Homosexuality and Religion

[Avinash]

Namaskar Marsh,

Point 1: Free will. It led to sin. Sin has consequences.

Again, the connection between sin and homosexuality which in my eyes is illogical and morally suspect. But we seem to be moving in circles here.

Point 2: Yes, and there is a cure. His name is Jesus

Point 3: I care very little about the attitudes of politicians. If you haven't noticed, politics isn't a very moral sporting arena. By the way, if you would have actually read my last post you would have noticed that I explicitly said that homosexuality was not a problem.

I mentioned the openly gay politicians in my country first (among all the other gay citizens) because they are usually the last to come out. So you are saying that homosexuality is not a problem, but like people who have cancer or a physical handicap and the result of sin and unnatural.

As for homosexuality not being a handicap... I don't know for sure because I'm not a father yet, but I've got a pretty strong feeling that holding in one arm a child that is your own flesh and blood, and in your other the love of your life, is one of the greatest joys a human being can experience. Homosexuals will not share such an experience. I feel that is a handicap.

I personally know homosexuals who have children of their own flesh and blood and who are indeed experiencing one of the greatest joys in their lives. I can assure you they in no way feel handicapped nor diseased nor unnatural nor do any of their friends consider them in a such a way. I must admit they have no religious friends though.

Point 5: So you were there in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth and both heterosexual and homosexual animals, that you can make this claim?

Except for fundamentalist religious people, I think most people would agree with what scientists have to say on this point. Just like rational people agree that the fundamental processes in geology have never changed during the earth's history. But since you are a believer in religious Creationism, your ideas will differ from the general scientific ideas. I cannot argue with your ideas because I believe in rationality.

Point 6: So then it isn't me speaking for God, but the scripture. And so it should be. Which has more authority: the word of one's fancy, or the word of God? Or if you don't believe that the scriptures are the word of God, then call it wisdom that has withstood thousands of years.

I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.

No, I think the reason why we will not come to an agreement in this matter is far more complex than you think.

And I think the reason we differ in our points of view is quite simple, as can be deduced from the things I wrote above.

Regards,
Andrew

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by Marsh
I don't know for sure because I'm not a father yet, but I've got a pretty strong feeling that holding in one arm a child that is your own flesh and blood, and in your other the love of your life, is one of the greatest joys a human being can experience.

Please excuse this interruption, Marsh, but I have to politely disagree with you on this point (the one about holding a child that is your own flesh and blood in your arms). Earlier this morning, I was listening to my radio (a local radio station was holding a fundraiser for Children's Hospital in Milwaukee that started Wednesday morning at 5.00 am and ended today at 5.00 pm) and the two DJs interviewed a couple who adopted a little boy earlier this year after the boy was taken away from his biological parents. The reason the couple was interviewed was that they have had quite a few trips to the hospital because the little boy was a victim of "shaken baby syndrome". The little boy's biological parents abused the child to the point that he has permanent brain damage and other problems (the pediatricians at the hospital are STILL finding physical repercussions from the trauma). This couple love this little boy more than his own flesh and blood parents do/did.

Just because someone is biologically related to another doesn't mean that there is the "instant bond" that you seem to describe here. And, on the other hand, just because someone is NOT biologically related doesn't mean that s/he can't have the same love that the Virgin Mary had for Jesus.

btw, for those interested, Children's Hospital got $1.4 million during the fundraiser, and they're still counting! (Go Yale!)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[iBrian]

I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.

Ah, but this is such a subjective process!!

 

[Marsh]

This couple love this little boy more than his own flesh and blood parents do/did.

When I made this statement, I wasn't thinking about wicked parents, Phyllis. But when loving parents hold their biological son or daughter in their arms I believe it is different than when they hold their adopted son or daughter in their arms. Different, not better.

As I said before, a handicap prevents you from doing something that other people are capable of doing. Having one means that your abilities are different than those of other people, but not better or worse.

A homosexual couple cannot by definition hold a child in their arms which has 23 chromosomes from each of the two parents (yes, parents; I don't argue that a homosexual dad is any less a dad). In my opinion, this is an indication that the relationship is handicapped.

