Why is being gay considered wrong?

[Mike182]

Gender is not the issue. Hateful, judgemental people are.

here here

 

[Jaymes]

Most people understand that homosexuals are not monsters, bad people, deviants, etc. But because of hundreds of years of being taught that they are, it is difficult to completely depart from that train of thought. I think that in the next few generations this tought pattern will almost completely depart and the only places it will be found is in portions of Texas, Arkansas and West Virginia. Seriously.

They do? I must just run into the remainder that still think gays/lesbians are monsters and bad people...

I do hope you're right about this disappearing in the next few generations.

 

[jamaesi]

I do hope you're right about this disappearing in the next few generations.

When I look at my current generation I doubt that.

Racism is still around, especially towards blacks- and it´s been how long since slavery was banned?

 

[IndigoChild]

And in this case, A Fruit cannot be a Saint.

This is the historical Christian position. It's as simple as apple pie. Disagree if you wish, but please, don't knock on our cathedrals to help ease your anguished conscious.

Respectfully,

Cold-Stone Advantage

Thou art a hypocrite. You claim to be a loving Christian and claim to be not making hateful comments, but you quite clearly ARE. Probably a closet case, as well.

I wish there existed anti-frubals, so I could give you some.

Kat

 

[IndigoChild]

When I look at my current generation I doubt that.

Racism is still around, especially towards blacks- and it´s been how long since slavery was banned?

Blame Abe Lincoln. They say the Civil War was about slavery, but it wasn't. It was about states rights. Many states secceeded from the Union in protest for various things time and again before the Civil War, and then joined up again once the situations were resolved. The same thing would have happened that time as well, if not for Abe Lincoln. Slavery was a dying institution anyway, the US was the only western country left to still have slavery, but it was getting to the point where it was cheaper to pay people to work the fields than to buy and care for slaves. If Abe Lincoln hadn't been such a power-hungry SOB bent on forcing the loose union of the American countries into one country (thus changing the meaning of state from country to provence), the South would've spent maybe five or ten years divided from the union, slavery would have died naturally, and then the South would've rejoined the Union.

By freaking with the process, Abe Lincoln is responsible for all the bitterness and resentment that led to racism. Look at England, for example. Slavery died naturally over there, and racism against the blacks over there is practically unheard of. We could've had the same thing over here if Abe Lincoln hadn't stuck his deformed nose into the problem.

You know, Mr. Lincoln, there's a REASON no one voted for your arse five times in a row!

Kat

 

[Mike182]

When I look at my current generation I doubt that.

Racism is still around, especially towards blacks- and it´s been how long since slavery was banned?

i think it will take a lot more than a few generations

its not just that we are tought that gay people are not wright, but we a taught (if not openly then unconsciously) that hetrosexuality is better

you just have to look at programmes like "will and grace" to see a "gay culture" that i have never seen in reality, i dont know any gay man that does the "camp hand gesture" but stereotypically speaking, im supposed to do one every five minutes

i think each generation will (hopefully) irradicate stereotype by stereotype until everyone knows what is true about homosexuals, and that is that we are average people, we work the same jobs as you, go the the same churches and concerts as you, we shop in the same places, we vote for the politician who looks least likely to lie to us about taxation

were normal, we really are normal!! im not pulling the wool over your eyes, im not sugaring the plumb, im not smearing the truth, were normal! N-O-R-M-A-L-!

C_P

 

[IndigoChild]

I'll direct you to the Old Testament, which apearantly you've never read

And I will say it again: Jesus nullified the Old Testament, so your point is moot.

Kat

 

[jamaesi]

... I rather like Will and Grace. I don´t think it spreads negative stereotypes of homosexuals- a lot of my gay male friends are like Jack, others are more like Will.

Disagree if you wish, but please, don't knock on our cathedrals to help ease your anguished conscious.

I tend to advoid churches, my dear. Please don´t come around my relationships and keep the "you´re no Child of G-d and will burn in hell" comments to yourself. : )

The only reason my conscious is anguished is because there are such hurtful people about and I wish I could do more to stop it.

