.

Precisely. Both posts. Precisely.

 

[Panda]

*MOD POST*
I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people but lets try and keep it civil.
​

 

[rkm7878]

I am not intolerant of those who differ. But I am intolerant of causing youths such mental anguish that it drives them to suicide.

If anyone states their posistion from the Biblical prespective they are called a bigot. Before you deny this please take the time to look over these post. Now I am simply saying that by definition a person who calls someone a bigot just because they are so stuck on their posistion (anti-biblical view) that makes them a bigot.
A little more explination for those who do not understand.... I believe that the Bible is God's living word and that it contains the truth by which man can be saved that would in fact mean that I believe homosexuality to be a sin but I am not intolerant because I believe that without being gay I am equally a sinner. Youth's have commited suicide for being called fat, ugly, dumb, etc... So your point is that you can call someone a bigot because they believe in something greater than themselves and this would cause someone to kill themself. People who hold up signs with hateful sayings on them are in danger of God's warth and not His mercy. The Bible teaches us to judge as we would be judged. I do not think a gay person is any worse off or better off than a guy who lust after women all day (how many men do that?). You see you can call people who hold my view many things but bigot by definition is not one of them. We are all sinners myself included. Even the fact that I am saved from my sin I do not credit to anything that I have done.
One more time if you cannot listen to someone because they quote the Bible them you are in fact a bigot by definition.

 

[Jeremiah]

By avoiding the topic of homosexuality in school or proposing not to call homosexuality a sin, you would do injustice to those who believe homosexuality is a sin.

I don't know how the system works in American schools, but i would imagine they still teach the bible and such hot topics like homosexuality.

If it was a bible class, i would see no harm in calling homosexuality a sin, and if it was a sociology or psychology class or anything that might discuss homosexuality directly or indirectly, i would suggest taking a neutral approach.

Calling it bigotry that wouldn't change the minds of those who believe homosexuality is a sin. You have not thought that claiming it's bigotry might be nothing but ignorance?

I'm no expert on how schools work in the US, but from the little information i have, it depends on the state, and also it depends whether the law allow public schools to call it a sin or not. If public schools are free to teach such a thing, then i don't see any problem with that.

On the matter of being harmful or not to the gay youth, i believe it's on the contrary, they might be enlightened somehow if those youth were Christians, because that's what the bible says right?

Hello Christians! can anyone clarify whether it's mentioned that homosexuality is a sin or not in the bible?

"By avoiding the topic of homosexuality in school or proposing not to call homosexuality a sin, you would do injustice to those who believe homosexuality is a sin."

Actually, according to our laws, the idea that homosexuality is a sin, which is a religious belief and not founded in facts, should never be taught in our public schools.

"and if it was a sociology or psychology class or anything that might discuss homosexuality directly or indirectly, i would suggest taking a neutral approach."

Psychology and sociology are fields of science, why should academic science entertain a religious view, which has no supporting facts?

I am all for homosexuality being addressed in school, but if you want to entertain it as a sin, then it better be confirmed by facts.

"I don't know how the system works in American schools, but i would imagine they still teach the bible and such hot topics like homosexuality."

We have something called "separation of church and state". Because of it, religious beliefs are not to be taught in public school. It is an important function of our government, as this separation helps uphold the integrity our constitutional right to freedom of religion. And, as I am sure you aware, our constitution is very important to us, we take matters of religion within public schools very seriously.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Thomas Jefferson Founding Father and third President of the United States

"I'm no expert on how schools work in the US, but from the little information i have, it depends on the state, and also it depends whether the law allow public schools to call it a sin or not. If public schools are free to teach such a thing, then i don't see any problem with that. "

As you should see now, public schools, in the US, should not support or show favoritism to any religious belief, no matter how widely believed it is. If the school were to address homosexuality (which I think they should) then it could only provide an objective view of the facts. And factually speaking, there is no evidence to support any notion that homosexuality is, in any way, immoral.

"On the matter of being harmful or not to the gay youth, i believe it's on the contrary, they might be enlightened somehow if those youth were Christians, because that's what the bible says right?"

Yes, the Bible does say it is a sin, which of course is what this controversy is all about. Although, I fail to see how teaching youths misconceptions that have been printed in the Bible as "enlightening". Such efforts only detract from the message of Christ, not enlighten people to it.

 

[ChristineES]

People don't like to be criticized constantly. Even if gays were not born that (I believe that they are, as there is evidence to that effect)way, they still shouldn't be harassed. I remember someone once saying to a group of us that she didn't want fat people to think she approved of their being fat, so she constantly berated them for it. I guess you can figure she wasn't too popular, not with fat people, and not with much of anyone else.

 

[rkm7878]

People don't like to be criticized constantly. Even if gays were not born that (I believe that they are, as there is evidence to that effect)way, they still shouldn't be harassed. I remember someone once saying to a group of us that she didn't want fat people to think she approved of their being fat, so she constantly berated them for it. I guess you can figure she wasn't too popular, not with fat people, and not with much of anyone else.

