Homosexuality: A Survey

[Tawi]

This makes no sense at all.  I believe more discrepancies in the Bible were posted a page or two back, but just let me tackle this real quick:
1) If fertility is the only issue, then why would it be okay for sterile, yet straight, people to get married?

Ginrei, I’ll try ticking all the boxes to give you a better idea of what we believe in. Here I go:

Sex isn't only about pro-creation, it’s also about bringing a man and a woman closer to one another. That's why sex is both unitive and procreative. Bottom-line is, all sexual acts must be open to life.  When a couple intentionally takes action to block their natural fertility in order to gain the pleasure of sex while nullifying the outcome (contraceptives), they change the nature of what they are doing. As opposed to being both unitive and procreative, the act becomes something that is not open to life and is considered, an offense against God. Homosexual sex is not procreative at all, as under no circumstances is it possible for two men to conceive a child, while an infertile couple, in a way, can - it's not impossible. Moreover, while such an act between two infertile persons may most certainly not create life, their actions are open to the idea of it. In scenarios like these, the circumstances prevent the creation of new life but not the couple. Contraception on the other hand is wrong because it is a conscious choice made in order to  seperate the act of sex from procreation. The reason why NFP and post-menopausal sex is accepted is because there is no blocking of natural fertility and the act is open to life, thus, the bonds between sex, love and life are maintained.  

People on this forum may find our views too conservative and wrong but you have to realize that we hold marriage in very high regard.  Both are considered sacred and holy and play an important role Catholic life.

2) What about people who get married, are fertile, but have absolutely no desire to procreate?

Then the couple, by mutual agreement, can enter into a Josephite Marriage. When I said that the Church believes that marriage is for procreation, the raising of children and the joining between a man and a woman, I didn’t mean that one had to tick all the boxes.  The decision to have children, is of course, up to the couple themselves.  However, the last one, “marriage as a joining between a man and a womanâ€

[Kor]

In this day and age you don't need sex in order to create life. You can simply do it in a lab.

[GinRei]

Homosexual sex is not procreative at all, as under no circumstances is it possible for two men to conceive a child, while an infertile couple, in a way, can - it's not impossible.

No, it is impossible.  That's the very definition of being infertile.

Moreover, while such an act between two infertile persons may most certainly not create life, their actions are open to the idea of it. In scenarios like these, the circumstances prevent the creation of new life but not the couple.

So as long as the two partners, regardless of said couple's sexes, want to bear a child, it's okay?  Even if circumstances won't allow it?  I'm pretty sure homosexuals would want to have children too, but circumstances don't allow it.  Hence why they adopt.

The reason why NFP and post-menopausal sex is accepted is because there is no blocking of natural fertility and the act is open to life, thus, the bonds between sex, love and life are maintained.  

Uhm, pretty sure that post-menopausal is the equivalent of being infertile.  Different paths, same result (cannot bear children).  So... no, the act is not "open to life".

People on this forum may find our views too conservative and wrong but you have to realize that we hold marriage in very high regard.  Both are considered sacred and holy and play an important role Catholic life.

And homosexuals hold their own freedom in high regard, yet you spit all over that.

Would you mind posting a few sources that support that stance?

Given that you're the one claiming it to be harmful, I think it'd be better for you to post sources that support your claim.  Scientific sources.  Not random jibber-jabber from holier than thou church-folk who follow Cardinals that bang young boys.

Not sure if this is an insult but whatever.

He's saying you misread what "yes" and "no" meant.  Yes means you're okay with it, no means you aren't.  It's why everyone was confused by your statement that basically read "they" aren't okay, but "their sex" is.

[IdentityUnknown]

Yes.

They didn't choose to be that way, in fact, if given a choice, I doubt they would choose to be that way. Moreover, they're still human beings and deserve the same treatment. They had no control over being who they are. They have feelings, they want to be accepted, they want to be loved. As long as they don't hurt someone, what does it matter?

