Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Will the legislation of homosexuality be a cause for concern in the future?

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student00009)
    Still not going to explain your views on homosexuality? There is no explicit condemnation in the NT, and yet you say you don't follow the OT... gotta love religious logic.
    Been waiting for him to do this for a few days tbh.

    Explicitly i believe the answer essentially will boil down to 'I pick and choose which rules i follow from the OT'
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    *Sigh* Another day, another thread giving idiots space to air their ridiculous outdated views on homosexuality...How long before someone along the lines of DYKWIA or Kalb gets involved, I wonder?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=ScheduleII;36858720]By Biblical I mean NT because the BIBLE teaches that the old testament code was nailed to the Cross... otherwise I would be a Jew.

    So does that mean Christians don't have to believe in the old testament and follow it to be Christian? How come they put the old testament in the bible if its teachings arent supposed to be followed? or dont they? im confused
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    *Sigh* Another day, another thread giving idiots space to air their ridiculous outdated views on homosexuality...How long before someone along the lines of DYKWIA or Kalb gets involved, I wonder?
    *bigger sigh* Another day, another idiot using the word "outdated" to describe an aspect of morality when unlike fashion or sushi, morality CANNOT go out of date.

    And Tommy- I have already said that I interpret Romans 1:22-30 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, along with Jude, to prohibit homosexuality. If you dispute the meaning of those words (some scholars do) or you don't think they are enough, then fine. But DO NOT accuse me of "not being explicit enough". I have told you exactly which Scriptures I base my view of the sinfulness of homosexuality on.

    It isn't my fault if they are not good enough for you.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Been waiting for him to do this for a few days tbh.

    Explicitly i believe the answer essentially will boil down to 'I pick and choose which rules i follow from the OT'
    No, I do not pick-choose OT rules. So you are wrong.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    *bigger sigh* Another day, another idiot using the word "outdated" to describe an aspect of morality when unlike fashion or sushi, morality CANNOT go out of date.

    And Tommy- I have already said that I interpret Romans 1:22-30 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, along with Jude, to prohibit homosexuality. If you dispute the meaning of those words (some scholars do) or you don't think they are enough, then fine. But DO NOT accuse me of "not being explicit enough". I have told you exactly which Scriptures I base my view of the sinfulness of homosexuality on.

    It isn't my fault if they are not good enough for you.
    You base your morality on a 2000 year old book, of which many parts are deemed to be no longer applicable to modern day society and thus 'outdated', so I feel perfectly justified in using such a word. Your views on homosexuality are outdated, society is evolving to become more tolerant and accepting and realise that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, thus your views no longer have a place.

    And it most certainly does seem like you pick and choose which parts of the OT to follow, but to be perfectly honest, I cannot be bothered to engage in such an argument with you.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    And Tommy- I have already said that I interpret Romans 1:22-30 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, along with Jude, to prohibit homosexuality. If you dispute the meaning of those words (some scholars do) or you don't think they are enough, then fine. But DO NOT accuse me of "not being explicit enough". I have told you exactly which Scriptures I base my view of the sinfulness of homosexuality on.

    It isn't my fault if they are not good enough for you.
    So like i stated, nothing specified about homosexuality only things a person can interpret as they wish. Good to know.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    All I would say is that if 'God' and the bible is so against homosexuality, then according to the bible which states that Humans are created by 'God' in his image, why then are there homosexuals?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    The Bible is not a book of fairy tales, it is God's Word, so I do not care what you think of me. When you have a more correct view of Scripture and theology I will respect your opinion on how I look. Capiche?
    Gods word written by humans in a Patriarchal society parts decided at the council of Nicea and translated in various languages. Also, have you considered that God like the world changes? It's called being Diploar.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    You base your morality on a 2000 year old book, of which many parts are deemed to be no longer applicable to modern day society and thus 'outdated', so I feel perfectly justified in using such a word. Your views on homosexuality are outdated, society is evolving to become more tolerant and accepting and realise that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, thus your views no longer have a place.

    And it most certainly does seem like you pick and choose which parts of the OT to follow, but to be perfectly honest, I cannot be bothered to engage in such an argument with you.
    That makes no sense because God has written into our nature that man and woman are intended to form sexual relationships; perversions of that order including all homosexual acts are WRONG. This does not change over time hence it is entirely inappropriate to use the word "outdated" in the context of sexual morality. I will not change my views because of "society", as I have explained on the abortion thread and a previous premarital sex thread. What does the fact that it is 2000 years old have to do with ANYTHING, please tell me? It is still God's word and is therefore still valid and applicable whether you deem it to be or not.

    Nobody can "realise" that homosexuality is "okay", because it isn't. All that has happened is that a majority of people falsely believe that homosexuality is okay, as the elite society in Greece and Rome and many other places has done before us.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    My mum is an atheist. My dad is a Jew who rarely mentions his faith. I read some of the other supposedly holy books such as the Vedas and Koran, then read Bible and became born-again at 14. I spent hours for most days in the six months after that trying to thrash out a consistent theological viewpoint on all things with Scripture in mind.

