God And Homosexuality

[sojourner]

do we need more problems if hereosexuals can't keep things together and even you recognise that?

So, are you saying that not having people marry solves relational problems?? Social science disagrees with you. My point was that Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality. But he does speak out against divorce. But I don't hear you railing against divorcees. Why is that?

How do you know 'no more so'? It must be a guess, but what makes your guess worth relying on?

psychological and sociological studies find no problems with homosexuality.

It isn't black and white and things change.

So? the gay population -- in a crisis -- wouldn't make much of a difference. Plus, in such a crisis all bets are off. Are you saying that the rules should change in such a situation to mandate polygamy? Are you saying that, in such a situation, homosexuals couldn't produce children by practicing polygamy with heterosexual partners? This is nothing more than a poor excuse.

The question I'm implying is the harm that could come from that attitude exactly.

Modern medicine has studied and identified the harm that is caused by repressing one's sexuality. Sorry. Science is not your friend here.

Merely stating that, 'this is okay', without reviewing the consequences, is insufficient.

See above. They have reviewed consequences.

God knows best. One was created this way and the other that way. Nothing has been created by accident.

Codswallop. God made us in wondrous variety -- including, it would seem, our sexual nature.

I am not interested in sexual identities, but actions.

I see. So you're saying that homosexuals are lesser humans and should not be allowed to enjoy full sexual expression. That's nice.

If one feels inclined to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, they should stay away from that, whether it is difficult or not.

Why? There is no reason, either biblical or scientific, for that to be the case.

Just as a pedophile, who feels attracted to children, should stay away from that sin whether it is difficult or not.

Pedophilia doesn't fit the "equitable, committed, consensual, and loving" model. Sorry. You're comparing an identified psychological illness with an identified psychological healthful condition. That's not How It Works.

 

[columbus]

Overpopulation is the problem.

It isn't black and white and things change.

It is true though.

The human race is far more likely to destroy ourselves with the results of overpopulation than lack of procreation.

And religious people insisting that procreation trumps human welfare in general I consider extremely immoral. And since you attribute this immoral behavior to God I can only conclude that God is immoral.
@BilliardsBall
Tom

 

[Mitty]

Ejaculation and defecation aren't sin.

Nor is homosexuality a sin given that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality, and that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and why he loved a particular disciple and not a wife.

Muslims have an apologetic like "How can Jesus be Allah/God, since He defecated?"

Jesus explained that what you eat makes you neither clean nor unclean, as it passes through your body. What makes us clean or unclean is the heart. How is your heart before God today, do you think?

But Jesus didn't claim to be a god or to be without sin either (Mark 10:18), and given that David was even his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7) although he was an adulterous murderer who said his love with Jonathon was more wonderful than with any of his wives & concubines (2Sam 1:26).

 

[Mitty]

What if it isn't so? Could promoting homosexuality actually increase the amount of homosexuals and could this not, in the long run, cause a lot of harm all over the world?

Was homosexuality harmful to Jesus?

 

[Piculet]

Was homosexuality harmful to Jesus?

A society with low moral standards is potentially harmful to all individuals within it.

 

[Piculet]

Nor is homosexuality a sin given that the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality,

Do you see anything strange in the above?

 

[columbus]

A society with low moral standards is potentially harmful to all individuals within it.

This is exactly why I'd like to see the low moral standards of primitive people replaced by better ones.
Tom

 

[Piculet]

And religious people insisting that procreation trumps human welfare in general I consider extremely immoral.

I don't know what you're talking about.

And since you attribute this immoral behavior to God

I still don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Piculet]

This is exactly why I'd like to see the low moral standards of primitive people replaced by better ones.
Tom

Isn't it telling how nakedness is so characteristic to both the primitive people and the modern Western societies?

 

[Piculet]

So, are you saying that not having people marry solves relational problems??

What kind of problems? Marrying is encouraged and should be so. Marrying someone of the same sex is not an option and should not be one.

My point was that Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality.

