Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

But the same could be said for homosexuality. The reasons for not having homosexual sex could have been because it's dangerous in some way or another, the spread of disease. Yet in this day and age it's proven why and how said disease spreads and homosexuality is no longer the factor - the same can be attributed to incest. After incest the offspring is more often than not deformed or suffering in some uncurable manner. There is no way of preventing this (at least, thus far) so the majority of the world agrees that incest is a bad thing.

But back to the shellfish. It never says that shellfish are no longer 'unclean'. If somebody eats a shellfish they become 'unclean' according to the Bible. Why doesn't the bible just say they will become sick? As for wanting to spare his people that suffering why was it only included in Leviticus and not in an earlier book? Obviously he wanted his people to suffer for that period of time then... or maybe the word of God isn't based on God's word but on the experiences of another man.

At the end of the day Christians are prepared to change the Bible or ignore segments as time passes, even refer to outside sources (Greeks and Romans - scientific basis for change) to change how they worship or not. God hasn't yet said that shellfish and crustations are clean yet Christians deem it so. No matter the reasoning, Christians think they know the word of God better than God has clearly stated to them.

I don't see why God didn't just establish one set of rules anyway that were good from the get go. Why have to change them as time progressed? Apparently because people grew out of them or they were no longer needed, but where does God say that? Where does God say "These are the new laws because now you're mature enough to not need to follow those old ones."? He never says it, so why do people insist that this was his intention? How can you suggest God's intention when you tell everybody else that we should not comment because we don't know what his intention is?

The only word of God anyone has is the Bible. If it's not in there then it can't be argued since God hasn't expressed it in any way, shape or form. If you can change one thing in the Bible because it's outdated or is up to interpretation then EVERYTHING in the Bible can become outdated or is up to interpretation.

 

Kiwi ingenuity at its finest, Abomination

 

First off, NOG, thanks for hitting some of the points. It may keep my post a little shorter, but no promises. These are the alleys after all...

The version I have is the King James version, annotated by Joseph Smith with the items that enabled him to translate the Book of Mormon. After finishing this work, Joseph Smith read the Bible with the aid of these items and various innacuracies were corrected by these revelations.

Polygamy only granted one married person (the man in the precident I have stated, and only under direction of Priesthood authority) the right and privelidge to marry additional spouses. The marriage in question was specifically between the man and the spouse, but prior spouses had a right to veto further marriages.

Not the individual marriage covenent, but society's definition of marriage. Allowing Gays to marry undermines the social perception of marriage, further diminishing the spiritual signifigance to the public at large.

Don't remind me. I really don't approve of the means that the previous government used to force this law into place. I hope that the new government can sucessfully overturn that law.

While I don't advocate a specific religion making the laws, I do feel it just to hope that the government will act in a morally appropriate manner on moral issues. I believe it my duty to my country to support the candidate who will best represent this in Parliament.

And my point was that deception was not required. Being tipped off that a murder was coming and that I would be placed at risk would grant me the option to see to my own defences, like havign a baseball bat within arms reach when I answer the door. I still don't lie, I just require him to leave. The answer that does not involve lying would be morally superior.

We got no sympathy from the mobs. While I don't condone violence against them, I feel no obligation to ammend laws to accommodate them either. Laws were not ammended for us...

But Man is intended to marry a woman. Man is commanded to marry a woman. Man is forbidden to marry another man.

They just want the right to silence us from teaching anything that condemns their chosen way of life.

No, I'm saying that humans are not qualified to speak as any form of expert on being in love.

Actually, that tells 22 of 100 senators that their state opposes gay marriage, and would convince many more that their people would objest to this as well. When they have a choice between keeping a cushy job and pleasing some vocal lobby group, which will they choose?

I can't prove it to you, but you will NEVER convince me that the version of the Bible I have is wrong. I have addressed the details of this translation earlier in this post.

By having proper authority they are not false prophets. If they are a false prophet then I am under no obligation to obey them.

Usually the woman is too busy for this. Most young children will go to the mother before the father in such situations. In the absence of the man, the Woman can and usually does preside. In most cases, the man should back up the woman anyway...

Welcome to the Alleys. These things happen. I'm probably the worst offender for length...

But it is illegal, and the courts uphold this everytime they prosecute someone for having multiple spouses. Same Sex Marriage is not legal in the United States. This should, by that same ruling, be upheld.

