Christianity and Homosexuality

[Bunyippie]

the reason christains say being gay is a choice is simple, if it was not, the nit means GOD made gay people and the concept of that will cause their heads to explode in a dissonace of logic and facts

[The Alma Mater]

Humans exist in nature, and humans are part of nature, therefore everything humans are, do, and create is natural.

Kinda makes the word meaningless, doesn't it? I mean, if that's the definition, is anything unnatural?

Things that exist outside nature - like e.g. God ?

[Dempublicents1]

Humans exist in nature, and humans are part of nature, therefore everything humans are, do, and create is natural.

Kinda makes the word meaningless, doesn't it? I mean, if that's the definition, is anything unnatural?

Anything outside of nature would be unnatural. God would be a good example. Miracles, if they occur, would be another.

[The Alma Mater]

the reason christains say being gay is a choice is simple, if it was not, the nit means GOD made gay people and the concept of that will cause their heads to explode in a dissonace of logic and facts

Of course, the next question automatically becomes:

"So, assume it is a choice. Why is it a bad one ? Why does God not want it to be ?"

[Dyakovo]

I take it it's funny because he historically does not answer direct questions? Also:

Bingo

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Kinda makes the word meaningless, doesn't it? I mean, if that's the definition, is anything unnatural?

Anything which doesn't exist is unnatural. For example, unicorns are unnatural because they don't exist. However, because the concept of a unicorn exists, the concept of a unicorn is natural.

[Tokos]

the reason christains say being gay is a choice is simple, if it was not, the nit means GOD made gay people and the concept of that will cause their heads to explode in a dissonace of logic and facts

Yeah if it weren't for that whole original sin thing. Since when did Christians as a whole say homosexuality is a choice? I certainly have not heard of, say, the Catholic or Orthodox churches saying that.

[Ascon]

Anything outside of nature would be unnatural. God would be a good example. Miracles, if they occur, would be another.

Hmm I don't think so, because if you believe in such things then they're just as much a part of nature as photosynthesis or gravity. At most, you might consider them supernatural, which really isn't the same thing.

On the other hand, if you deny the existence of such things then you can't really evaluate them as natural or otherwise as they do not exist to be evaluated.

Anything which doesn't exist is unnatural. For example, unicorns are unnatural because they don't exist. However, because the concept of a unicorn exists, the concept of a unicorn is natural.

I agree that the concept of a unicorn can be evaluated as natural or unnatural, and that it is natural by the definition you provided earlier, but a unicorn itself is neither natural nor unnatural, as it does not exist.

[Dempublicents1]

So my question, then, is why is "naturalness" even relevant, since as a human society we don't use it as a basis for determining right vs. wrong. In other words, if we concede that infanticide is "natural" because we observe animals doing it in the wild, that doens't in any way make it more acceptible to kill a baby in human culture. That being the case, why would a Christian care about whether homosexuality was natural or not?

It's generally the anti-homosexual side of the debate who brings the question of "natural" vs. "unnatural" into it, not the other way around.

But, as for why it might matter to a Christian:
The origin of human sexual orientation doesn't matter to me in the least in the determination of legal rights, as I see absolutely no reason for the government to get involved in sexual relationships between consenting adults or to treat anyone differently on the basis of those relationships.

It does matter to me, however, in determining whether or not homosexuality or homosexual relationships are sinful. It is my belief that God wants us to experience love, in all its many forms - including romantic love and the wish to build your life with another human being. If no one was "naturally" inclined to seek that love with members of the same sex, the argument that sex between members of the same sex is sinful would hold more weight. But, since they are, I must conclude that sex between members of the same sex is sinful only in the same instances as sex between members of two different sexes.

[Dempublicents1]

Anything outside of nature would be unnatural. God would be a good example. Miracles, if they occur, would be another.

Hmm I don't think so, because if you believe in such things then they're just as much a part of nature as photosynthesis or gravity. At most, you might consider them supernatural, which really isn't the same thing.

Yes, it is. God is not a part of nature. If God was a part of nature, God could not be a creator deity, as God would have no existence outside of it.

Miracles, by definition, break the rules of nature. Thus, they are outside of it.

[Tokos]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

[Bottle]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust.

Don't worry, friend, your broken heart will mend in time. You're not less of a man for having been unlucky in love.

[Dempublicents1]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust.

Yes, I'm sure the men who have been together for decades and built an entire life together - men who probably rarely have sex anymore (just alike any older couple) are all about lust.

[Bottle]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

He's not saying homosexuality is always based on lust...he's saying that MALE sexuality is always based on lust, and only when you introduce females can you possibly have romance and those yucky squooshy feminine "feelings" that the Lifetime Network is always going on about.

[Tokos]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

I did not say homosexuals were incapable of love, I said that whether you want to sleep with men or women has nothing to do with love. Whether I as a heterosexual am attracted to a woman's body is different to whether I like her as a person, and love between straight men can and does exist (we just generally don't use that term, being guys).

