Everyone Who Claims Homosexuality is a Sin is Bisexual

[Rational Agnostic]

Nope. Never says being homosexual is abomination, either. Nothing wrong with being homosexual, and anyone who tells you the Bible says anything different has either never read, or doesn't understand, it.

Technically you're right, however, it says homosexual sex is an ""abomination" along with eating shellfish, etc.but I do not adhere to the Bible as a moral standard, so makes no difference to me.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

A bisexual who simply decided to try the other road. No biggie. It happens quite frequently, sometimes flip-flopping quite a few times in a bisexual's life.

.

I watched a pastor interviewed on the David pakman show who made a similar claim. In the end he basically admittedthat he's still attracted to men, but he just only focuses on his wife now that he's a Christian lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

My question, if desiring the rob a bank is not a sin, does that mean that when I rob it there is no innate wrongness?

Failed analogy. Let's see if you can figure out why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I watched a pastor interviewed on the David pakman show who made a similar claim. In the end he basically admittedthat he's still attracted to men, but he just only focuses on his wife now that he's a Christian lol

I am sure that there are more than their fair sure of latent homosexuals that are homophobes. But I would not go so far as to claim that all of them are. Though claiming sexuality to be a "choice" is quite telling.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I am sure that there are more than their fair sure of latent homosexuals that are homophobes. But I would not go so far as to claim that all of them are. Though claiming sexuality to be a "choice" is quite telling.

I used an exaggeration to make a point. However, I still stand by the claim that those who claim it and fully understand the definition of choice and believe sin involves choice must be bisexual. Otherwise it would make no logical sense for them to discuss choice.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Only a person who believes bisexuality is something to be ashamed of would call the conclusion a "nose punch."

It certainly feels that way. Most people are not bisexual in public, because its not socially acceptable almost anywhere. You stand out. In fact I have seen men, construction workers, testily proclaim that they were straight out of fear that they might be thought otherwise. But that not what I'm talking about. You can't logically conclude that pastors are more likely to be bisexual. Its not logical and is therefore a nose punch. The argument loses power by overstating its conclusions. It doesn't gain anything and comes across as hostile.

 

[Skwim]

Most of us are quite aware that being homosexual is not sinful any more than being heterosexual is. The sin lies, not in who one is attracted to, but what one does about it.

If the belief system says that sex outside marriage bonds is sinful, then homosexual sex outside marriage bonds is sinful. No more, and no less, than heterosexual sex outside marriage bonds is sinful. If your belief system accepts homosexual marriage, then the same rules apply to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. Sex outside marriage bonds is sinful.

And isn't that nice of god. Consider.

Heterosexuals don't choose to be heterosexual, they just are.
Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexuals, they just are.

If heterosexuals fornicate they've committed a sin
If homosexuals fornicate they've committed a sin

Because heterosexuals find it almost impossible not to fornicate, god created marriage so they could have sex with no repercussions.
Because homosexuals find it almost impossible not to fornicate, god said, "Tough nuts!" Keep your zipper up or go to Hell.
​

Nice god you pray to.

.

 

[Father Heathen]

My question, if desiring the rob a bank is not a sin, does that mean that when I rob it there is no innate wrongness?

Robbing a bank victimizes and violates the rights if others; thus unlike homosexuality there is a real-world reason for it being unacceptable, therefore that's a stupid comparison.

 

[Enoch07]

According to the traditional definitions of sin, sin must always involve a choice.

Sin does not involve choice in that regard.

Regarding sexual orientation specifically.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. That does not change the fact that if the have sex with a child it is a sin. What does change things is the Pedophiles choice to act on his/her desires. They can't chose to not be attracted to children but they can chose to not have sexual contact with children. And if they don't have sex with a child, they won't commit sin based on their sexual orientation.

As far as LGBT is concerned. Yes homosexuality is a sin, but so is solo masturbation. So basically every human is gay because whether we at home whacking it to PH solo style, or we have sex with someone of the same gender, the sin is the same and it is also just as forgivable.

 

[ChristineM]

Everyone who claims homosexuality is a sin must necessarily be bisexual. Here is why.

