Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?

[Loismustdie 0]

YOU GUYS ARE LOSING YOUR MINDS1) Canada, cool it. I think LoisMustDie's opinions are misguided. I think, in the future, the way we regard homosexuality will be overhauled completely. But he's NOT acting out of line here. He's simply saying his religion considers homosexuality a sin, and he'd rather that issue not be discussed by his 6 year old's teacher. He's not saying he thinks all fags should burn. He's not even saying he'd never be friends with a gay guy. He's being reasonable about all this, but you're just being a fucking jerk, for what seems like no reason. You know who you remind me of? A closed-minded, intellectually-overmathched FUNDAMENTALIST. When in doubt, start spitting insults and whipping up anger.2) Donkslayer, shut up about being on the lowest rung of the social ladder. That's just absurd. As a white male, you have so many more opportunities than the average black man. And it isn't even close. Wang

He does that alot. I am used to it. Incidentally,you pretty much summed up the exact way I see the issue. Whether or not you agree with me is irrelevant, I just want to verbally appreciate the fact that you get what I am trying to say. I have more to say but I gotta do dinner with me pappy in law again. Genuinely good dude, good times.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I think anyone who knows anything about the New Testament knows that Jesus loved (not gonna debate here what kind of love it was) Mary Magdelene and that caused him to speak differently, according to those who wrote the NT, about women than the men who wrote the Old Testament.Perhaps it would help if we stuck to either New Testament or Old Testament for this debate and since we're talking about if homosexuality is a sin to Christian beliefs we're obviously talking about the New Testament being as that Christianity can't come to happen without the New Testament.

Ive read through a lot of posts of urs and what i find interesting is you seem to follow the common excuses used by people who dont want to actually do the studying and research.The Mary Magdelene reference you refer to im assuming is the one thats in the gospel of philip i believe? If you have a hard time beleiving something written at the latest 65 years ago...why would u even refer to something written almost 300 years later and that nobody actually attributes to anybody from anywhere near that era? All 4 gospels in the Bible are all thought to be directly related to the person who wrote them. What we view as sin for th emost part doesnt change from the OT to the NT. With the coming of Jesus yes we see some update primarly in terms of forgiveness being a lot easier to attain. And of course Christianity was named after Christ....who rose again

[Mattnxtc 0]

He does that alot. I am used to it. Incidentally,you pretty much summed up the exact way I see the issue. Whether or not you agree with me is irrelevant, I just want to verbally appreciate the fact that you get what I am trying to say.

Canada reminds of that short kid in high school that guy who would stand behind the bigger kids and talk crap b/c he was behind the big kids

[Shimmering Wang 1]

No reason?You may notice a number of posts here that are of the nature "I even have gay friends but...". If that doesn't offend your sensiblity I don't know what should.I do have gay friends and I find assaults on their right to love disgusting. Excuse me for getting upset.Let me show you something...You are an abomination because you are homosexual.orYou are an abomination because you are black.How much of a stink would there be if LMD posted the second?Why are you not outraged by the first?What gives him the right to hide either behind the fabric of religion? Perhaps you should read Dawkins on undue respect given to religion

