• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Ali's here again, folks, with another gentle, happy reminder that you are all going to hell and your immortal soul is going to experience unending torture and punishment.

:):):):):):):):):):):):):)

Hmmm... I've heard christians refer to this message as "the good news". Glad I didn't ask to hear the bad news first...
 
Hmmm... I've heard christians refer to this message as "the good news". Glad I didn't ask to hear the bad news first...

The bad news is that Hell is fresh out of potato chips.

Unless you don't like potato chips, in which case I guess you'll be all right.
 
The worst humiliation any man can face is intercourse with another man.

:):):)
No, the worst humiliation any man can face is getting torched twice for touchdowns by a team he guaranteed a victory against.

I suppose you could say he got beat deep by a couple of guys, so maybe your point is valid.
 
Last edited:
Hi hcmom,
You don't have to worry about being a man because the same applies to women.
:):):)
You sound just like my ex wife! Oh wait, perhaps you didn't make yourself clear! Now I understand why there are so many lesbians out there. They thought intercourse with a man was supposed to be humiliating. You bible thumbers have to be more careful with your language!
 
Looks like I missed all the fun, although I have to say, I laughed quite a few times while reading over the last 10 pages of this thread. (Sorry Steve, I didn't get to vote for you.) It's true though. Homophobes are typically people who are so insecure about their own orientation that they fear that any gay influence will cause their repressed homosexual tendencies to erupt; just as those who hate atheists or skeptics are typically so insecure in their beliefs that they fear any irreligious influence will cause their faith to come crashing down like a house of cards.

I did want to address the original question posed by this topic though, and from a biblical standpoint. There are several reasons why the bible condemns homosexuality, none of which most Christian homophobes seem to be aware of, aside from the fact that it's an "abomination" or whatever they like to call it.

1. It's dirty and therefore more likely to transmit STDs. To put it another way, it was meant to let things out, not in. If you look at the rest of Leviticus, you would see just how primitive and superstitious an understanding of infectious disease the ancient Hebrews had. If a man came down with disease after having sex with another man, then they assumed that obviously God had to have been punishing them for their act. This was a time before protection or safe sex, and a time when medicine as we know it was practically nonexistent.

2. It does not result in procreation and therefore violates one of the most sacred covenants. If God told you to be fruitful and multiply, it was an order, not a request. In the world of the ancient Hebrews, life was brutal and the survival of the tribe depended on being able to make plenty of little Hebrews, specifically males to work the fields or fight in wars. Women were valued primarily for their ability to make babies. Also, considering the highly patriarchal nature of Hebrew society, the most degrading thing one could do to a man was to force him to assume the sexual role of a woman.

3. The book of Leviticus, like the rest of the Pentateuch, was most likely written during the time of Babylonian captivity. The Jews, being a people without a nation to call their own, had only their tribal customs to give them any sense of identity. Given that certain civilizations of the time, including the Babylonians, had fewer laws of this nature regarding 'sexual morality', the Jews believed that they could better preserve their identity by differentiating themselves from their captives. This, incidentally, is also the origin of many of the other bizarre laws found in the Torah, such as the dietary restrictions.


The question for Christians now is, do any of these factors still apply today? Of course not. Besides, one could make a fairly cogent argument that the god of the bible is gay (which I won't get into now). This would further explain why homosexuality was punishable by death. It was a capital crime under Jewish laws to impersonate a deity. :D
 
Other than the fact that I don't entirely agree with point 1 (STD's can be transmitted by either anal or vaginal sex, and homosexuality does not always mean anal intercourse), that was a vey well-written post. Welcome!
 
"homophobic" silliness aside, from a religious standpoint, it is an abomination before God...which if you believe in God, that outta be enough. However, Catholics have argued that since the natural end of sexuality is childbirth, homosexuality circumvents this end and thus the will of God which is Sin.

Let me, by the the way anticipate the opposing view, namely that there are heterosexual couples, who are married and have sex, but who are sterile and they are not considered sinners. True, however, they did not freely choose to ignore the will of God, they have no control over their situation. Further, let me anticipate the fact that people will confuse this explanation as my personal view. No, Catholic fathers are old celibate men who don't know how the world really works. I'm just saying that's what they think.
 
So the same "heterosexual couples, who are married and have sex, but who are sterile and they are not considered sinners", would be considered sinners if they deliberately went and got themselves sterilized, right?
Now the question is: Would the act of sterilization be the sin or would it be the act of having sex after being sterilized?
 
Now the question is: Would the act of sterilization be the sin or would it be the act of having sex after being sterilized?

As a survivor of 12 years of Catholic school, I'm fairly sure that Mother Church would consider both of these acts to be sins.

The sterilization would be sinful because it goes against God's will and reduces the probable future income of the Pope, not to mention the pool of altar boys.

And of course having sex after being sterilized would obviously not be a case of doing something one really would rather not do just for the sake of the team. Instead it would seem to be doing something because it feels good, which is on very shaky ground. Since it does involve people's naughty bits that would sort of push the post-operative sexual activity right into the sinful zone. Especially if the participants failed to try desperately not to enjoy it while doing it.