Aren't we talking about God's commands? Have you read the beginning of the Bible? In the Bible, Jesus عليه السلام did certainly not leave doubt of what kind of an institution he was referring to marriage as (that of a man and a woman).

 

[columbus]

I don't know what you're talking about.

I still don't know what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about is your posts.

You keep making assertions about morality and God's law. Now you're claiming you don't know what I'm talking about.
Oh well....
Tom

 

[columbus]

Isn't it telling how nakedness is so characteristic to both the primitive people and the modern Western societies?

No.
What's telling is that ancient people got upset about the reality of God's Creation and perceiving it clearly. The ones who invented your religion.
And that your religion keeps dragging those primitive ideas into the modern world for no apparent reason. I understand the possibility of sexual tensions causing problems in mixed gender settings, sometimes. But a group of straight boys skinny dipping? Sorry, that sounds like you've got the problem, to me.
Tom

 

[Mitty]

Do you see anything strange in the above?

In other words the bible says nothing about homosexuality but only says that anal sex of women and men is "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27) and disgusting (Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13) as is eating oysters (Leviticus 11).

 

[sojourner]

What kind of problems?

I don’t know. You were the one who indicated that committed, consensual, equitable and loving relationships could cause societal problems. I can’t imagine how that could be so. Seems such relational stability would have the opposite effect.

Marrying someone of the same sex is not an option and should not be one.

Unfortunately for you, it IS an option in several forward thinking countries.

Jesus عليه السلام did certainly not leave doubt of what kind of an institution he was referring to marriage as. (that if a man and a woman)

The Gospel writers didn’t have the advantage of understanding human sexuality. That’s why it’s a really poor idea to base social order on religious principles.

 

[Mitty]

A society with low moral standards is potentially harmful to all individuals within it.

So why wasn't it morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar, or to kill his son as a blood sacrifice, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel, or for Noah's father to kill a young man who hit him (Gen 4)? And why wasn't it morally wrong for Lot to sexually assault his daughters after he mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives (Gen 19)?

 

[Mitty]

What kind of problems? Marrying is encouraged and should be so. Marrying someone of the same sex is not an option and should not be one.

Aren't we talking about God's commands? Have you read the beginning of the Bible? In the Bible, Jesus عليه السلام did certainly not leave doubt of what kind of an institution he was referring to marriage as. (that if a man and a woman)

So why did Jesus love a particular disciple instead of a wife (John 19:26 21:7), and is that why most people in civilized countries now support same-sex marriage and why Jesus asked his followers to accept that some men do not marry women because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12)?

 

[Piculet]

No.
What's telling is that ancient people got upset about the reality of God's Creation and perceiving it clearly. The ones who invented your religion.
And that your religion keeps dragging those primitive ideas into the modern world for no apparent reason. I understand the possibility of sexual tensions causing problems in mixed gender settings, sometimes. But a group of straight boys skinny dipping? Sorry, that sounds like you've got the problem, to me.
Tom

I'm actually referring to the hundreds of years, recently, that people found it only appropriate to cover themselves. The decision to not cover is new.

 

[Mitty]

I'm actually referring to the hundreds of years, recently, that people found it only appropriate to cover themselves. The decision to not cover is new.

Did our aborigines cover themselves when they arrived here over 50,000 years ago?

 

[columbus]

I'm actually referring to the hundreds of years, recently, that people found it only appropriate to cover themselves. The decision to not cover is new.

I don't even understand why you changed the subject to casual nudists.

But to respond to this, for all that time slavery was ethically accepted and women were second class citizens and environmental destruction wasn't even considered. The primitive morals of the Iron Age need to be scrutinized and discarded when appropriate. Which is often. Referring to them as God's law isn't a justification for further degrading the human situation.
Tom

 

[Piculet]

But he does speak out against divorce. But I don't hear you railing against divorcees. Why is that?

More whataboutism. I am in fact critical of divorce, if you must know, but I don't know why you should have heard of it.