I shall respond, as usual, in list form1) First off, nobody is ever going to listen to you if you're so self-righteous and crazy-sounding all the time. If you want to be heard, be rational, cool, and collected, otherwise people are just going to dismiss you as someone too wrapped up in the issue to be objective. That's why I usually can't handle talking to the Krazy Kristians. Because they act/sound crazy. That's how you're coming off. 2) That's a bad analogy. LoisMustDie believes homosexuality is a choice, I believe. Even if he doesn't, he believes ACTING on a homosexual impulse is definitely a choice. He feels that God deems those who act on those impulses as sinners. I don't think he believes "Anyone who has homosexual impulses is an abomination." Rather, he believes "The act of homosexual intercourse is an abomination against God." There's a difference. Sin vs. Sinner, kinda thing. 3) I'm outraged that people in this country are so generally intolerant of homosexuality. I'm outraged that people are willing to openly and actively seek to marginalize their place in society, using the courts and the legislature. I'm outraged people assault- both physically and verbally- homosexuals in this country. I am NOT outraged that LoisMustDie, as a Christian, believes homosexuality is wrong. I'd think he's a fucking jerk if he paraded all over town with "Fags will burn" signs. I'd think he's ignorant if he ever voted to outlaw gay marriage. But I am not outraged that as a Christian he thinks homosexuality is unnatural. Do I think he's wrong? Yeah. Does the fact that much of the country feels this way bother me? Absolutely. Am I outraged that he's explaining himself rationally and civilly? No.4) He's not using his religion as an excuse for his belief that homosexuality is wrong. It's his reason. It's not like he decided he hates gays, and worked backwards, finding passages in the bible to support an attitude... He was raised to believe that there is a God in Heaven, and that God thinks homosexual sex is an abomination. Wang

[custom36 4]

Seriously?What is that quote from Star Trek: TNG? Something about nothing is impossible, however, logically whatever is most probable is a more logical theory than all things that are not impossible.

My head just exploded.

[renaedawn 1]

Ive read through a lot of posts of urs and what i find interesting is you seem to follow the common excuses used by people who dont want to actually do the studying and research.The Mary Magdelene reference you refer to im assuming is the one thats in the gospel of philip i believe? If you have a hard time beleiving something written at the latest 65 years ago...why would u even refer to something written almost 300 years later and that nobody actually attributes to anybody from anywhere near that era? All 4 gospels in the Bible are all thought to be directly related to the person who wrote them. What we view as sin for th emost part doesnt change from the OT to the NT. With the coming of Jesus yes we see some update primarly in terms of forgiveness being a lot easier to attain. And of course Christianity was named after Christ....who rose again

I'm not sure there's a question in there but I have an answer anyway.I wasn't referring to any scripture when referring to Mary Magdelene. I was referring to the fact that it is commonly accepted in most mainstream circles that Mary was at least a good friend of Jesus and by that we know that he loved her in some capacity. Whether it was friendly love that you have for a dear friend or something more intimate is in dispute a bit but regardless it is safe to say there was a love there.I'm referring to being human not scripture.And the bolded is a mistake I think? Or am I missing something?

[renaedawn 1]

My head just exploded.

Yeah I messed that up badly.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I'm not sure there's a question in there but I have an answer anyway.I wasn't referring to any scripture when referring to Mary Magdelene. I was referring to the fact that it is commonly accepted in most mainstream circles that Mary was at least a good friend of Jesus and by that we know that he loved her in some capacity. Whether it was friendly love that you have for a dear friend or something more intimate is in dispute a bit but regardless it is safe to say there was a love there.I'm referring to being human not scripture.And the bolded is a mistake I think? Or am I missing something?

bolded is a mistake thanks for catchin it..but im sure u realized what i meant. Again ur Mary reference just doesnt do much for a few reasons. From all biblical accounts yes Mary was a close follower of Jesus though even from biblical standards not near the standards of the apostles who He spent his last night. Further we know that she was a strong leader at least early on in the Church so there is no question that Jesus may have seen the usefulness of her in delivering His message. But to believe there is anything more is to believe the Da Vinci Code is based on anything usefulFurther from all biblical accounts and historical accounts...Jesus' relationship with Peter, James and John all show stronger bonds. So to say that Jesus loved someone really doesnt do much. We would assume that as the creator of man He just might love them as He did die for not His sins but those of everyone else..

[renaedawn 1]

bolded is a mistake thanks for catchin it..but im sure u realized what i meant. Again ur Mary reference just doesnt do much for a few reasons. From all biblical accounts yes Mary was a close follower of Jesus though even from biblical standards not near the standards of the apostles who He spent his last night. Further we know that she was a strong leader at least early on in the Church so there is no question that Jesus may have seen the usefulness of her in delivering His message. But to believe there is anything more is to believe the Da Vinci Code is based on anything usefulFurther from all biblical accounts and historical accounts...Jesus' relationship with Peter, James and John all show stronger bonds. So to say that Jesus loved someone really doesnt do much. We would assume that as the creator of man He just might love them as He did die for not His sins but those of everyone else..