According to the traditional definitions of sin, sin must always involve a choice. Thus, the claim that attraction to the same sex is sinful implies that attraction to the same sex is a choice. But no one chooses who they are sexually attracted to. Nevertheless, people who are bisexual can choose to ignore one aspect of their sexuality, so that they can have the illusion of choice. This is why we see so many bisexual people claim to have "found Jesus," and "repent" of their homosexuality, and make the "choice" to be heterosexual. In reality, they are simply choosing to ignore the homosexual aspect of their sexuality and choose to only focus on the heterosexual aspect.

For people who are either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, sexual orientation is not a choice. For instance, I could not choose to be attracted to men, even if I wanted to be. In the same way, a homosexual person could not choose to be attracted to the other gender if they wanted to be. A person who is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual would understand this, which begs the question, why do so many Christians, especially pastors, claim that homosexuality is a choice? I think that the only logical answer is that bisexuality is fairly commonplace in the population, and likely even more common among Christian pastors.

So, since our conclusion implies bisexuality is likely much more common in Christian pastors than in the rest of the population, we should encourage these pastors to celebrate their bisexuality, rather than trying to mask it in homophobic preaching. A study has already confirmed that homophobic men who claim to be heterosexual have measurable responses of arousal to gay porn, while non-homophobic heterosexual men do not. See this study, which verifies my ideas. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed - NCBI

interesting, so perhaps personal guilt is the reason they protest so much


Close on 70 years ago Alfred Kinsey produced what has become known as the Kinsey scale which suggested that only around 14% of the population are completely straiigt.


Kinsey scale - Wikipedia

 

[stvdv]

Everyone who claims homosexuality is a sin must necessarily be bisexual. Here is why.

We have a saying in Holland, which says (translated): "it takes one to know one"

 

[wellwisher]

Morality evolved when humans began to live within civilization. The natural instincts of the hunter gathers, who migrated in small family groups, did not work properly in the higher population density centers of civilization. Morality was a system, that paralleled natural instincts, that allowed humans to better coexist in civilization, since the old natural instincts were not optimized for that new environment.

For example, if you were in a small hunting party, in the woods, you can go to the bathroom almost anywhere. Since you are in motion, and the waste density will be very sparse, nature can absorb it. Once you go to a city, this exact same behavior, which worked in the woods, no linger works properly because it would accumulate and become a health problem. Look at the streets of San Francisco compared to a National Forest.

That being said, homosexuality was considered a sin; violated the moral law of civilization, because it could quickly become unsanitary when the population density got too high.

In modern time, AIDS, which is the among the worse STD's, is very high among Gays. In the early days of civilization, they did not have modern medicine, so Gay behavior would cause deadly disease to spread. They made it taboo, for the preservation of the group. It was not personal.

The question becomes, since modern science can intercede and lower the adverse impact of a behavior using; medicine, is it now moral, since the adverse impact on the group is less?

The answer is maybe, but with a qualifier. Morality was originally designed to be a parallel path for natural instinct, modified to the needs of the new social environment called civilization. Sex was still allowed, but due to the population densities, not all sexual behavior had the same group outcome.

Nature is very efficient in terms of resources. Homosexual behavior, although moderated by modern medicine and other precautions, requires more resources than would be found in nature. The compromise position is, it is now pseudo moral due to medicine, however, it is not natural. Natural can self stand without the help of science. Moral plus natural narrows the field.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And isn't that nice of god. Consider.

Heterosexuals don't choose to be heterosexual, they just are.
Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexuals, they just are.

If heterosexuals fornicate they've committed a sin
If homosexuals fornicate they've committed a sin

Because heterosexuals find it almost impossible not to fornicate, god created marriage so they could have sex with no repercussions.
Because homosexuals find it almost impossible not to fornicate, god said, "Tough nuts!" Keep your zipper up or go to Hell.
​

Nice god you pray to.

.

Very logical but with an angry Carlin twist.

 

[sealchan]

Everyone who claims homosexuality is a sin must necessarily be bisexual. Here is why.

According to the traditional definitions of sin, sin must always involve a choice. Thus, the claim that attraction to the same sex is sinful implies that attraction to the same sex is a choice. But no one chooses who they are sexually attracted to. Nevertheless, people who are bisexual can choose to ignore one aspect of their sexuality, so that they can have the illusion of choice. This is why we see so many bisexual people claim to have "found Jesus," and "repent" of their homosexuality, and make the "choice" to be heterosexual. In reality, they are simply choosing to ignore the homosexual aspect of their sexuality and choose to only focus on the heterosexual aspect.

For people who are either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, sexual orientation is not a choice. For instance, I could not choose to be attracted to men, even if I wanted to be. In the same way, a homosexual person could not choose to be attracted to the other gender if they wanted to be. A person who is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual would understand this, which begs the question, why do so many Christians, especially pastors, claim that homosexuality is a choice? I think that the only logical answer is that bisexuality is fairly commonplace in the population, and likely even more common among Christian pastors.

So, since our conclusion implies bisexuality is likely much more common in Christian pastors than in the rest of the population, we should encourage these pastors to celebrate their bisexuality, rather than trying to mask it in homophobic preaching. A study has already confirmed that homophobic men who claim to be heterosexual have measurable responses of arousal to gay porn, while non-homophobic heterosexual men do not. See this study, which verifies my ideas. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed - NCBI

I suspect that this is half-true. The line between genetic influence on behaviour and psychological choice may be thinner than we want to believe. It may be different for different individuals. Hence we have this range of sexual orientations. Sounds like nature and evolutionary diversity.

Consider how adaptative it is to have members of our culture who although they cannot produce children in their coupling yet they can form into a loving caring partnership (marriage even) to care for children whose parents are not available.

What a great resource to inspire people from choosing abortions but rather giving birth and having someone more capable of raising their child do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Everyone who claims homosexuality is a sin must necessarily be bisexual. Here is why.

According to the traditional definitions of sin, sin must always involve a choice. Thus, the claim that attraction to the same sex is sinful implies that attraction to the same sex is a choice. But no one chooses who they are sexually attracted to. Nevertheless, people who are bisexual can choose to ignore one aspect of their sexuality, so that they can have the illusion of choice. This is why we see so many bisexual people claim to have "found Jesus," and "repent" of their homosexuality, and make the "choice" to be heterosexual. In reality, they are simply choosing to ignore the homosexual aspect of their sexuality and choose to only focus on the heterosexual aspect.

For people who are either 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, sexual orientation is not a choice. For instance, I could not choose to be attracted to men, even if I wanted to be. In the same way, a homosexual person could not choose to be attracted to the other gender if they wanted to be. A person who is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual would understand this, which begs the question, why do so many Christians, especially pastors, claim that homosexuality is a choice? I think that the only logical answer is that bisexuality is fairly commonplace in the population, and likely even more common among Christian pastors.

So, since our conclusion implies bisexuality is likely much more common in Christian pastors than in the rest of the population, we should encourage these pastors to celebrate their bisexuality, rather than trying to mask it in homophobic preaching. A study has already confirmed that homophobic men who claim to be heterosexual have measurable responses of arousal to gay porn, while non-homophobic heterosexual men do not. See this study, which verifies my ideas. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed - NCBI

I agree that preachers sometimes harangue on subjects where they personally, privately, fall down.

I disagree with your thesis statement. There are straight preachers who preach the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality, temperate preachers who speak against drunkenness, etc.

 

[SomeRandom]

Whilst I do not necessarily disagree with your post, I have a few contentions. Devil's Advocate, I guess.

Morality evolved when humans began to live within civilization. The natural instincts of the hunter gathers, who migrated in small family groups, did not work properly in the higher population density centers of civilization. Morality was a system, that paralleled natural instincts, that allowed humans to better coexist in civilization, since the old natural instincts were not optimized for that new environment

I suppose this I can agree with this premise. Insofar as nature does impact us on various levels of psyche.

That being said, homosexuality was considered a sin; violated the moral law of civilization, because it could quickly become unsanitary when the population density got too high.

Here's where you start to lose me. Because homosexual relations, in the ancient world as population indeed grew, didn't really do anything. At least as far as I can tell. I could be wrong.

In modern time, AIDS, which is the among the worse STD's, is very high among Gays. In the early days of civilization, they did not have modern medicine, so Gay behavior would cause deadly disease to spread. They made it taboo, for the preservation of the group. It was not personal.

