• 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!

Anti-gay bigots are the ones with the problem

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Those who think there is a problem with being gay are the ones who need to be cured of their bigotry. People should be happy with the skin they are in, no one chooses to be homosexual, anymore than a person chooses to be heterosexual.

If one of my children was gay I would definitely not have a problem with it, I would want them to be happy. My main concern would be that they would be on the receiving end of homophobic comments from sick bigots. Those who use the Bible justify their nastiness, bring their faith into disrepute, there are many gay Christians in this world.

As I have said on a number of occasions, Jesus had a specific disciple whom he loved, as one presumes the disciple was male, maybe he was in a gay relationship with him. If so I hope they were happy and had a great sex life. Jesus never condemned homosexuality.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
People should be happy with the skin they are in, no one chooses to be homosexual, anymore than a person chooses to be heterosexual.

Personally, I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Seriously though, you must eventually admit that there must be SOME limits on human behavior, regardless of how 'happy with the skin they are in' goes. Where are the boundaries in your estimation?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Seriously though, you must eventually admit that there must be SOME limits on human behavior, regardless of how 'happy with the skin they are in' goes. Where are the boundaries in your estimation?
I think the point is that there’s no rational reason for those boundaries to be any different for homosexuals and they are for heterosexuals. If something is deemed wrong, it’ll be wrong regardless of whether you’re doing it to/with/at a male or a female.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Personally, I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Seriously though, you must eventually admit that there must be SOME limits on human behavior, regardless of how 'happy with the skin they are in' goes. Where are the boundaries in your estimation?

Well obviously paedophiles are beneath contempt and so are those who have sex with animals. It is wrong to cheat on your partner unless your relationship has broken down and cannot be repaired.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Personally, I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Seriously though, you must eventually admit that there must be SOME limits on human behavior, regardless of how 'happy with the skin they are in' goes. Where are the boundaries in your estimation?

I'ld say that in general, the boundary is the line where one crosses over into the freedom of others.

That seems like a good place to start.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Those who think there is a problem with being gay are the ones who need to be cured of their bigotry. People should be happy with the skin they are in, no one chooses to be homosexual, anymore than a person chooses to be heterosexual.

If one of my children was gay I would definitely not have a problem with it, I would want them to be happy. My main concern would be that they would be on the receiving end of homophobic comments from sick bigots. Those who use the Bible justify their nastiness, bring their faith into disrepute, there are many gay Christians in this world.

As I have said on a number of occasions, Jesus had a specific disciple whom he loved, as one presumes the disciple was male, maybe he was in a gay relationship with him. If so I hope they were happy and had a great sex life. Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

I agree with you, although I'm not entirely sure if religionists have a monopoly on homophobia. Looking back to earlier times when I was a kid, it seemed to be a noticeable part of our popular culture. I'm not gay, although there were kids I knew who would use homophobic epithets against other kids who weren't gay. Either that, or there were some personality types who seemed a bit too interested in whether someone else was gay or not.

I remember when Seinfeld had an episode where someone thought that Jerry and George were gay lovers, and they had to keep denying it while trying to not look homophobic: "We're NOT gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that!" It's so absurd that it makes good fodder for comedy, yet it shows what happens when latent bigotry is combined with political correctness.

I can't blame Christianity entirely for these kinds of attitudes, as they've also been a part of mainstream secular culture as well.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
I agree with you, although I'm not entirely sure if religionists have a monopoly on homophobia. Looking back to earlier times when I was a kid, it seemed to be a noticeable part of our popular culture. I'm not gay, although there were kids I knew who would use homophobic epithets against other kids who weren't gay. Either that, or there were some personality types who seemed a bit too interested in whether someone else was gay or not.

I remember when Seinfeld had an episode where someone thought that Jerry and George were gay lovers, and they had to keep denying it while trying to not look homophobic: "We're NOT gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that!" It's so absurd that it makes good fodder for comedy, yet it shows what happens when latent bigotry is combined with political correctness.

I can't blame Christianity entirely for these kinds of attitudes, as they've also been a part of mainstream secular culture as well.

I agree that it isn't only religious people who are homophobic
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Can you explain exactly what you mean by that?

In the words of Matt Dilahunty "My freedom to swing my arm, ends at your nose"
My freedom ends where the freedom of another begins, basically.

In essence, this would mean that "anything goes" as long as you are the only one affected by your actions - or that others who are also affected by your actions, consent to be part of it.

I think it might be rather easy to find exceptions to this rule one way or the other, perhaps in specific circumstances, but I think it's a good enough generic idea for the topic at hand.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Personally, I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Seriously though, you must eventually admit that there must be SOME limits on human behavior, regardless of how 'happy with the skin they are in' goes. Where are the boundaries in your estimation?
Boundaries should be at "causing demonstrable harm to non consenting parties", which, IMHO, is a more legalese way of saying "treat others as you yourself would be treated".