Hmmmm, okay good point. It is definitely possible there was no emotion between them at all.Why does it matter either way?

[Flack_attack 0]

wha? generally recognized properties? you mean properties made up by cultural consensus to make god into something more morally reasonable than the bible portrays?the problem is you are NOT using "theology or philosophy" to judge the credibility of the OT - YOU ARE USING SCIENCE. judged on scientific grounds the NT falls apart in exactly the same way as the OT does. you are absolutely using a double standard.as an example it would be a LOT less complicated for god to get oxygen to someone inside a fish somehow than it would be for jesus to alter the molecular structure of water wherever he stepped lol.

I guess you just didn't read my post at all. That's ok.

[Loismustdie 0]

My head just exploded.

I pretty much had the same thought, and then just straight passed out.

[crowTrobot 2]

I guess you just didn't read my post at all. That's ok.

obviously i did. new testament miracles are no different than OT fables. you are just parsing them using different standards of logic/evidence for convenience.

[Loismustdie 0]

I think that's the part you wanted a response to? I think your explanation proves exactly what my point was. I believe the conclusion we finally came to is that my point would have been better served if I had substituted "literal Christians" every where I said "Christians". That's my bad on that because 'those who believe literally that the Bible is the unedited, not influenced by the humans that wrote it, direct from the creator's lips word of God are being illogical' was my point.We know that the texts were written by man after many generations of oral history and that none of them were written by the original apostles. There are countless numbers of retellings passed down through village after village through untold numbers of humans before they were ever written down.Ever played Gossip? Ever have the story come out exactly the same at the end of the line as it did where it started? Same concept.

Okay, I think maybe we missed something here. Let me try and explain what I am trying to say. O.K., Christ is in the process of being crucified. It's a horrible time- people are wailing, crying, tearing clothes off, some, most in fact, are screaming to kill him. 4 different accounts of what happened, and the main details are not missed, yet small details are different. Doesn't that only make sense? If you went to the mall, and I did, and Ron did, and so did Crow, and a guy was shot at the mall, we all would write about the guy being shot. You might remember the couple making out in front of the fashion bug, I might remember seeing a guy eating caramel corn in front of the fashion bug- those details are irrelevant. The big story was, guy was shot. We all got that. If we all remebered the details exactly- that would be weird,. like we got our storys straight ahead of time. If we were interviewed by police they would find it weird that our storys were the same. So, in that sense, it gives the bible more credence,and makes it more believeable to me, because it's obviously written from more than just on eperspective but the same message manages to get through- the important things if you will, the meat of the burrito is still intact, and that's what I think God was looking for.

[Loismustdie 0]

Insert mean joke that I really mean to be funny and not malicious about if God loved you would have won the Protege contest here.

Lol. Actually thought that once or twice myself.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Hmmmm, okay good point. It is definitely possible there was no emotion between them at all.Why does it matter either way?

it doesnt matter except that you brought it up tryin to make a point about the love for Mary...I was merely clarifying for everybody what the historical and biblical evidence actually said

[Loismustdie 0]

No reason?You may notice a number of posts here that are of the nature "I even have gay friends but...". If that doesn't offend your sensiblity I don't know what should.I do have gay friends and I find assaults on their right to love disgusting. Excuse me for getting upset.Let me show you something...You are an abomination because you are homosexual.orYou are an abomination because you are black.How much of a stink would there be if LMD posted the second?Why are you not outraged by the first?What gives him the right to hide either behind the fabric of religion? Perhaps you should read Dawkins on undue respect given to religion