But let me be corrected if I am wrong. Compare the following two scenarios:
a) As per reality, the homosexual couple cannot conceive a child together.
b) Hypothetically, the homosexual couple is able to conceive a child together.

It is my guess that, given the choice, most homosexual couples would like to conceive children together. Maybe I am wrong, but I see no reason to believe that a gay mom would be any less maternal than a heterosexual mom, and would not choose to conceive a child with the person she loves.

 

[Marsh]

Even a fancy insult is still an insult...

1. So you are saying that homosexuality is not a problem, but like people who have cancer or a physical handicap and the result of sin and unnatural.

2. I personally know homosexuals who have children of their own flesh and blood and who are indeed experiencing one of the greatest joys in their lives. I can assure you they in no way feel handicapped.

3. Just like rational people agree that the fundamental processes in geology have never changed during the earth's history. But since you are a believer in religious Creationism, your ideas will differ from the general scientific ideas.

4. I support wisdom that is in harmony with a rational way of thinking. If my scriptures are out of touch with science or rationality, I will correct those scriptures or throw out the faulty parts. That's where you and I differ because you would never do that with your scriptures.

5. And I think the reason we differ in our points of view is quite simple, as can be deduced from the things I wrote above.

Point 1: This question is equivolent to asking if I still beat my wife. If I answer no, I am a wife beater. If I answer yes, I was a wife beater. Not exactly the style of writing I would expect from someone so... rational, as you have said. This point is an example of the nastiest form of debating.

Point 2: Let me hear it from them. We've already agreed that you do not speak for God; I don't suspect they have commissioned you to speak for them, either. Or for the physical earth, but I'll get to that next--

Point 3: And what are those processes, Andrew? Is the condition of the earth not constant change? Is the beauty of the natural world not the way it changes without losing its equilibrium, as the dead trees of the winter are filled again in the spring? Have you never heard of Pangaea? Do you think that soils have existed in their current state since the beginning of time? Do you not know that the very land on which your home sits was re-shaped several times by glaciers?

Then why, oh why, is it so hard to admit that there is a strong possibility that human personality has also changed, just like geology? When our earth was frozen in an ice age it would have been impossible for the inhabitants to imagine a time in which the whole thing was one big molten ball of lava. So too is it hard for us to imagine that homosexuality could not have existed when, in our world, it has about a 10% frequency. But perhaps I'm being irrational here.

Point 4: Those scriptures then are the spiritual equivolent of a comic book. Why on earth would you believe in a God who cannot even keep his written word accurate? If science proves the scriptures wrong, then it also proves that God doesn't exist because those same scriptures (I'm speaking of the Bible here) testify to a belief in an almighty God. Certainly an almighty God can keep his word true. So while science and belief in God can live in harmony together, using one to shape the other disallows this relationship, and the very act of taking things away or adding things into the word of God based on what human eyes see as mistakes testifies to unbelief.

This, then, is the reason why we do not agree, Andrew. I believe that there is only one God, and Jesus Christ was his word incarnate. You believe that there are two gods: the one who wrote the scripture, and the one who edits it, because only God himself is qualified to re-write scripture as the potter works his clay.

Feel free to post the last word if it will make you feel better.

 

[Avinash]

Re: Even a fancy insult is still an insult...

Namaskar dear Marsh,

Point 1: This point is an example of the nastiest form of debating.

There was no question mark, Marsh. I was merely summarizing what nasty things you said about homosexuality.

Point 2: Let me hear it from them. I don't suspect they have commissioned you to speak for them, either.

I don't need to speak for them, I have my own direct experience.

Point 3: And what are those processes, Andrew? Is the condition of the earth not constant change?

Your sort of religious fundamentalist thinking about changes in geology and the basic processes in the natural world are not recognized by the main scientific community.

Point 4: Those scriptures then are the spiritual equivolent of a comic book.
Feel free to post the last word if it will make you feel better.

Unfortunately large parts of those religious writing are indeed somewhat comical. The reason God allowed such writings is the same why He allowed other imperfect or unhealthy things to exist on this planet. The religious writings may be imperfect, false or comical but God Himself is there inside you waiting to be discovered by practising Yoga or another genuine spiritual practice.