So I should not feel short changed for not finishing the Discourse or the Meditations then?

For what seems like the sixteen kajillionth time: People are not born Homosexual. Some feel the temptation to have sex with those of the same gender stronger than the temptation to have sex with those of the opposite gender. Homosexual relations and identifying with those who desire and/or have them are thus choices.

I try to, but I don't think I do a very good job of it...

You speak from a perspective of people advocating they give in to a spiritual weakness. It is not universally regarded as you say it is. that is one more complicating factor in this debate.

Or a Science class? Here mix these chemicals and see what happens...

Much of the Old Testament was Historical, and must be viewed as such. There were two main sources of recorded laws: The Scribes & Pharisees, which represent the Law of the Land, and the Prophets, who represent the Law of God. Basically the "picking and choosing" is the seperation of Church and State. The prohibitions against Shellfish and Pork were from the State, and thus ignored by those not of that state. The laws on Sexual purity were from Prophets, and thus from God, and are thus still in force.

It's not that he favours one group over another, but that they obey Him better than others, and are thus blessed in accordance to the laws they are faithful too.

Abomination: Eating Pork and/or shellfish--forbidden by the Laws of the land. Only in force in Ancient Israel. Gay Sex--Forbidden by the Laws of God, which are eternal.

Also I challenge the point about the Bible being the only word of God. As a Mormon, I believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, and that revelation to be ongoing in the Latter Days through Prophets.

 

There was a stage that allowing women to vote in elections undermined the social perception of democracy. Is there a difference?

As is your right. Yet always keep in mind that others have morals to, and just because they may be different from yours, does not make them wrong.

So the only difference is a written one? If this is what you believe, that is fine, I accept that.

The all forgiving Christian faith

The mind boggles. It really does. Are you saying it is right to teach descimination?

Which brings me back to my previous point. So the only difference you are aware of between hetrosexual and homosexual relationships is a written one?

Another topic I love. Have you heard the phrase tyrrany of the majory? If you look back at JS Mills (one of the key figures in the history of democracy and liberty) stated in his On Liberty paper that a tyranny of the majority may be considered worse (or atleast as bad) as a tyranny of the magistrate. To give an example, let us take race. We have a country where 51% of people are of X race, where 49% are of race Y. What a tyranny of the majority is is a situation where race X could use its majority to vote in enough support to put inforce laws against race Y. This may be democratic (using the term very loosely), but I doubt many here would argue that it is right. Same applies to the situation you described. It is no different.

Unless of course I descovered a set of tablets written by God stating that the Qur'an was right?
But fair enough, that's an acceptable position.

Now this I'm going to have to ask proof for. I always believed that the reason they went to their mother first was nurture, not nature. If it was the father who raised the children while the mother went out and worked (which society is starting to accept) then I am sure the children would go to their father first.

Heard of apartheid? That was upheld by the courts

Following your line of thought though (or trying to), does this mean that if same sex marrage was legal in the US it should be upheld?

Once again, I'm going to have to ask for proof. As far as I am aware, the more and more these things are looked into, it is slowly been shown that a lot of things are turning out to be nature over nurture, not the opposite way around.

Yes, goblal warming wasn't commonly regarded as true in the US until a few years ago.

That's a fairly solid point. There's only two small differences. First, if you don't do what you're told int he chemistry class, at worst you'll probably get a detention - no enternal damnation in the picture there. And second, the facts we are taught in chemistry are scientifically provable (or disprovable, if you prefer).

If God had spoken to a Roman and given him a set of tablets and the power to part a sea, surely then they would have been more inclined to obey?

 

@Gnarf...I was born homosexual. Even before I knew what homosexuality was, I had crushes on other boys. I did not sit down and think "I would rather have sex with men and be a 'pervert' than have sex with a woman." Its just how I was born. It never occured to me that I was different until much later.

So don't you go saying 'no one is born gay' or whatever, because the fact of the matter is that some of us are.

For so long I had to pretend I was interested in women, because that is how intolerant this world is. Most of my friends still don't know because they are the same close-minded religion indoctrinated fools as you come across as being.

And I don't think you should be bragging about being Mormon neither. Your church denied African Americans the right to be 'ordained into the priesthood' because of the supposed sins they commited before they left 'the spirit world' right up until 1978. Oh and how about the Lamanites being cursed with dark skin too? Racism that is religiously motivated is in the same category as discrimination against homosexuality. And don't get me started on the Book of Abraham neither, I know enough about Ancient Egypt to instantly recognize the symbols and pictures in the back of the book, along with their gross misinterpretations.