The act, Canada, the act. You are completely missing the point. If I wanted to hide behind the fabric of religion I just wouldn't talk about it. You would know how I see things by default, but I would keep it quiet. I'm not hiding. I'm as exposed as you I can be, and not worried in the least. I haven't assaulted anyones right to love. When did I do that? I said, be what you want, but I don't need to legitamize it, and I won't support efforts to mainstream an act that I think is wrong, and I will take the appropriate measures to make sure my daughter is raised correctly,with emphasis on what I am passionate about, and as little exposure as possible to what I am not so supportive of. What she does with her life when she is old enough to make her own choices is clearly up to her, but it won't be because I didn't teach her correctly. Incidentally, yell and scream all you want, I don't think anybody going to see me as you do and Wang was correct. You're being very unreasonable, even by your standards. It's a hard topic, so I forgive you.

[Canada 0]

I shall respond, as usual, in list form1) First off, nobody is ever going to listen to you if you're so self-righteous and crazy-sounding all the time. If you want to be heard, be rational, cool, and collected, otherwise people are just going to dismiss you as someone too wrapped up in the issue to be objective. That's why I usually can't handle talking to the Krazy Kristians. Because they act/sound crazy. That's how you're coming off.

Actually its the Krazy Kristian Krew, but that's just a little joke to break the ice.Rational, cool and collected have their time and place. Converse with me in the Strategy forum, as we have, and it’s all very polite. Here it is a different story. I don't act or sound crazy. My posts are clear and logic based. However I am acting obnoxious, loud and angry, and yes it's an act. This is a written forum touching on subjects that deeply affect peoples lives as opposed to discussions on continuation bets.Sometimes you need to be aggressive and push buttons, otherwise people will take their time and respond politely, calmly and keep their convictions wrapped up in socially accepted posts and the undesirable disappears into the polite ether. You can't work a written debate like you can a live one. If I come off as aggressive and abusive, so be it, but at least we get to the heart of the matter.Look what happened to Donk when shown a few assertive sentences. He gets all pissy about the fact he can't get a job because he's a white boy and tells me I'm scum because I work in a country where there was a public uprising. Sure I might have hurt his feelings, but it shows his conviction to the topic at hand was hardly there. He might think I'm a prick and continue to do so for the rest of his life, but he will always remember that post and one day he might actually realise that it wasn't an attack on him, it was an attack on his complacency and that piece of wisdom will do him more good than 500 polite posts.

2) That's a bad analogy. LoisMustDie believes homosexuality is a choice, I believe. Even if he doesn't, he believes ACTING on a homosexual impulse is definitely a choice. He feels that God deems those who act on those impulses as sinners. I don't think he believes "Anyone who has homosexual impulses is an abomination." Rather, he believes "The act of homosexual intercourse is an abomination against God." There's a difference. Sin vs. Sinner, kinda thing.

Sorry that is a poor excuse that doesn't hold water. You can't enter a debate about Christianity without taking the whole Bible, in context, into the equation. The Bible is full of explanations that the act is not the sin but the desire. You know, better to pluck an eye out than to look at a woman with lust etc etc.By those standards, anyone that wants to have sex with a same sex partner is the same as anyone who actually does. What defines a homosexual? From the Websters medical dictionary: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex A person can no more change their sexual desires than a person can change the colour of their skinYou cannot have a belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and then turn around and say that it is only those that act out their sins that are an abomination. That is hypocrisySo a woman who desires to be with another woman is a homosexual by the dictionaryA woman who desires to be with another woman is guilty of the 'sin' of homosexuality and is the same as a person who has committed the act according to the BibleSo when LMD states it is just the act he finds abominable he has stepped outside the teachings of the Bible, yet he is claiming that he is using the Bible to come to his conclusion. It's a case of 'I'll pay full attention to this verse, but overlook these others'. The only way he can claim a religious objection to the act is to be selective and by being selective he is allowing his personal feelings to intervene

