Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

Ok, let's see...

You said : "To have that endless posterity, our chosen eternal companion must be of the opposite gender.". I explained to you why endless posterity and gay couples are not contracdictory. So now, explain to me why, then, the chosen companion must be of opposite gender to further the plan of God?

I beg to differ, but that is precisly the issue. You talked about how "a moment's pleasure can lead to a lifetime of pain. If the sins are not washed away by repentance, then the misery carries forth until you do.". But it's NOT a moment's pleasure. It's not lust. It's love. Yes, not all homosexuals love each other, but then not all heterosexuals love each other. The point is they love each other as much as anybody. Why would it not produce hapiness?

Again, is true love and commitment to another person a temptation? At least science is trying to find out what exactly produces the inclination towards a gender against the other. What your saying is Christian doctrine decided (because it's different) that it's temptation.

Yes, you can mind your own business while intruding upon the business of others... Really, why can't you truly mind your business and let others do as they please. They're not asking that you agree with what they do, but simply let them exerce they're life as any other citizen. (homosexuals couples, again, are two consenting adults)

A little while ago (not that long ago actually), the vast majority found it offensive for black people to sit upfront in the bus. A little while ago, the vast majority found it offensive for women to vote. Where would we be if no ideological minority fought to be heard?

Again, it's not a question of belief, it's a question of respect and acceptance.

As I think it have been said several times, the gay parade is in no way a representation of teh gay community. I have many gay friends who have a deep contempt for that event. But in any case, seriously, if you are so offended by their actions, just turn around and look somewhere else, for pete's sake!

Like Fel said, it is different with homosexuality, because like traditionnal marriages, only two constenting adults are implicated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said 51 % of the poeple voted for the republican party at the last elections. That's what you said? If so, well, it's what I call twisting numbers. A group voting for a particular party don't have the same opinions on all issues. Over in Canada, we have the Conservative party, which in a whole lot like the republican party. While the overhead policy is against homosexual marriages, the candidate in my town is not against homosexuality. In all parties, there's shades. I won't even start about contempt votes (someone who is voting for a party because the other party did something they didn't like) or ignorant votes (voting for something you don't know about). Instead, give me the pourcentage of people in the US who are against the homosexual marriage. Until then, refrain from using statistics.

Rights for homosexuals is not a teaching. They're fighting for same rights as heterosexuals. They're not trying to convert you. They want to be able to live their lives like any memebr of society.

 

In Plato's dialogue "Euthyphro", there is a discussion concerning whether "right" can be defined as "that which the gods command." Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?

Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.

If we take option (a), the God's commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.

If we take option (b), then we will have to acknowledge a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will. We will have, in effect, given up the theological conception of right and wrong.

Therefore, we must either regarg God's commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong independent of his will, and give up the theological concept of right and wrong.

From a religious point of view, it is unacceptable to regard God's commands as arbitrary or to give up the goodness of God.

Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.

(to be continued...)

 

@Nataraja

LOL, that's a hell of a way to start posting on SP!

(oh, and I agree with you... )

 

We may conclude by returning to the dispute about homosexuality. If we consider the relevant reasons, what do we find? The most pertinent fact is that homosexuals are pursuing the only way of life that affords them a chance of happiness. Sex is a particularly strong urge - it isn't hard to understand why - and few people are able to fashion a happy life without satisfying their sexual needs. We should not, however, focus simply on sex. More than one gay writer has said that homosexuality is not about who you have sex with; it's about who you fall in love with. A good life, for gays and lesbians as well as for everyone else, may mean uniting with someone you love, with all that this involves. Moreover, individuals do not choose their sexual orientations; both homosexuals and heterosexuals find themselves to be what they are without having exercised any option in the matter. Thus to say that people should not express their homosexuality is, more often than not, to condemn them to unhappy lives.

If it could be shown that gays and lesbians pose some sort of threat to the rest of society, that would be a powerful argument for the other side. And in fact, people who share this view often have claimed as much. But when examined dispassionately, those claims have always turned out to have no factual basis. Apart from the nature of their sexual relationships, there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their moral characters or in their contributions to society. The idea that homosexuals are somehow sinister characters proves to be a myth similar to the myth that black people are lazy or that Jews are avaricious.

The case against homosexuality thus reduces to the familiar claim that it is "unnatural," or to the claim often made by religious conservatives that it is a threat to "family values." As for the first argument, it is hard to know what to make of it because the notion of "unnaturalness" is so vague. What exactly does it mean? There are at least three possible meanings.