    If I had been born somewhere else where Christianity is in the minority, I believe that if I had heard the Gospel I would have believed it and proclaimed it even if that meant a risk of my own family killing me. If I didn't, I believe there will be a second chance after death for those who never got to hear the Gospel on Earth.
    I'm willing to bet my life that you've never read the entire Bible. Either that or you are mentally ill. I think that this kind of stupidity calls for a diagnosis of some sort. You pick and choose things, you make up things,you contradict yourself at every possible opportunity... Please have some self respect and stop pushing your immoral views upon others, especially considering you don't even know what you believe in.

    I honestly believe there "could" be a God, not one as described in any religion of course, but a higer power that is incomprehensible to us, sure. However, people like you give religion a bad name and make religious people look incredibly stupid and borderline insane. There are completely rational and intelligent people who have logical reasons for believing in whatever deity takes their fancy, but you are not one of them. Think about that before you start typing next time.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Nobody can "realise" that homosexuality is "okay", because it isn't
    Except from all biological, logical, moral and intelligent viewpoints.

    But i guess a book trumps this, clearly.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    if there's one glaring problem the world faces, it's overpopulation. There are seven BILLION of us now apparently, and it's gonna go on increasing for a long time. homosexuality becoming more widespread would be a good thing, there would be fewer babies.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Except from all biological, logical, moral and intelligent viewpoints.

    But i guess a book trumps this, clearly.
    Biology? Naturalistic fallacy.

    What logic says homosexuality is OK? "It doesn't cause direct harm to anyone" is not logic, as that presupposes morality only requires doing no harm to other human beings, and not adherence to the natural order

    How can "all moral viewpoints" teach the gay-OK idea? Many traditions and ethical systems oppose homosexual acts and/or preference.

    Define intelligent. Overall a pretty silly post. You seem to be making out there is a multi-faceted pyramid of evidence supporting the proposition that "homosexual sex is not immoral", when there just isn't by anyone's standards.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Negaduck)
    I'm willing to bet my life that you've never read the entire Bible. Either that or you are mentally ill. I think that this kind of stupidity calls for a diagnosis of some sort. You pick and choose things, you make up things,you contradict yourself at every possible opportunity... Please have some self respect and stop pushing your immoral views upon others, especially considering you don't even know what you believe in.

    I honestly believe there "could" be a God, not one as described in any religion of course, but a higer power that is incomprehensible to us, sure. However, people like you give religion a bad name and make religious people look incredibly stupid and borderline insane. There are completely rational and intelligent people who have logical reasons for believing in whatever deity takes their fancy, but you are not one of them. Think about that before you start typing next time.
    I was the top out of over 200 pupils in my school year for maths, English and SCIENCE (yes, including evolutionary ideology) in the GCSE years and got A grades at AS level. I have read a lot more on theology, moral philosophy &c. than most people of my age. What makes you think I am not intelligent or not rational?

    I have read all or just about all of the NT and much of the OT. I have not contradicted myself on this thread.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How on earth does one compare homosexuality to zoophilia and incest?! Incest is a mark of a dysfunctional family, can psychologically harm all participants, and zoophilia is forbidden because its between two species and obviously harms both of them. Neither of these two can create a healthy child.

    It is NOT a cause for concern. It's very simple, if you do not like homosexual marriages, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Your personal belief system doesn't extend to everyone in the world. Regular homosexuality is nothing but two people of the same sex, the same species, unaffiliated by blood, having a mutual, consensual sexual and romantic relationship.

    Either way, you have pointed out yourself that the situation for homosexuals has improved radically over the past century. There's nothing you can do about it, you're just an individual homophobe whom nobody will listen to. So just deal with it.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Biology? Naturalistic fallacy.
    Nope. Read up on critiques about what is defined as okay and good and how the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy itself, as well as the fact the original idea and its written concept has been well noted as not to directly adhere to appeals to nature.

    What logic says homosexuality is OK? "It doesn't cause direct harm to anyone" is not logic, as that presupposes morality only requires doing no harm to other human beings, and not adherence to the natural order
    Of course that is logic? It is the definition of logic. Dismissing something because you do not accept it does not make it true.One version of if something is good okay is if it is an objectively harmful act.

    You seem to be making out there is a multi-faceted pyramid of evidence supporting the proposition that "homosexual sex is not immoral", when there just isn't by anyone's standards.
    Because homosexuality literally isnt immoral in any written or definition of the word bar those used for religious purposes? Or shall we just ignore what words actually mean and keep up to this imaginary definition you keep in your head?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    That makes no sense because God has written into our nature that man and woman are intended to form sexual relationships; perversions of that order including all homosexual acts are WRONG. This does not change over time hence it is entirely inappropriate to use the word "outdated" in the context of sexual morality. I will not change my views because of "society", as I have explained on the abortion thread and a previous premarital sex thread. What does the fact that it is 2000 years old have to do with ANYTHING, please tell me? It is still God's word and is therefore still valid and applicable whether you deem it to be or not.

    Nobody can "realise" that homosexuality is "okay", because it isn't. All that has happened is that a majority of people falsely believe that homosexuality is okay, as the elite society in Greece and Rome and many other places has done before us.
    If he has writtent it into our "nature", then why is it in fact common throughout the rest of nature inluding animals who we would have shared comman ancesters with?

