Homosexuality and Religion

[I, Brian]

There's no problem.

It is the nature of such contentious subjects to create strong emotions. However, here we are able to express our opinions without attacking other people. There is some degree of mutual respect required. I believe we are all doing fine with that - in general - across the boards.

[StrangeQuark]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Point 1: If you kick me in the cha-chas today, and I forgive you, that doesn't mean that you are automatically forgiven when you do it again tomorrow

Point 2: I can't argue with this because I am a Creationist. I think there is room for science and evolution in my beliefs, but I believe that God created us male and female, and for a reason.

Point 3: I was actually replying directly to what Moshin had said about Sodom, which was destroyed. And I didn't say that God was going to destroy anybody. As a matter of fact, he promises just the opposite.

Personally, I don't believe that any homosexual person is loved less than a heterosexual person, or that any homosexual person will be disciplined or destroyed for the sake of being homosexual. But I will say this:

(Marsh braces himself for impact)

Jesus promises that he will come and make his abode in the heart of anyone who keeps his commandments, which includes loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. No homosexual born homosexual who remains in a homosexual relationship will be destroyed because of it, but any homosexual who gives up sex to follow God's commandments--because he or she loves God that much--gives up more than anyone else. This is a truly great expression of love.

Nah, no impact. Good reply, actually. It's certainly structured better than my own and I respect it.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Avinash

1. Perhaps it is the different us of the word 'natural' then...I think what you mean is 'desirable'. So you view homosexuality as an undesirable handicap.

2. I think you made the causal link between accumulated sin in the world and the "plight" of homosexuals. That's what I object to.

3. Your idea about "the beginning" probably comes from your religious scriptures.

4. Since there is homosexuality among all animal species, there is every reason to believe that it has been there since the beginning of life.

5. You are judging homosexuality yourself and trying to hide your tracks.

6. God doesn't like his sons and daughters to abuse their precious minds for crude thinking but He doesn't care a bit about what type of organs are involved.

Point 1: Please don't put words into my mouth. Here is what I actually meant: Since I am a creationist, I believe "natural" means "intended by God." I don't believe that homosexuality was intended by God. I think it is a phenomenon that has developed over time.

Point 2: No, I made a causal link between the sins of the past and the reality of the present, which includes homosexuality. Our world is sick; the disease is called sin, and the symptoms are everywhere. The problem is that many people point to these symptoms as being problems themselves.

To me, homosexuality is one indication that the equilibrium in which this world began has been thrown off. But it is one out of, say, a thousand indications, or even a million. Think of a child is born with cancer. We don't persecute that child for having cancer, do we? But we do admit that this is not a natural occurance, and in this admission we look for the cause.

And no, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a cancer; I'm just trying my best to make an analogy.

Point 3: Yes it does. Hence the reason for me chatting on a religious forum.

Point 4: I don't believe that is true. Ask any evolutionist if they believe every trait of every species current in the world was there in the beginning. What about language? Since everybody in the world speaks a language, by your reasoning every language current in the world today would also have been current at the beginning of life.

Point 5: I'm not judging anybody. I am stating my opinions. What I feel you are trying to do is to scare me away from doing so.

Point 6: Are you a prophet? Do you speak for God?

I think the big misunderstanding is that some of you believe that by admitting homosexuality is not what was intended by God, by default that makes the rest of us the image of what was intended by God. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Who is there among us who has not cheated another person in order to get something that they wanted? Or who has not turned away a fellow human being in need because it wasn't convenient at the time? Who is there who has given all of their possessions to the poor so that starving children could eat? Who has invited a homeless stranger into their home to have a good night's sleep? And most importantly, who is there in the world who has done all of these things and more, and still would judge and condemn another human being? Who is prepared to cast the first stone?

Not me. And if I do may five be cast back at me.

[Avinash]

Dear Marsh Namaskar,

Originally Posted by Marsh

Point 1: Please don't put words into my mouth. Here is what I actually meant: Since I am a creationist, I believe "natural" means "intended by God." I don't believe that homosexuality was intended by God. I think it is a phenomenon that has developed over time.

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth but your viewpoint is quite clear to me. So if God did not intend homosexuality, then why is homosexuality part of His creation? Does the process of God's creation not still continue to this very day? How do you then see God's involvement in His creation? And how do you explain that homosexuality in e.g. populations of apes and monkeys is just as common as it is among humans? Are these animals also sinners who need to be cured?