First, "unnatural" might be taken as a statistical notion. In this sense, a human quality is unnatural if it is not shared by most people. Homosexuality would be unnatural in this sense, but so would left-handedness. Clearly, this is no reason to judge it bad. On the contrary, rare qualities are often good.

Second, the meaning of "unnatural" might be connected with the idea of a thing's 'purpose'. The parts of our bodies seem to serve particular purposes. The purpose of the eyes is to see, and the purpose of the heart is to pump blood. Simmilarly, the purpose of our genitals is procreation: Sex is for making babies. It may be argued, then, that gay sex is unnatural because it is a sexual activity that is divorced from its natural purpose.

This seems to express what many people have in mind when they object to homosexuality as being unnatural. However, if gay sex were condemned for this reason, a host of other sexual practices would also have to be condemned: masturbation, oral sex, and even sex by women after menopause. They would be just as "unnatural" (and, presumably, just as bad) as gay sex. But there is no reason to accept these conclusions, because this whole line of reasoning is faulty. It rests on the assumption that 'it is wrong to use parts of one's body for anything other than their natural purposes', and this is surely false. The "purpose" of of the eyes is to see; is it therefore wrong to use one's eyes for flirting or for giving a signal? Again, the "purpose" of the fingers may be grasping and poking; is it therefore wrong to snap one's fingers to keep time with music? Other examples come easily to mind. The idea that it is wrong to use things for any purpose other than their "natural" ones cannot be reasonably maintained, and so this version of the argument fails.

Third, because the word 'unnatural' has a sinister sound, it might be understood simply as a term of evaluation. Perhaps it means something like "contrary to what a person ought to be." But if that is what "unnatural" means, then to say that something is wrong because it is unnatural would be vacuous. It would be like saying thus-and-so is wrong because it is wrong. This sort of empty remark, of course, provides no reason for condemning anything.

The idea that homosexuality is unnatural, and that there is something wrong with this, has great intuitive appeal for many people. Nevertheless, it appears that this is an unsound argument. If no better understanding of "unnatural" can be found, this whole way of thinking will have to be rejected.

But what of the claim, often heard from religious fundamentalists, that homosexuality is contrary to "family values"? People like that often say that their condemnation of homosexuality is part of their general support of "the family," as is their condemnation of divorce, abortion, pornography, and adultery. But how, exactly, is homosexuality opposed to family values? The campaign for gay rights involves a whole host of proposals designed to make it easier for gays and lesbians to form families - there are demands for social recognition of same-sex marriages, for the right to adopt children, and so on. Gay and lesbian activists find it ironic that the proponents of family values wish to deny them precisely thse rights.

There is one other, specifically religious argument that must be mentioned, namely that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says "You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Some commentators have said that, contrary to appearances, the Bible is really not so harsh about homosexuality; and they explain how each relevant passage (there seem to be nine of them) should be understood. But suppose we concede that the Bible really does teach that homosexuality is an abomination. What may we infer from this? Sacred books have an honoured place in religious life, of course, but there are two problems with relying on the literal text for guidance. One problem is practical and the other is theoretical.

The practical problem is that sacred texts, especially ones composed a very long time ago, give us more than we bargin for. Not many people have actually read Leviticus, but if they did, they would find that in addition to prohibiting homosexuality, it gives lengthy instructions for treating leprosy, detailed requirements concerning burnt offerings, and an elaborate routine for dealing with women who are menstruating. There is a suprising number of rules about daughters of priests, including the notation that if a priest's daughter "plays the whore, " she shall be burned alive (21:9). Leviticus forbids eating fat (7:23), letting a woman into church until 42 days after giving birth (12:4-5), and seeing your uncle naked. The latter, incidentally, is also called an abomination (18:14, 26). It says that a beard must have square corners (19:27) and that we may purchase slaves from neighbouring states (25:44). There is much more, but this is enough to give the idea.

The problem is that you cannot conclude that homosexuality is an abomination simply because it says so in Leviticus unless you are willing to conclude, also, that these other instructions are moral requirements; and in the 21st century anyone who tried to live according to all those rules would go crazy. One might, of course, concede that the rules about menstruation, and so on, were peculiar to an ancient culture and that they are not binding on us today. That would be sensible. But if we say that, the door is open for saying the same thing about the rule against homosexuality.

In any case, nothing can be morally right or wrong 'simply' because an authority says so. If the precepts in a sacred text are not arbitrary, there must be some reason for them - we sould be able to as 'why' the Bible condemns homosexuality, and expect an answer. That answer will then give the real explanation of why it is wrong. This is the "theoretical" problem that I mentioned: In the logic of moral reasoning, the reference to the text drops out, and the reason behind the pronouncement (if any) takes its place.

But the main point here is not about homosexuality. The main point concerns the nature of moral thinking. Moral thinking and moral conduct are a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. But being guided by reason is very different from following one's own feelings. When we have strong feelings, we may be tempted to ignore reason and go with feelings. But in doing so, we would be opting out of moral thinking altogether. That is why, infocusing on attitudes and feelings, "Ethical Subjectivism" seems to be going in the wrong direction.

[ October 04, 2006, 11:33: Message edited by: Nataraja ]

 

See that people? We Kiwis aren't all farmer folks. Damn, Nat. That's some brilliant reasoning and I utterly applaud you for it. Welcome to Sorcerer's Place, and we're honestly going to enjoy having you here - do stay!

 

Very nice post, Nataraja
[Edit]Ah! Didn't notice you were a kiwi! I guess that explains the good post!

Two things I couldn't resist commenting on, from previous posts.

I had a sheet of paper given to me yesturday at the railway station. The cover is a nice purpleish colour, with the words "Specially for you!" written on it. I open it up (I love reading these things!) and the first thing it says is what great danger I'm in, and how if I make the right choice now, I could be saved much pain. Then it goes on to tell me that it is true, because God said it was true. (I like that statement, "When God makes a statement, you can afford to accept it, because He cannot lie" - this all powerful being cannot lie?).

It goes on for a bit, saying how much danger I am in as a sinner, and how everything in the Bible is true because He said it was so. It finishes up saying "Now you must make a decision. Will you accept Him or reject Him? Will you believe in Him or will you refuse Him? Will you bow humblying before Him or will you turn away in pride? If you accept the sinner's Saviour, then you will be surely saved".

So from reading that, I have a clear choice. Accept God or die a horrible death (or more live a horrible life after death, as the case may be). And yet, Snook, I hear you claiming that homosexuals "cause the most trouble trying to inform/instruct" people. I have never once had a homosexual tell me I'm going to live an eternity of tourment if I don't listen to what he's saying

Gnarfflinger, could I not say the same thing about the Bible? Until you can PROVE it is true, am I fully justified to ignore it?

 

yeah, Id like to see any arguments against it...

Im actually an Aussie, but have lived here most of my life...so eh...hehe

 

Awesome post Nataraja - I'm pretty sure that others (myself included) have made the same basic points about Leviticus - but thus far it doesn't seem to have had much effect. Maybe you'll have more success though - people might feel bad about ignoring such a long post

Oaz:

While it might be true that the authors of the Bible had more important things to worry about than homosexuality - homosexuality is still listed as one of the reasons for obliterating those cities. I'm getting the impression that liking ass makes one an enemy of God's people according to them...

And yeah - my comparisions probably do suck - but Snook was talking about the same crappy comparision basically - substitute 'picketing' for 'blowing up' and his question is still answered - I was just trying to make things more extreme to make the point that conservative Christians can be far worse than homosexuals in their activities.

That's exactly what he's doing to homosexuals.
I'm willing to bet that it's not very applicable at all - just like I'm willing to bet that the idea of homosexuals being depraved etc. is not very applicable at all...

 

what i find incredibly funny is that they (christians) claim that 'the law' was nailed to the cross...the law being all that 'jewish stuff'...which, suprise suprise, includes the law about homosexuality...

hmmm, so they cant follow basic laws such as dietry laws, or the jewish sabbath, or even more rudimentry laws such as the treatment of leprosy, mildew, mould and the like, yet cling to laws that suit them fine, disregarding those that do not suit them.

what they might not realise is that left-handedness is also looked down upon in the Bible. it is symbollic with wrongness, weakness, corruption...but...was it not one of the judges, Ehud i think, who saved Israel from the dreaded Moabites because he was left-handed?

btw, look that story up, its damn funny...basically, this big fat king was taking tribute from some tribes or something, so this left-handed guy - ie scorned and looked down upon guy - gets himself a metre long sword, sheaths it down his right leg, and goes off to visit this obese king. the guards for the king search the guys left leg for a sword, find none, so they let this lefty in. he whips out his sword and stabs the fatty so hard that his fat sucks the sword in and mr lefty cant get it out. the fatty kings servants just assume the kings taking a dump, so they ignore the throne room...

and an "abomination" saves the day!

woo...christian schooling really payed off

 

just to the sodoma/gomora, why does an all knowing god need to go and have a look to know? oh wait i forgot he dosn't get all-knowing untill the new testemony

 

One of the problems I have with christiannity lies in "freedom". The reason God created created man, as opposed to the other animals, is he wanted king of animals. He created Adam in his image and graced him with free-thinking (as opposed to the other animals). But... why would God give man imposed strict rules to follow, death and eternal torment as punishment if you do not. How can man be truly free in making choices, like homosexuality, if we're forced to follow God's rules. It doesn't make sense.

