Is homosexuality really that bad?

[tiwtiwtiw]

I'm from New York.

Last week in New York, gay marriage became legal. There were celebration in the streets of Manhattan. They were on the magnitude of when Obama was elected. It was a very cheerful scene, like we just won WWII all over again.

...I feel like I should celebrate with them.

My question:
As a Christian, I know homosexuality is bad, but is it really that bad?

I know the bible verses that condemns homosexuality as a sin. I understand the reasoning behind why it's condemned. But to the same token, so are many other sins. So why are Christians so against homosexuality? at least strongly against it becoming legal?

There are so many other sins in the bible, why is this one so special that we choose to fight so hard from becoming legal? If our reasoning is that this is a sin, then shouldn't we also fight to make marriage infidelity illegal? or other religions? or dishonor parents? or even lying?

My guess to why is homosexuality is easy to not-do. As human (sinful) nature, we love to pick out the fault of someone else that our-self is not guilty of. This attitude of "I'm not sinning like you" or in essence "I'm holier than thou" is actually arrogance, which is a sin.

So in a way, it's actually a sin to fight against gay marriage. We complain about the sawdust in their eye, we didn't notice the plank in ours?

It seems having Christians fight strongly against gay marriage being legal actually pushes society into allowing it to be legal. It makes the pro gay marriage party seem like the victim. Also, there is no concrete proof that gay marriage is bad for anyone other than from our own source (the bible).

Any thoughts?

 

[reba]

From Genesis though The Revelation is a picture of marriage. The marriage of God and the Church.

I have gay friends. As individuals they are sinners just as i am. As a political movement gay unions are one more cog in the destruction of Gods given family plan.

The fact that one who calls them-self Christian (you) has listened to the PC homosexual rhetoric long enough to be questioning God is very sad. To the point of celebrating the slap in the face of your Saviour. They say if you tell/hear a lie often enough you will believe it..

Yes there are other sins :

do you wish them to be legal?

 

[jasoncran]

sigh the aids rate for male homosexuals and bisexuals is 44 times higher than all others categories.

also the tendency to divorce or not be loyal is righ amongst the lbgt so why would they want to marry if they arent going to be together long?

 

[Rhea]

Yes there are other sins :

do you wish them to be legal?

I think his point was that they ARE legal.

Working on Sunday is legal.
Cheating on your spouse is legal.
Disobeying your parents is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's horse is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's wife, is even legal.
Worshipping Zeus (and Vishnu and Zoroaster) is legal.
Denying God(dess)(es) altogether is legal.
Blashpheming the Holy Spirit is legal.


What did I leave out?


So I think his point was, why this one? Why all the effort on this ONE sin? And does the focus on the one sin represent something worth examining in the self, namely, am I focusing on the one sin that it's easy for me to not be guilty of so that I don't have to think about any logs in my eye while I'm opposing it.

 

[westtexas]

From Genesis though The Revelation is a picture of marriage. The marriage of God and the Church.

I have gay friends. As individuals they are sinners just as i am. As a political movement gay unions are one more cog in the destruction of Gods given family plan.

The fact that one who calls them-self Christian (you) has listened to the PC homosexual rhetoric long enough to be questioning God is very sad. To the point of celebrating the slap in the face of your Saviour. They say if you tell/hear a lie often enough you will believe it..

Yes there are other sins :

do you wish them to be legal?

Outstanding post Reba!

 

[Cheyenne K]

I am not looking for a debate and will not engage in one, but I am reminded of something my dad said to me once.

Two scenarios:

Two friends are at a party. One friend is drunk, the other is sober. After the party is over, the drunk friend attempts to get in his car to drive home. However, his sober friend insists that the drunk friend does not drive, takes the keys, and insists on driving his friend home. The drunk friend becomes angry and belligerent, though eventually concedes to being driven home, all the while still angry at his friend, up until the next morning when he realizes that he could have gotten himself killed if he drove while drunk.

Now, another two friends are at a party. One is drunk, the other sober. At the end of the party, the drunk friend gets in his car to drive himself home. The sober friend smiles and waves, all the while knowing his friend is drunk. The drunk boy gets into an accident on the way home and dies.

Who is the better friend?

The former.

