What is your stand on homosexuality? I have a school project and I need help.?

Question

I need information from as many people as possible. I need this for a people pole that agree and disagree. I need religious points of view and personel.

Answer 1

Well, from a personal perspective -- homosexuality is and always has been. We know beyond the shadow of any doubt that homosexuality (including exclusive homosexuality) exists among hundreds of species (for details please see Dr. Bruce Bagemihl; "Biological Exuberance;" St. Martin's Press, or read any number of scholarly articles now available on the subject if the book is not available to you.) We also know that homosexuality has existed in one form or another since the earliest written histories. We know that some cultures have accepted it and some have rejected it, but it has always existed. We also know from extensive research as well as anecdotal experience that it is almost certainly inborn.

The fruit fly study is fairly conclusive. But the pheremonal and eye blink studies are also compelling. I've included links below for those that are interested. Beyond that, research increasingly suggests that at least for males, X28 is the crucial gene. I am saddened by this, because I believe that once it is proven, gay people will be wiped out through selective abortion and other similar methods -- and I think that is sad, because given the number of species in which homosexuality exists I think it serves a purpose.

So, as I said, I think homosexuality simply is.

Beyond that is the religious question. Obviously some religions (Unitarian-Universalist, Spiritualist, Wiccan, Reform Judaism, etc.) accept homosexuality as natural, as do some denominations of other religions (in Christianity for example, The United Church of Christ, The Church of the Brethren, most Episcopalian parishes, most Evangelical Lutheran parishes, and so on); while others reject it (The Southern Baptists and Pentecostals spring to mind). Some whole religions have even changed their mind on the topic over the years, going from intolerant to tolerant and from tolerant to intolerant (Islam is a good example of that).

Religion therefore is mixed. I must say however, on a personal note, that I find that those religions that are intolerant tend to be those religions that have become wedded, not to faith, but to idolization of a book -- the example I'm most familiar with of course is the fundamentalist Christian movement, exemplified by the SB and the AoG.

So, while they cling to the idea that the Bible forbids homosexuality, they ignore alot of other things that it says -- and they mute the signifiance of blatant errors with meaningless statements like "well the Bible isn't a scientific textbook" -- excuse me, but God Almighty doesn't make mistakes, if its his book every word should be true -- and if it isn't, then it doesn't matter what it says about anything at all.

Just to consider the briefest few things from the Bible (there are thousands of these, I list only a few, as the proof of the pudding): It says that the world has corners (Isaiah 11:12) and that it sets on pillars (I Samuel 2:8). It says that God accepted a human sacrifice -- he may have prevented Isaac's, but he allowed a general to sacrifice his own daughter without even a murmur, the text giving tacit support to the idea that having given his word, the man had to kill his child. (Judges 11:30-39). It clearly maintains that genocide is often commanded by God (Joshua 10:40-42 and I Samuel 15: 2, 3 and 8) and that, after killing all the adults in a race, taking the female children as sex slaves is permissible (Numbers 31: 17-18).

We know that the earth is not on pillars, or on water, it spins supported only by gravity through space. We know that genocide and human sacrifice are wrong, and we do not approve slavery, certainly not sex slavery for pre-adolescent girls.

Why these differences? Because times have changed, and society has changed, and the very HUMAN society reflected in the very HUMAN writings of the Bible no longer are accurate as how society acts, nor are they now acceptably moral, at least in the West.

And yes, I suppose if one wants to take as truth a book that says that beetles have four legs instead of six (Leviticus 11: 21-23) and that rabbits chew their cud [which they do NOT] (Deuteronomy 14:7) and if one is willing to, having accepted it as truth, overlook the fact that biblegod routinely changed his mind (I can show you instances if you wish) then yes, I suppose what it says about homosexuality should be taken into account. But, if one thinks, and looks at the errors and sees error without trying to excuse that error -- then another view has to be taken.

Of course, Christianity existed for hundreds of years before the canon of books (the Bible) was formalized by the Council of Carthage, acting on a suggestion from the Synod of Hippo and thenforwarded to Rome for the Pope's approval. Those Christians, despite the lies told by fundamentalist preachers today, did not have the Bible or any form of it, and were Eucharistic Christians (they took Mass and considered that to be the center of the faith). I too am a Eucharistic Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in a book pulled together by the Church to support doctrines already determined (see "The Oxford History of the Christian Church;" Oxford University Press) long before. Furthermore, I think that God is love, and that gay people, along with all other people, deserve that love without exception. The gospel of inclusion, not the gospel of exclusion or the gospel of words is the center of my doctrine. As for the Bible and biblical Christianity (as unhistoric as it is) I do not think that a book of bronze age myths owing heavily to the Sumerian and Egyptian mythology in the Old Testament, and to a collection of pagan faiths, particularly Mithraism in the New Testament matters at all.