Under such a paradigm, there's no reason to condemn homosexuality. Beyond Appeals to religious authority and tradition, condemnations of homosexuality seem utterly arbitrary. I'm yet to see an argument against homosexuality that doesn't ultimately boil down to; "my religion says it's wrong, traditionally it's been unacceptable" or "I personally find it icky".
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I agree with you, although I'm not entirely sure if religionists have a monopoly on homophobia. Looking back to earlier times when I was a kid, it seemed to be a noticeable part of our popular culture. I'm not gay, although there were kids I knew who would use homophobic epithets against other kids who weren't gay. Either that, or there were some personality types who seemed a bit too interested in whether someone else was gay or not.

I remember when Seinfeld had an episode where someone thought that Jerry and George were gay lovers, and they had to keep denying it while trying to not look homophobic: "We're NOT gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that!" It's so absurd that it makes good fodder for comedy, yet it shows what happens when latent bigotry is combined with political correctness.

I can't blame Christianity entirely for these kinds of attitudes, as they've also been a part of mainstream secular culture as well.
Christianity informed the popular morality of Western culture, so it's a bit misleading to try to seperate them.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
True.
But in my experience: more often then not, it has religious underpinnings.

Christianity informed the popular morality of Western culture, so it's a bit misleading to try to seperate them.
Here's what I think happened.
Lots of guys are born with an instinctive "Ew Gross!" reaction to the idea of sex with another guy. Unsurprisingly, this got embedded in the primitive ethical codes of ancient people.
As ethical codes became more sophisticated, (more based on evidence and reason, less on instincts), more people learned that homosex isn't inherently a problem. Unfortunately, religion teaches people to rely on human authority. Especially that of primitive ethical codes, like Leviticus, regardless of evidence and reason.
That's changing, but more slowly among religionists than secularists.
Tom
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Boundaries should be at "causing demonstrable harm to non consenting parties", which, IMHO, is a more legalese way of saying "treat others as you yourself would be treated".

Under such a paradigm, there's no reason to condemn homosexuality. Beyond Appeals to religious authority and tradition, condemnations of homosexuality seem utterly arbitrary. I'm yet to see an argument against homosexuality that doesn't ultimately boil down to; "my religion says it's wrong, traditionally it's been unacceptable" or "I personally find it icky".

There are aspects of human behavior whose demonstrable harm is not immediately apparent, those that have a psychological effect on others. This gets a bit dicey when we try to define 'harm.'
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
There are aspects of human behavior whose demonstrable harm is not immediately apparent, those that have a psychological effect on others. This gets a bit dicey when we try to define 'harm.'
If you can't demonstrate that the thing you're talking about causes harm, psychological or otherwise, you don't have grounds to restrict it. And even if it DOES cause harm, if the person being harmed is giving their full and informed consent, you STILL don't have grounds to restrict it in most cases.

So. Are you claiming being homosexual "causes psychological harm to unconsenting parties"?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Was I wrong in what I said?
Nothing factual. Your causal chain seems suspect, though. You're talking about homophobic bigotry in popular culture as though it exists in isolation. I would contend that the homophobic bigotry in popular culture is of religious origin, even when displayed by non-religious people within the culture with religious determined morals.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Here's what I think happened.
Lots of guys are born with an instinctive "Ew Gross!" reaction to the idea of sex with another guy. Unsurprisingly, this got embedded in the primitive ethical codes of ancient people.
As ethical codes became more sophisticated, (more based on evidence and reason, less on instincts), more people learned that homosex isn't inherently a problem. Unfortunately, religion teaches people to rely on human authority. Especially that of primitive ethical codes, like Leviticus, regardless of evidence and reason.
That's changing, but more slowly among religionists than secularists.
Tom
That's a really interesting question. Do you think many or most people are born with an instinctive "ew gross" reaction to same sex, or do you think it has to be learned?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Lots of guys are born with an instinctive "Ew Gross!" reaction to the idea of sex with another guy.
At risk of opening a urge can of worms, are you sure that’s an instinct from birth? Clearly a general lack of sexual interest is one thing but the I get the sense that the extreme objection and fear of the idea of homosexual sexual activity various massively between individuals and communities. I’d suggest that is at least in part a symptom of cultural mores rather than the other way around.

I feel the main reasons rules against homosexual relationships found their way in to various religious (and therefore temporal) laws were more calculated and practical question of social structure that influenced the wider field including things like marriage and inheritance.
 
Top