Homosexuality is about who you fall inlove with, not whom you have sex with. When I was 6 and 7 years old and inlove with boys in my class at school, I didn't think "I want to put my penis in his anus." I didn't even know that two men could have sex until my first boyfriend showed me how.

 

Having read and followed this thread for a few days now I am struck by a few things,
1 The depth of the conversation and effort put in awes me.

2 Unless I have missed it no one seems to have noticed that it seems to be a consensus that all major religions condemn GLB behavior.

3 The main argument seems to be just "is it/it is wrong to believe this"?

Am i wrong in thinking everyone has a right to their own beliefs and as I said before if someone doesn't like a law work to change it. You CANNOT change strong religious beliefs any more than someone with strong beliefs that practices GLB is going to change behavior. I like girls, my Gods best creation, and if a same sex pass is made at me twice by the same person, not pretty. On the same hand I am not going to peek in a window to find sin. My bible does condemn GLB behavior but it also says and I quote Do not judge..... and it also says who is to be the judge. Sorry, ya'll got me worked up!

 

Not all major religions condemn homosexuality...I'm a Shaivite, a major world religion (it's part of Hinduism), and God hasn't condemned me...

 

Opps! Sorry Nataraja, I should have said the three connected, Jewish-Christian-Muslim. Thats what I get for shooting my mouth off and being general. My very bad.

 

That's ok. It's only the Abrahamic religions that are against homosexuality. Every other religion that I am aware of is either tolerant or indifferent. Dharmic religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, usually do not have a problem with homosexuality.

It actually seems that it's not actually religious, but rather that it's cultural. Afro-Asiatic cultures were against homosexuality, with Egyptian culture going so far as not even having a word for homosexuality. Indo-European cultures, however were either tolerant or indifferent to homosexuality, with the well known Greek and Roman stance on homosexuality being at the forefront.

[ October 08, 2006, 13:48: Message edited by: Nataraja ]

 

This, Gnarff, is why I've given up trying to debate you. For the sixteen kajillionth time, you're wrong - some people are indeed born homosexual. Most gays realize they have feelings for the same sex as children, long before lust is even a factor. Not everyone chooses to be gay. It's far more complicated than just a simple temptation one can refuse, as you insist on characterising it (and you'd know that if you actually knew any genuinely gay people). It is possible for a gay couple to have a committed, healthy relationship and express that love in a physical way just as any straight couple would, while still living a morally clean life without it being all about satiating lust. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and clearly lack the intellectual curiosity to distinguish between the black-and-white tenets of your faith and the gray-scale complexities of what goes on in the real world. To you, there's absolutely no way to view Christian doctrine any other way than the way you view it, and just because you refuse to see things any other way does not make you right. And forcing someone to live their lives in the closet (which they would if you get your way, because if homosexuality was merely a simple "temptation" this wouldn't even be an issue) - to lie to the world about who and what they are to avoid the bigotry and judgement of those whose arrogance tells them they have the right to tell others the "proper" way to live - is something I could never live with. Evidently you're pleased as punch to do it.

Clearly no one can convince you that homosexuals aren't born that way. But even if they aren't - so what? The fact remains that they are still gay, and will be for the rest of their lives whether you like it or not. Forcing them - either by social pressure, threat of violence or their specific exclusion in society's laws - to live a life which is utterly incompatible to them is neither righteous nor moral. If homosexuals were a majority, and were trying to force you to comply with their moral standards of how you should live your personal life, you'd fight it just as hard and find it just as reprehensible as they do. And before you say "but that's what they're doing by shoving it in my face," don't. Wanting to be open and honest about who you are is a fundemental right all of us has. They have as much right to be openly gay as you do openly Mormon. They don't want to take away your mormonism, they just insist that you respect their way of life and keep your morals to yourself. All they're asking for (in the case of gay marriage) is the chance to lead a normal life and make a lifetime commitment to the person of their choice, not yours. Isn't that something anyone deserves?

Not everyone shares your morals. Not everyone believes what you believe. And guess what...that doesn't make them bad, or lost, or immoral, or sinful people. You may consider what you're doing to be righteousness, but it's pride and bigotry any way you slice it.