This is a parallel to our walk as Christians. We could either be the friend to to tell our non-saved friends about Christ and their need for His redemption. Or we could just stand there, and even be enablers. Practicing homosexuals are unrepentant sinners, just like unrepentant liars, thieves, adulterers, etc. are. Doesn't matter what sin they are doing, they still are sining and need God's Grace. Just as we did at one time. However, are we going to be there to tell them about Christ's redemption or stand there and tell them that it's okay to sin and they should have the rights to do so? Are we going to be the friend who brings the message that stops them from sending themselves to eternal torment or are we going to enable it? Penn the Atheist, a well-known non-theist even pointed out, if one truly believed in an eternal Paradise and eternal Torment and knew the way to get to the Paradise, how much would they have to hate someone not to tell them about it?

Now, if you want to get into the technicalities of the law apart from the Biblical perspective, think about this. The rights of the church are slowly being ebbed away in many first-world European countries and from what I can see of how my fellow Christian students are treated in the US, it will come here too. The bill provides provisions for churches not to be forced to marry homosexuals. I ask you; how long will that last? It's really only a matter of time before someone gets offended that a church will not marry them. Would you, as a Christian, be happy if this was allowed in the church.


Again, not looking for a debate, nor will I respond to anyone trying to engage in one. However, these are just a few things to think about.

 

[jasoncran]

I think his point was that they ARE legal.

Working on Sunday is legal.
Cheating on your spouse is legal.
Disobeying your parents is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's horse is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's wife, is even legal.
Worshipping Zeus (and Vishnu and Zoroaster) is legal.
Denying God(dess)(es) altogether is legal.
Blashpheming the Holy Spirit is legal.


What did I leave out?


So I think his point was, why this one? Why all the effort on this ONE sin? And does the focus on the one sin represent something worth examining in the self, namely, am I focusing on the one sin that it's easy for me to not be guilty of so that I don't have to think about any logs in my eye while I'm opposing it.

sigh, there is no command not to work on sunday. flipping catholics

the shabbat isnt sunday but friday to saturday starting and ending on sundown.

so let me guess.
protestution should be legal too? yes christians fight these as well . well since we ministers can marry gays in our faith that is primarily why as well those that are notary publics and military chaplians and other state officials that can marry would have too.

theres no legal exclusions since being a member of the lbgt is considered like the racial issues of the early decades.thus forcing a christian to violate his or her conscience if they wish to be notary public or justeace of the peace(non-existiance in florida) that means you cant work for a bank or accountant or lawyer! as they use them a lot.

 

[reba]

I think his point was that they ARE legal.

Working on Sunday is legal.
Cheating on your spouse is legal.
Disobeying your parents is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's horse is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's wife, is even legal.
Worshipping Zeus (and Vishnu and Zoroaster) is legal.
Denying God(dess)(es) altogether is legal.
Blashpheming the Holy Spirit is legal.


What did I leave out?


So I think his point was, why this one? Why all the effort on this ONE sin? And does the focus on the one sin represent something worth examining in the self, namely, am I focusing on the one sin that it's easy for me to not be guilty of so that I don't have to think about any logs in my eye while I'm opposing it.

murder, steeling, lieing (sometimes) self abuse ( thinking of drugs) DUI

 

[Jab-Jab]

Outside of Christainity, judaism, and Islam there really is nothing bad about homosexuality.

All men and women are free to pursue life as they need be as long as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others is not infringed. I said with the LGBT in their movement because I'm basicly a libertarian when it comes to my stance. They are in the right, because Statism is not the way to go in order to preserve freedom.

I support individual freedoms and for both religious freedoms, and for liberty, there is no reason that the states and government can't recognize the marriage ( or what ever you want to call it if you are going to play a semantics game) of two homosexuals, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

 

[jasoncran]

Outside of Christainity, judaism, and Islam there really is nothing bad about homosexuality.

All men and women are free to pursue life as they need be as long as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others is not infringed. I said with the LGBT in their movement because I'm basicly a libertarian when it comes to my stance. They are in the right, because Statism is not the way to go in order to preserve freedom.

