Gays & Religion

[baldrick]

One thing that i'd like to know is why nearly every religion teaches that being gay is shameful and sinful?

The religions in question (ie. christianity) also promote love in a relationship, and lust as sinful.

What I want to know, is that, if love is so sacred, than why must followers of that religion be hetrosexual? :confused:

Surely, true love knows no borders, and also homosexual relationships (gay relationships) have more love in them, because in theory, there is less lust., because male's are designed to think sexually about female bodies, not male ones. I know this isn't always the case, but can you see my point?

If anyone can attempt to justify why this is so, then please reply.

:)

[Yahzi]

Because religion is a tool for building armies, and homosexuals don't produce more troops for the armies.

In ancient Greece it was ok to be gay, but only if you got married and produced children too. As a citizen, you owed the State sons: it was your civic duty to replenish the ranks of the army.

I don't think most religions teach that homosexuality is bad: only the really successful ones, the ones that built armies that conquered large parts of the world.

As for teaching that lust is bad, they want you to produce kids, but they don't want you to be happy. Happy people make lousy soldiers.

Same for "let go and let god." Once you convince people to surrender their moral responsbility, then it's a small step to "let go and let god's vicar." Viola! Hierarchical organization, without which no army can function. "Let go and let the general."

Religion is a social tool for building armies. Once you understand that, everything makes sense.

[Finella]

Churches are learning, slowly, that God is present in gay relationships as well as in straight ones.

The latest big news in the Episcopal Church is that, for the first time, an openly gay man (who is in a committed relationship with another man) has been elected bishop of New Hampshire.


From here (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/2003-126.html):

It was in New Hampshire, Robinson said, that he "answered God's call to acknowledge myself as a gay man. My wife and I, in order to KEEP our wedding vow to 'honor [each other] in the Name of God,' made the decision to let each other go. We returned to church, where our marriage had begun, and in the context of the eucharist, released each other from our wedding vows, asked each other's forgiveness, cried a lot, pledged ourselves to the joint raising of our children, and shared the Body and Blood of Christ.


"Risking the loss of my children and the exercise of my ordained ministry in the Church was the biggest risk I've ever taken, but it left me with two unshakable things: my integrity and my God," he continued. "It won the hearts of my daughters, whom I feared losing, and, later, the love of a wonderful partner, with whom I've made a home for the past 13 years." The father of two grown daughters, Jamee and Ella, Robinson lives with his partner Mark Andrew outside Concord, New Hampshire.

[LaserCool]

I'll have to agree witht he gist of Yahzi's post, but with an adjustment: all religion is based upon maintaining tribal cohesion. Religion is a tool of conformnity within a tribe, and homosexuals don't produce children.

Primitive tribes were concerend with two primary things: food and sex. Since Food was scarce at certian times of the year, the Gods were appeased to provide good crops or good hunts. Clearly, good hunting and good harvest were "proof" that the Gods liked what you were doing.

Infant mortality up to the early 20th century, and in some parts of the world today, is amazing. My great grandmother had 8 kids, only four of which survived past age 5 (and that was in the US early 20th century!). So clearly, to keep the tribe functioning well, regular births were needed. More children meant more hunters and fighters and foragers.

This tribal mentality works its way into the Judeo-Christian mindset and explains not only attitudes towards homosexuality, but birth control, and the push to marry early. It also explains xenophobia, and the urge to convert others (artificially expanding the tribe, and a way to mentaly conquer your enemies).

The Old Testament is rife with examples of conquest in which virgin women and children were taken as a prize. This allowed the Hebrews to infuse thier tribe with new genes, and expand thier dominion and influence into other tribes. Take a look at Numbers 31 if you are feeling sporty.

[EdipisReks]

from what i've read, the ban on male homosexuality was a defence against religions that worshipped goddesses. in some goddess worshipping religions, homosexual male sex was a part of the worship. by banning such acts, christianity had an extra defence against rival relgions entering a christian dominated area.

[Dancing David]

The ban of homosexuality is not universal, and it doesn't make sense from the darwinian perspective either.

A non offspring producing sibling helping to raise other sibling's children is a very useful trait. As is a sibling raising siblings.

Unfortunately I can't say that human biasis don't show up in all human areas.

[neutrino_cannon]

Indeed, are there any religions that shun and persecute the sterile? No, biases against homosexuality are completely irational, from any point of veiw.

How likely is it that a couple that regularly copulates has children? I'm guessing the number is quite a bit lower than one hundred percent, but that's just a guess.

If they're not dressing in drag and waving purple flags it's hard to tell if someone is homosexual from casual interaction. Such irational biases are hard to excercise if the trait you're against can be kept a secret.