3) I'm outraged that people in this country are so generally intolerant of homosexuality. I'm outraged that people are willing to openly and actively seek to marginalize their place in society, using the courts and the legislature. I'm outraged people assault- both physically and verbally- homosexuals in this country. I am NOT outraged that LoisMustDie, as a Christian, believes homosexuality is wrong. I'd think he's a fucking jerk if he paraded all over town with "Fags will burn" signs. I'd think he's ignorant if he ever voted to outlaw gay marriage. But I am not outraged that as a Christian he thinks homosexuality is unnatural. Do I think he's wrong? Yeah. Does the fact that much of the country feels this way bother me? Absolutely. Am I outraged that he's explaining himself rationally and civilly? No.

Bigotry needs 2 things to prosper: Ignorance and complacency. I'm demonstrating the ignorance by explaining how the Bible is being used selectively here and you are supplying the complacency by suggesting that he needs to carry a placard and cause a scene to cause outrage. Let’s look at some of his 'civil' language:His family need to be 'protected' from this sin. A picture of 2 men holding hands therefore warrants home-schooling. What possible damage can a child receive from the information that sometimes men love men and women love women? No teacher is going to explain homosexual sex based on that picture anymore than they would explain straight sex based on a picture of Jack & Jill.You might suggest that he is protecting against a sin based on sex and sex is a subject which is not appropriate for a very young child, and with that I agree. However as I just pointed out sex is not going to enter the equation, but lets see what would happen if it did.Would he commence home-schooling if he found out that his daughter's teacher had divorced and remarried and this was common knowledge amongst the staff and students? According to the Bible...[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.[12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.... the teacher is committing adultery. A sex based sin. Inappropriate topic for a child. Home-schooling? Doubt it.Remember: Bible --> inerrant word of God. 2 sins based on the same subject, for all intents and purposes the same ie Unsanctified sex. Yet one requires that a child be protected from it? Do children need to be protected from second marriages?Where is the protection that is required against 2 men/women in love vs a remarried person?Are you seeing the double standards yet? Again he is being selective about which sin he finds abominable, not based on the Bible, but based on personal choice.He also said the picture mentioned above was a 'sneaky' way to get homosexuality into the classroom.I'll do you a favour and let you work on that one yourself. Let me know if you still have no problem with it...As for 'abomination' I've shown above that if you want to bring the Bible into it, the sin is not the act but the desire. So he is suggesting that how a person thinks and feels is abominable or his objection is not biblical. Don't care which one you choose because they both are unjustifiable.

4) He's not using his religion as an excuse for his belief that homosexuality is wrong. It's his reason. It's not like he decided he hates gays, and worked backwards, finding passages in the bible to support an attitude... He was raised to believe that there is a God in Heaven, and that God thinks homosexual sex is an abomination. Wang

I don't think he hates gays. I suspect he is simply repulsed by the thought of 2 men having sex. He then reads the Bible and goes "Wow, 2 men having sex is wrong, that's exactly how I feel!!"Problem is he then over-reacts as evidenced by his selectiveness to this particular sin. The fact remains he is homophobic (He has stated that he finds the act an abomination which I showed above defines him as a homophobe) and he then lets his fears dictate his actions.The Bible lists countless sins, but just because it is in the Bible doesn't dictate how a person feels about the sin. The feelings are the individuals, the Bible is simply being used here as the justification.If his reactions were consistent across all sins and he was consistent in applying all the teachings of the Bible, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Let me show you something...You are an abomination because you are homosexual.orYou are an abomination because you are black.How much of a stink would there be if LMD posted the second?Why are you not outraged by the first?What gives him the right to hide either behind the fabric of religion? Perhaps you should read Dawkins on undue respect given to religion

There would be a huge stink in our current situation if he posted the second. Reason being, there's no bible that he believes in that says it's an abomination to be black.Btw, there is nothing naturally or psychologically deviant about being black. Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is genetic/ingrained physically or not, poopchasing cannot propogate our species.And Dawkins is a philosopher, and certainly not an end-all expert on the subject.

[crowTrobot 2]

And Dawkins is a philosopher, and certainly not an end-all expert on the subject.

no he's a scientist, who points out that religion is given an undeserved pass when it comes to reason/logic because of blind cultural acceptance.

[DonkSlayer 1]

"Actually its the Krazy Kristian Krew, but that's just a little joke to break the ice."Hilarious with great timing. I'm sure we'll all take it very lightly, coming from you."Rational, cool and collected have their time and place. Converse with me in the Strategy forum, as we have, and it’s all very polite. Here it is a different story. I don't act or sound crazy. My posts are clear and logic based. However I am acting obnoxious, loud and angry, and yes it's an act. This is a written forum touching on subjects that deeply affect peoples lives as opposed to discussions on continuation bets."I believe this is a lie or at least very naive. You posted early for us to please excuse your anger, but that you had gay friends whom you were offended for by some of the posts in this thread. Which one is it going to be, then? Both? You drop the hypocrite-bomb quite often in these threads, but it appears you've joined the proliferation effort now."Sometimes you need to be aggressive and push buttons, otherwise people will take their time and respond politely, calmly and keep their convictions wrapped up in socially accepted posts and the undesirable disappears into the polite ether. You can't work a written debate like you can a live one. If I come off as aggressive and abusive, so be it, but at least we get to the heart of the matter. Look what happened to Donk when shown a few assertive sentences. He gets all pissy about the fact he can't get a job because he's a white boy and tells me I'm scum because I work in a country where there was a public uprising. Sure I might have hurt his feelings, but it shows his conviction to the topic at hand was hardly there. He might think I'm a prick and continue to do so for the rest of his life, but he will always remember that post and one day he might actually realise that it wasn't an attack on him, it was an attack on his complacency and that piece of wisdom will do him more good than 500 polite posts."Revisionist history there, Cheney. You brought my race into the matter..instead of just calling me "complacent". You went from assuming to racist. Hopefully next time David Duke stands up and says something, you'll defend him for just being assertive. It certainly did push my buttons. I got off-topic for a bit....so really you only caused the debate to become unfocused for a page, and brought the focus off of the matter at hand. What defines a homosexual? From the Websters medical dictionary: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex And despite your incoherent explanation, you cannot bring in an NT example of "being" homosexual as sinful, nor can you show it as worse than any other "sin".

A person can no more change their sexual desires than a person can change the colour of their skin.

Correct me if I misunderstood, but I believe you think that one cannot/should not repress sexual desires. Lois believes you should if they lead to sin.

So a woman who desires to be with another woman is a homosexual by the dictionaryA woman who desires to be with another woman is guilty of the 'sin' of homosexuality and is the same as a person who has committed the act according to the Bible.

I would say one of the most difficult things to do as a human is keep your lust in check. As far as I can discern from the bible, regardless of your sexual orientation, you're not supposed to be running around hardcore lusting or fornicating.You keep bring up homosexuality being the sin, but personally I believe the Bible brings the act as the issue, not the state of "being."

His family need to be 'protected' from this sin. A picture of 2 men holding hands therefore warrants home-schooling. What possible damage can a child receive from the information that sometimes men love men and women love women? No teacher is going to explain homosexual sex based on that picture anymore than they would explain straight sex based on a picture of Jack & Jill.

I think that teachers should not be discussing sex with children who are at the Jack & Jill level (I know you agree with this). I don't know how I feel about the general population of kindergartners being read a book that involves two-dad or two-mom households. Those households occur at a very small minority level, so I suspect that if it appeared in a book, the point would be to have it there, and not that it just "happened to be in the book like that." You don't see interracial couples in widely-circulated childrens books for that reason, I believe. Nothing wrong with it necessarily, just too uncommon for it to appear "by chance."

Would he commence home-schooling if he found out that his daughter's teacher had divorced and remarried and this was common knowledge amongst the staff and students? According to the Bible..... the teacher is committing adultery. A sex based sin. Inappropriate topic for a child. Home-schooling? Doubt it.