I support individual freedoms and for both religious freedoms, and for liberty, there is no reason that the states and government can't recognize the marriage ( or what ever you want to call it if you are going to play a semantics game) of two homosexuals, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

hmm this secular govt angency seems to think otherwise. as i nor my wife cant give blood forever.
WASHINGTON — Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its long-standing policy on its Web site Wednesday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as “medically and scientifically unwarranted.â€
“I am disappointed, I must confess,†said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America’s Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation’s blood supply.
Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.
New, improved HIV tests
In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America’s Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.
In a document posted Wednesday, the FDA said it would change its policy if given data that show doing so wouldn’t pose a “significant and preventable†risk to blood recipients.
“It is a way of saying, ‘Whatever was presented to us was not sufficient to make us change our minds,â€â€™ Bianco said.
The FDA said HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect the virus 100 percent of the time. The estimated HIV risk from a unit of blood is currently about one per 2 million in the United States, according to the agency.
Critics of the exclusionary policy said it bars potential healthy donors, despite the increasing need for donated blood, and discriminates against gays. The FDA recognized the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it’s discriminatory.
Anyone who’s used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred from donating blood.
© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Rhea]

so let me guess.

But you didn't answer his question. It seems like an interesting question, a good one.

Why NOT try to outlaw atheism?
Why NOT try to outlaw divorce?
Why NOT try to make adultery a real crime?
Why NOT try to make it illegal again for girls to wear pants in public schools (or anywhere).
Or, even more topical and important, why NOT make pre-marital sex a crime?

I realize that some people might say, "well the reason I can't support a ban on gay marriage is that my objection is religious and it doesn't feel right trying to force my religion on people who are of a different faith". But others say, "It doesn't matter if they are not Cristians, it's right for me to try to make laws to force them to obey Christianity because it';s for their own good!"

And if that's the ideal, why not start with making pre-marital sex illegal so that people can be saved from sin?

Why this ONE sin? I think it's a very interesting question in terms of both the most effective protection for people's soul and also for the question of forcing people to be Christians and whether that is proper in either the religious context or the constitutional one. When we look at all the other sins that we don't try to protest or spend money to lobby, it is interesting o contemplate.

In my opinion.

If a person were concerned about sinners

 

[johnnyglaire]

As I remember in my high school life. Our teacher says: "Homosexuality is not a sin it is your choice, nobody can get that from you, but the sad thing is that it will become a sin once you are involve into a relationship with the same gender."

I will never forget what he says about homosexuality. So until now that's what I thought of it.

 

[WIP]

Outside of Christainity, judaism, and Islam there really is nothing bad about homosexuality.

You forgot the most important one - God himself! This is not a Christianity issue. It is a creator issue.

 

[WIP]

I think his point was that they ARE legal.

Working on Sunday is legal.
Cheating on your spouse is legal.
Disobeying your parents is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's horse is legal.
Coveting your neighbor's wife, is even legal.
Worshipping Zeus (and Vishnu and Zoroaster) is legal.
Denying God(dess)(es) altogether is legal.
Blashpheming the Holy Spirit is legal.


What did I leave out?


So I think his point was, why this one? Why all the effort on this ONE sin? And does the focus on the one sin represent something worth examining in the self, namely, am I focusing on the one sin that it's easy for me to not be guilty of so that I don't have to think about any logs in my eye while I'm opposing it.

Rhea,

Despite our fundamental disagreements I have to admit that your point is well taken. You are pointing out double-standards for which we are guilty and it should be a good reminder to us all about passing judgment lest we be judged.

Your questions are valid and to think we can rise above the answers simply by pointing out other areas where we do make a stand, like murder or theft, is not a valid defense. God expects us to treat all sin as sin. Is there a legitimate excuse for us to close our eyes to some sins while beating the drum on others?

A year ago our church severed association with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It seems that most people that are aware of that situation believe the issue was/is homosexuality and for some it might be, but the truth goes far deeper. When I authored our resolution to disassociate with the ELCA I included many points of concern. Some of the concerns we raised included the ELCA’s seemingly light stance on such things as divorce, sexual promiscuity, sexuality outside of marriage, and Universalism to name a few in addition to the question of homosexual behavior. This inconsistent approach to sin was the most major stumbling block for our congregation.

But we are not perfect and despite those objections we are not immune to falling into similar traps. For example, I’m willing to bet that if a member of our congregation began to struggle with alcoholism and it became obvious that he was under the influence of alcohol when he attended our church service, nobody in the congregation would likely say a word either to criticize, show compassion, or offer support. I’ll be the first to admit that I would hesitate without a doubt. In our society alcoholism is viewed as a personal issue and we don’t belong sticking our nose into other’s affairs.