 

[IndigoChild]

No. But the fact that the Bible says it is a sin, makes it a sin.

Yeah, well I guess that's you're opinion, and there is really no point in arguing such opinions where neither side will really be able to use proof, etc.

What part of "I am a Pagan" do you not understand? I don't worship your Bible (like you do) nor do I believe in your God. Your God is an incomplete understanding. Believe in it if you will, but coming here and preaching at us is offensive. Beating us over the head with your beliefs is not tantamount to proof, and it is not going to do anything but annoy us.

Shall we agree to disagree, then?

Kat

 

[drekmed]

and here is the problem. people are taught that they are better than others. their religion is the right one and the other person's is wrong, their school is better than the one down the street with the exact same curriculum, and their way of life is better than their neighbor's. we are taught intolerance throughout our lives in one form or another; some of it is good, such as being intolerant to murder, but much of it is bad like being intolerant of the color of someones skin or the way they live their lives. we judge people on how they dress and look rather than what they are really like. these kind of things are pumped into people from the days they are born till the day they die. to say something that doesn't hurt or negatively effect anybody is wrong is extremely of arrogant and self centered. no matter how sure you are that you may be right, what if you're wrong? and what does it really matter if someone is gay or lesbian? does it hurt you in any way? does it stop you from pursuing your dreams and desires? should they be treated different just because they aren't straight? homosexuality has been around almost as long as heterosexuality, so what makes it wrong?
answers: then you're wrong.....it doesn't.....nope.....nope.....nope.....nothing.

drekmed

 

[Prophet Rashad]

But people are born being gay, it's not like they just one day decide there going to kiss someone of the same sex.

That is true because you are born into sin and because you are born a sinner you can be born gay but You can be Born Again

 

[Jaymes]

Being born again implies I wasn't born good enough the first go-round. I like myself as is, thanks. I need improvement, but it's nothing that needs a deity to accomplish.

 

[Apotheosis]

I dont buy the idea that people are born either straight or gay, I do believe there is a natural inclination towards hetrosexuality simply because that is how we reproduce,I believe our life experiences and our environment growing up has a huge effect on our sexuality. Having said that, the answer to the question is simple: Gay people are different, people feel threatend by that which is different. I am afraid it is that simple.

 

[Draka]

It is refering to a hypocritical form of judgement like Draka has done. This is condemned. But there is a righteous judgement (John 7:24, 2nd Corinthians 11:5, etc).


Cold-Stone-Advantage

If pointing out that you have been rude, condescending, and use disguised hate language is being hypocritically judgemental, and you condemning and being rude towards a part of the population merely because you don't agree with their lifestyle is righteously judgemental, using your definitions here, then I will accept being called hypocritically judgemental and prefer it to your "righteous" judgement anyday. I mean really, I would much prefer being the first than the second of your definitions. If I am condemned for that then oh well...no skin off my nose.

 

[turk179]

I keep correcting this concept Michael. Did you not pay attention from before.

It is refering to a hypocritical form of judgement like Draka has done. This is condemned. But there is a righteous judgement (John 7:24, 2nd Corinthians 11:5, etc).

You must take the Encyclopedia of Divine Knowledge in its entire format. Not just 1 volume. A text without a context becomes a pretext.

This is not a buffet dinner where we can have a little chicken and mashed potatotes.

Context my friend. : )

I'm off for the weekend. Enjoy the sun if you have it.

Your Friendly Neighbor

Cold-Stone-Advantage

What does a righteous judgement have to do with a hypocritical judgement? If you were to spread the bible out on a table and take the whole thing in as one giant image, you would still have to make a hypothesis. Some people have said that you are just taking the bible literally, but how can you or anyone else say that when you can come up with hypocritical judgement from John 7:24? And better yet what does this have to do with it being wrong to be gay.

 

[michel]

I keep correcting this concept Michael. Did you not pay attention from before.