There is a conservative view of christianity, and a liberal one as well. Either viewpoint has the same goal - to be closer to God and live the life He intends for us. But not everyone of faith believes the bible is as crystal clear on this issue as you do, and heaven forbid anyone try to suggest something contrary to your view of things. I was fed the same line as you in my very devout Mormon community and family growing up. But the difference between you and I is that I had the curiosity to question the things I was told, not take everything at absolute face value, and search for a more universal truth on my own.

Eh, I could go on...but I don't really see the point anymore. At the end of the day, Gnarff, since I don't have a prayer of convincing you of anything contrary to your "morals," I just hope you can be made aware of how absolutely mind-numbingly frustrating it is to try to get someone like you to even notice a hint of contradiction or logical fallacy in taking so literally the words of human beings who claim to speak for God, when it's certainly a fact of the world that humans are anything but incapable of mistakes, personal prejudices and impure agendas. Or to get you to ask yourself questions like "if God is perfect and can do ANYthing, and humans are flawed and fragile, why did he need so many humans to deliver his message? Why not deliver it himself?" Or to try to get a person like yourself to attempt to apply his modern-day knowledge and reasoning to interpreting ancient texts by taking into account the possible motives, mindset, contemporary knowledge base and cultural taboos of people from several hundreds of years ago. To end, I leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Galileo...which is not only appropriate because it's from Civ4 (a game we share a deep fondness of) but because nearly every one of your responses on this topic have reminded me of it. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

Anyway...dead horse, please report to table 2 for your flogging.

 

I went over almost the same things in my first couple of posts here, but no one seemed to take any notice. I'm afraid that they will ignore you too and just keep up their circular arguments.

 

Once again, I learned something new and I think it's cultural too. In the west we (this time me) sometimes forget we are not the whole planet! I forget how wide my comments reach on the net.

 

One must remember that the Abrahamic religions aren't the oldest religions, despite them being the most wide spread. The original faiths of Europe were supplanted by Christianity, and as a result, Europeans have lost their true identity. And as a result, everywhere Europeans went, they tried to supplant their lost identity upon others.

There is a whole world of differing religions out there, it is up to you personally to find where you fit in, it is up to you to seek the truth. Doesn't matter if you choose to be a Catholic, an Anglican, a Buddhist, a Hindu or an athiest...all that matters is that you find your own personal truth, one that reflects you personally. In this age of information saturation, there is no excuse for ignorance.

(btw, I am of European descent fully, despite my religious beliefs)

 

Nataraja, OK, we can agree to agree and disagree on different things. Sounds right, got to go for now been up all night here and getting brain dead (witness my general post!).

 

This thread is utterly pointless, unless the point is mental sport. Some religions condemn homosexuality - so what? To now take a dive into the dimension of said religions and argue with the very fabric they are made of is a waste of time. The question of why will never be met by a rational answer. Religion deals in vagueness and all things that have no connection to the oberservable world. Supposedly, a supernatural being ordained that getting it on with one's own sex is a sin. Period.

However, it should not be an issue for those who dont by that stuff... so long as the religious elements keep to themselves. Christianity, or whatever faith, may mean the world and more to some, but is irrelevant to others. Representing only a fraction it cannot dictate the terms of how our societies treat this group of people or that. Religion is absolut only in the mind of the fundamentalist. I am sure most here feel uncomfortable about relig. fundamentalism. Issues dealing with situations outside the personal affairs of the believer demand for the factual, something that can be observed, validated. Anything else is unacceptable to the rest, as it would be overbearing. And in this case the simple fact remains that homosexuality harms no one. Only that can be the grounds upon which it is assessed in a general sense. Accordingly there is no reason to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Of course, some religious devout going so far to try and impose their beliefs on others is nothing but sheer aggression, a disposition of these somewhat eager fellows that left corpses and tears in its wake, for centuries.
The problems homosexuals struggle with is also related to the hybris of religious folk and their claims over the lifes of others.

 

Yeah, but they all are. Nothing new there.

Again, you're describing most of the Boards with that one.

It's only irrelevant if it turns out to be wrong. If all those Christians are right, then it's very relevant, because all of us here in support of equal rights for gay people are all going to hell - which doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun.

 

But what is the point of this? What I was trying to say is that you can't say that homosexuality is only sexual in nature. The two men or two women love each other as much as any other heterosexual couple. I don't see what is the point in talking about pedophily...

