Why is Homosexuality such a polarizing issue?

[Lightkeeper]

If people are trying to follow a certain religion, they will take the stance of that religion; or their understanding of what their religion says about homos. I myself have digressed as far as the christian religion is concerned . Homosexuality in my opinion, is based on the 'if it feels good--do it' syndrome. I know only a few homos, and am by no means a expert on the subject, but the individuals I am aquainted with want nothing to do with a God who dictates what is and is not acceptable. I do not care about them one way or another as long as they do not become a 'special society' within society as a whole. I am of the same mind as Dr. Laura when she said "homosexuals are deviant". Of course they are--otherwise they wouldn't be homosexuals. But what does deviant mean--and then who isn't deviant? I do not think it right to allow these people into a religion that preaches against that lifestyle. If one really has a belief in the Christian faith--then homosexuality is un acceptable and is an abomination before christ. Therefore if you are a 'christian' and you don't agree with that--I suspect your faith is not important to you. WE have women preachers and gay preachers, sodomisers, buggery-- and I don't want to know what else, but I have surmised that the word has stepped aside for the 'feels good' society. The so called 'gays' are part of that society. I have known married women and men who have changed to 'gay' and they are of the feels good attitude until something that feels better comes along.

You will receive a lot of replies to this post. Regarding the "feel good" theory. The suicide rate among gays is very high. If they "felt good" they wouldn't commit suicide. It has been long ago decided by psychologists that homosexuality is not an illness. The reason gays commit suicide is that they aren't accepted in society. Many people have a gay loved one as a friend or in their families and if they don't know of one now, they may in the near future. It would behoove everyone to get a clear and thorough understanding of homosexuality. As for Dr. Laura, her PhD is in Physiology, not Psychology. Psychologists disagree with her statements.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hiya. I'm one of those 'many replies' that Lightkeeper rightly predicted. And for this one, the tigress will be unsheathing her claws... (It's the night after my birthday, so I'm allowed to let this totem out, right? Please?!)

If people are trying to follow a certain religion, they will take the stance of that religion; or their understanding of what their religion says about homos. I myself have digressed as far as the christian religion is concerned . Homosexuality in my opinion, is based on the 'if it feels good--do it' syndrome. I know only a few homos, and am by no means a expert on the subject, but the individuals I am aquainted with want nothing to do with a God who dictates what is and is not acceptable.

You mean a God, in this case, that a large part of society is trying to tell them 'hates their sin'? Oddly enough, I don't think I'd want to flock to a god that disliked me. I'm funny that way.

I do not think it right to allow these people into a religion that preaches against that lifestyle. If one really has a belief in the Christian faith--then homosexuality is un acceptable and is an abomination before christ.

Following that line, we are all 'abominations' before Christ. And, as has been stated in other threads, Jesus Christ, himself, didn't seem to be worried enough about gay people worshipping him to mention that they should quit being gay in order to do so.

Therefore if you are a 'christian' and you don't agree with that--I suspect your faith is not important to you. WE have women preachers and gay preachers, sodomisers, buggery--

I know, isn't it truly disgusting to think that some people would stoop to allowing a woman (of all creatures!) to consider the concept that she would be able to lead God's flock?! Honestly, it makes you doubt that the diety watching over us is even a sane goddess- whoops, I meant God. Of course I did.

and I don't want to know what else, but I have surmised that the word has stepped aside for the 'feels good' society.

Interesting, here, that you seem consider others fallen, but you are able to believe the Word would 'step aside.' Do you think the Word is fallable?

The so called 'gays' are part of that society. I have known married women and men who have changed to 'gay' and they are of the feels good attitude until something that feels better comes along.

Please don't imply that humans are capable of changing their minds! That makes my poor, feeble, feminine brain ill! Please, someone! Fetch the smelling salts! I've the vapours!!!

Oooookay, sarcasm levels returning to sub-par... Kindness and empathy factors returning to stable... Whew, I'm back.

Wait, not quite...

I extremely dislike Dr. Laura, and her Physiology degree.

There. All better now!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

the individuals I am aquainted with want nothing to do with a God who dictates what is and is not acceptable.

