Homosexuality & Religion

[Meow Mix]

As much as I agree with you I have to point out the logistic of a society being so against homosexual relationships... namely that it does have an effect on producing offspring, which is a goal of all successful surviving societies. Hence why movies/tv shows always have a storyline of a man and women falling in love as that leads to marriages and for some reason marriage tend to lead to procreation... (not to mention the societal pressures for men to have sex with as many women as possible...)

Being intolerant to homosexual relationships, while wrong, is a smart move (from perspective of societies)... especially given that homosexuality isn't a black and white trait, but rather a spectrum and if you can get a good % that are on the fence or even favoring homosexuality to be in a heterosexual relationship and reproduce... the society gains a survival advantage.

Note: society can be replaced with religion and it would still make sense.

Uh, but homosexualts are a minority so procreation isn't in danger.

Also society tends to procreate a little too much, homosexuals do a lot of good by not procreating and furthermore by accepting the ******* children heterosexuals refuse to adopt into their homes and by giving them better parents than many children of heterosexuals could EVER ask for because they are 100% planned for and wanted (as opposed to some heterosexual "surprises").

 

[Jeremiah]

Homosexuality have been a part of humanity since the start and we are 6 billion strong and still growing. So clearly this redundant agreement of a need to breed is not a valid concern.

Over 22,000 children die around the world each day. Due to poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses. All things caused by having a society with a population to large to support. I mean you just can't breed and breed and breed and expect resources to keep up.

About 380000 babies are born each day worldwide. That means 22,000 will only be born to die as a child. This will only increase as the world fills up and resources dwindle.

 

[Atomist]

Uh, but homosexualts are a minority so procreation isn't in danger.

Also society tends to procreate a little too much, homosexuals do a lot of good by not procreating and furthermore by accepting the ******* children heterosexuals refuse to adopt into their homes and by giving them better parents than many children of heterosexuals could EVER ask for because they are 100% planned for and wanted (as opposed to some heterosexual "surprises").

I think you completely missed the point. It's (probably) a relic of ancient societies that worked better than others that didn't have that trait. I'm not arguing that it's right or anything like that... I'm giving a reason why it exists (or a hypothesis). At the very least it's not a negative to hurt minority groups that can't reproduce... (and probably brought people closer together... us vs them mentality is very good for societies up to a point)

It's the same reason why many religions/societies taboo certain things like sibling/relative marriages and such stuff... because it's beneficial to the propagation of the religion/society in same way... or at the very least not detrimental.

So yes... it totally doesn't apply now... and it would be absurd to keep it... but since people are silly and religion is dogmatic...

In case you haven't noticed (not saying you didn't), but societal rules are based on (to some extent) arbitrary ancient rules/practices and many of which would be better if it didn't exist now, even if they had their purpose. Say what marriage is, monogamy, manors (cursing and such to sensor negative emotion), national pride to name a few. But they'll probably would stick around for the time being...

 

[Jeremiah]

I think you completely missed the point. It's (probably) a relic of ancient societies that worked better than others that didn't have that trait. I'm not arguing that it's right or anything like that... I'm giving a reason why it exists (or a hypothesis). At the very least it's not a negative to hurt minority groups that can't reproduce... (and probably brought people closer together... us vs them mentality is very good for societies up to a point)

It's the same reason why many religions/societies taboo certain things like sibling/relative marriages and such stuff... because it's beneficial to the propagation of the religion/society in same way... or at the very least not detrimental.

So yes... it totally doesn't apply now... and it would be absurd to keep it... but since people are silly and religion is dogmatic...

In case you haven't noticed (not saying you didn't), but societal rules are based on (to some extent) arbitrary ancient rules/practices and many of which would be better if it didn't exist now, even if they had their purpose. Say what marriage is, monogamy, manors (cursing and such to sensor negative emotion), national pride to name a few. But they'll probably would stick around for the time being...

" It's (probably) a relic of ancient societies that worked better than others that didn't have that trait."

It is nothing of the sort. That is just a wild shot in the dark by people who rarely pick up a history book and read about western history. It is simply prejudice and nothing more, something which has existed since humankind. The west has a shifting history with its views on homosexuality. Go back a couple hundred years and the church didn't really care about homosexuals. Go back further and they suddenly have it in for the homosexuals again. It is just prejudice, it has nothing to due with ancient societies needing breeders, prejudice is just in human nature.

"At the very least it's not a negative to hurt minority groups that can't reproduce... (and probably brought people closer together... us vs them mentality is very good for societies up to a point)"

Excuse me but my penis works just fine, thank you. I can reproduce, if I so chose to.