What part did I leave out?

You did, when you said "They both include obedience and understanding, only one includes a timeline (obedience first)."

But you see, obedience before understanding is against rationnality. Obediance before understanding is faith, faith that whoever is giving you the order knows what he's doing. But rationnality and free-will is making a choice based upon facts, based upon a reasonning. When you blindly obey to someone (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just not rationnal), you cannot rely on facts (since you rely on faith). Your choice is not a rationnal one. And since your blindly following someone, the choice is not your own to make, thus you don't have free-will (that is until you decide to choose for yourself).

I never mentionned genetics. There is not proof enough for that. It could be psychological in nature. Maybe it's a subconscious thing. Maybe, like you said, it has to do with the lenght of you toes. But the bottom line is that they're attracted to the same sex. It's not something they can turn off, or stop doing (like to stop watching tv), no more than heterosexuals can stop being attracted to the opposite sex.

Safer in what way? If you sayhow to do something safely, isn't it the "ultimate" safe way? Besides, (because if my understanding of religion is correct, compared to god, we would be the equivalent of a 3 year old child or something) saying no a child only makes him want to do it more.

Believe it or not, that is the point I was trying to make in the "context" part of my posts. (in a non-sense gibberish kinda way.... )
Man, I really need to strat drinking coffee...

Ok. But still, I go back to what I was saying. What does it change? Why do you care whet THEY are doing, if it has no impact on you?

Again, why do you care? Are you married because of what people think, or are you married to be with your woman? (and since your deeply religous, your marriage is a thing of faith with God, why would you care if two men are married somewhere else?)

Best represent your stance on homosexuality, or best represent a moral action? There is a big diffenrence between the two. What you consider moral might not be to antother and vice-versa.

Again, the point of that example is that morality depends on context. So the context tells you if an action is moral, not pre-established rules. And I agree with that. If lying saves the life of your friend (you can substitute the murderer to three murderers), would it still be a sin?

So you're saying "It's God's way or the highway"?Even if not all believe in God?

And doesn't God want his children to be happy? Would he deny their hapiness when it doesn't hurt and impede in any way unto the freedom of others (as opposed to pedophiles, rappist or murderers)

Again, you misundertsand the position of the Gay community. They want to be able to have the same rights and freedom as any other group in society, not to be absolute and destroy the opposition. Furthermore, it's the opposition to homosexual rights and freedom that tries to silence them, and prevent them from teaching anything that goes against their way of life.

Oh, okay. So you can't say that two heterosexual love each other. Great...

I'm sorry for being naive, but I believe that many hold values that they intend to fight for. And btw, what tells you that it's just a "vocal lobby group", and not much more?

Nor am I trying to. What I'm saying, is that you can't truly be positive that your translation is entirely accurate. Maybe there are more translation errors that he missed. After all, it's been stated that humans are not perfect and are prone to mistakes.

And I agree. Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek?

While I agree with you, it hasn't even been proven that it's a majority. Only there might maybe be a majority perhaps, if you generalize a result, maybe... BTW you stil haven't told me what states they are. Ten south state is not the same as ten north states.

I totally agree with you on this. The only thing is that the Gay community wants to have the same right and priviliges as everybody. They point isn't that religion is rubbish. And that is the point I'm trying to make when I say "what do you care that somebody else is getting married with a man or woman?"

Wow, that is good...

 

@Abomination:
Homosexuality: God tells us when His rules change, such as eating shellfish, so until He says homosexuality is ok, I'll stick with it's a sin. As for the basis of it, can you tell me why adultry is a sin? Or why ALL lying is a sin? We don't understand the reasons behind everything, but we understand enough to suppose there are reasons.

Shellfish: Acts 10:9-16 describes Peter's vision. I suggest you re-read it before you comment on what it says or doesn't say.

That's where God told us it was ok.

I can't tell you why God didn't tell His people this until Leviticus, but it may have something to do with accessability. Shellfish aren't the easiest of creatures to catch and eat for many primitive societies. I don't know that there was need to say anything until then.

Who? When? When have I or any Christian on this board changed the Bible? When have we ignored passages? You are making blind and erronious generalities.

Um, actually, every time He gives a new law, like the above.

Only God can change His rules, and He does sometimes, but not others. Don't ask me why, ask Him. As for 're-interpreting' the words, it seems you and Triactus are the only ones doing that.