Point 2: No, I made a causal link between the sins of the past and the reality of the present, which includes homosexuality. Our world is sick; the disease is called sin, and the symptoms are everywhere. The problem is that many people point to these symptoms as being problems themselves.

So are you saying that sin is a problem that can be cured like a disease? Is there then perhaps a medicine for this "disease" of sin? In my country homosexuality is not seen as a "problem" by many people. Politicians, artists, students, professionals are quite open about their homosexuality and they even get married and raise children. In Scandinavian countries the attitudes are very similar.

To me, homosexuality is one indication that the equilibrium in which this world began has been thrown off. But it is one out of, say, a thousand indications, or even a million. Think of a child is born with cancer. We don't persecute that child for having cancer, do we? But we do admit that this is not a natural occurance, and in this admission we look for the cause.

Cancer is a disease, just like the lame man was handicapped. Homosexuality is not a disease nor a handicap. People can have very happy lives if they are not bothered by heterosexuals who try to impose their ideas of what is normal or natural.

Point 4: I don't believe that is true. Ask any evolutionist if they believe every trait of every species current in the world was there in the beginning. What about language? Since everybody in the world speaks a language, by your reasoning every language current in the world today would also have been current at the beginning of life.

You picked the wrong analogy. Language has evolved as a way for people to be better equiped to survive in a harsh environment. Animals have always had genes and they have always had hormones. That's why there has always been a certain percentage within each population of animals which has turned out different in their sexual behaviour.

Point 5: I'm not judging anybody. I am stating my opinions. What I feel you are trying to do is to scare me away from doing so.

No, in fact I encourage you to be as open and clear about your ideas as possible so people can know such ideas better.

Point 6: Are you a prophet? Do you speak for God?

I do so no more than you do when you translate what you read in your scriptures into what you write here. I do the same for the scriptures I use. In the scriptures I use there is no mention of homosexuality and it is suggested that all God wants from us it to get closer to Him (to move away from crudeness). Living either as a heterosexual or a homosexual as such has no bearing on whether we get cruder or less crude.

I think the big misunderstanding is that some of you believe that by admitting homosexuality is not what was intended by God, by default that makes the rest of us the image of what was intended by God.

We will not get any closer to each other on this point because I can never agree with you that God did not intend homosexuality. I believe God loves everyone equally and is in full control of His creation. Yes, God does not wish for anyone to suffer but that is the way He made this creation, i.e. with both pleasure and pain. Whether someone with a lame leg, with cancer or indeed with red hair suffers, depends as much on the society that person lives in and that person's own attitude than on his/her condition. These conditions in themselves are not perse related to any sins that may have been commited in the past by them or by the society as a whole.

Regards,
Andrew

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Avinash

1. So if God did not intend homosexuality, then why is homosexuality part of His creation?

2. So are you saying that sin is a problem that can be cured like a disease? Is there then perhaps a medicine for this "disease" of sin?

3. In my country homosexuality is not seen as a "problem" by many people. Politicians, artists, students, professionals are quite open about their homosexuality and they even get married and raise children.

4. Homosexuality is not a disease nor a handicap. People can have very happy lives if they are not bothered by heterosexuals who try to impose their ideas of what is normal or natural.

5. ...there has always been a certain percentage within each population of animals which has turned out different in their sexual behaviour.

6. I do so no more than you do when you translate what you read in your scriptures into what you write here.

Point 1: Free will. It led to sin. Sin has consequences.

Point 2: Yes, and there is a cure. His name is Jesus

Point 3: I care very little about the attitudes of politicians. If you haven't noticed, politics isn't a very moral sporting arena. By the way, if you would have actually read my last post you would have noticed that I explicitly said that homosexuality was not a problem.

Point 4: Did I impose my values on anybody here? I'm sorry if I did. I only meant to share them.

As for homosexuality not being a handicap... I don't know for sure because I'm not a father yet, but I've got a pretty strong feeling that holding in one arm a child that is your own flesh and blood, and in your other the love of your life, is one of the greatest joys a human being can experience. Homosexuals will not share such an experience. I feel that is a handicap.

Other than that, I agree that as any person a homosexual person will live as happy a life as possible.

Point 5: So you were there in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth and both heterosexual and homosexual animals, that you can make this claim?

Point 6: So then it isn't me speaking for God, but the scripture. And so it should be. Which has more authority: the word of one's fancy, or the word of God? Or if you don't believe that the scriptures are the word of God, then call it wisdom that has withstood thousands of years. Either way, it's a better touchstone for truth than politicians.