 

If God knows all, and has everything predestined, then free-will is rendered useless. Our 'free-will' would be nothing more than us following his pre-approved plan for this universe.

Therefore, for us to have free-will, God could not possibly know everything, such as the future. If he did we would be nothing more than puppets set up for his ammusement.

If, however, God did not know everything, then we could have what is considered free-will, the freedom to make our own choices regardless of any 'plan' for this universe.

Therefore, for Christianity to hold that we have free-will (the ability to choose our own future) and to hold that God has everything predestined, is nothing more than a simple paradox that can easily be summed up as:

"The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false."

The result is an infinite loop which explains nothing and does nothing other than confuse. Therefore, Christianity is a religion of confusion!

If Christianity wasn't confused, it would hold every single part of the Bible to be 100% relevant, or 100% irrelevant. There is no middle ground in Christianity. Its black and white, it does not allow for balance or moderation. As soon as one says "No, I don't wish to believe THAT part of the Bible", the door is wide open for every other belief to be casually thrown out.

Therefore you have to either accept that the Bible is 100% true and follow every single rule which is highly impractical and nearly always has no scientific basis in reality, OR, you have to accept that only portions are true and thereby follow only those rules you wish to follow.

If you can pick and choose which rules you follow and which ones you keep, then the whole system that the religion is based apon crumbles, the very foundation has been removed. Therefore the only way to keep a solid foundation is to either take it as being 100% literal, or nothing at all. There is no other way.

In conclusion, the rule against homosexuality is relevant IF every single other rule is relevant, OR, the rule against homosexuality is not relevant if you can just pick and choose which ones to keep and which ones to discard.

(kinda obvious im a philosophy student eh?)

 

Bingo. The only thing I would add here is that Christian doctrine is to meant as a quideline for living a clean fruitful life, not a 100% infallible ruleset that everyone must follow without error in order to be a good person in God's eyes. There are things which should be taken literally (such as the ten commandments, though shalt not kill, etc.) and that are obviously a story for which the moral is important, and not the literal translation (such as Adam & Eve). So I wouldn't say either take it 100% or nothing, I would say God gave you a brain (and with it, common sense)...use it.

I'm planning a more lengthy rebuttal to Gnarff's post above, but for now this is excellent. Welcome aboard, Nat.

[ October 04, 2006, 22:19: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

You're welcome, I'm glad to finally have gotten a reason to sign up since I'm on this site at least 10 times a day (total D&D fiend!).

This is nothing, really, I am yet to pull out the 'big guns.'

In the meantime, I dare anyone to form a rebuttal to any of my arguments.

 

Another New Zealander? And talking sense too? Who'd have thought New Zealand was such a hotbed of rational thinking?

 

In regards to the Bible not needing to be infallable, I point you towards a verse in one of the Timothy books that says something along the lines of "Every scripture is relevant and from God"...or something like that. I don't want to touch a Bible to quote it verbatim.

But, however, if it is the word of God as people claim it to be, then it must be relevant in its entirety.

And as for the 10 Commandments rubbish, I'm sorry to say that things don't work like that in real life. There are no black and whites in reality like that.

Take for example a classic argument that was (I think) used to prove to Immanuel Kant that one of his views was wrong...

If a stranger came to your door and asked you to hide them because a person was after them with the intention to kill, what would you do? You would hide the intended victim. Now, lets say the inquiring murder comes to your door and asks you if you have seen the intended victim. What would you do? You would say "No, I have not seen that person.", which is a lie. Therefore, in certain situations it is required for us to lie.

But, if we lie, then we break a 10 Commandment, and surely that is a sin against God just as much as homosexuality is. To God, according to Judaism and Christianity, every sin is equally 'sinful'.

Common sense ought to be the only rule we live by. Anti-homosexuality views are against common sense.

 

Fair enough -- it's silly to demonize homosexuals as depraved/wicked/whatever, but it's also silly (IMO) to counter bad speech with more bad speech (or to just censor bad speech altogether). Why not use good speech for homosexuals instead of demonization of conservative Christians?

 

Haha, I figured that out when you brought in Plato...

It's funny. I have an ethics class and just last week, we were arguying over Kant's categorical imperative (is that it in english?), and that's precisely the argument we used. I am strongly against Kant's philosophy because I beleive that what determines if an action is moral is intentions and context (I am closer to Mill's utilitarism).

