Homosexuality: What's up with that? (V.2)

Bubba: I understand. But would you consider "well said" to be "discussion"? I don't want to speak for KW, but I presume that he will not.

 

I don't think it qualifies for discussion. It can, however, appear to continue the line of thought and discussion.

 

Darth_Guy, you are actually correct that everyone is going to hell. There is more than one religion that states "If you don't follow us, you are going to hell." Do the math. If you belong to religion A, religion B is sending you to hell. If you belong to religion B, religion A is sending you to hell. If you belong to religion C, well, you get the idea.

In the words of C-3PO, "We're doomed!"

 

But Darth_Guy didn't say, "if everyone's correct, we're all going to hell." He said:

Bubba If you're right, then every last human is going to hell.

I'm with 201: I have no idea what he's alluding to.

 

Thank you, Darth_guy. You seem to actually understand what I meant: the Bible is as much a piece of fiction in many areas as LOTR.

And how is loving someone else a sin? Seems to me that's one thing Jesus told us to do. It just has a higher degree between certain members of same sexes.

 

There are many meanings for the one English word, "love."

When Jesus told us to love everyone, He commanded us to be charitable to everyone and to work for everyone else's best interests. He didn't tell us to have sex with everyone we met.

That's another meaning for love: romantic love. While you may not be able to help the feelings you have for another person, it may well be wrong to express those feelings. I can immediately think of several circumstances where it would be wrong to "love" (i.e., have sex with) another person:

- At least one of you is married to someone else: adultery.

- One of you is very, very young: pedophilia.

- You're blood relatives: incest.

Even if you don't agree that every one of these instances is immoral, if you accept that one of them might be immoral, then you already recognize a precedent in which sex can be wrong.

 

Once again, events which very specifically harm others are compared to gay love (read as love, not necessarily sex - they ARE two different things, ya know)

 

The only real reason religion is against homosexuality is that homosexuality does not result in the propagation of the religion. Religions seek to increase their numbers, and the easiest way is by creating children who will be raised in the faith or will be that faith by virtue of birth. If you have a bunch of gay adherents, you don't get much in the way followers. This is why religious people can give no other reason besides, "god said it was wrong/immoral". There is no real reason why it would be either of those things other than it doesn't result in the natual propagation of the religion.

 

Hey chi, like the sig-especially true in LA! By the way, my name is Bruce & I'm straight as an arrow. Can I stay in the JC forums? Never the term "organized religion". Organized for or against who or whom? I always preferred the phrase spiritual person as opposed to religious person. Depends on what your looking to find. The KJ Bible states "seek & ye shall find, knock & it shall be opened to you". It never says where to seek although it could be implied the Bible. But not taking that into account, I search everywhere. Are the Jedi considered a religion?

 

The only real reason religion is against homosexuality is that homosexuality does not result in the propagation of the religion. Religions seek to increase their numbers, and the easiest way is by creating children who will be raised in the faith or will be that faith by virtue of birth.

chibiangi, excelent point! Those are my thoughts exactly. There couldn't be any other possible reason for rules that, for example make an HIV infected (through, for example, a blood transfusion) husband not be able to use the condom so he doesn't infect his wife when having sex.

Homossexuals don't reproduce without the aid of science so the Church basically 'puts them in the trash' because it can't use them for it's own purposes.

EDIT: markup codes

 

As much as you might like to believe that, it isn't true. Someone like myself is against it for moral reasons, not reproduction ones. I like to think I and others are not so petty and low-minded to think that everyone is just here to reproduce.

No, it is for moral reasons that it is opposed, not reproduction.

 

Are the Jedi considered a religion?

I think the Jedi Knights were considered a minor religion in the UK recently. Not sure, though. ?

 

Someone like myself is against it for moral reasons, not reproduction ones.

But what moral reason is there against two mature adults that love each other to be permitted to be together? I really don't see a reason why they shouldn't.
Haven't seen one since I knew what homossexuality was about and my Biology teacher gave my class a Sex Ed class (unfortunatly we don't have the class in my country, so it was an extra class because of a sex-related problem with another student) in which she explained it was perfectly natural for people to be that way too.