So, the nature of homosexuality -- a natural phenomena, as it is in the animal kingdom.

Religious thought -- divided, acceptable to some, not acceptable to others.

The Bible -- Provably myth.

I hope that helps.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

Answer 2

If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.
To love another human being is a fact of emotions we have no control over, it is not a gender specific emotion.
It is a fact that in some cases that love becomes a physical reaction. Again it is not always a reaction that some can control.
Whether lesbian or homosexual the relationship may be, we have to be open minded to those peoples choices and rights.
The natural pairing of a man and a woman is the only right pairing for the procreation of the human race. However other people who pair of differently are still loving and emotional human beings and are as such, a part of an enlightened society as any one of us.

Answer 3

Homosexuality, like anything else is a fact of life.
I disagree with descriminating against people, period.
I think homesexuals deserve all the same rights and all the same options as everyone else.
I hate the meaness in this country whenever someone is different from someone else. Get over it already. You'd think be 2007 people would stop being so ignorant.
If people are not violating your rights or breaking any laws, then everyone should leave them alone and treat them the way they'd like to be treated--fairly and with common sense and compassion.

Good luck with your poll.

Answer 4

In my opinion, homosexuality is usually the result of some kind of genetic predisposition or, alternately, some kind of early psychological development. Either way, what I'm saying is that people may or may not be "born" gay but it seems to be something deeply rooted.

In my opinion, if someone sincerely thinks they are gay, then they shouldn't try to force themselves not to be. Many people, for religious reasons or their own prejudices, might think it's horrible for someone to be gay. But I think it's worse for someone to force themselves into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex that they're not fully going to love and appreciate. Check out the recent story of Rev. Ted Haggard if you'd like to see an example of this.

I will have to admit that the sort of overly flamboyant gay guys that cable TV seems to love so much nowadays are kind of annoying. But I'd rather change the channel than pass judgment. And by the way, I am a Christian too, but I think the infrequent Biblical references to homosexuality are far overshadowed by the repeated teachings of Christ himself to love and forgive while leaving the judgment to God.

Answer 5

You might be better posting this in religion and spirituallity, however be prepared for some nasty answers if you do they can be a bit vitriolic in there.

As a christian my belief was the same as it is now that I am not. I thought (rather controversially) that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality. That as long as whatever takes place between people as long as it is concenting and does no harm has no place in being condemed. I was a methodist, living in england

However most christians believe it is a sin and although they do not hate the homosexual it is the sex act that they believe is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord - hense some denominations will allow homosexuals to become christian as long as they abstein from sex. (some will not allow you to become christian unless you renounce the sin of homosexuality and allow yourself to be healed of it) PLEASE BE AWARE THIS IS NOT MY VIEW POINT
Here are the verses that condem homosexual relations.

Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Leviticus 20 vs13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives

Answer 6

Being gay my opinion may be one-sided. So the only thing I can say is that gay people should have the full rights of anyone else. That is marriage and military service, being the two most prominent.

What's done in the bedroom is no ones business anyway. And it should not preclude anyone from a job or anything else.

Answer 7

From my perspective it is either (1) a failed psychological imprint during the puberty process where friendship-type affections were registered with sex-type responses, or (2) a social coping response by people who were hurt by persons of the other gender and found extra-ordinary comfort in people of their own gender, or (3) a rejection or rebellion response to societal pressures that require or promote heterosexuality as the social norm. In light of item three, in the Victorian period "gay" was someone who was heterosexually promiscuous. During the 1920's "gay" was someone who partied without chaperones (and with alcohol during Prohibition).

Answer 8

We are all taught what we find attractive at a very young age. No one is really born gay, less than 1 to 2 % of the gay community can support being gay with evidence of gender mixed chromosomes. I'm not saying a conscious choice was made to be gay, it was just something that was learned just like the shaping of your personality.

Answer 9

I don't care if you "agree" with a fact. It's still a fact. people are gay. Whether they were born gay, or were environmentally influenced doesn't matter. The research shows that they can't change their attractions, and I've yet to hear a good argument as to why I shouldn't date who I'm attracted to like heterosexuals date who they're attracted to. Those are facts.

More varied opinions in the sources:

Answer 10

i am catholic but do not take the same stance as the church that homosexuality is wrong. i am heterosexual and have homosexual friends. i take the stance that is in the bible, treat others as you want to be treated. i don't care what others do in their bedrooms. it has no effect on my life, nor is it causing harm to me of those i care about. i also believe that gay lesbian couples should be allowed to get married and to adopt or raise children without judgement. i work for a very diverse company that offers domestic partner health insurance to people who are partnered, whether they are gay or straight.