I mean seriously. They're not all over you and trying to disturb society, so leave them be. I'm not a fan of yaoi or yuri in anime, nor do I particularly like GLBT, but I wouldn't treat anyone any differently because of it. To sink as low as to abuse someone verbally or physically or to treat them differently because of how they were born is fairly despicable in my opinion.

Again, just my view on the matter.

Age: 10-25. I'm not giving a specific number.
Country: (birth) China (current) The Tortilla Chip Galaxy

[nomemory]

While the church will never accept the validity of gay marriage, it is possible for homosexuals to live together in a celibate relationship.

You better tell that to my church Aka the Church of Sweden, meaning the biggest one we have.. Though we are protestants, but still.

(Or well, that is the church I would belong to if I were a believer )

[Hime-Chan]

Personnally, I don't care if people are gay or not, I don't judge people by their sexual preferences, if you don't bother me, you can be green and have 3 hands, and when I don't like someone it's because I can't stand their attitude (I mostly dislike people for being arrogant and such).
So yes, I'm okay with homosexuality, even if I'm a straight girl.
I'm 20, and from France

[Tanner-kun]

@Tawi I think you should read my post from a while ago. And the "Would you mind posting a few sources that support that stance?" Here are a two of them.
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_ ... er_parents
http://news.discovery.com/human/parents ... ldren.html

"While the church will never accept the validity of gay marriage"
Wrong, there are a lot of churches that are accepting of it. A few weeks ago some members of this PFLAG group came to my school during a GSA meeting and talked about a few of the churches here starting to accept homosexuality, and the preacher(or w/e he's called) even stood up and apologized to everyone because he used to have those beliefs about homosexuality being wrong. They also mentioned someone who memorized every passage in the bible and could out argue anyone about why homosexuality is ok. Plag also had a few publications such as this you might want to read. http://www.pflag.org/fileadmin/user_upl ... milies.pdf

Also, think about it this way. What if you had a son or daughter that was homo/bi what would you think and do? Because i'm pretty sure your opinions would change.

Also I posted this a while ago(but it was kinda ignored. ;w;)

15 from the USA voted yes.
I am bisexual, so of course ill support it. The people who don't support it have horrible excuses and seem pretty closed minded. I'm don't know much about the bible, and im not irreligious at all. but i'm pretty sure the bible doesn't say you should hate another human just because of who they like? plus the bible also says

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
(got that from http://www.soulforce.org/article/homose ... -christian you might also want to read it)

and we don't still have those same beliefs. So why should you still be against homosexuality? Homosexual behavior even happens with animals (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nimal.html)
If being in love with someone that's the same gender as you is a sin, then I would rather end up in hell.

It's against my moral beliefs.

Morals?! that's some pretty low morals to dislike someone because they are bi or gay. Good morals would be to accept everyone equally.



I also found this list a while ago, i'm not sure where it originally came from.

Spoiler:

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

A while ago I used to be hetero, and even a bit homophobic myself. I thought being gblt was wrong back then, but when i started making friends with people who where gblt I realized it is not wrong at all, and ofcourse i felt like a jerk for my previous opinions about it. Then.... i tried reading yaoi and ya. :x

[sonoci]

I'm not sure how well it fits into everything but

I once watched a show called "World's Strictest Parents" where out-of-line kids would be sent to different countries to have different "stricter" parents for a week. The episode I watched had a teenage girl and college boy go to the home of a homosexual couple that had already adopted 4-5 kids, all boys. The house was big...and gorgeous. It was clean and tidy and the kids were all friendly along with the parents. They were strict, however it was in a "These are the rules of this house. Follow these rules, and we'll have no problem. Go against them, and then we'll have a problem" type of way. And they did enforce the rules...but in a very lenient way. (EX: one rule was to get up at a certain time. The kids, who were used to sleeping in, would ignore the first "Hey, time to get up"s. When that happened, the parents would jokingly put one of the dogs on the bed.)

They were so friendly and open as well. One of my favorite quotes even came from one of them

"I am on good terms with my children, but I am not my child's friend. I am their parent."