If I said: "The teacher repeatedly talks about her divorce to my small child and talks justification repeatedly, and I'm uncomfortable with him/her being exposed to that.", would that be an OK case for home-schooling or at least moving the child? I do think LMD overracted a bit by going right to home-school when you can easily move you child to a different room or school.

As for 'abomination' I've shown above that if you want to bring the Bible into it, the sin is not the act but the desire. So he is suggesting that how a person thinks and feels is abominable or his objection is not biblical.

I pwned this earlier, although I look at some things differently than LMD.

[DonkSlayer 1]

no he's a scientist, who points out that religion is given an undeserved pass when it comes to reason/logic because of blind cultural acceptance.

Fiiiiine he's a scientist who philosphizes.

[Dubya_PhiDelt 0]

I will support a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, because I believe the family is the foundation of our society, and it must be protected by ensuring one-man, one-woman families.You should Lewinsky me, Canada.

[jmkiser 0]

Daniel, break free! You are smart, intelligent... you don't need a god.This "god" concept is getting ridiculous. You can't argue something that isn't fact. Christians can go back and forth about homosexuality being a sin or not and in the end it STILL won't matter. I understand that people have been arguing fairy tales of god since the beginning of time, but how much common sense does it take for our people to get past it? I am sick and tired of the easily explainable "miracles" that people attest to something that isn't even real. Regarding this topic, I am also sick and tired of people going back and forth about morality of someone's sexual orientation (or choice... I don't know.. I don't care... if a male wants to be with a male or a female wants to be with a female... then that is just great as a female and a male. Maybe I'll care more when real scientists actually figure out why this is... until then, my guess is with the rest of the idealists in saying that it's environmental upbringing).This sin crap is nonsense. Everything that is a "sin" is only a sin because it's done in excess. Most of these sins are perfectly healthy when kept under emotional control and not done regularly (every day excessive activity). To be honest, most of the stuff we consider healthy can be psychologically compared equal to those activities that are considered "sinful".... if those healthy actions are done in excess.Regarding the adultry issues, there wouldn't be adultry issues if people weren't jumping into marriages too fast in the first place. If all of these people who are cheating took a good hard look at themselves before getting married, maybe they would see that they weren't ready to get married.... The whole idea of marriage is just a fad of our time period, location, and history anyway. Imagine if marriage had never been created... and all we had was committed relationships. Think of how many issues and problems we, as humans, could've avoided for ages. That's another example of the problem of religion..... I know women that trap themselves in TERRIBLE and UNHEALTHY relationships because they feel that when they said their wedding vows... that they are committed for life. These are people whose lives are ruined because they believe they are religiously obligated to stick with something that is obviously wrong... just one of millions of examples why this god stuff is disgusting.Homosexuality is fine, you religious nuts. Stop treating them like aliens and start treating them like humans. You may have never, personally, treated a gay or lesbian incorrectly, but if you're stuck in the mindset of trying to decide if their life is a sin or not..... then blaghhh that's just f.ucking frustratingly ignorant to me.Let's grow up and get past this childish religious nonsense and move on as humans. I know that it takes a strong, intelligent, and stable mind to be able to live life without crutches, but everyone can do it.

[Loismustdie 0]