No, I think the reason why we will not come to an agreement in this matter is far more complex than you think.

[Avinash]

Namaskar Marsh,

Originally Posted by Marsh

Point 1: Free will. It led to sin. Sin has consequences.

Again, the connection between sin and homosexuality which in my eyes is illogical and morally suspect. But we seem to be moving in circles here.

Point 2: Yes, and there is a cure. His name is Jesus

Point 3: I care very little about the attitudes of politicians. If you haven't noticed, politics isn't a very moral sporting arena. By the way, if you would have actually read my last post you would have noticed that I explicitly said that homosexuality was not a problem.

I mentioned the openly gay politicians in my country first (among all the other gay citizens) because they are usually the last to come out. So you are saying that homosexuality is not a problem, but like people who have cancer or a physical handicap and the result of sin and unnatural.

As for homosexuality not being a handicap... I don't know for sure because I'm not a father yet, but I've got a pretty strong feeling that holding in one arm a child that is your own flesh and blood, and in your other the love of your life, is one of the greatest joys a human being can experience. Homosexuals will not share such an experience. I feel that is a handicap.

I personally know homosexuals who have children of their own flesh and blood and who are indeed experiencing one of the greatest joys in their lives. I can assure you they in no way feel handicapped nor diseased nor unnatural nor do any of their friends consider them in a such a way. I must admit they have no religious friends though.

Point 5: So you were there in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth and both heterosexual and homosexual animals, that you can make this claim?

Except for fundamentalist religious people, I think most people would agree with what scientists have to say on this point. Just like rational people agree that the fundamental processes in geology have never changed during the earth's history. But since you are a believer in religious Creationism, your ideas will differ from the general scientific ideas. I cannot argue with your ideas because I believe in rationality.

Point 6: So then it isn't me speaking for God, but the scripture. And so it should be. Which has more authority: the word of one's fancy, or the word of God? Or if you don't believe that the scriptures are the word of God, then call it wisdom that has withstood thousands of years.

I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.

No, I think the reason why we will not come to an agreement in this matter is far more complex than you think.

And I think the reason we differ in our points of view is quite simple, as can be deduced from the things I wrote above.

Regards,
Andrew

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by Marsh
I don't know for sure because I'm not a father yet, but I've got a pretty strong feeling that holding in one arm a child that is your own flesh and blood, and in your other the love of your life, is one of the greatest joys a human being can experience.

Please excuse this interruption, Marsh, but I have to politely disagree with you on this point (the one about holding a child that is your own flesh and blood in your arms). Earlier this morning, I was listening to my radio (a local radio station was holding a fundraiser for Children's Hospital in Milwaukee that started Wednesday morning at 5.00 am and ended today at 5.00 pm) and the two DJs interviewed a couple who adopted a little boy earlier this year after the boy was taken away from his biological parents. The reason the couple was interviewed was that they have had quite a few trips to the hospital because the little boy was a victim of "shaken baby syndrome". The little boy's biological parents abused the child to the point that he has permanent brain damage and other problems (the pediatricians at the hospital are STILL finding physical repercussions from the trauma). This couple love this little boy more than his own flesh and blood parents do/did.

Just because someone is biologically related to another doesn't mean that there is the "instant bond" that you seem to describe here. And, on the other hand, just because someone is NOT biologically related doesn't mean that s/he can't have the same love that the Virgin Mary had for Jesus.

btw, for those interested, Children's Hospital got $1.4 million during the fundraiser, and they're still counting! (Go Yale!)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Avinash

I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.

Ah, but this is such a subjective process!!

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

This couple love this little boy more than his own flesh and blood parents do/did.

When I made this statement, I wasn't thinking about wicked parents, Phyllis. But when loving parents hold their biological son or daughter in their arms I believe it is different than when they hold their adopted son or daughter in their arms. Different, not better.

As I said before, a handicap prevents you from doing something that other people are capable of doing. Having one means that your abilities are different than those of other people, but not better or worse.

A homosexual couple cannot by definition hold a child in their arms which has 23 chromosomes from each of the two parents (yes, parents; I don't argue that a homosexual dad is any less a dad). In my opinion, this is an indication that the relationship is handicapped.

But let me be corrected if I am wrong. Compare the following two scenarios:
a) As per reality, the homosexual couple cannot conceive a child together.
b) Hypothetically, the homosexual couple is able to conceive a child together.