It is refering to a hypocritical form of judgement like Draka has done. This is condemned. But there is a righteous judgement (John 7:24, 2nd Corinthians 11:5, etc).

You must take the Encyclopedia of Divine Knowledge in its entire format. Not just 1 volume. A text without a context becomes a pretext.

This is not a buffet dinner where we can have a little chicken and mashed potatotes.

Context my friend. : )

I'm off for the weekend. Enjoy the sun if you have it.

Your Friendly Neighbor

Cold-Stone-Advantage

Well cold-stone,

You can correct as many wrongs as you like in what I write and think, but you seem to be equally refusing to accept my point about your judgementalism........

There is another small point, and I did not really want to bring this up, but since you are a 'friendly Christian neighbour' - I would have though that as such, you would make an effort to call people by their real names; everyone else (I think) on this forum calls me Michel - that is my name. As it happens, I have a real 'thing' about being called Michael - and yet you continually call me by that name; I dare say it was not with any bad intent that you keep calling me by the wrong name - I am not so judgemental as to believe that you are doing this on purpose, but maybe you can see that you are not 'whiter than white'; enjoy your buffet meal, my friend ...............

 

[Mike182]

Having said that, the answer to the question is simple: Gay people are different, people feel threatend by that which is different. I am afraid it is that simple.

"gay people are different" - but in a nice way


i dont know if i was born gay, or if it was something later in life

my first serious crush (that i can remember) was on a guy i was good friends with, but i kept 'going out' with other girls because thats what i was expected to do. i didnt like it one bit, i was lying to them about why i didnt want to do anything with them, although i enjoy the company of many female friends, i didnt like the prospect of hertosexuality, and this was before i thought for deffinate that i was gay


other theories put forth to explain homosexuality are sigmund freud, saying that at a young age i was either molesterd by a close male member of family, he also argues that gay people have faulty consciences (there super-ego is balanced more towards the I.D than the ego)

others would argue that i was born pure (as i think all baby's are) but satan took my ear (not literally - im predicting some obscure comments on that one )

scientists think there is a chance that there could possibly be a gay gene somewhere in this stand of DNA here - "if you look at it from this angle, and if you turn the light off, then i think we've got it"

quite frankly, i dont have a clue

but i am what i am, i have tried not to be, and it hurts more than anything else can do.

C_P

 

[Sunstone]

but i am what i am, i have tried not to be, and it hurts more than anything else can do.

Among the most important things one can do in life is be true to oneself. When one isn't true to oneself, one frequently pays a hefty price in loss of true happiness, unnecessary suffering, and spiritual confussion. So, it seems to me odd that there would be a god who would create homosexuals and then desire them to deny their true selves on the grounds that their true selves are an abomination to Him. Very odd.

 

[Aqualung]

I thought Jesus nullified the old testament's rules?

Not in its entirety. He especially nullified the rules of clean and unclean and animal sacrifices, but most of the other stuff still applies (think the ten commandments). Aslo, Jesus didn't nullify the OT, but rather nullified many parts of Mosaic law. There were other laws, such as tithing, that people like Abraham participated in, which I beleive still hold to us. And that's not important. Just because "Jesus nullified the OT" does not mean that God still sent people to war.

Truth be told, I couldn't read the Bible. It was like trying to read Shakespearean pornography. I couldn't even make it past the first page.

Kat

:biglaugh: Yeah, it's definitely hard to read. I read it in Spanish, because then at least I have to pay attention to what is going on so I can learn to speak spanish better.

 

[Aqualung]

What part of "I am a Pagan" do you not understand? I don't worship your Bible (like you do) nor do I believe in your God. Your God is an incomplete understanding. Believe in it if you will, but coming here and preaching at us is offensive. Beating us over the head with your beliefs is not tantamount to proof, and it is not going to do anything but annoy us.

Shall we agree to disagree, then?

Kat

I understand it just fine. But the question was why "I" think it's bad, so I answered. Then, I said that opinions can't be argued, or, in effect "shall we agree to disagree then?" Sure, let's just agree to disagree. I don't mind.