A few things. One that jumps out immediately is this- what is the difference between me and a homosexual? I love women, love sex with women, before I was married I had sex with alot of them. That wasn't right, I shouldn't have been doing those things. I should have controlled those desires. I didn't want to. Now, being married- I still want to have sex with other women. Every day, that desire is there. I have to constantly keep myself in check. It drives me crazy, somedays are easier than others- that's my battle, my big battle. Yet, I do it. Biblically, if a man or woman should get divorced for any reason other than there partner being unfaithful, they can no longer remarry. Which means they can no longer be in a sexual relationship, and must deal with there desires as well. So, they are in a position where a part of them must be just dealt with in order to get to heaven. It's not easy- many people can't do it. Self- sacrifice is a long, tough road, yet if you want to win that crown you must do these things. Everybody has a cross to bear. Now, the problem isn't what I just said. That's really just basic christianity, and can be applied to any sin. The problem is that nobody wants to be told what to do, or that what they are doing is wrong. They look at christianity, see the sheer numbers behind it, and try to find a way to make it right, which is what this conversation started as- trying to make way for sin, and those back doors(wink,wink) don't exist. I did overreact with the home schooling idea, there would be judgement involved, age, amount of exposure, etc. As long as the values that I want to teach aren't being compromised to much it would be alright. I would guarantee this- if a gay couple came in for Parents career day, holding hands and talking about there Gay dog walkers buisness, people would be upset. Myself included, because now I have to explain to a 6 year old what being gay is, without ostracizing them as people? I shouldn't have to do that- she shouldn't be required at 6 to understand what it means to seperate the person from the sin. Behind every sinner is a soul- I get that. I am old enough to deal with that. Also, I haven't quite figured out exactly how I am going to broach this subject when the time comes, and frankly I just don't want to yet. As a parent, that's my right. To anybody who said that I am too protecting of my family.....NO. It's my job. I protect them in many ways, whether it's being the one who vocalizes issues because my wife will not, she is driven by a need to not confront anybody,and can be walked all over. So, I protect her, whenever I can. My daughter has to be babysat a few times a week- we are careful who we hire to do this. That's my job, and it permeates alot of my life. This is my family, my blood, my life. I will do what it takes to shield them when need be and to make there lives easier. I may fail at times- I may overreact at times- that doesn't mean I ever lay down and not do the job.

[Loismustdie 0]

Daniel, break free! You are smart, intelligent... you don't need a god.This "god" concept is getting ridiculous. You can't argue something that isn't fact. Christians can go back and forth about homosexuality being a sin or not and in the end it STILL won't matter. I understand that people have been arguing fairy tales of god since the beginning of time, but how much common sense does it take for our people to get past it? I am sick and tired of the easily explainable "miracles" that people attest to something that isn't even real. Regarding this topic, I am also sick and tired of people going back and forth about morality of someone's sexual orientation (or choice... I don't know.. I don't care... if a male wants to be with a male or a female wants to be with a female... then that is just great as a female and a male. Maybe I'll care more when real scientists actually figure out why this is... until then, my guess is with the rest of the idealists in saying that it's environmental upbringing).This sin crap is nonsense. Everything that is a "sin" is only a sin because it's done in excess. Most of these sins are perfectly healthy when kept under emotional control and not done regularly (every day excessive activity). To be honest, most of the stuff we consider healthy can be psychologically compared equal to those activities that are considered "sinful" if done in excess.Regarding the adultry issues, there wouldn't be adultry issues if people weren't jumping into marriages too fast in the first place. If all of these people who are cheating took a good hard look at themselves before getting married, maybe they would see that they weren't ready to get married.... The whole idea of marriage is just a fad of our time period, location, and history anyway. Imagine if marriage had never been created... and all we had was committed relationships. Think of how many issues and problems we, as humans, could've avoided for ages. That's another example of the problem of religion..... I know women that trap themselves in TERRIBLE and UNHEALTHY relationships because they feel that when they said their wedding vows... that they are committed for life. These are people whose lives are ruined because they believe they are religiously obligated to stick with something that is obviously wrong... just one of millions of examples why this god stuff is disgusting.Homosexuality is fine, you religious nuts. Stop treating them like aliens and start treating them like humans. You may have never, personally, treated a gay or lesbian incorrectly, but if you're stuck in the mindset of trying to decide if their life is a sin or not..... then blaghhh that's just f.ucking frustratingly ignorant to me.Let's grow up and get past this childish religious nonsense and move on as humans. I know that it takes a strong, intelligent, and stable mind to be able to live life without crutches, but everyone can do it.

Thank you. Your point of view is refreshing.