Anyone with any sense at all (read evryone) would keep anything a secret that might get them in trouble. Thus there is little conflict about the bias, however counterproductive it is, and we get closet gays.

"Religion is a social tool for building armies."

I doubt it.

I think parts of governments are though.

-Who

[triadboy]

America is ruled by two modes of thinking: Hermetic and Puritan.

The Hermetic line of thinking came to this country (through France/Greece) with a free-thinking, freedom-loving attitude. It's what gave us separation of church and state. It's why we don't have a King. It was what our founding fathers believed.

The Puritans came and eventually took over the Christian religion - which in turn, attempted to take over political thought. The Puritans are morbidly afraid with the idea that someone - somewhere - is having fun.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by triadboy
America is ruled by two modes of thinking: Hermetic and Puritan.

The Hermetic line of thinking came to this country (through France/Greece) with a free-thinking, freedom-loving attitude. It's what gave us separation of church and state. It's why we don't have a King. It was what our founding fathers believed.

The Puritans came and eventually took over the Christian religion - which in turn, attempted to take over political thought. The Puritans are morbidly afraid with the idea that someone - somewhere - is having fun.

Dichotomy! It's a game two can play!

You make puritans sound so bad, let me tell you, until you've sat for three hours straight with your head tipped in prayer you haven't lived brother.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Indeed, are there any religions that shun and persecute the sterile?
I would have said "Judeaism." I mean, Ruth is so ashamed of her barreness she sends her handmaids to sleep with her husband. Tell me, how many wives would do that with a little shunning and persecution?

[rachaella]

Originally posted by triadboy
America is ruled by two modes of thinking: Hermetic and Puritan.

The Hermetic line of thinking came to this country (through France/Greece) with a free-thinking, freedom-loving attitude. It's what gave us separation of church and state. It's why we don't have a King. It was what our founding fathers believed.

The Puritans came and eventually took over the Christian religion - which in turn, attempted to take over political thought. The Puritans are morbidly afraid with the idea that someone - somewhere - is having fun.

I've read that a lot of sexual repression actually came from Catholics and not Puritans.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by rachaella


I've read that a lot of sexual repression actually came from Catholics and not Puritans.

That's hardly true. The puritans were uniquely repressive, merely because Catholicism predated them and also stressed modesty does not mean that puritans did not actively build a repressive society.

Regarding the topic: Remember folks, the bible never says that we should hate homosexuals. We're supposed to kill them, but do so charitably.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Finella
Churches are learning, slowly, that God is present in gay relationships as well as in straight ones.

Finella,

You're wrong. Some churches are forgetting, slowly, what the bible explicitly states: Homosexuality is a terrible evil that only very naughty and immoral people accept.

One might even say that churches are slowly learing that the biblical god is not present in any loving relationship whatsoever.

That's a good thing.

[Finella]

Finella,

You're wrong. Some churches are forgetting, slowly, what the bible explicitly states: Homosexuality is a terrible evil that only very naughty and immoral people accept.

One might even say that churches are slowly learing that the biblical god is not present in any loving relationship whatsoever.

That's a good thing.

I am certainly not "wrong." Many churches still believe what you state, but not all. This discussion board tends to lump all of Christianity into this freakish conservative mass that all of it is not (while some is, don't get me wrong).

Look here (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm) for a really good explanation of what I mean. Read all of it, but especially the conclusions at the end. Basically, while we can study the Bible to help us understand God's will, we also need to apply logic and reason, as well as personal experience, in conjunction with that study so that we can make wise decisions.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by perpetual-thinker
and also homosexual relationships (gay relationships) have more love in them, because in theory, there is less lust.,

This bit of your argument is bollocks I'm afraid.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Because religion is a tool for building armies, and homosexuals don't produce more troops for the armies.

This is a very strong point! Thanks for pointing that out. I had always wondered about gay hatred myself.

[Man of jade]

I note that some people will make a comment like "Religon is nothing but a tool for building armies."

This, in my opinion, is no different than a comment such as "Atheists are nothing but a bunch of immoral sadistic people."

Its nothing more than prejudiced insult.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


That's hardly true. The puritans were uniquely repressive, merely because Catholicism predated them and also stressed modesty does not mean that puritans did not actively build a repressive society.

Regarding the topic: Remember folks, the bible never says that we should hate homosexuals. We're supposed to kill them, but do so charitably.

I never stated that Puritans did not repress, of course they did. But the fact remains that Catholics had an opposition to any sexual activities not intended for procreational purposes, thus the strong opposition to birth control. Protestants (such as Puritans) tended to be a little more liberal on this, recognizing the value of sex within the context of marriage.

