Is that the stupidest thing you've ever heard? What do you expect them to do then, live out their life in celibacy just because you don't happen to like their lifestyle? Would you do that if it were the other way around and heterosexuality were a sin? Get over yourself, they don't owe you anything. They're not hurting you but you are hurting them by being so ignorant. Why do you think they deserve that?
2007-07-13 07:11:54 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
To hate the sin but not the sinner... it's a rather odd idea. What are we if not our thoughts and actions? If our thoughts and actions are hated, are we not ourselves hated? Usually the response is, "But people can do good things, so that's why we love them!" That makes no sense. If you can't hate a person based on his actions and thoughts, you can't love a person based on them, either. Love should be universal and not dependent on actions and thoughts, but that would mean we would have to love Hitler. I'm not opposed to that, but it's a difficult thing to do, yes?
I believe the idea behind sin is that it involves obsession with the self/ego and hinders your ability to love others. I don't really see how homosexuality harms anyone or stops them from loving people.
Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue. Seriously. This is a testament to religious ignorance and injustice (the United States is a Constitutional republic, and the Constitution comes first, i.e. BEFORE majority rule; others' rights are protected whether you like it or not) as well as misconceptions about what is natural and unnatural. We have viewed it in the wild, but even if we ignore that, is it not "unnatural" to microwave our food, construct large buildings, use air conditioning, fly when we do not have wings of our own, use computers, etc? Natural and unnatural mean nothing. If something occurs, it's natural.
Allow others to do what they wish as long as they harm no one else. It is not your place to restrict them based on your own beliefs. After all, by living here, you agree to follow the nature of our Constitutional republic. You are free to dislike homosexuality, as thought police do not exist quite yet, but do not let these thoughts guide you to unjust actions.
EDIT: Something I forgot to mention. People say that they harm humanity by not producing children, which may seem to be a valid argument at first. However, when you consider:
1.) Their percentage in the population is in no way a threat,
2.) Enough people exist already, and look at the results of THAT,
3.) There are plenty of children in the world who are in bad conditions because there is no place for them,
4.) If you have a child, you are contributing to this.
I am not condemning childbirth, but I think a lot more of us need to get past the idea that happiness and the perfect dream are only attainable with a child...
2007-07-13 07:32:06 · answer #1 · answered by Skye 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's an awfully big if, for one thing. For another, they may not be hurting me, but they're severing their relationship with God by giving in to their fleshly lusts. Maybe you think I shouldn't care where they go when they die, but I do nonetheless.
Furthermore what I don't understand is why, on the one hand, people like you say that everyone should leave homosexuals alone because they were born with the desire for the same sex, but on the other hand you are utterly disgusted by the idea of incest. Both homosexuality and incest are unnatural lusts that people are born with, so why is homosexuality any more acceptible than incest? For that matter, how can statuatory rape be illegal when both parties consent? It just doesn't add up.
2007-07-13 10:42:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To your question..."What do you expect them to do then, live out their life in celebacy?...The act of Homosexuality is still a crime against the UCMJ in the US Armed Forces but TECHNICALLY homosexuals can still be in the Military. So if they can be homosexual but not participate in homosexual acts does that mean that they have to be "Celebate Homosexuals" dururing their time in the Military? Yes that is exactly what it means. Sure you can't say "Yes I am a homosexual" if you are in the US military but you can secretly be a homosexual and be in the military. You may say "How can that be?"...it is all recruiting application formalities. Before 1993 there was a series of questions pertaining to homosexual involvement and homosexual orientation. If you answered that you are a homosexual or have committed at least ONE act of homosexuality then you were disqualified from entering the US Military. The only think Clinton accomplished was to have those questions taken off the recruiting applications. Homosexuality is still illegal in the Military. So you can TECHNICALLY SAY that the US Military is NOT AGAINS HOMOSEXUAL BUT THEY ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.....Does that make any sesne???
2007-07-13 07:21:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because sin by any other name is still sin. You can call homosexuality a lifestyle but it is still a sin. One of the shameful things of SOME so-called Christians is that they want to be able to create their own laws (rather than follow the laws of God) and then condemn people who do not accept their sinful lifestyle.
Yes, homosexuals should lead lives that are celebate....this is their cross to carry. God did not create homosexulaity (no matter how much people argue that they are born/hard-wired that way)....homosexuality is a result of the fall of Adam & Eve. The only way for an alcoholic to be free of the sin/disease of alcoholism is to remain sober. Yes, it is a daily fight to refrain from drinking -- that's the cross that they bear. But it can be done. So, too, can a person remain celebate rather than giving in to same sex urges.
2007-07-13 07:24:44 · answer #4 · answered by The Carmelite 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That's the sort of person who will say they love everybody, but . . . they don't. Not really. They love their own self-righteousness.
I think the "love the sinner, but not the sin" may be relatively valid if the person in question agrees that the behavior in question is a sin. So, for example, you might get somewhere with a repentant drunkard. But if the person sees no harm in it, what's the point of making this distinction?
If you disapprove of them, you can't really love them. Perhaps I would make an exception to that thesis for family members, who are loved because they are family. But my family's never been that sort, anyway.
2007-07-13 07:18:48 · answer #5 · answered by auntb93 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First off, i think even with religion, acting in prejudice against homosexuals is wrong. i'm not going to try to defend any homophobes.
people who have their own prejudices and use their religion to defend these are wrong.
however, if you HAVE to condemn homosexuals (when really, everyone does stuff wrong, and it says in practically all religions it is wrong to judge) one arguement is that you condemn the deed, not the individual, as Martin Luther King did.
ie. , you can dislike something someone does, but don't take it out on the person. That's plain wrong. It doesn't mean you have to approve of what they do, if that's your choice, but you should still show respect for them as a human being.
2007-07-13 07:16:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't expect anyone to live in celibacy just because I don't agree with it; however, if somebody who had homosexual attractions wanted to obey the God of the Bible, then yes, I would expect them to: not under my expectations, but God's.
If a person has homosexual attractions but does not have any interest in serving God, then it doesn't really matter: he can do whatever he wants. I might not agree with his choice, but I won't try to convince him otherwise because it's not my place to tell him that it's ungodly when he doesn't believe in God.
If one of my Christian sisters admitted to me that she was a homosexual and asked for my help, then yes, I would care. i would try to "change" her. But that's never been the case, so even as a Christian I've never condemned gays or tried to convert them to my beliefs.
You're right: they're not hurting me. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I'm not going to try to change it, either. So yeah, I don't see how that makes me ignorant.
It seems like you're really angry over one incident in particular. What happend?
2007-07-13 07:22:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Rom 1:32
2007-07-13 07:31:13 · answer #8 · answered by Mosa A 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe they are trying to say that just because they don't agree with homosexuality, they still love homosexual as God loves them. It would be like saying you hate murder but you don't hate the people who do the murdering. I'm not here to debate what is right and wrong but that is what the quote is trying to say.
2007-07-13 07:19:57 · answer #9 · answered by comer59 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, honey. I agree with the way that you view hating, but I can also agree with that statement.
I'm not against drug users, only drug using. (for example)
I have nothing against the drug user. He never did anything to me. But I still believe that what he is doing to himself is bad. I'll be his friend. I won't hate him. I won't look down upon him. I'll try to help him with his problems. I'll be there for him
I'm definitely not saying that homosexuality is a 'problem' (seeing as how I'm gay myself) but I can understand where one might be coming from in saying that. Especially if they viewed homosexuality as a problem.
=-) but that's just me.
2007-07-13 07:17:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