• 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!

Homosexuality & Religion

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
That's really interesting actually, I don't know terribly much about the Navajo or many Native American cultures. It reminds me of reading that in some other countries there is a concept of a "third sex."

I guess the Cheyenne had 6 categories of people.

Women who wanted could marry other women and become a warrior and was fully excepted walking through life in a male roles. The same concept applied to men.

This is just one of the reasons that I sooo disagree with people who believe that modern humans have a universal better understanding of the way the world works. There is also a body of evidence that at least some premodern cultures understood the human psyche much better and had better mental health then we modern folks do.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
That's really interesting actually, I don't know terribly much about the Navajo or many Native American cultures. It reminds me of reading that in some other countries there is a concept of a "third sex."
If you are interested this is a pretty good, if heavily academic, treatment of the subject of LGBT identity in First Nations cultures.

Amazon.com: Men as Women, Women as Men: Changing Gender in Native American Cultures (9780292747012): Sabine Lang, John L. Vantine: Books: Reviews, Prices & more

wa:do
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
First you would have to know why the dog humps my leg sometimes, is it because it believes my leg will have puppys, I think not. I dont think they really know, It would seem its because of hormones, but I dont really know. Natural is a big word,I think homesexuality is against Gods Word.I think it is a spiritual illness. I think it is a desire of the flesh, an over indulgent.

How do you explain homosexual penguins in monogamous life-long relationships that adopt eggs to hatch?
 

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
Yet the nt speaks often of the flesh, it says those that belong to Christ have crucified the the flesh of its passions and desires.

Why is that so important? I see Christians indulging themselves all the time.

And while your description of me being against homosexual activity, is some what accurate, the Word of God plays a much bigger role in my life style.

Well, what does the bible say about homosexuality? How do you know that it is valid.

The people who wrote the bible were probably heterosexual, and had that same distaste toward homosexuality. The Judeo-Christian God was make up just like other Gods so it is not surprising that he also feels a distaste for homosexuality. Since people like you have faith in the myths of the bible, you have faith that homosexuality is wrong.

If God is real and finds homosexuality revolting, then why did he make people homosexual? That makes no sense at all.

I dont like your spinach analogy, would it have been any different if you would have used dog crap instead.

What is wrong with the analogy? Is it innacurate? Well, I will use a dog puke analogy.

We humans are given instincts and emotions that tell us that dog puke is nasty. We do not understand how dogs like to eat that stuff. Eating puke reduces our chances of survival and that is why we have these emotions from an evolutionary standpoint. Dogs have emotions that dog puke is delicious and may not understand how we could every like to eat fruit for example. Our subjective emotions do not define objective morality.

I can just imagine extra-terrestrials coming down to earth and being utterly repulsed to the human habit of eating meat which is so "obviously" nasty.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
How do you explain homosexual penguins in monogamous life-long relationships that adopt eggs to hatch?

Those penguins weren`t necessarily homosexual.
They split up after one of them had an affair with a girl penguin.

Very sad, and I`m unsure who got custody of the little penguin.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Those penguins weren`t necessarily homosexual.
They split up after one of them had an affair with a girl penguin.

Very sad, and I`m unsure who got custody of the little penguin.
Sexuality is fairly fluid... the other male penguin still shows no sign of liking females. Nor are these the only male pair-bonded penguins... they are found in zoos in America and Germany... interestingly from different species of penguin. Chinstrap and Black-footed.
As far as I know the Central Park pair split up... but the German pair is still together.

wa:do

ps... part of what makes the central park pair so interesting is they were faithful to each other for 6 years... penguins don't mate for life, so this is quite long term fidelity in a species that chooses a new mate each breeding season.
 
Last edited:

linwood

Well-Known Member
Sexuality is fairly fluid... the other male penguin still shows no sign of liking females. Nor are these the only male pair-bonded penguins... they are found in zoos in America and Germany... interestingly from different species of penguin. Chinstrap and Black-footed.
As far as I know the Central Park pair split up... but the German pair is still together.

wa:do

Understood PW but my ultimate point is that even if the "it ain`t natural" argument had evidence from the animal kingdom to support it it`s hypocritical and asinine.

For instance humanity is a part of the animal kingdom therefore if humanity engages in it it is by definition "natural" whether or not any other species engages in homosexual activity.