 

Just a thought, the bible was written and rewritten for many hundreds of years. Mistakes? Parts left out? Changed? I am a christian and a (worse to some) Baptist, still I believe all have a right to decide how they want to live even if I do not agree on what they do or say. Gays have the right to speak and live in any way that does not break the law without "demonization" and so do I! We can change the laws as a people and although I would vote for "one man one woman" as is my right gay people should have the same right. I also cannot see what is wrong with a partnership made lawfull by contract. I admire the thought in this thread , cannot people just let each other live in peace?!

[ October 05, 2006, 08:19: Message edited by: Old One ]

 

But why change the definition of marriage for one group but not for another? Is that not contrary to the reason behind legal precedent?

Because after we are resurrected, our bodies are in perfect order. We then would be eligible to procreate. Two guys can’t procreate with each other.

It is a temptation because it violates God’s divinely given law.

When they want to change the laws that we were satisfied with to something that offends us, we are obligated to stand for what we believe. In a democracy, I understood that the people rule, and when the people rule, they should have the right to define the society as they see fit. If that means not sustaining an objectionable practice, then so be it.

So you would demand that we accept the unacceptable?

And as I have said, why change the definition for one group when you wouldn’t change the definition for another group. You religion haters accuse us of changing the rules as we go along, but when you WANT the rules changed, you try to do the same thing?

How about this, in 10 states, there was something on the ballot about gay marriage. In all 10 states, it was defeated, meaning it failed to get 50% support.

I was referring to the people that come door to door with religious information. These are teachings, which many people reject daily. The Gay Community wants to stifle any opposition to their cause…

I’ll take b. I’ll also put forth that God not only exists, but knows better than we do. These laws come forward from this superior knowledge.

But if God is all knowing and all good, then would not His laws reflect that good?

Can you differentiate between sexual attraction and actual love? If so that puts you above the majority any more. Look at the divorce rates. People think that they are in love all the time, but then they realize that this is not the case and dissolve the relationship…

Sexual attraction is at the very root, a temptation to engage in sexual relations contrary to the laws of God. It only becomes legitimized in the bonds of legal and lawful marriage. This means that fornication and adultery (even heterosexual) are abominations on the same page as homosexuality.

I, being unmarried, am commanded by my religion to abstain from sex until I am legally and lawfully married. What difference is there between asking an unmarried heterosexual to abstain from sex and asking a homosexual to abstain from sex?

I believe that those practices are also condemned.

By what authority do they claim this. If they hold no religious authority, then they do not speak for cannon of any faith.

Many of those laws were enacted by the scribes and Pharisees, in order to keep the people in line. Some others were designed to detail the ordinances and procedures of worship. When Jesus Christ came to earth, many of the stricter parts were fulfilled in the death of Christ. The difference is that the laws regarding sexual purity have been upheld in the new testament. Further more, Parts of Leviticus were historical. It reflected the history of those people.

The prohibition against Homosexuality has been upheld in sources other than Leviticus.

To whom much is given, much is expected. We are given intellects in hopes that we will learn not only to obey, but to understand why we do. Take a focus on the family as we have traditionally known. It has a mother and a father. It is the way God intended the family to function, and when we do things God’s way, things go a lot smoother. Challenging this causes unnecessary contention.

But what if God is omniscient but not everything is predetermined? Then we retain our free will, and God knows all that currently happens and has the big picture view of the future. He knows that we will sin and has provided a way to extend mercy to us without robbing Justice.

How about this idea, instead of explaining God, obey His commandments. It is only after the trial of our faith that we gain the witness of the truthfulness therein.

You are oversimplifying this. The bible must be carefully studied. Homosexuality falls under the heading of the big things, like adultery, theft, lying, murder…

And that includes the prohibition on homosexuality.

Then you probably have sufficient contempt for Christianity to believe that your views may be tainted towards the negative view of Christian beliefs. You have, however granted relevance to the epistles of Paul that were criticized earlier in this thread…

Of course, it is good to protect those in danger.

Not necessarily. You could simply refuse to co-operate with the would-be murderer. You have no obligation or good reason to further his agenda. You are within your rights to insist that the aggressive one leave.

Not necessarily. If we are taught that a proper marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to live a happy life, then it follows that homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations.

But when they put that life out in public, then they invite the judgement of those who they present themselves before. Their right to live as they choose does not make it morally right, and if they attempt to re-engineer society to their liking, then they can expect a negative reaction from those that are offended.