It is my guess that, given the choice, most homosexual couples would like to conceive children together. Maybe I am wrong, but I see no reason to believe that a gay mom would be any less maternal than a heterosexual mom, and would not choose to conceive a child with the person she loves.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Avinash

1. So you are saying that homosexuality is not a problem, but like people who have cancer or a physical handicap and the result of sin and unnatural.

2. I personally know homosexuals who have children of their own flesh and blood and who are indeed experiencing one of the greatest joys in their lives. I can assure you they in no way feel handicapped.

3. Just like rational people agree that the fundamental processes in geology have never changed during the earth's history. But since you are a believer in religious Creationism, your ideas will differ from the general scientific ideas.

4. I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.

5. And I think the reason we differ in our points of view is quite simple, as can be deduced from the things I wrote above.

Point 1: This question is equivolent to asking if I still beat my wife. If I answer no, I am a wife beater. If I answer yes, I was a wife beater. Not exactly the style of writing I would expect from someone so... rational, as you have said. This point is an example of the nastiest form of debating.

Point 2: Let me hear it from them. We've already agreed that you do not speak for God; I don't suspect they have commissioned you to speak for them, either. Or for the physical earth, but I'll get to that next--

Point 3: And what are those processes, Andrew? Is the condition of the earth not constant change? Is the beauty of the natural world not the way it changes without losing its equilibrium, as the dead trees of the winter are filled again in the spring? Have you never heard of Pangaea? Do you think that soils have existed in their current state since the beginning of time? Do you not know that the very land on which your home sits was re-shaped several times by glaciers?

Then why, oh why, is it so hard to admit that there is a strong possibility that human personality has also changed, just like geology? When our earth was frozen in an ice age it would have been impossible for the inhabitants to imagine a time in which the whole thing was one big molten ball of lava. So too is it hard for us to imagine that homosexuality could not have existed when, in our world, it has about a 10% frequency. But perhaps I'm being irrational here.

Point 4: Those scriptures then are the spiritual equivolent of a comic book. Why on earth would you believe in a God who cannot even keep his written word accurate? If science proves the scriptures wrong, then it also proves that God doesn't exist because those same scriptures (I'm speaking of the Bible here) testify to a belief in an almighty God. Certainly an almighty God can keep his word true. So while science and belief in God can live in harmony together, using one to shape the other disallows this relationship, and the very act of taking things away or adding things into the word of God based on what human eyes see as mistakes testifies to unbelief.

This, then, is the reason why we do not agree, Andrew. I believe that there is only one God, and Jesus Christ was his word incarnate. You believe that there are two gods: the one who wrote the scripture, and the one who edits it, because only God himself is qualified to re-write scripture as the potter works his clay.

Feel free to post the last word if it will make you feel better.

[Avinash]

Namaskar dear Marsh,

Originally Posted by Marsh

Point 1: This point is an example of the nastiest form of debating.

There was no question mark, Marsh. I was merely summarizing what nasty things you said about homosexuality.

Point 2: Let me hear it from them. I don't suspect they have commissioned you to speak for them, either.

I don't need to speak for them, I have my own direct experience.

Point 3: And what are those processes, Andrew? Is the condition of the earth not constant change?

Your sort of religious fundamentalist thinking about changes in geology and the basic processes in the natural world are not recognized by the main scientific community.

Point 4: Those scriptures then are the spiritual equivolent of a comic book.
Feel free to post the last word if it will make you feel better.

Unfortunately large parts of those religious writing are indeed somewhat comical. The reason God allowed such writings is the same why He allowed other imperfect or unhealthy things to exist on this planet. The religious writings may be imperfect, false or comical but God Himself is there inside you waiting to be discovered by practising Yoga or another genuine spiritual practice.

Andrew

[I, Brian]

Ah, now, let's not state that other people are "nasty" or do not practice "genuine spiritual practice", simply for having different opinions, thank you.

It does seem that Marsh is being treated as something of a "fundie bashing stool" in this thread, simply for being honest with his opinions. However, from what I've read from Marsh about these forums, he is not the person or image some people seem to imagine him to be. Unless I have read wrongly, he is not a projection of Jerry Falwell, but an independent Christian with his own criticisms of the faith. As with all of us here, we may not share the same views, but we should at least share a little more civility.

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

Interesting thread. I agree that homosexuality is a religious test, but the question is: who is being tested?