EDIT: spelling

 

I really don't see a reason why they shouldn't.


But simply because you can't doesn't mean that others also can't.

Some believe that sexual relations are meant for a man and a woman and that that is morally right.

 

I know there are people who feel it 'morally wrong' though I really don't get what the difference would be (aside from bearing children) between a gay and a straight couple...

If the two people involved are ok with it, what's it to the rest of the world? It's not like they have to see any aspect of the relationship other than what they see from straight couples (and exagerated exibitions of affection in public are something I don't like to watch, straight or gay alike)...

It's also not like people would have to watch the sex they'd have. ;

 

If the two people involved are ok with it, what's it to the rest of the world?

It might not be anything. Of course, with that approach, there are a lot of things that people care about that maybe shouldn't be so important. I would say it's just an objective view in the same manner that a view against premarital sex is. To some, things are supposed to be a certain way, and it's not right to go against it.

It's just a belief thing for some.

 

I don't think that genuine morality, or rather, personal morality can enter into it. The morality that KW speaks of is (correct me if I am wrong) Christian morality and therefore, based on rules and regulations set forth by the Bible. Therefore, it would be safe to say that these moral laws are more dogma than ethics, if that makes any sense.

 

And what are the moral reasons? What makes gayness immoral and straightness moral?

EDIT: Way too short.

As my original post suggested, the morality, or rather the permissiveness, of certain sexual behavior over other sexual behavior is linked to the behavior's ability to propagate the religion. There is no logical reason to conclude that straight behavior is more moral than gay behavior unless it is based on a religious perspective, as Cwrn suggested. In that case, my original point stands.

 

Because to some, God intended heterosexuality to be the morally correct form of sexual relations. Homosexuality would not be.

For all its complexity, it comes down to a rather simple idea.

Edit:

Thanks, Crwn.

 

KW, ya might wanna read over your post, there.

 

As always, though - it more or less comes down to "because God said so."

It can be argued that God's reasons for this were due to the propogation of the species or any such justifications, but this still brings us to the dilemma of whether or not any of us have any reason to believe that God, if He/She even exists in the personified variety in which so many Christians perceive God, said any such thing.

For me, I am not about to buy a word of it. Simply because someone writing things down thousands of years ago claims to speak for God does not mean that they are being truthful. This isn't to say that I view the Bible as a set of lies - I view it as a series of metaphors - metaphors corrupted by the misguided tendency of humans to view it as history, thus rippings its meaning to shreds.

 

As always, though - it more or less comes down to "because God said so."

Not quite (for me, at least).

To me, it's as much the system of nature that God set up as anything else. I really don't take Scripture into account with this. In my view, God intended sexual relations to be between a man and a woman. That's not to say there can't be other forms (obviously), but I just don't think it's what God intended.

 

But other than a "just 'cos" type of answer... no one seems to be able to elaborate more (excluding Bible-driven people) about the 'wrongness of homossexuality'.
And "just 'cos" is a really bad argument as we all know. That's why I keep asking for the non-religious answers, since from my POV religion should not be brought into issues such as these, only science should.

 

But that brings us back to God's intentions being perfect - thus, homosexuality, as a part of nature, should be seen as a part of God's plan. As animals exhibit homosexual behavior, naturally, so do humans. As priests forego sexual congress in order to devote their lives to God, so homosexuals forego heterosexuality - their purpose is not reproduction.

Many have pointed out that gay people tend to be creative and expressive. Would this not be seen as a form of reproduction? Just as a family would be an impediment to the calling of a priest, could that not be the same for homosexuals? If the purpose of one's life is art, perhaps the bindings of a typical heterosexual life is not for them. Just a thought.

 

But for many, religious and spiritual beliefs are essential to their lives and who they are. It would be like someone asking only religious beliefs to be brought into a discussion, leaving science out. I believe the two can co-exist with a minimum of conflict. In any case, I don't think it's good practice to leave out beliefs that are important to many.

If you're looking for more than a "just because" answer from me, I don't think it'll be forthcoming. I'm not as smart and verbose as many others here, and I prefer simplicity when possible .