I wonder if a person who has been forcibly sterilized is required to give up sex. I'd expect the answer would be yes.
 
"homophobic" silliness aside, from a religious standpoint, it is an abomination before God...which if you believe in God, that outta be enough. However, Catholics have argued that since the natural end of sexuality is childbirth, homosexuality circumvents this end and thus the will of God which is Sin.

Let me, by the the way anticipate the opposing view, namely that there are heterosexual couples, who are married and have sex, but who are sterile and they are not considered sinners. True, however, they did not freely choose to ignore the will of God, they have no control over their situation. Further, let me anticipate the fact that people will confuse this explanation as my personal view. No, Catholic fathers are old celibate men who don't know how the world really works. I'm just saying that's what they think.

I realize you're speaking hypothetically here, but I hope you are aware of the inconsistency in that argument, since to say that anyone has no control over whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse is either wrong opens the argument back up. For a church which considers not only homosexuality, but masturbation and "artificial" birth control a sin, it's a hard argument to carry with anything resembling logical consistency.
 
"homophobic" silliness aside, from a religious standpoint, it is an abomination before God...which if you believe in God, that outta be enough. However, Catholics have argued that since the natural end of sexuality is childbirth, homosexuality circumvents this end and thus the will of God which is Sin.

Let me, by the the way anticipate the opposing view, namely that there are heterosexual couples, who are married and have sex, but who are sterile and they are not considered sinners. True, however, they did not freely choose to ignore the will of God, they have no control over their situation. Further, let me anticipate the fact that people will confuse this explanation as my personal view. No, Catholic fathers are old celibate men who don't know how the world really works. I'm just saying that's what they think.


Obviously, but the question that I have is why does the religious community in general focus so much on this sin...mentioned a handful of times in the Bible...and yet all but ignore others that are mentioned with greater emphasis and have far more effect on society?

Take greed and gluttony, for starters...
 
As a survivor of 12 years of Catholic school, I'm fairly sure that Mother Church would consider both of these acts to be sins.

The sterilization would be sinful because it goes against God's will and reduces the probable future income of the Pope, not to mention the pool of altar boys.

And of course having sex after being sterilized would obviously not be a case of doing something one really would rather not do just for the sake of the team. Instead it would seem to be doing something because it feels good, which is on very shaky ground. Since it does involve people's naughty bits that would sort of push the post-operative sexual activity right into the sinful zone. Especially if the participants failed to try desperately not to enjoy it while doing it.

I wonder if a person who has been forcibly sterilized is required to give up sex. I'd expect the answer would be yes.

As far as I know (simply from speaking with Catholics over the years) if you're sterilized, for example by hysterectomy, there is no rule that one must give up sex, any more than one is expected to give it up at menopause. And of course, there was a time when the Church didn't seem to have too much of a problem with cutting little boys' testicles off so that they could sing god's praises more sweetly.

Demanding actual reason is futile. They make this stuff up as they go along.
 
Obviously, but the question that I have is why does the religious community in general focus so much on this sin...mentioned a handful of times in the Bible...and yet all but ignore others that are mentioned with greater emphasis and have far more effect on society?

Take greed and gluttony, for starters...
Control. God grabs you by the short hairs.
 
1. It's dirty and therefore more likely to transmit STDs. To put it another way, it was meant to let things out, not in. If you look at the rest of Leviticus, you would see just how primitive and superstitious an understanding of infectious disease the ancient Hebrews had. If a man came down with disease after having sex with another man, then they assumed that obviously God had to have been punishing them for their act. This was a time before protection or safe sex, and a time when medicine as we know it was practically nonexistent.

This is again assuming an overly strong connection between anal sex and homosexuality.
2. It does not result in procreation and therefore violates one of the most sacred covenants. If God told you to be fruitful and multiply, it was an order, not a request. In the world of the ancient Hebrews, life was brutal and the survival of the tribe depended on being able to make plenty of little Hebrews, specifically males to work the fields or fight in wars. Women were valued primarily for their ability to make babies. Also, considering the highly patriarchal nature of Hebrew society, the most degrading thing one could do to a man was to force him to assume the sexual role of a woman.

I thought christ wanted everyone to be celibate.
 
Take greed and gluttony, for starters...

Control. God grabs you by the short hairs.

Vote for me for God next time. No diseases, no death unless you want to, no aging unless you want to to get that older/younger taboo thing goin', everyone's smokin' hot and wears no clothing except for stuff you'd see at Hedonism II, nobody is fat* and you can gorge on fatty, salty, tasty foods morning, noon, and night.

I really, really, really, really don't get why this isn't a better system. Scrap all this hypothesized hyper-important purpose the ass Yahweh has planned.

Like the Baron of House Harkonnen's enforcer nephew was named The Beast Rabban, I may re-christen (so to speak) the Judeo-Christian Mountain God Yahweh as The Ass Yahweh.


* Women are permitted to optionally grow their hips, thighs, and butt arbitrarily large, but the waist shall remain tiny, perhaps optinally allowing for a slight tummy pouch for deep belly-button lovers.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom