• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God and homosexuality.

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am waiting for God telling it to me.

He told me he can't reach you because you closed off your heart when you created an image of god to your liking and as a result you are actually worshipping a false idol.

You first need to accept the real Lord into your heart and then he'll reveal to you the beauty of gay sex.

(ps: eventhough it's sarcasm, I find it really disturbing how easy it is to brush of any and all opinions with such faith based "arguments")
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
We do not know gay behavior 3000 years ago, but we can assume that gays had more or less similar gay related illnesses as today. It was a grave problem then.
I just told you that HIV/AIDS is not a gay related problem, but a promiscuity problem. You conceded that that might be right.
(Also FYI millions of heterosexuals have died due to STDs before we humans even interacted with HIV. It’s literally a modern disease.)
You have proven nothing other than people should practice safe sex.
And given historical records of gay behaviour in the ancient world, like Sparta, you are incorrect. Though the definitions would have certainly differed to our modern understandings of sexual orientation.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it's kind of logical... There is no vagina, so if there is going to be intercourse, there's only one other place to... well... you know.

Which goes to show how unimaginative people are. :D

But, it wouldn't surprise me that anal sex might be just as prevalent among heterosexual couples as it is among gay couples.

Especially among Canadians. Then they can both watch the hockey game.

rimshot.jpg
 

leov

Well-Known Member
He told me he can't reach you because you closed off your heart when you created an image of god to your liking and as a result you are actually worshipping a false idol.
You first need to accept the real Lord into your heart and then he'll reveal to you the beauty of gay sex.

(ps: eventhough it's sarcasm, I find it really disturbing how easy it is to brush of any and all opinions with such faith based "arguments")
I did brush off it, my opinion of spiritual matters is largely individual. I stick to my .
 

leov

Well-Known Member
I just told you that HIV/AIDS is not a gay related problem, but a promiscuity problem. You conceded that that might be right.
(Also FYI millions of heterosexuals have died due to STDs before we humans even interacted with HIV. It’s literally a modern disease.)
You have proven nothing other than people should practice safe sex.
And given historical records of gay behaviour in the ancient world, like Sparta, you are incorrect. Though the definitions would have certainly differed to our modern understandings of sexual orientation.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Once somebody has divorced their beliefs and worldview from evidence and reason, they might wind up believing almost anything.
Tom

It is not a coincidence that the religiously inclined are also more likely to believe conspiracy theories.
 

Goodman John

Active Member
IMHO, our bodies are simply vessels for the spirits within us, and those are without gender. Sex is simply a human drive and 'good loving is where you find it' so I don't think it really matters if one enjoys the same or opposite sex for pleasure. If the spirit within you is attracted to someone else's spirit (your 'soul mate'?), whatever body you happen to have is irrelevant. Obviously, for procreation a male and female body are needed, but other than that there's no real physical reason to limit oneself to one's choice of sexual partners or associations. Personally I am attracted to females, but that guy over there might have an eye for other males. If he propositioned me would I go with him? More than likely not, but it would because of personal preference and not from any religious or physical restriction. Of course there are other factors- not the least being the possibility for communicable illnesses- but whether you've got your eye on a potential male or a female partner that's always a consideration you have to account for.

As for the Biblical injunction found in Leviticus, that's Jewish Law and doesn't apply to Gentiles. If one is going to use 1 Romans as precedent (the city that was destroyed and its people turned to unnatural lusts) you have to keep in mind that the city was punished because the people were idol worshipers- not because they were 'doing gay things' although they may very well have been. In this case we see the people's sexual urges being turned upside down and inside out as punishment for idolatry- can you imagine what a mind-screw it would be if you woke up one day and were completely repulsed by your wife but that guy next door was suddenly looking pretty good in those shorts? It wasn't for 'being gay' that the people were punished, but rather their urges were altered- and what better way than to make you go to polar opposites and everything in between OTHER than what you were originally- and you KNEW it?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
That's something that amazes me... why the first thing people think of about homosexuality is "teh buttsecks". I daresay it's not even the foremost or favorite sexual activity. I think they need to stop watching xtube and tumblr videos.

I think it's the dying leftovers of the old homophobic canards about gay men being dangerous sexual predators who prowl around looking to turn people gay. Hypersexualizing us makes it easier to say unkind things about us.
 

Goodman John

Active Member
I think it's the dying leftovers of the old homophobic canards about gay men being dangerous sexual predators who prowl around looking to turn people gay. Hypersexualizing us makes it easier to say unkind things about us.