[Bunyippie]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

you sir, are speaking out of your ass on this count. You are confusing lust and love. Go watch broke back mountain, go to Vermont and watch a gay wedding. Because quite frankly, you are letting your own bias cloud the facts.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

He's not saying homosexuality is always based on lust...he's saying that MALE sexuality is always based on lust, and only when you introduce females can you possibly have romance and those yucky squooshy feminine "feelings" that the Lifetime Network is always going on about.

Still dumb though.

[Nova Magna Germania]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

I did not say homosexuals were incapable of love, I said that whether you want to sleep with men or women has nothing to do with love. Whether I as a heterosexual am attracted to a woman's body is different to whether I like her as a person, and love between straight men can and does exist (we just generally don't use that term, being guys).

True love (consummate love) involves lust.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

you sir, are speaking out of your ass on this count. You are confusing lust and love. Go watch broke back mountain, go to Vermont and watch a gay wedding. Because quite frankly, you are letting your own bias cloud the facts.

Broke Back mountain, was très belle.

[Bottle]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

I did not say homosexuals were incapable of love, I said that whether you want to sleep with men or women has nothing to do with love. Whether I as a heterosexual am attracted to a woman's body is different to whether I like her as a person, and love between straight men can and does exist (we just generally don't use that term, being guys).

True love (consummate love) involves lust.

Impossible.

Love is known to be an emotion.

Emotions are girly, because girls are the ones who always have them.

But girls, being female, do not experience lust. Females patiently submit to sexual contact in order to bribe men into pretending to enjoy spending time with them, so the females can then feel the emotion of love directed at the male while he thinks about baseball and beer and boobies.

Therefore, lust cannot be required for love.

QED.

[The Alma Mater]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

How would you know that if you have never been gay....
Yes gay men do probably have a lot more 'one-night stands' than straight people, but that doesn't me homosexuality is always just based on lust.

I did not say homosexuals were incapable of love, I said that whether you want to sleep with men or women has nothing to do with love. Whether I as a heterosexual am attracted to a woman's body is different to whether I like her as a person, and love between straight men can and does exist (we just generally don't use that term, being guys).

I see.
So what exactly is the difference between the love and lust of:

A. a man and a woman that love eachother and want to have sex
B. a man and a man that love eachother and want to have sex
C. a woman and a woman that love eachother and want to have sex

?

[Allbeama]

Okay, there's something I don't get. According to Christian philosophy, all sins are equal and everyone's a sinner, right? So why do the kind of Christians that hate on homosexuals leave divorced people, adulterers, liars, and people that work on the sabbath alone? It's inconsistent and hypocritical.

Because they're (these "types" of Christians as you call them) human. And no matter what the bible says, we, as humans, still have a tendency to form a subconscious hierarchy of sins. All the Bible says is that before GOD all sins are equal; not before man. All men will consider lying "less sinful" than adultery; to ask them to do any less is to deny their humanity. Yes, it's wrong, but it is unavoidable. When one sets their mind upon judgement, it will always compartmentalize and order them from "least to greatest". That's why we're called not to judge, because GOD understood that no man can judge impartially. Personally, as a Christian, I believe that all of the aforementioned things are a "sin" but I do not judge these people for what they do; they are just as human as I am, and I am just as sinful as they are. I am not called to judge, only to love.

EDIT: working on the sabbath is only a sin under the old levitical law. In the Christian sense, it is no longer a sin. Jesus came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" (paraphrase). As a fulfilled law it no longer has any weight as law. We derive our moral law from the New Testament, and while the Old Testament is a place to find great wisdom, none of the laws found in the Torah are applicable to a Christian under the "new covenant"

I say let's throw out the notion of sin altogether. Honestly you can't have this concept of sin and not be inclined to judging people. "Sin" is designed to be judgmental. Its written into your faith as a spiritual crime, and one that should be punished on Earth and Heaven.

That being said, whether one believes in a God or not, I am of the opinion that merely being God's law is not enough reason to make it man's law. Reason should determine our laws and morals, not the whims of a God that cannot be known, cannot be quantified, and cannot be proved/disproved. I wager that he likely does not exist as well.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Impossible.

Love is known to be an emotion.

Emotions are girly, because girls are the ones who always have them.

But girls, being female, do not experience lust. Females patiently submit to sexual contact in order to bribe men into pretending to enjoy spending time with them, so the females can then feel the emotion of love directed at the male while he thinks about baseball and beer and boobies.

Therefore, lust cannot be required for love.

QED.

[Nova Magna Germania]

Homosexuality between men at least has zero to do with love, it is pure lust. Confusing it with love is like when naïve teenage girls think that because a man wants to screw them, he must love them. Love and lust are two separate things, even when eros is involved.

you sir, are speaking out of your ass on this count. You are confusing lust and love. Go watch broke back mountain, go to Vermont and watch a gay wedding. Because quite frankly, you are letting your own bias cloud the facts.

I'm gay and I didnt like Brokeback Mountain. I suggest Shelter.