But I ask, if we truly love one another as Jesus tells us to, would it not be prudent for us to at least try to help each other despite ourselves? I like to refer to the example of the woman caught in adultery and how Jesus instructed the Pharisees and scribes with no sin to cast the first stone. Many people see this as an example of removing the plank from our own eyes before attempting to remove the speck in another’s and it is but the lesson doesn’t stop there. After forgiving her, Jesus continues to instruct the girl to go and sin no more. In other words repent. As Christians who love one another we too should be willing to step up and warn others to repentance but because we have planks in our eyes we must be cautious that we do not judge but offer correction and support in love and understanding. Without a doubt, it is much easier said than done for we can be very judgmental.

 

[Lehigh3]

I'm from New York.

Last week in New York, gay marriage became legal. There were celebration in the streets of Manhattan. They were on the magnitude of when Obama was elected. It was a very cheerful scene, like we just won WWII all over again.

...I feel like I should celebrate with them.

My question:
As a Christian, I know homosexuality is bad, but is it really that bad?

I know the bible verses that condemns homosexuality as a sin. I understand the reasoning behind why it's condemned. But to the same token, so are many other sins. So why are Christians so against homosexuality? at least strongly against it becoming legal?

There are so many other sins in the bible, why is this one so special that we choose to fight so hard from becoming legal? If our reasoning is that this is a sin, then shouldn't we also fight to make marriage infidelity illegal? or other religions? or dishonor parents? or even lying?

My guess to why is homosexuality is easy to not-do. As human (sinful) nature, we love to pick out the fault of someone else that our-self is not guilty of. This attitude of "I'm not sinning like you" or in essence "I'm holier than thou" is actually arrogance, which is a sin.

So in a way, it's actually a sin to fight against gay marriage. We complain about the sawdust in their eye, we didn't notice the plank in ours?

It seems having Christians fight strongly against gay marriage being legal actually pushes society into allowing it to be legal. It makes the pro gay marriage party seem like the victim. Also, there is no concrete proof that gay marriage is bad for anyone other than from our own source (the bible).

Any thoughts?

Well, I have nothing against the civil unions, just the getting married in a church unions.
I had a cousin who died of AIDS in 2002. He was also a born-again Christian, who refrained from sexual relations with his long time partner in the last 1 or 2 yrs. of his life. For reasons of being too sick too, aside from the moral convictions he seemed to express. I am also a nurse & have had many HIV+ patients & observed their situations. And there are many "gays" that are good & giving people. Remember that love covers a multitude of sins.
The answer is NO to those ppl being bad. Their choices may be something I don't advocate or agree with- but the person will not suffer "hellfire" bc of their sin of homosexuality anymore then a cheating spouse who commits adultery & has a divorce bc of it.

The science points to a hormonal abnormality in utero, not a something "genetic."
Males may be exposed to more maternal estrogen & females more to maternal androgens.
God created all & all sins of men can be forgiven if they so ask Him in their hearts.

 

[Jab-Jab]

You forgot the most important one - God himself! This is not a Christianity issue. It is a creator issue.

.I mentioned your God with Christianity, you know the Biblical creator had a son named Jesus?

 

[jasoncran]

But you didn't answer his question. It seems like an interesting question, a good one.

Why NOT try to outlaw atheism?
Why NOT try to outlaw divorce?
Why NOT try to make adultery a real crime?
Why NOT try to make it illegal again for girls to wear pants in public schools (or anywhere).
Or, even more topical and important, why NOT make pre-marital sex a crime?

I realize that some people might say, "well the reason I can't support a ban on gay marriage is that my objection is religious and it doesn't feel right trying to force my religion on people who are of a different faith". But others say, "It doesn't matter if they are not Cristians, it's right for me to try to make laws to force them to obey Christianity because it';s for their own good!"

And if that's the ideal, why not start with making pre-marital sex illegal so that people can be saved from sin?

Why this ONE sin? I think it's a very interesting question in terms of both the most effective protection for people's soul and also for the question of forcing people to be Christians and whether that is proper in either the religious context or the constitutional one. When we look at all the other sins that we don't try to protest or spend money to lobby, it is interesting o contemplate.

In my opinion.

If a person were concerned about sinners

because God allows sin, do we support athiesm in our churches.

there is the bigger issue man redefinition of what is a man and a women that goes to far.

lets forage a little into being a gay male shall we? one its either a real male type or a soft type in these relationships. so how would a hetero learn about women (the sons) or a daughter?

and the same could be said about lesbians

uh you forget that up to recently adultery was capital crime in the army and also was punishable in prison. its overlooked to a degree to day. so is lying. i can charge my subooridinates with lying to me if know that they did and they will be punished.

yes, at one time there were unwritten rules amongst the sinner that adultery and or other listed things were bad and in general they didnt do them. yes in our early american history, death etc was done and those theocracies didnt work.

but so lying, stealing and also others should be legal? and yes the blue laws you hate were around then too.

we christians also slacked on things.but i do recall a fight to ban porn in the 80's and also the resisitance to no fault divorce.