[Pahansiri]

The Bible has been used and is used in a very selective way by many and this may be perhaps the most common one.

The Bible really only mentions homosexuality in a passing and limited way yet many people base much of what they do or how they speak out or speak out against something they personally do not do.The Bible spends a great deal more time endorsing slavery also things like encouraging people who have felt temptation to gouge out their eyes or cut off but we really don’t see any of this. The Bible clearly condemns divorce yet we are at a divorce rate in this country of over 60%. Luckily woman’s rights have greatly improved but if one were to adhere to the Bible closely we would not even see a woman speak in a Church ot teach in their Sunday schools as that is strictly forbidden. Yet again selective thinking.


Many Christians seek to point out that Bible says homosexuality is an abomination yet forgets the following abominations as to the Bible law.



Using Leviticus we find:
:eek: To have sex with a woman during her period is an abomination yet many we must admit have, come on guys, girls don’t lie.. Well I have anyway but I am Buddhist so I am safe. Also I guess gay males will never brake this one (Leviticus 15:19-24)

:eek: The eating shellfish is an abomination and yes I have seen a bunch of Christians at the Red Lobster (Leviticus 11:10)

:eek: To trim your hair is forbidden (Leviticus 19:27) hair dressers should be put to death then, well I guess there are many gay hair dressers so that would be as killing 2 birds with one stone.
:eek: There are many references to and allowing slavery and even a passage from Christ as to the proper way to beat a slave. In Leviticus it clearly states that you may own slaves, as long as they are from neighboring nations (Leviticus 25:44), so while Mexicans and Canadians are OK Africa was clearly off limits?

:eek: You can not approach the altar of God if you have a defect in sight (Leviticus 21:20), so people who wear glasses even are out of luck, blind crippled etc ?

:eek: Football is an abomination(Leviticus 11:6-8) if that is the case what is that guy with the rainbow hair and John 3:16 always doing at football games and all that pointing to God after a touchdown.

:eek: A Farmer can't plant corn and string beans in the same field or wear work pants made of cotton/polyester blend (Leviticus 11:6-819:19). And if they ever do, the whole town has to gather and stone them to death (Leviticus 24:10-16).



:eek: In Deuteronomy we find that woman that wear pants are abomination unto the LORD thy God

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

Yet this is passed over by woman holding “God hat fags” sighs.



These are just a few examples.


Many times Christian friends tell me these other laws of the OT did not matter because Jesus came and changed the laws, that is of course not what the NT says Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law and the prophets".


Just what I believe and mean no disrespect to any one.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Man of jade
I note that some people will make a comment like "Religon is nothing but a tool for building armies."

This, in my opinion, is no different than a comment such as "Atheists are nothing but a bunch of immoral sadistic people."

Its nothing more than prejudiced insult.

There IS a difference.

The first one is an argument against religion, not against individual followers. It doesn't claim that the people who follow the religion are bad in any way; it's the institution of religion that is being attacked. (It's actually,to me, kind of in sympathy with those who are held in its thrall.)

The second one is an attack against atheists. (Note: since there is no organized institution of atheism, it cannot be attacked in precisely the same way.)

Just my viewpoint.

And, by the way, it's great to be back!

[Fade]

Wolfgirl:

That's pretty much correct.


Also, the arguments against homosexuality stemming from the Bible ought to only apply to the Jews. It was always my understanding that when Jesus came to Earth, he made an entirely new covenant. The history in the OT is supposed to be canoniacal, but the only biblical laws christians are supposed to follow are contained in the NT.

Is this accurate, or did I completely misunderstand what preachers have been telling me?

[ImpyTimpy]

That's correct, however there are homosexual references in the new testament if I remember correctly. They're buried somewhere in John I think. There are also other bizarre rules in the new testament but nobody seems to pay attention to those...

Originally posted by Fade
Wolfgirl:

That's pretty much correct.


Also, the arguments against homosexuality stemming from the Bible ought to only apply to the Jews. It was always my understanding that when Jesus came to Earth, he made an entirely new covenant. The history in the OT is supposed to be canoniacal, but the only biblical laws christians are supposed to follow are contained in the NT.

Is this accurate, or did I completely misunderstand what preachers have been telling me?

[Fade]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
That's correct, however there are homosexual references in the new testament if I remember correctly. They're buried somewhere in John I think. There are also other bizarre rules in the new testament but nobody seems to pay attention to those...