I was okay with homosexuals before this, but after I was wishing I could go and meet these two. They were probably some of the best people you could ever meet, wish I had the chance 

[Jd-]

IF YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE RIGHTFULLY OUTLAWS HOMOSEXUALITY OR GAY MARRIAGE, YOU ARE DESPERATELY AND UTTERLY WRONG. TO FIND OUT WHY, READ THIS POST.

I am going to state what should be a fact of life for anyone that respects the rights of others and lives in what they consider a free society:

It does not matter what you personally believe is right or wrong—restraining the freedom of someone that is doing no harm to anyone else is not and never will be an undertaking you can morally make your own. It does not matter what your purportedly-holy text says, whether it be the Bible, the Quran, or the napkin the homeless scribe handed you on the street corner. You should care for your fellow man and their pursuit of happiness more so than you care about what your god or god "says", because if your god or gods does not respect your fellow man and their right to pursue their own happiness at their own luxury when it is of absolutely no harm to anyone else, then your god or gods is not worthy of your respect or your admiration—least of all your undying worship.

If your religion is more important to you than good, caring, loving, innocent people that just want to live a happy life as they see fit when it is of absolutely no harm to anyone else, then you're wrong. You're not even close to right and you never will be so long as you put your god or gods ahead of your fellow human beings. These are people that routinely show you love and compassion, every single day. There are amazing people on these very forums affected by this issue that would never, ever consider getting in the way of your happiness, whether you disagree with them on this issue or any other, and yet you would prevent them from seeking lifelong happiness.

Consider for just one moment that, say, the Bible is the product of man's imagination and also the product of the time in which it was written. Consider that, only briefly. Now, remember: You believe in this purportedly-holy text. You do. It means a lot to you. Let's also say that you think the Bible is the divine word and that human morality and character should be defined by it (which has to be the case if you truly believe in it and are willing to enforce it on others that may not even believe in it whatsoever).

Now, in Leviticus, it does say: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus is in the Old Testament. A lot of Christians are part of the reinterpretation movement, whereby things are not taken "literally" from the Old Testament except when they feel they should be taken literally. It's a game of picking and choosing from a scripture that is meant to define your life if you are a believer—I would imagine not listening to him would upset God much more so than allowing two homosexuals to wed, as he is a jealous and vengeful God, after all (his words, not mine).

Leviticus (again, from the Old Testament) does include the line quoted above. That's not really in question. But, what else is questionable in the Old Testament, apart from the endless rape, murder, pillaging, torture, and slavery? In fact, you won't even have to leave Leviticus to find something you won't defend with the same fervor with which you will so willingly deny gay marriage: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

You will defend this agenda that prohibits the marriage of homosexuals until death, but you aren't willing to rise to God's word and stone a nonbeliever to death, are you? Are you? Because, if you are willing to say that Leviticus is completely without fault and not just the product of the time in which it was written, I will personally fly to your hometown and volunteer to be stoned in public. That is not a joke. If you truly believe in the purported word of God and you will defend other "laws" set forth in Leviticus with the same fervor that you do the prohibiting of gay marriage, I will book the ticket tonight if you will go through with stoning a blasphemer. I repeat: This is an utterly sincere offer. If you are willing to stone me in public, I will solidify it by saying, "There is no God" at the altar at your Sunday service. As a result, in God's eyes, you will be in the clear to go ahead. And, if you don't, just remember from Jeremiah 48:10: "Cursed be he who does the LORD's work remissly, cursed be he who holds back his sword from blood."

Here, I could reproduce any number of examples from both the Old and New Testaments showcasing just why you shouldn't let the Bible, especially, dictate or otherwise define your personal moral code. Actually... Why not, let's name a few!

---

[Let me reiterate before we begin that all of this IS in the Bible.]

God says that young women that are raped must then marry the rapist and never be allowed to leave them because, hey, that's logical:
— If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28)

Be careful when beating your slaves! Don't go overboard and it's totally OK to mess them right up:
— When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20)

Chivalry, according to the Bible:
— Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7)

Kill your family and closest friends without remorse and feel vindicated in doing so should they so much as suggest another religion:
— If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7)

---

The reason I cite these examples of lunacy is because we both know no one in their right mind would ever agree to such tenants today. We know that. And yet, you are able to disregard the above for whatever reason you deem suitable, but still will not budge on the issue of gay marriage? Why is that? Is it because it's one of the few things in the Bible that at least seems defendable without resorting to the violence that God encouraged so much?