Well said.

 

[McBell]

If anyone states their posistion from the Biblical prespective they are called a bigot.

It really matters not what the bigot uses to justify their bigotry.

Youth's have commited suicide for being called fat, ugly, dumb, etc... So your point is that you can call someone a bigot because they believe in something greater than themselves and this would cause someone to kill themself.

If you believe that the Bible promotes bigotry against homosexuals and use the Bible to justify your own bigotry towards homosexuals, guess what?
You are still a bigot.
Seems to me you are attempting to claim that somehow gods bigotry is not bigotry.

You see you can call people who hold my view many things but bigot by definition is not one of them.

This is just plain flat out wrong.
A nice try though.

One more time if you cannot listen to someone because they quote the Bible them you are in fact a bigot by definition.

It is not my fault in any way shape of form that you hold your favourite myths in such high esteem.

 

[MissAlice]

IMO I think it is harmful to their psychological and emotional psyche. It would be like someone telling me how sinful it is to show my face in public because of a gender I didn't choose or why one man's natural right is another man's gate to hell.

You don't choose your sexuality it chooses you. But some people will never accept this as it deviates from their strong belief in a set of rules created by man's inclination to control natural order in their favor.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

man, this thread has got some of you talking real sassy. it's really kinda cute.

i think for the sake of everyone's personal sanity that we should quit using the word "bigot" for the rest of the thread. at this point i cant tell who's a bigot. i've got a turkey sandwich next to me right now and all because of this thread i just want to yell at it and call it a bigot.

as far as the OP is concerned (if anybody remembers what it was about) of course it's harmful to tell someone that a part of them is wrong. black kids are groomed to act more white all the time, smart kids forced to forgo studies in order to keep up in sports, skeptical kids dragged to church on sundays... etc. and yes, when my mother was in catholic school they would beat her knuckles til they bled in order to teach her NOT to be left handed because they viewed her inconsistency as a rebellion from god. ugh. parents are responsible for teaching their children to be themselves and to be comfortable in their own skin, the public is responsible for staying the hell out of parent's business and never telling anybody else's kid that they aren't good enough. and bullies are responsible for making everyone's life worse, because they probably get told they aren't good enough by their own parents. of course it is harmful to teach LGBT kids that they should be something they aren't, but unfortunately it's going to be another decade or so before it's realistic to assume that they will never hear the "god hates queers" message. so we're going to have to be creative in our response to it.

but the entire argument is based on a false dichotomy. this might not be a popular interpretation of the data, but it is consistent with the data; there is no such thing as homosexual or heterosexual. we're all on varying scales of bisexuality. whenever somebody tells me "i like girls", i ask them "all of them?". no matter what your sexual orientation, there are a lot more details that are specifically important when it comes to sexual attraction. someone may have a tendency toward sexual attraction to females, yet they typically only have an attraction to females of a certain age group, with certain similar physical features, with certain emotional tendencies and with certain preferences of their own. there's more to sex than gender. and in all of these categories there are spectral ranges of preferences, they are not black and white. maybe if our kids learned that they aren't really all that different from everyone else just because they happen to fall a few clicks closer to the male attraction than most of their peers, they wouldn't feel alienated.
although this thinking really puts a rock in the shoe of many church groups. if fred phelps found out he was only a few dash-lines on a spectrum from being homosexual he might have a heart attack (what a shame that would be).

understand that i'm not saying that for social reasons "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are not useful terms, but as far as set-in-stone scientific terms, they are just not broad enough to be considered realistic. being proud of who you are and pursuing relationships with those you have attraction for (and, if you so choose, being afforded every legal right to have that union recognized by the state) is very valuable and should be afforded to all people, especially our children as they explore exactly who they are and who they want to be sexually intimate with.

One more time if you cannot listen to someone because they quote the Bible them you are in fact a bigot by definition.

or maybe our ears are just ringing because we've heard the same exact garbage a thousand frakking times and we wish you would just come up with something we haven't heard before so we can stop scratching our eyes out for five seconds.
welcome to the forum!

 

[rkm7878]

Ok out of respect for yourhope's turkey sandwich I am done. I will gladly take the title of Bigot if that is what all people who have had their lives changed by Jesus Christ and now trust in His word as their guide to life are.
"If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you." You can guess where I got that from. God bless all gay people.

 

[McBell]

gotta love those who claim self martyrdom in the name of their favourite deity.

even if their martyrdom is completely imaginary.

 

[rkm7878]

gotta love those who claim self martyrdom in the name of their favourite deity.

even if their martyrdom is completely imaginary.

Do you deny that I am being called a bigot because of my belief in the Bible? If you do then my bad. If not then I am being marked for my belief. I have tried with no success to show that I am not a Bigot. I do not seek to be a insulted it is you who cannot love with my religious views not the other way around.