Perhaps those individuals only want nothing to do with people who claim to speak for God and try to dictate to others what is and what is not acceptable.

 

[Scott1]

Hi all,

First of all, let me thank supertech.... the inane homophobic blather in his/her posts makes me seem liberal!

My further study about homosexual behavior showed me a few things about what my Church teaches. I think this issue is so devisive for a large part because Christians (myself included) do not receive correct instruction about WHY a particular faith believes homosexuality is "deviant" or a "sin".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
(Homosexuality) has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

(Homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

By the way, until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Try not to be to hard on Christians who are having a hard time with this subject.... in terms of world history, this is barely a grain of sand.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Raphael]

Perhaps the reason that homosexuality has awakened a firestorm of controversy has to do with the fact that for the first time in history, a group of people involved in obviously perverse and immoral actions refuse to admit culpability. Adulterers, fornicators, theives, murderers, drug dealers, etc have always accepted the fact that their actions are sinful. Drawn from this admission is the equally obvious acceptance of any sinful person's need for personal moral healing. To deny personal culpability while actively participating of your own free will in an obvious moral error is to deny the very purpose of redemption. God effectively revealed to mankind for all time his view on the errors of immoral behavior through various actions undertaken by God and recorded for posterity. First in the destruction of Sodom and its Gomorrah. It is clear that the destruction of these cities was for a grievious error in their moral behavior and we see clearly by the insistance of the mob that came to Lot's home, demanding to have sexual relations with Lot's guests who were angels in disguise, that the principal moral error was that action of Sodomy which is of course homosexual activity. It is interesting to meditate on the action of the angels who by opening the door to Lot's home and speaking one word that the entire inhabitants of the city and perhaps both cities that were scheduled for destruction, were struck with blindness. They obviously saw no fault in their immoral perversion either. I have always believed that the blindness they took on was not a judgement or punishment but a revelation as to the internal blindness that is common to all humans involved in this particular sexual perversion.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Perhaps the reason that homosexuality has awakened a firestorm of controversy has to do with the fact that for the first time in history, a group of people involved in obviously perverse and immoral actions refuse to admit culpability.

I'm interested in the "Obviously perverse and immoral" part about this. This would be by whose judgements, exactly? (Again, as has been said, not Jesus'.) The always-upstanding heterosexuals? Thank heavens that they don't deny the obviously perverse and immoral action of loving another human being.

Adulterers, fornicators, theives, murderers, drug dealers, etc have always accepted the fact that their actions are sinful.

Because we're suddenly equating liking ones own gender between two, consenting adults on par with the handsome list you just made? Shouldn't those shameless and disgusting farmers who sully the Word by planting two different crops side by side be forced to admit their sinfulness, too?

First in the destruction of Sodom and its Gomorrah. It is clear that the destruction of these cities was for a grievious error in their moral behavior and we see clearly by the insistance of the mob that came to Lot's home, demanding to have sexual relations with Lot's guests who were angels in disguise, that the principal moral error was that action of Sodomy which is of course homosexual activity.

Since this is a story often quoted in such arguments, suffice it to say that better words than mine have described the fallacies of using this chapter as an argument against homosexuality. If nothing else, it is an exercise in irony.
How willing was Lot to give up his daughters!

that is common to all humans involved in this particular sexual perversion.

Indeed. Meditating on sinful 'perverts' makes for such a delightful day! Me, I can't seem to stop thinking of the perversion of that farmer... May God have mercy on his soul, because I fear I cannot.

 

[Green Gaia]

obviously perverse and immoral actions

Explain how it's so obvious. If it were so then everyone would agree and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

First in the destruction of Sodom and its Gomorrah. It is clear that the destruction of these cities was for a grievious error in their moral behavior and we see clearly by the insistance of the mob that came to Lot's home, demanding to have sexual relations with Lot's guests who were angels in disguise, that the principal moral error was that action of Sodomy which is of course homosexual activity.

Not of course. This is just how SOME people interpret that Bible story. We don't even have prove this actually happened outside of the Bible. Even if it were true, their are many Bible scholars who believe Sodom and Gomarrah's sin was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. You choose which you want to believe.

