On Homosexuality & Religion [Merged]

Started by InnerRise274 pages

I don't understand why people ask these questions. Well yes, of course the bible says that it is. But besides that I don't get it.

I mean, is being Mexian, Black, or Japanese a sin.

You are what you are. Being Homosexual or Bisexual makes you no worse nor any better than anyone else.

And I hate how it's either "Gay" or "Straight".

The fact of the matter is, there's "Homosexualtiy", "Bisexuality", and "Heterosexuality".

I hate the word "Gay".

It's not split Black and White people.

is it comprehensible.....

To some people the bible is infallible and connot be interpreted beyond thier "direct" interpretation. They feel that any interpretation that is not heir own is wrong and is a sign of corruption. THey do their best to fight this.

What, being gay a sin? I'm all for gay people. Keep'em coming!

More women for me. naughty

Originally posted by Sai1
What, being gay a sin? I'm all for gay people. Keep'em coming!

More women for me. naughty

Now that's a positive outlook! 😎

Originally posted by InnerRise
I don't understand why people ask these questions. Well yes, of course the bible says that it is. But besides that I don't get it.

The bible says that homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says that all sex is sin. So where fo we go with this?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Now that's a positive outlook! 😎

No... You should be saying "You should be with only one woman in your whole life."

😆 I agree.

BUMP!

Look at me! Look at me! I'm wearing a sig that supports homosexuality!firefirefireph

I don't remember...does that make me a sinner?

And how can it be bad if its so pretty?

Though it should be a sin for rearranging the skyline.

Just need to let everyone know: There was a TIME WHEN HETEROSEXUALITY was considered Perverted and was oppressed:

The Early Victorian Era, the Ideal was "True Love" a type of male-female romances that LACKED the aspect of sexuality. Sex was seen as a bad thing in general, sexual pleasure was a forbidden sin, and sex's only purpose was to pro create. They were not allowed to have sex for any other reason, and men and women were punished for even masturbating !

This occured between years 1820-1860.

Think about it for a second: Men and Women could not have sex in PEACE, they had the constant fear that what they were doing was demonic and they were taught to feel guilty for enjoying orgasms and sexual pleasure in general.

Any sex that occured without the intention OR result of pro creation not only warranted a "bad reputation" among men and women, but could have also gotten them punished by Law !

In the LATE Victorian Era, sex started to become defined differently. Over time the body began to be seen as something to gain pleasure from, instead of just something to create the next generation. "The Pursuit of Happiness" became the acceptable justification for embarking on sexual pleasure.

There was a time, a short time, where the erotic industy emerged and ALL KINDS of sexual explosions occured: "normal" sexual stimuli as well as "abnormal" or "kinki" sexual stimuli, all in the name of pleasure. There was no "natural" or standard" sex in this tiny era, sex was seen for pleasure.

Then the rise of Medical Doctors and Aristocratic influence began to define sexuality into a dichomoty: The Heterosexual and the Homosexual.

At first the Heterosexual was used to define a person who had sexual impulses for both sexes, and the Homosexual was meant to define a person "with the mentality of the opposite sex"

THEN, as scientific and religious debate occurred, Heterosexual began to be defined as a person who only desired the opposite sex....while homosexual was RE defined as a person who craved the SAME SEX...any person who was attracted to both sexes was labeled "psycho-sexual hermaphrodite" only to be called Bisexual about a century later.

Finally, due to religious and personal scientific bias, the idea of a "MASTER SEX" began to emerge. This occured after the idea of a "MASTER RACE" was shunned from social acceptance. To create a "Master Sex" was an easier way to keep one class down and the other upward, because sex is universal among all races.

Around 1901, the HETEROSEXUAL became the MASTER SEX, the privelaged, the "Norm". Different from the Victorian ideal, the one time "PERVERT"archetype became the "Healthy" ideal, and the Homosexual became the NEW PERVERT.