Well, it's just common sense to not feed wild bears :D You also have to be on guard for traps along the way, too.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I didn't say that they were, you do know that don't you?
Off course you do... you just thought you could dodge the actual point being made by making that dishonest remark.

But you know what both hypothesis and theories are? Explanatory models.
Hypothesis that are well tested, are promoted to theory.




It's not a personal attack. It's rather taking your statement and driving it home by pointing out the implications and falsehoods contained therein.

At no point has there been an attack on your person. Pointing out that such language is common in all of scientific analysis and conclusion forming, is directly related to the point you were trying to make and not related to your person at all.



:rolleyes:

Facts don't require such language.
Explanations and conclusions drawn from a set of facts, does.
A dishonest remark, and there are no personal attacks, LOL.

'Facts don´t require such language. ' How about that, you actually understand what I have been saying, excellent.

To paraphrase you, if you have a set of facts any conclusions from those cannot be said to be facts. Those conclusions can only be drawn as, it seems like, maybeś, perhapses, I thinks. No one can say with an extremely high degree of certainty that the conclusions are facts.

So then we are to pretend that a conclusion, represented by itś author as a possibility, or could be, is in fact a representation on a solid foundation of being correct.

Really ?

So then, those conclusions are only possibilities, not facts.

So, by pointing this out in the article posted, and reserving judgement on what it maybe says till the possibilities are refined and firmly established, I am rejecting science.

Nope, I am following the authors lead, if she says her conclusion is a possibility, I will consider it as such.

I will follow the language used. I will not buy into the idea that words used don´t really mean what they say.

You believe the article establishes the idea that homosexuals are born not made. It supports what you believe.

I believe that by the language chosen, for the article establishes a possibility.

If and when a reputable scientist or group of scientists say factors B, 1. 0, X. 2 causes homosexuality I will reconsider my views on the matter, not before.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Just so you know....

I actually just asked God.
He says you got it all wrong. He told me gay sex is just fine and that he doesn't get his followers' obsession with gay sex... He says that it's the love between two people you should focus on, because that's the beauty of a relationship, while the sex is just one part of it - the physical expression of that love.

And he says that the love between two man is just as beautifull as the love between 2 woman or between a man and a woman.

Isn't that awesome?
Glad we finally settled that. Good thing you adviced me to ask God about it. Who knows how many more centuries of cruel homophobia those beautifull gay people would have had to endure if I hadn't asked God for his opinion.

After all, I asked God and he responded. Surely you will now change opinions?
Uh, it is usually atheists who post on the issue, apparently they are obsessed by it, not us.

What did you think of your godś long tail. cherry red complexion, and horns ?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You seem to think that if you assert that God believes a thing, then it is true.
You seem to know a lot about the musings and mind of a God which you cannot demonstrate the existence of.

If God created all there is, as you assert, then that God created homosexuality. There's no way around that. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks about natural processes or whatever. That's just a diversionary tactic on your part.
LOL. Then God created serial killers, the Russian gulags, AIDS, car accidents, and house fires.

Since you are unfamiliar with the theological facts of the matter, and apparently are unfamiliar with the Bible....................I can say with total confidence that you don´t know what you are talking about.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I just told you that HIV/AIDS is not a gay related problem, but a promiscuity problem.
It's not a promiscuity problem, either. It's a blood-borne illness, primarily, and sexual activity is just one way to get it. You can be a virgin and have sex with one person and get it.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
There are means of controlling the infection today. And there are many ways to get HIV. I'm sure you understand this, but conveniently ignore this so that you can pass all the blame on gays and feel justified in doing it.



Then you accept no scientific paper. You depend on journalists who use that definite language; so you depend on the wrong source for your information.
Nonsense, and nonsense. I accept scientific papers as what their authors say they are.

Journalists ? None tell the truth, all have an agenda, and what they write cannot be relied on for accuracy.

Where do you get the prognostications about things not in evidence ?

You need a new crystal ball.
 

Goodman John

Active Member
LOL. Then God created serial killers, the Russian gulags, AIDS, car accidents, and house fires.

Since you are unfamiliar with the theological facts of the matter, and apparently are unfamiliar with the Bible....................I can say with total confidence that you don´t know what you are talking about.

I don't think God created any of this, but the one who DID sure made a mess of things. Would you like to know more?
 
Top