 

[Raphael]

To distort a viewpoint by removing bits and peice of entire thoughts and sentences and then claiming them as quotations shows neither intelligence nor are they an actual rebuttle to the original statement. The facts are that you are incapable of disproving my complete statement.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

To distort a viewpoint by removing bits and peice of entire thoughts and sentences and then claiming them as quotations shows neither intelligence nor are they an actual rebuttle to the original statement. The facts are that you are incapable of disproving my complete statement.

Which original statement? And I was not trying to show 'intelligence', only logic. Also, quotations, forgive me if I'm wrong, unless quoted out of context, are your arguments.

 

[Raphael]

I will also point out that the actions of the crowd at Lot's door, show that the complexity of the nature of the moral evil of homosexual activity, tends to become militant if the number of practicing homosexuals become capable of forcing their perverse behaviors on others. Most greivious sin seeks to perpetuate itself by attraction.The story of Lot reveals this militant attitude. Modern homosexuality seeks to spread its errors first by demanding understanding and compassion but later as their numbers become sufficient will choose force as a means of expression. Statistically most practicing homosexuals originally were introduced to this perverse behavior against their wills.

 

[Sunstone]

Statistically most practicing homosexuals originally were introduced to this perverse behavior against their wills.

Would you mind citing where you get your statistics from?

 

[Lightkeeper]

I will also point out that the actions of the crowd at Lot's door, show that the complexity of the nature of the moral evil of homosexual activity, tends to become militant if the number of practicing homosexuals become capable of forcing their perverse behaviors on others. Most greivious sin seeks to perpetuate itself by attraction.The story of Lot reveals this militant attitude. Modern homosexuality seeks to spread its errors first by demanding understanding and compassion but later as their numbers become sufficient will choose force as a means of expression. Statistically most practicing homosexuals originally were introduced to this perverse behavior against their wills.

Please show the studies and statistics on homosexuals being introduced to homosexuality against their wills. Please show us the studies about homosexuals forcing their behavior on others. Using this line of reasoning who then was the first homosexual who did the forcing? How did he/she become homosexual. Using this line of reasoning you can become a homosexual if someone forces it upon you. Homosexuals are only 10% of the population. That means 100 in 1000. The larger crowd would be the 900 heterosexuals trying to force their beliefs on the few. Homosexuals are not demanding understanding and compassion, they are asking for basic rights due all human beings. It is more of a moral evil to pass judgement and make inaccurate statements, than it is to love someone of the same gender.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

It is more of a moral evil to pass judgement and make inaccurate statements, than it is to love someone of the same gender.

Incredibly well said, Lightkeeper. And I'd like to see those statistics as well, please. (Actually, that should come with the cavaet of 'depending on where they come from.')

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe I'm just dense, but I would like to know what's so sinful about two people (who are of the same gender) being in love?

It seems to me that if God were really opposed to homosexuality, then S/He would have made it impossible for two people of the same gender to genuinely love each other as mates. But that happens not to be the case. Homosexual couples can and do genuinely love each other as mates. So, (1) where's the sin in that? And (2) how come God made it possible if S/He opposed it?

 

[Pah]

To distort a viewpoint by removing bits and peice of entire thoughts and sentences and then claiming them as quotations shows neither intelligence nor are they an actual rebuttle to the original statement. The facts are that you are incapable of disproving my complete statement.

If we are to take your arguement as a whole, then it is only required to disprove one little bit to have it all fail. But most addressed multiple points.

Nobody has distorted any of your posts.

-pah-

 

[linwood]

Statistically most practicing homosexuals originally were introduced to this perverse behavior against their wills.

I`ll join the chorus.
I`d love to see these stats and their origins as well.

I don`t think Lot is a very strong argument for morality considering how quickly he offered his daughters and how quickly they decided incest was no problem.

 

[Sunstone]

I'll bet three frubals against any taker that those statistics are bogus!

 

[Pah]

I'll bet three frubals against any taker that those statistics are bogus!

Hehehe your frubal gift right now is 8.

But I'll add to the bet my 10%.

-pah-

 

[Lightkeeper]

I will toss a few coins into the pot.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*adds 4 frubals into the pot* Wait, we don't seem to have anyone betting on seeing the statistics and them coming from a reliable source? Why is that?