 

[painted wolf]

But wouldn't the mal-adaptation re: large families just reinforce the meme that religious requirements for uncontrolled breeding are Darwinian in nature be reinforced? Darwin's principles regarding evolutionary processes apply equally to the unsuccessful adaptations as to the successful (we just tend to focus on the successful traits, mostly because maladaptive traits tend to deselect and aren't as noticeable).

Of course... a trait can be adaptive or maladaptive depending on the circumstances. What was once a benefit, if things change, become a detriment.

wa:do

 

[Meow Mix]

I think you completely missed the point.

Yep, after reading your explanation I get it. Where's my dunce hat?

 

[MW0082]

I think you completely missed the point. It's (probably) a relic of ancient societies that worked better than others that didn't have that trait. I'm not arguing that it's right or anything like that... I'm giving a reason why it exists (or a hypothesis). At the very least it's not a negative to hurt minority groups that can't reproduce... (and probably brought people closer together... us vs them mentality is very good for societies up to a point)

It's the same reason why many religions/societies taboo certain things like sibling/relative marriages and such stuff... because it's beneficial to the propagation of the religion/society in same way... or at the very least not detrimental.

So yes... it totally doesn't apply now... and it would be absurd to keep it... but since people are silly and religion is dogmatic...

In case you haven't noticed (not saying you didn't), but societal rules are based on (to some extent) arbitrary ancient rules/practices and many of which would be better if it didn't exist now, even if they had their purpose. Say what marriage is, monogamy, manors (cursing and such to sensor negative emotion), national pride to name a few. But they'll probably would stick around for the time being...

Considering homosexuality has been around a lot longer than any religion practiced today I would say your way off base.....:yes:

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Uh, but homosexualts are a minority so procreation isn't in danger.

Also society tends to procreate a little too much, homosexuals do a lot of good by not procreating and furthermore by accepting the ******* children heterosexuals refuse to adopt into their homes and by giving them better parents than many children of heterosexuals could EVER ask for because they are 100% planned for and wanted (as opposed to some heterosexual "surprises").

I agree 100%

Most people have no idea how bad the foster care system is in this rich country of ours. These children must be put above all else. They will aether get a good home or we will be filling up our prisons even more in 20 years.

We need every good adult, who is willing to take a child and raise them in a home full of love. This is not about being black white or Gay. Its about 1000s of kids living lives of quite suffering. Being moved from house to house never learning what it means to be loved. Spending there whole childhood sad and alone. We as a society cannot afford to set aside large numbers of potential good parents when so many kids are suffering do to a lack of a loving family.

 

[Hijabihippie]

http://http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/4808/coming_out_twice:_sexuality_and_gender_in_islam/

 

[Storm]

Broken link.

 

[Father Heathen]

Broken link.

This should work.

 

[Storm]

Thanks.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

1) Why do you think God or Allah or whoever you believe in would denounce homosexuality?

He does not see it as following an order of behaviour He established.

What harm does it do to God?

I would say, "None."

2) Does God think homosexual acts in non-human species is also an abomination?

He has never mentioned it in Scripture so it would be pure conjecture to anything about it.

 

[Meow Mix]

He does not see it as following an order of behaviour He established.

Then why did He ostensibly establish it? I'm not physically attracted to women by any choice of my own.

Even if it were a choice, do you believe God gave us free will or not?

Holding a gun to someone's head and saying, "Do this or I'll shoot you" isn't giving them a free will choice -- in other words, "Be heterosexual or go to Hell" isn't exactly conducive to free choice either. I'm confused why people would believe that God wants us to have a free choice but still holds a gun to our head and demanding we do a certain thing that God wants anyway, even if it doesn't hurt God or anyone else.

How do you reconcile that?

Keep in mind that this hypothetical includes a huge hypothetical that homosexuals "choose" who they're attracted to. I can assure you that at least this girl can't choose that. I can't help who I get butterflies in my stomach around any more than you can.

 

[idav]

Then why did He ostensibly establish it? I'm not physically attracted to women by any choice of my own.

Even if it were a choice, do you believe God gave us free will or not?

Holding a gun to someone's head and saying, "Do this or I'll shoot you" isn't giving them a free will choice -- in other words, "Be heterosexual or go to Hell" isn't exactly conducive to free choice either. I'm confused why people would believe that God wants us to have a free choice but still holds a gun to our head and demanding we do a certain thing that God wants anyway, even if it doesn't hurt God or anyone else.

How do you reconcile that?

Keep in mind that this hypothetical includes a huge hypothetical that homosexuals "choose" who they're attracted to. I can assure you that at least this girl can't choose that. I can't help who I get butterflies in my stomach around any more than you can.