Side note:

In the EArly Victorian Era, Heterosexuality was not a term that yet existed, but the idea of a heterosexual....a man and woman having sex for the sake of pleasure was seen as disgusting.

The ideal was to be a NON-SEXUAL being. Due to religious justification, men and women were supposed to become "TRUE MEN" and "TRUE WOMEN", men and women who loved eachother WITHOUT Sexual encounter.

The only goal for sex was to pro-create, and even still it was looked down upon. If you had sex without bearing a child, you would be seen as unclean, ungodly, and susceptible to some sort of social punishment by Law !

Just so you bigots know that your "ideal" sexual orientation is NOT historically eternal or as powerful as you'd imagine it to have been.

Re: Is being gay a sin?

Originally posted by Preciousdagger
I wanted 2 know what yall thought about gay people. (An no I'm not gay I just have no problems)

In gods eyes yes
My eyes no
If you realy love some one who cares what sex you are the law should let any one get married.....And gay people are differnt so what....

In "gods" eyes gay people are sinful.
In my point of view( i am personally tied between agnosticism and atheism) and i dont believe in the concept of heaven and hell.

So in my eyes, they are just confused.

Originally posted by The thinker
In "gods" eyes gay people are sinful.
In my point of view( i am personally tied between agnosticism and atheism) and i dont believe in the concept of heaven and hell.

So in my eyes, they are just confused.


Why are we confused? We don't like women, period. What's the big confusion? Also, why do you believe that? Any scientific evidence pointing in that direction or personal experience?

Being gay is unatural, sexual acts are meant for an oppisite sex. It can be seen all over nature. Yes there are the exeptions of male dogs that try and F**k eachother, that is because they are confused.

Originally posted by The thinker
Being gay is unatural, sexual acts are meant for an oppisite sex. It can be seen all over nature. Yes there are the exeptions of male dogs that try and F**k eachother, that is because they are confused.

Being gay is unnatural? Homosexuality happens in nature, in several types of different animals how is it unnatural? Sexual acts are meant for an opposite sex? Nah... Believe me, nah... Besides why do you think that?

And dogs are confused too? They got sexually abused by their father dogs? Or maybe the liberal dog media...

Originally posted by The thinker
Being gay is unatural, sexual acts are meant for an oppisite sex. It can be seen all over nature. Yes there are the exeptions of male dogs that try and F**k eachother, that is because they are confused.

I disagree because being gay means the attraction to the opposite sex not necessarily having unatural sex. I stated this in another post in the bisexual thread, but there is a genetic link to people who have same-sex attractions. So being gay is not a sin from my standpoint, just the sex portion.

Sexual intercourse is meant for a female. THat is why females have a uterus and a vagina for a penis to enter, and have the ability to produce offspring.

FACT IS MEN DONT !

Originally posted by The thinker
Sexual intercourse is meant for a female. THat is why females have a uterus and a vagina for a penis to enter, and have the ability to produce offspring.

FACT IS MEN DONT !


Fact is men have butts too, which have pleasure nerves. If you believe the only function of sex is to create offspring then I think you really should check if you're an atheist.

Originally posted by The thinker
Sexual intercourse is meant for a female. THat is why females have a uterus and a vagina for a penis to enter, and have the ability to produce offspring.

FACT IS MEN DONT !

Ok i'm not sure if that was aimed at me or eis or both, i agree with you that sexual intercourse shoudl only be between a man and a woman, and I never disagreed with you for that point. However sex only encompasses one aspect of a gay couple. Being attracted to same-sex people is for the most part soemthign out of their control.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Ok i'm not sure if that was aimed at me or eis or both, i agree with you that sexual intercourse shoudl only be between a man and a woman, and I never disagreed with you for that point. However sex only encompasses one aspect of a gay couple. Being attracted to same-sex people is for the most part soemthign out of their control.

Why shouldn't men have sex among each other? Because the bible says so? Because it doesn't lead to offspring? Both arguments have been beaten to death...