*exhales deeply*
I am so very sick of this argument. AIDS came about in what, like the 70s or 80s? Because some hunter idiots ate infected monkey meat. (No, literally.) Or so the folktale goes. Whatever.
Before that you had all these heterosexuals suffering from syphilis, women going infertile due to the clap, and just people in general dying of various STDs that medicine of the time was yet to figure out. That went on for literal centuries.
Perhaps if we all agreed to a comprehensive Sexual Education course that every citizen has to go through at like aged 10 or 12 (if one is more prone to finding youthful sexual exploits on the squeamish side) that STDs can in fact be transferred through anal sex, perhaps "the gays" of the next generation might exercise a little more caution. Instead of just assuming that anal sex lessens the chance to spread STDs because of some half baked "religious" crappy sex ed course. Jeez, the amount of in the dark kids I have had to school properly just through happenstance because of god awful sex ed astounds me to this very day. Cousins, nephews, nieces, even the occasional coworker in my younger years. Why Churches, why?

Nature is very efficient in terms of resources. Homosexual behavior, although moderated by modern medicine and other precautions, requires more resources than would be found in nature. The compromise position is, it is now pseudo moral due to medicine, however, it is not natural. Natural can self stand without the help of science. Moral plus natural narrows the field.

Actually, since we are a social species, having a portion of the population not reproduce for whatever reason (gay, infertile etc) is quite common and allows for resources to be distributed more efficiently. Because it slows down the exponential and unstable rate of reproduction. You see this happen in most social species. One hypothesis suggests that because raising children was a feat historically accomplished by a tribe instead of just the two parents in question (which is actually a very modern Western only phenomenon) this took the strain off the two parents and allowed the progeny to flourish. In essence, allowing for "backup parents' should disease or predators render offspring without biological caretakers. You see this occur in a lot of social species, actually. Meerkats, Primates in general etc.

There are some survival strategies in nature that necessitate that not everyone mate. And this seemingly works. So even nature does not really care if one is gay or has progeny. Not everyone does or should pass on their genes. That's okay.

Sure, modern medicine allows for more people (not just gay people but literally everyone) to have a much higher chance at survival than normal. Cancer patients or junkies or I dunno, people with disabilities. Which I guess one could argue stretches resources rather thin. But given our mass production of said resources with thousands of hectares dedicated to farming and food production and charities and what have you, we already offset this modern luxury. We've been doing that for a while now. Which is why we no longer abandon "crippled" babies on mountaintops to be eaten. Which is nice.

So whilst I do agree that the "moral" question of homosexuality could have been due to environmental factors more than anything. I find it just as interesting to look at the rest of the ancient world's various interpretations of homosexual behavior and indeed what constituted proper "heterosexual behavior."
(See, for example, the Ancient Greek interpretation of heterosexual male behavior.)

 

[Rational Agnostic]

interesting, so perhaps personal guilt is the reason they protest so much


Close on 70 years ago Alfred Kinsey produced what has become known as the Kinsey scale which suggested that only around 14% of the population are completely straiigt.

View attachment 30354
Kinsey scale - Wikipedia

Hmmm. I'm skeptical about that figure of 14%. I think it is likely that a significantly higher percentage of the population is exclusively straight.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Robbing a bank victimizes and violates the rights if others; thus unlike homosexuality there is a real-world reason for it being unacceptable, therefore that's a stupid comparison.

Watch him try to argue that consenting homosexuals are victims of themselves.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I disagree with your thesis statement. There are straight preachers who preach the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality, temperate preachers who speak against drunkenness, etc.

In the same way, preachers who spend an excessive amount of time preaching against alcohol are probably ex-alcoholics and are simply repressing their own urge to drink. For those of us who aren't alcoholics, it's not an issue. You're just proving the point.

 

[ChristineM]

Hmmm. I'm skeptical about that figure of 14%. I think it is likely that a significantly higher percentage of the population is exclusively straight.

100% straight as in answering all the questions to indicate 100% straight, the statistics speak for themselves. As i understand it the sample size in the original survey was 8000. The test has been repeated often with similar results.