@Rotku:

That's good to hear. And remember, this is the 'Homosexuality and Religion' page, so...

Is it right to teach that pedophilia is wrong, or stealing? Who decides what groups of people get protected against descrimination and what groups don't? If you say the law, I'd agree, but that means you'll accept it if a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriages passes, and accept it in the states that have already passed laws against it.

And when you find them and prove they were written by God, we'll listen. If God came to be today and told me Islam was the true path, I'd convert, but I'd have to know it was God.

It's more a question of if they were both equal care-givers, which would the child prefer, but I'd be interested to see studies on this myself. Good luck finding any.

Actually, you're wrong. There are just as many studies showing the importance of social factors in things like homosexuality, drug use, violence, and just about any other psychological variable worth measuring as there are genetic. And that's just what these are, factors, not controlers. I defy you to find me one, JUST ONE genetic study that says a particular gene is the absolute cause of homosexuality, gun violence, theft, or any other commonly condemned action.

I don't know, considering the Romans...
But seriously, I don't know why God chose the Israelites, but He did.

Actually, if they weren't born gay, then they chose it, which means they can change back.

Do you have a problem with keeping cleptomaniacs from living their lives the way they want to? Again, it becomes an issue of how you see homosexuality.

Dendri:

It becomes a problem when pastors get arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, but homosexuals are loved by God and can be forgiven just like anyone else. Sound unrealistic? It happened in Amsterdam.

@Triactus:
I never tried to say homosexuality was only sexual in nature. I fully recognize that the sin (feel free to replace with act) is far more complex than that.

Umm, the part that I quoted. Here, I'll give it to you again:

Linear Timeline: Ok, I can see where you got that part, and you're right that taking someone else's word for it is based on faith not rational logic, but that doesn't mean it goes against free will. You are still choosing to believe the other person or not. Free will does not inherrantly require a fully informed decision, but the responsability the person is held for must be adjusted to how much information they had. You can choose for yourself to believe what someone else says, just as easily as you can choose for yourself not to believe them.

Actually, as I have said in other forums, psychology, which you mentioned, tells us that sex drive, sexual attraction, and the type of love associated with it are all highly maleable things. Heterosexuals may easily be able to become homosexuals and homosexuals may easily be able to become heterosexuals. There are programs based on this idea. The problem is, when it fails, you claim it is proof it can't work, and when it works, you claim they're just hiding their desires. There's no hard evidence to either effect, not that either of us can give, anyway.

Ok, would you teach your 3-year old child how to safely handle guns, and give him the key to the gun cabnet, or would you tell them not to touch the guns, they're not old enough, and keep the key to yourself. Like I said, look at how the Jews followed God's other commandments.

They are one in the same, if you consider morals relative. If you consider them absolute, then he just disagrees with you. Either way, not an issue.

Again, let's look at the 3-year old and guns. The kid really wants the guns and swears they'll make him happy. Are you going to give them to him now? You know better than he does what will really make him happy in the long term, and God knows better than we do what will really make us happy in the long term.

Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with this, so long as I can still teach my child it is a sin, and my pastor can still teach its a sin, and if I put my children in Christian school, the school can still teach it is a sin.

 

As long as the clause "according to Christian doctrine" is added when you call something a sin, sure.

The problem most homosexuals and those who support homosexual civil-unions (I don't like to use the term gay-marriage because the word 'marriage' actually means a union between a man and a woman) is that the Bible says homosexuality is a 'sin' but doesn't actually explain why it's a sin. How is homosexuality a bad thing? The reasons given simply aren't true in all cases or simply don't hold water because when presented a link can be formed between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships where the female is barren or the male is infertile.

 

[Edit]Removed some of the post, as I somehow missed the paragraph that Abomination quotes above.

Never did I say that it was the absolute cause of anything. I'll happily admit that society also has a big role. But more and more these days genetics is shown to play a bigger role.

From my understanding, a neutral point of view should be taken until evidence is shown showing otherwise. I doubt very much you would find many situation where both parents are equal caregivers.

Well, if the only reason you are against homosexuals is just a religous one, then there's no real possiblity of arguing against you. It does demonstrate the reason why I dislike religon though - it teaches narrow mindedness. Believing in something just because you were told to is not a good way to think.

But if indeed, as you claim, that your claim against homosexuality is purely based upon your religion, without any other foundings, I will step out of this thread for now.