 

[Jab-Jab]

Jason I don't seem to understand your stance. It seems like you are actually against the constitution by the way you keep talking about how Christians have slacked and how you want certain things banned and the such.

I don't exactly see what it is you would accomplish by enforcing Christian sin laws as judicial laws.

It seem more like you don't want to wait for your reward in heaven, but instead get your reward now and force others to suffer under your own opinion.

 

[Mike]

But you didn't answer his question. It seems like an interesting question, a good one.

Why NOT try to outlaw atheism?
Why NOT try to outlaw divorce?
Why NOT try to make adultery a real crime?
Why NOT try to make it illegal again for girls to wear pants in public schools (or anywhere).
Or, even more topical and important, why NOT make pre-marital sex a crime?

Rhea, this topic has so many angles, no one conversation could include all the implications. I disagree with the main point of your post, but I agree with most of what you said. I often say Christians focus too much on the sin of homosexuality. Yes, I believe it is not in keeping with God's Plan for our lives, and His Word clearly says this. But there are things much more insidious eating away at the Body of Christ, such as gossip, hatred, slander... These slowly erode the heart like water coming to a slow boil.

There's also the idea that we Christians shouldn't try to govern the way non-Christians live. We should be more concerned about those within the church. We should stand out from society. On the other hand, if we must decide whether or not to support legislation to make homosexual marriages legal, I will always vote against it because I could never in good conscience support it.

I realize that some people might say, "well the reason I can't support a ban on gay marriage is that my objection is religious and it doesn't feel right trying to force my religion on people who are of a different faith". But others say, "It doesn't matter if they are not Cristians, it's right for me to try to make laws to force them to obey Christianity because it';s for their own good!"

And if that's the ideal, why not start with making pre-marital sex illegal so that people can be saved from sin?

For me, it's never been about saving people from sin. We'll never do that through legislation. It's about protecting the sanctity of marriage so that "marriage" means more than "whatever". Someone here on this board made a point some time ago that resonated with me and does today. If we Christians want to reserve a special union within the faith that points to a biblical model of Christianity, we can do it with another name for a vow and let the secular world have "marriage". Let you and the non-Christians of the country have "marriage" and us call our union something else.

That might sound crazy, and to other Christians it might sound like I'm giving up too much ground, but I don't think it is or I am. No matter what the country declares legal for marriage, we Christians can make this mean what we want it to within the Church. For the sake of a point, what if we Christians called our covenant a "Christian Union". Suppose we began terming our relationships as Christian Unions. We within the Church would know that people would called their covenant a "Christian Union" were putting their relationship before God.

There are just many things to consider on this, and I've only touched on a few. But as I said, my opposition to marriage isn't about saving people from sin. I think you're missing the mark when you claim this is what we are trying to do.

I don't think atheists have a horse in this race anyway. If we're just the result of globs of gue, then homosexuality, murder, rape or anything else is not inherently wrong. If it is, is it wrong for a lion to take down a wildebeest in an African plane? His instinct tells him to, and the other wildebeests aren't going to put their lives in harms way to stop the murder. But, this is way off topic.

Homosexuality is wrong for God's people. We have no place telling non-Christians what they should do and not do. They in turn shouldn't tell us how to control matters within our Church.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason I don't seem to understand your stance. It seems like you are actually against the constitution by the way you keep talking about how Christians have slacked and how you want certain things banned and the such.

I don't exactly see what it is you would accomplish by enforcing Christian sin laws as judicial laws.

It seem more like you don't want to wait for your reward in heaven, but instead get your reward now and force others to suffer under your own opinion.

sigh. why then does the athiest bother telling us christians what to vote or support?


so if an a law says that all men or women as a law must die due population control as the population is too big at the age of 55 then should we christians support it?

abortion is like that to me. or if a law passed that says x race or persons have no rights per athiesm.

hey if theres no moral standard whose to say that can happened if men set it?


if a bunch of judges say yes to those laws in the constution. is it right per your views? if so where and why? whom are you to say that thats wrong.