Anyway, Marsh, first I just wanted to say that I found your first post on this subject quite good. While I do not agree with all of your conclusions, I think it is good to point out that there is not a uniform block of thinking about this in Christianity, that we are able to turn to scripture for guidance, and that the most important part of scripture has to do with loving your neighbor, not judging or condemning them.

But I could not let it go here that adoption is somehow a worse way to have a family than having children that share your choromosomes. I realize that you said "different, not better" at one point, but you also suggested that the inablility to have children together was a handicap, which has negative connotations. Many people choose to adopt children even when they are fully able to concieve their own. Often this has to do with a desire to help abandoned children or to not add to the world population problem, sometimes due to due to religious motivations. And those children are every bit as loved and special as biological children.

And yes, I speak from experience. Both of my daughters are adopted. When my husband and I found that we were unable to have children without assistance, instead of going through lots of expensive medical procedures we decided to adopt. It felt MORE RIGHT for us to do this than to go to exepensive procedures to concieve biologically (and our insurance would have paid for a large part of it, it just didn't seem right to use resources this way) when there there are so many children in the world who need families.

It is not uncommon for mothers who give birth to go through post-partum depression. This is a serious serious medical thing, not just the baby blues that many women often experience after birth. And, I know that adoptive mothers can sometimes also experience this devastating illness. And on the flip side, mothers (and fathers) holding their adopted babies for the first time are just as locked in emotionally as those holding their newborn babies. Please don't de-value this experience.

We got the referral for our second daughter's adoption (from China) at the peak of the SARS epidemic. That means that after more than a year of waiting we got her picture and found out who she was. Travel usually occurs just a few weeks after you get this picture, and believe me once you see that picture of a baby waiting in an orphanage for you to come get her, you are desperate to get on that plane. You are already in love. And we were delayed and delayed due to SARs. Can you imagine, we, along with other waiting parents at the time, were the only people in the world desperate to GET INTO CHINA during SARS.

God puts families together, and He does this in many different ways.

So, the thing about homosexuality is wrong because children can't be concieved doesn't carry much weight. There are many heterosexual couples who, for immunological reasons, can't concieve WITH EACH OTHER. I believe that with different partners conception is possible, but following chastity laws from scripture, first you wouldn't know if you were biologically compatible before marriage because you would not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Second, after you are married, some religions even ban sperm/egg donations for conception. So, the mere inablity to concieve children does not invalidate a marraige (or, at least I hope it doesn't!). Hey, I guess it did in ancient times!

OK, one final rambling thought since I am at it. I have read above and elsewhere the idea that the expression of homosexuality is a response to environmental/cultural stress. And that perhaps if we address the problems with society that create that stress homosexuality will decline. Well, that makes sense biologically, right? Who knows whether homosexuality is not an adaptation our human population is making in response to overpopulation and competition for resources. The same could be said for immunological infertility. If this were true, while homosexuality, like infertility, might be considered a disorder, it could not be considered corruptive to the soul. IMHO, you can't have it both ways. It can't be a sin AND an illness.

End of thread derailment.

[lunamoth]

I couldn't re-edit after logging out, so I couldn't correct my poor spelling throughout the above post. Red face.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But I could not let it go here that adoption is somehow a worse way to have a family than having children that share your choromosomes. I realize that you said "different, not better" at one point, but you also suggested that the inablility to have children together was a handicap, which has negative connotations...

If this were true, while homosexuality, like infertility, might be considered a disorder, it could not be considered corruptive to the soul. IMHO, you can't have it both ways. It can't be a sin AND an illness.

The biggest problem I felt when responding in this thread is that I could not find effective words to express what I mean to say. "Different, not better" was the best that I could do. But all of the words we have in English to express what I wanted to say either have a negative connotation or are too luke-warm to describe what I mean.

What word or phrase is there in English that means one who is missing out on something, while at the same time is not missing out on anything because they are happy with what they have?

I certainly agree that love is not biological, and that parents who have adopted children are able to love those children to the fullest of their ability. After all, biological parents don't have a different set of emotions than adopting parents. The difference is that two parents who are able to conceive a child are also able to adopt a child, while two parents who are not able to conceive a child can adopt a child. We must agree that this is a difference. It's up to individuals to decide if that difference is also an inequality. And we're all entitled to our opinion on the matter, even if that opinion is politically incorrect or unpopular.

And I still can't figure out why people are accusing me of saying that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't say it; the Bible did. So please place your accusations where they belong.

What I did say was that homosexuality is just one more indication that the original equilibrium with which the world was created has been thrown off. Funny how nobody has questioned me on this.