My two cents is that doing the will of God is not free will as you kinda mentioned. It could be that god would prefer we do his will but lets us do our own without preference. With kids, parents likely feel the same. Hard to balance what a parent wants from a kid versus what a parent will have no choice but to leave alone. Regardless of whether a gun is being held to our head or not wouldn't change what the preference is. After all sin is essentially going against the law maker and whatever those laws happen to be. Now if people could just agree on what the law of this invisible entity is without making god seem like a retard.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then why did He ostensibly establish it? I'm not physically attracted to women by any choice of my own.

Even if it were a choice, do you believe God gave us free will or not?

Holding a gun to someone's head and saying, "Do this or I'll shoot you" isn't giving them a free will choice -- in other words, "Be heterosexual or go to Hell" isn't exactly conducive to free choice either. I'm confused why people would believe that God wants us to have a free choice but still holds a gun to our head and demanding we do a certain thing that God wants anyway, even if it doesn't hurt God or anyone else.

How do you reconcile that?

Keep in mind that this hypothetical includes a huge hypothetical that homosexuals "choose" who they're attracted to. I can assure you that at least this girl can't choose that. I can't help who I get butterflies in my stomach around any more than you can.

First of all I don't distinguish one sin from another wheter it be homosexual acts or drunkenness or lying. Why did God allow us to be sinners? Damned good question.

Next, sinning doesn't send anyone to hell according to how I read the Bible and I've been through it a few times. Not believing in Jesus does. Now why is THAT gun pointed at our head? I suppose God want the choice to be meaningful.

As to butterflies. After having been through a lifetime of pursuing love as the world sees it I've come to the conclusion that it has nothing to do with butterflies or physical attaction or sexual attraction or momentary happieness (or general happieness for that matter) but sacrifice, devotion, loyalty, and such like. When the Bible speaks of human relationships concerning sexuality is is focused more on human reproduction and stable families than all of the trappings we seem to put into having a stable, lasting relationship. While Jacob seems to have had "butterflies" for Rachel but that is more the exception than the rule. Marriage and reproductive relationships had a more practical side to them than emotional feeling.

I'm thinking that the framework the Bible establishes for fulfilling the first commandment God gave to man might be better than anything we've established.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

My two cents is that doing the will of God is not free will as you kinda mentioned.

That is essentially it. We have limited free will. You may choose from what is available not whatever you can imagine.

 

[waitasec]

First of all I don't distinguish one sin from another wheter it be homosexual acts or drunkenness or lying.

but one of these things doesn't go with the other 2...

Next, sinning doesn't send anyone to hell according to how I read the Bible and I've been through it a few times. Not believing in Jesus does. Now why is THAT gun pointed at our head? I suppose God want the choice to be meaningful.

meaningfully .... manipulative?

 

[idav]

That is essentially it. We have limited free will. You may choose from what is available not whatever you can imagine.

What limited "free" will is that? Is it just between doing gods or the devils will? Can we do our own will rather than the good or evil option?

 

[Meow Mix]

First of all I don't distinguish one sin from another wheter it be homosexual acts or drunkenness or lying. Why did God allow us to be sinners? Damned good question.

Lying hurts people. I don't see what the problem with homosexuality or drunkenness can be (unless one tries to drive or something). Those are victimless "crimes."

Next, sinning doesn't send anyone to hell according to how I read the Bible and I've been through it a few times. Not believing in Jesus does. Now why is THAT gun pointed at our head? I suppose God want the choice to be meaningful.

How is it a choice unless it's an informed choice? I can't make that choice because I have very little (and that's being generous) to suggest to me that Jesus even exists. How fair is that? Isn't that like asking someone to pick from 3 closed doors, with eternity as a consequence for picking the wrong door?

As to butterflies. After having been through a lifetime of pursuing love as the world sees it I've come to the conclusion that it has nothing to do with butterflies or physical attaction or sexual attraction or momentary happieness (or general happieness for that matter) but sacrifice, devotion, loyalty, and such like. When the Bible speaks of human relationships concerning sexuality is is focused more on human reproduction and stable families than all of the trappings we seem to put into having a stable, lasting relationship. While Jacob seems to have had "butterflies" for Rachel but that is more the exception than the rule. Marriage and reproductive relationships had a more practical side to them than emotional feeling.

Surely you'll agree that at least some small physical attraction is a part of loving someone who is going to be a life partner?

For example, I have a lot of very close friends that -- as much as it may sadden me -- I may not know as well by the time I'm 80. Alicia, though, will probably still be right by my side. I love my friends, but I love her in a different way from loving my friends or loving my parents -- not a difference in magnitude, but of kind. I imagine it's the same for heterosexual soulmates.

That's why I mentioned butterflies. I can't help that I can have that kind of love with her and not with a man. Can you help who you fall in love with? You're the one that brought up sex, not me.