Some people will of course disagree with my having posted this, but there comes a time when religious fanaticism has gone far enough. I do not personally care what people believe. They are free to believe whatever they want, but the moment they begin forcing that agenda on others, expect a throwdown. Every single time. Just remember: It's no longer "your religion" when you start pushing it on everyone else. At that point, you're trying to make it everyone's, and you better be ready for the consequences.

I want to leave with you one more quote, this time from the New Testament, from Ephesians 6:5. It goes:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

What are your thoughts on that statement? Foremost, should human slavery be legal? The Bible (and that statement) certainly thinks so because you can just about flip to any page and see guidelines on how to keep your slaves under control or how to go about selling your own daughter into slavery.

Most people find the idea of slavery deplorable. Who on earth would want to be put into hard labor against their will with no personal liberty at their disposal? Better yet, who on earth would say such a thing? You should obey your human slavemaster with deep respect and fear and serve them as sincerely as you would Christ?

Wow, what madman would even dream of suggesting such a thing?

I'll tell you who: Jesus Christ. That's right, the man who just said your slavemasters should be obeyed at all costs and served as you would serve God was Jesus Christ himself. It's in the Bible. You can go and read the line for yourself right now. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The reason I bring this up is quite simple. Even if you disregard all of the rape, murder, pillaging, torture, slavery, and other countless atrocities in the Bible and the Old Testament (though if you're willing to disregard some parts of the Old Testament, you could very well go ahead and disregard Genesis as well and solve this whole problem), you still have lines like the above from the tamer New Testament to contend with. Let us also not forget that the line so often quoted about forbidding homosexuality comes from the Old Testament, where there is more rape than salvation. You know you disagree with God on all of the above. You know you do. Otherwise, you're insane.

You disagree with God that you shouldn't rape innocent children and make them your "wives" and disagree with him that you shouldn't murder entire villages just because one person there doesn't believe in him.

That's why, when it comes to gay marriage, I have to ask you: What's wrong with disagreeing with God one more time?

[red.orchid]

In shoooooort:
There is absolutely no need to mess up with people's legitimate happiness. And innocent human beings at that. I don't think I'll ever stone people just because they are not similar to me. It's inhuman insane to do so.

[sonoci]

I do not personally care what people believe. They are free to believe whatever they want, but the moment they begin forcing that agenda on others, expect a throwdown. Every single time.

^This, so much


Y'know, Judash, you are a wonderful father and role model to have 

[Callid]

And when 99.9% of the people follow that one opinion, then that opinion will also arrive at the law system, because, especially with democracy, the majority forms the rules. And the majority doesn't always have to choose the "right" rules. That's why democracy isn't perfect.

I never said that democracy was perfect, or even suited to implementing that ideal. That's why there are all thouse "should"s

Y'know, Judash, you are a wonderful father and role model to have 

Very definitely so.

[PT]

They didn't choose to be that way, in fact, if given a choice, I doubt they would choose to be that way.

That's kinda... well, how to put this nicely? That is incredibly presumptuous. And there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, so why would they want to change?

And I agree with everything Jd- said.

[IHKF]

They didn't choose to be that way, in fact, if given a choice, I doubt they would choose to be that way.

That's kinda... well, how to put this nicely? That is incredibly presumptuous. And there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, so why would they want to change?

Because they are ridiculed at every turn. People take stereotypes way too seriously, there are extremely religious people who hate them, homophobic people, the LAW. They're opening their life up to a world full of hate- and sometimes their families don't even stand by them which only leaves them their romantic partner- IF they have one.

[Abs.]

I believe what IU meant to say was "I doubt people would choose to be ostracized, ridiculed, excluded, attacked, etc."

Also Judash is officially the argumentator for the "yes, it's okay" view on this topic, it would seem.

Edit: RM'd.