That's what I thought. And, considering Jesus was supposed to be about love and acceptance, the hell-fire and brimstone shouldn't apply.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Fade
Wolfgirl:

That's pretty much correct.


Also, the arguments against homosexuality stemming from the Bible ought to only apply to the Jews. It was always my understanding that when Jesus came to Earth, he made an entirely new covenant. The history in the OT is supposed to be canoniacal, but the only biblical laws christians are supposed to follow are contained in the NT.

Is this accurate, or did I completely misunderstand what preachers have been telling me?

Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law and the prophets".

[Finella]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law and the prophets".

I refer you all again to the link I posted in my last post; the article actually makes the case that the homosexual references are as strident in the NT as in the OT, and to argue that Jesus did away with the old Hebraic code was actually not going to take care of these NT references. Thus, the article says, one has to look at the cultural context of these sexual directives and realize that, since even the most fundamentalist of Christians does not follow all of the commands in the Bible, we are all picking and choosing anyway. So how to decide? Read the article.

:)

---,---'--{@

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I would have said "Judeaism." I mean, Ruth is so ashamed of her barreness she sends her handmaids to sleep with her husband. Tell me, how many wives would do that with a little shunning and persecution?

Uh, Yahzi, I think you mean Rachel, not Ruth.

Facts, Amigo. Facts.

[Roadtoad]

Finella, I think what you're looking at, (Paul's Letter to the Romans), pretty solidly condemns ALL extramarital sex. Forgive my terminology here, but homosexuality, as an issue, is "sexier" than simple adultery between a man and a woman. It's more "shocking" in the context of the discussion.

Truth to tell, what I've found is that the punishment for sex outside of marriage in the Bible is pretty harsh no matter who is involved.

And yes, my wife and I did the "Wild Thing" before we got married. And, yes, we'd have probably done better if we hadn't. Just a thought.

(BTW: Why do most gays that I know have a better relationship with God than I do? :D )

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Finella.


I am not sure if you addressing me or my post as your post seem irrelevant to what I have said. I do not argue that Jesus did away with the old Hebraic code, my point was many Christian friends will say this when addressed with such things as I posted above. I am not Christian and while I respect their and all peoples right to beliefs I do not a argue that Jesus this or that as a fact that would be based in that this being ever existed. While such a being as a model may have lived it is not my belief the Bible tells his story in a factual way.


You write Thus, the article says, one has to look at the cultural context of these sexual directives and realize that, since even the most fundamentalist of Christians does not follow all of the commands in the Bible,…. picking and choosing
That was the point of my first post, it is easy for many to attack something that they may not do personaly but pass over things they do even if the Bible say not to.

I believe there are many, many people who “think” homosexuality is a sinful perversion,” until they are looking into the eyes of their child as they are told the child is gay. When it has a face, and that face is that of your child, it becomes real and no longer “sinful perversion”. This is the same with war. It is easy to think of others as the “enemy” when they remain faceless, but if we seen them as people, husbands, fathers etc or seen their children’s faces as they cry for the loss of dad, could we still care so little.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings Finella.

Greetings Pahansiri!

I do not at all disagree with what you posted -- my reply was to add an addendum to it in order to urge people to read the article, since I found it very interesting. I think you will find it interesting as well. I agree with you, too, that the Bible is not necessarily a factual account of Jesus' teaching. And in regard to this issue, Jesus himself has never had any anti-homosexual statements attributed to him anyway.


Here it is again. (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm)

---,---'--{@

[Roadtoad]

Let me ask another question:

(1.) (Bear in mind, I've asked this at churches I've attended, and gotten some very weird looks.) If you get to heaven, (and note, I have said if!), and you discover that God has allowed Gays into His presence, what are you going to do: LEAVE?

(2.) What is the criteria for anyone's entry into Heaven in the first place?

If I had to guess, and base this solely on behavior alone, I've found there are more Gays and Lesbians who would be welcomed into God's presence than many Christians. Considering your actions declare your faith, I'd say Pat Robertson, False Prophet of 1988, really has no faith in anything.

Just a thought.

[Peskanov]

Finella;
-----
Here it is again.
-----

Ok, I read it.

Fast summary:
1.-Bible's judgement about sex matters is wrong.

Ok; most people here agree about that. The bible is wrong about nearly everything, so?

2.- We must love everybody.

Do you need the bible for that? No.
Does the bible tell us to love everybody? No. And yes. The bible tells to hate the sinner, and to love the sinner, and any other message you can imagine.

Really, I am unable to get any clear message from the bible (universal love included), and the same applies to your link.
When you acknowledge the human nature of the bible, when you see it's brutal misjudgements...why do you still regard it as a moral guide?