Secondly the hypocrisy is that the same theists who make the argument that "homosexuality doesn`t occur in nature so therefore it`s wrong" also make the argument that humanity is somehow "different" and not part of the animal kingdom in an entirely different debate so for them to use the animal kingdom as a standard for humanity to be judged by is disingenuous at best.
:facepalm:

For these reasons alone it`s not even an argument worthy of rebutting.
 

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
As an atheist homosexuality is a failure in that it is self extinguishing. You cannot breed by definition if you are truely homosexual, therefore it will have no net benefit or deficit to the human condition. it is basically irrelevant, confined to the temporary position of local minority gratification.

Cheers

Are you saying that if someone doesn't have a kid then they are worthless?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Understood PW but my ultimate point is that even if the "it ain`t natural" argument had evidence from the animal kingdom to support it it`s hypocritical and asinine.

For instance humanity is a part of the animal kingdom therefore if humanity engages in it it is by definition "natural" whether or not any other species engages in homosexual activity.

Secondly the hypocrisy is that the same theists who make the argument that "homosexuality doesn`t occur in nature so therefore it`s wrong" also make the argument that humanity is somehow "different" and not part of the animal kingdom in an entirely different debate so for them to use the animal kingdom as a standard for humanity to be judged by is disingenuous at best.
:facepalm:

For these reasons alone it`s not even an argument worthy of rebutting.
Agreed... people will find any justification they can.
And that hypocrisy doesn't just extend to theists... just look at the "it's anti-evolutionary" argument proposed by one of the atheists. :facepalm:

wa:do
 

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
I see that you're a robotologist.

Seeing as I'm a robot in disguise, will you worship me?

I need some cantoloupe and purple grapes with a side of whiskey stat! :beach:

"Seeing as I'm a robot in disguise, will you worship me?"

To quote the prophet Jerematic:01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01110010 01101001 01110000 01110000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00001101 00001010 00001101 00001010
 
Last edited:

Smoke

Done here.
The polar bear ,wolf,etc, will sometimes eat there young, If humans did that it would be considered a sin, amongst other things.
That's why I don't bother discussing this **** anymore. The Christians say, "But it's not natural!" So you show them that homosexuality has been observed in practically every species of mammal and bird, and they say, "But we can't act like animals!"

You can't reason people out of superstition and bigotry.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I don't get the "but if all people did that the human race would die!" argument.

CLEARLY not all humans are homosexual so extinction is not an issue.

By the same logic should we legislate laws immediately FORCING all heterosexual couples who are choosing not to have children... to have children?

Should we force all singles to get together and procreate at least once?

After all, hetero couples that choose not to have kids... if everyone were like that then the species would go extinct! :eek:

And, after all, single people without boyfriends/girlfriends... if everyone were like that then the species would go extinct! :rolleyes:
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I don't get the "but if all people did that the human race would die!" argument.

CLEARLY not all humans are homosexual so extinction is not an issue.

By the same logic should we legislate laws immediately FORCING all heterosexual couples who are choosing not to have children... to have children?

Should we force all singles to get together and procreate at least once?

After all, hetero couples that choose not to have kids... if everyone were like that then the species would go extinct! :eek:

And, after all, single people without boyfriends/girlfriends... if everyone were like that then the species would go extinct! :rolleyes:

Now now, Meow. This is RF. Let's not bring reason into the argument.
 

Smoke

Done here.
I don't get the "but if all people did that the human race would die!" argument.

CLEARLY not all humans are homosexual so extinction is not an issue.
Exactly. Overbreeding by heterosexuals is more likely to lead to our extinction than underbreeding by homosexuals.

Anyway, Kant basically had his head up his *** when he decided the categorical imperative was a good rule of ethics.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
Who wants to be in complete control of everything

So I take it that you are a Calvinist.

So he design us to have sexual urges for there will always be more of us, but sometimes a few of us get a different knd of urge and find their same sex attractive ect.

It seems to me that if you except the idea of a Creator In control of the universe and since Gays cannot be reformed into straight life style. Would it not be logical that God created them the way they are. Unless of course you believe that he created them only to send to hell because it is a sign of them not being one of the elect.

It seems to me self evident.

Christian ministries have had luck reforming all types of people, but not Gays. Is it just not a possibility that they are just the way they were created to be. Due to the fact that they exist all over the world, in every culture, and at about the same percentage of the population.

This is just rebellion to his control. It probably annoys him.

This God has a lower level of emotional maturity then many people I know. Why should I worship someone who I perceive as having problems with age appropriate behavior?
 
Top