    And I take it you don't mind marrying and sleeping with underage girls, that was sexually moral 2000 years ago and you just stated sexual morality cannot change. It is not gods word, it is humans word written often hundreds of years later than what they are talking about. In the original bible Jesus didn't even rise he stayed dead, then some guy decided it sounded better if he rose from the dead.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    That makes no sense because God has written into our nature that man and woman are intended to form sexual relationships; perversions of that order including all homosexual acts are WRONG. This does not change over time hence it is entirely inappropriate to use the word "outdated" in the context of sexual morality. I will not change my views because of "society", as I have explained on the abortion thread and a previous premarital sex thread. What does the fact that it is 2000 years old have to do with ANYTHING, please tell me? It is still God's word and is therefore still valid and applicable whether you deem it to be or not.

    Nobody can "realise" that homosexuality is "okay", because it isn't. All that has happened is that a majority of people falsely believe that homosexuality is okay, as the elite society in Greece and Rome and many other places has done before us.
    Ah, I see the problem. You're just not getting any.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    That makes no sense because God has written into our nature that man and woman are intended to form sexual relationships; perversions of that order including all homosexual acts are WRONG. This does not change over time hence it is entirely inappropriate to use the word "outdated" in the context of sexual morality. I will not change my views because of "society", as I have explained on the abortion thread and a previous premarital sex thread. What does the fact that it is 2000 years old have to do with ANYTHING, please tell me? It is still God's word and is therefore still valid and applicable whether you deem it to be or not.
    I'm just going to counter some points in your passage here and just before you get b****y at me in case some of my posts happen to go against each other, I'll include a little disclaimer: If it seems like some of my points counter each other, it is because points in your post counter each other. Okay?

    God has not written anything; humans have written their interpretations of God's rules/desires for people etc, and it is these interpretations which form the Bible. I could just as easily write out my interpretation of God's laws/rules etc into a book - it would be the same as the Bible, only there wouldn't be a world religion based upon it. The people who wrote the Bible were writing it within the societal context of their time, so yes, some parts of the Bible are outdated and the morality that as a follower you ought to draw from them is no longer applicable to modern day society. Our societal context is different to that when the Bible was being written, therefore what we see as moral or immoral has evolved and changed.

    Much of what the Bible says against homosexuality is in the Old Testament, but as you have said yourself, God did not intend this for you as it was nailed to the cross along with Jesus, thus we can disregard all 'arguments' against homosexuality stemming from the Old Testament.

    There are only around four references to homosexuality in the New Testament, each of which is subject to vast debate regarding whether they actually do present an argument against homosexuality or whether the word homosexual has been inserted into several passages by modern translators because of what society believed about homosexuality. It is a widely accepted fact that the Bible is full of mistranslations from the original Hebrew, the reason for the original humanist movement in the 15th and 16th centuries; scholars were seeking a true translation of the Bible, instead of the Latin Vulgate which was widely accepted as being riddled with errors and mistranslations. The problems of mistranslation increase even more when the Bible began to be translated into the vernacular, generally with the evolution of the Protestant Reformation (e.g. Luther inserting a word into his translation of the Hebrew Bible so it would support his views on justification and not those of the Catholic Church). In fact, all the references to homosexuality in the NT are dependent upon the translation of two Greek words (themselves a translation from Hebrew) 'arsenokoitēs' and 'malakos' - some translators decided these referenced homosexuality, though much of the debate on these passages centers around the fact that there is a variety of meanings for these two words and the passages in which they appear could just as easily be against pederasty, or could be referencing male prostitutes who bottom for heterosexual and homosexual clients. Given the scholarly and academic debate going on surrounding the passages in question, forgive me if I don't accept your word as the be all and end all.

    Either way, it is reasonable to assume that, seeing as none of the gospels mention homosexuality, it wasn't seen as a problem by Jesus or his disciples. Jesus said that there were two commandments with which no other commandment could rank: to love God with your whole heart and to love thy neighbour as thyself. You seem to be failing abysmally in the second.

    Nobody can "realise" that homosexuality is "okay", because it isn't. All that has happened is that a majority of people falsely believe that homosexuality is okay, as the elite society in Greece and Rome and many other places has done before us.
    Homsexuality is okay, and you need to learn to accept that. It is no false belief, it is the truth. All that has happened is that a majority of people have realised that to discriminate against someone because of something they cannot change is ridiculous, especially when there is nothing wrong with it. As a previous poster put, God created humans in the image of himself, so homosexuals must have been intended.

    Also, I must ask, are you Catholic or C of E. Because neither are exactly blemish-free:

    Catholic: all those kiddie-fiddling priests, many of whose victims were boys.
    C of E: the C of E is based on the King James Bible. There is much historical debate over the nature of King James' relationships with is various male favourites and some historians believe the king was himself a closet homosexual. Contemporary sources also point to a similar view.

    So, you know, when your own religion engages so much in 'nasty homosexuality', have you really got a leg to stand on?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 12, 2012
New on TSR
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.