The only place in scripture that says that it is wrong is the same set of scripture that places homosexuality in the same category of eating shellfish and pork.
The restrictions of the others they claim were lifted with Christ.
So what makes this "abomination" any better or worse than eating pork or shrimp?
BTW I am straight and the fact that the world has homosexuals does not affect me or you in the slightest so get over it.
2007-01-05 08:39:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by sprcpt 6
·
8⤊
0⤋
Firstly, it is inappropriate to use the bible to judge this issue -- or any issue; it has hundreds of errors, as well as scores of internal contradictions, and from a contradiction, any conclusion follows, so none is valid. Secondly, it is clear that homosexuality is not "curable" (nor is it limited to humans), so the only remaining question is: how should it be dealt with? Since it affects only those who engage in such relationships, it must be concluded that there are no moral implications, and to attribute labels such as "right" and "wrong" is not appropriate.
2007-01-05 09:12:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Acctually according to the Bible it is not wrong. Have you ever even read the Bible? There are NO passages that ever say that homosexuality is a sin or is wrong. I am not gay myself but I do think that is it ignorant for people to quote things that were NEVER written in the Bible.
2007-01-05 10:00:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A disease? Are you kidding me? I am a straight male, married for over 27 years. Homoxexuality does not offend or threaten me. Gay marriage certainly doesn't threaten my marriage in any way. Why can't you people just tend to your own lives and leave gay people alone? As for the Bible. The same old testament books also say the sin of wearing cloth made from two kinds of thread and planting two crops in a field should be punished by death. While your at it there are some nifty instructions about selling your daughters into slavery.
Get teal people! Homosexuals are human beings nothing more and nothing less.
2007-01-05 08:39:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by toff 6
·
10⤊
1⤋
That's assuming that the Bible is some kind of authority rather than a collection of stories that have various purposes and lessons for the times and conditions in which they were written, otherwise I suggest you get busy with them extra wives and make sure you sacrifice animals appropriately, cut out your tongue when you say something wrong and so on....
You're apparently ignorant of the animal world since penguins, and various other animals have been known to engage in "homosexual" behavior, and who are you to declare if someone's dog is "right"? Are you an animal behavior specialist? Are you a scientist? A virologist or similar degree (to cover the ignorant comment about a "disease") If so, kindly list your degrees so we can write to your educational bases to revoke your degrees because this is bunk that's NOT taught in ANY respectable scientific community.
I'm totally AGAINST ignorant arrogant people like you who spout ridiculous garbage theories and propose them as facts. Any logical debate would trash you out in the first proposition.
2007-01-05 08:43:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by vinslave 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
You've never had a dog, have you?
I'm a doctor, and in my my view diseases and moral failings are completely different categories. If you are going to try to argue against accepting homosexuality, you have to decide which you think it is. Otherwise your reasoning gets sloppy.
Homosexuality is neither: it's simply a variation on the theme of humanness.
2007-01-05 09:03:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not a religious person, but I'm pretty sure the Bible condemns homosexual conduct, not homosexual people. Plus it's pretty much a matter of letting God judge, not you judging (and not me judging).
As to whether it's natural, who cares? Is it natural to use a computer?
If a person is a loving person, it doesn't matter if they're gay or not. If a person is a child-molester, it doesn't matter if they're gay or not.
Religions should be free to exclude people who go against the beliefs of that religion, but that shouldn't affect everybody in the world. I'm not a Christian, so there's certain things I probably can't do in a church unless I become a Christian, but that doesn't affect my day-to-day life. Similarly, it shouldn't affect my equal rights under the law.
If I belonged to a religion that was against homosexuality, then I should pray for the gay person, not wish anything bad for the gay person.
Thanks for making me think more.
2007-01-05 08:41:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Deception ( any relationship to the "Deceiver" ?) ... Anyways; recent studies are narrowing homosexual tendencies down to personality disorder due to being raised in an environment with improper [unloving - unreceptive] male role modelling on behalf of the father. The significant male (usually the father), within these families, tend to send out negative signals, (rejection), to the male child in the early development years of a child's life. Therefore the male child tendency is towards full influence of the female significant other [mother]. Yes; it is a disease and like any one else with a disease, a homo sexual should not be put down not persecuted for this. In the Bible, Jesus was addressing the religious leaders of His time, in regards to judgement. He [Jesus] stated, "that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah would rise up in judgement against a perverse and evil generation". Jesus never condemned homo sexuals - ever. Christians should never condemn them either !!! I am not a homo sexual but a Christian and practice God's love to homo sexuals, as I do any human. We all have our own sins to be concerned about.
2007-01-05 08:56:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by guraqt2me 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Ooooh get her!
Seriously why on earth should it be considered wrong? We can say things are wrong for a number of reasons:
1 Its an act that violates someone else's rights
2 "Its unnatural"
3 Its against the bible
1. Homosexuality does not violate anyones rights. Homosexual rape, just like heterosexual rape does. Both types of rape are wrong, the consensual act is fine - noone hurt, no problem.
2 What's the moral imperative in living in a "natural" way. We do plenty of unnatural things, things you'd never see animals doing and noone even considers using that as an argument against the behaviour. Heated houses are not natural, clothes are not natural, electrical appliances are not natural. It is not natural to work in an office or drive on holiday. None of these activities are held to be morally wrong by virtue of their being "unnatural". Being "unnatural" is therefore an insufficient reason to hold something morally wrong.
3 Jeses re-codified the laws of the prophet as:
- Love God
- Love your neighbour
Christians believe that He released us from the laws of Leviticus. We are permitted to eat pork, for example. It is no argument to say "Leviticus forbids the eating of pork - therefore pork is wrong" so it is no argument to say "Leviticus forbids X - therefore X it wrong". The statement against homosexuality in Leviticus has no more force than the statement against lobster thermidor, rabbit pie or bratwurst.
There is nothing wrong with being a poof
2007-01-05 08:49:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by anthonypaullloyd 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
It's not for man to judge. God is our only judge. People like to find things they think are wrong and persecute people for it. That's as much of a sin as the sin they seem to be condemning. We should love our fellow man. We may not agree with their lifestyle and they may not agree with ours, but if we're both seeking God and His perfect will for our lives, then we're on the same page.
2007-01-08 05:37:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by jerrys_love 3
·
0⤊
0⤋