Andrew

 

[iBrian]

Re: Even a fancy insult is still an insult...

Ah, now, let's not state that other people are "nasty" or do not practice "genuine spiritual practice", simply for having different opinions, thank you.

It does seem that Marsh is being treated as something of a "fundie bashing stool" in this thread, simply for being honest with his opinions. However, from what I've read from Marsh about these forums, he is not the person or image some people seem to imagine him to be. Unless I have read wrongly, he is not a projection of Jerry Falwell, but an independent Christian with his own criticisms of the faith. As with all of us here, we may not share the same views, but we should at least share a little more civility.

 

[lunamoth]

Adoption

Hi All,

Interesting thread. I agree that homosexuality is a religious test, but the question is: who is being tested?

Anyway, Marsh, first I just wanted to say that I found your first post on this subject quite good. While I do not agree with all of your conclusions, I think it is good to point out that there is not a uniform block of thinking about this in Christianity, that we are able to turn to scripture for guidance, and that the most important part of scripture has to do with loving your neighbor, not judging or condemning them.

But I could not let it go here that adoption is somehow a worse way to have a family than having children that share your choromosomes. I realize that you said "different, not better" at one point, but you also suggested that the inablility to have children together was a handicap, which has negative connotations. Many people choose to adopt children even when they are fully able to concieve their own. Often this has to do with a desire to help abandoned children or to not add to the world population problem, sometimes due to due to religious motivations. And those children are every bit as loved and special as biological children.

And yes, I speak from experience. Both of my daughters are adopted. When my husband and I found that we were unable to have children without assistance, instead of going through lots of expensive medical procedures we decided to adopt. It felt MORE RIGHT for us to do this than to go to exepensive procedures to concieve biologically (and our insurance would have paid for a large part of it, it just didn't seem right to use resources this way) when there there are so many children in the world who need families.

It is not uncommon for mothers who give birth to go through post-partum depression. This is a serious serious medical thing, not just the baby blues that many women often experience after birth. And, I know that adoptive mothers can sometimes also experience this devastating illness. And on the flip side, mothers (and fathers) holding their adopted babies for the first time are just as locked in emotionally as those holding their newborn babies. Please don't de-value this experience.

We got the referral for our second daughter's adoption (from China) at the peak of the SARS epidemic. That means that after more than a year of waiting we got her picture and found out who she was. Travel usually occurs just a few weeks after you get this picture, and believe me once you see that picture of a baby waiting in an orphanage for you to come get her, you are desperate to get on that plane. You are already in love. And we were delayed and delayed due to SARs. Can you imagine, we, along with other waiting parents at the time, were the only people in the world desperate to GET INTO CHINA during SARS.

God puts families together, and He does this in many different ways.

So, the thing about homosexuality is wrong because children can't be concieved doesn't carry much weight. There are many heterosexual couples who, for immunological reasons, can't concieve WITH EACH OTHER. I believe that with different partners conception is possible, but following chastity laws from scripture, first you wouldn't know if you were biologically compatible before marriage because you would not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Second, after you are married, some religions even ban sperm/egg donations for conception. So, the mere inablity to concieve children does not invalidate a marraige (or, at least I hope it doesn't!). Hey, I guess it did in ancient times!

OK, one final rambling thought since I am at it. I have read above and elsewhere the idea that the expression of homosexuality is a response to environmental/cultural stress. And that perhaps if we address the problems with society that create that stress homosexuality will decline. Well, that makes sense biologically, right? Who knows whether homosexuality is not an adaptation our human population is making in response to overpopulation and competition for resources. The same could be said for immunological infertility. If this were true, while homosexuality, like infertility, might be considered a disorder, it could not be considered corruptive to the soul. IMHO, you can't have it both ways. It can't be a sin AND an illness.

End of thread derailment.

 

[lunamoth]

"Conceive"

I couldn't re-edit after logging out, so I couldn't correct my poor spelling throughout the above post. Red face.

 

[Marsh]

Handicaps, such as language

But I could not let it go here that adoption is somehow a worse way to have a family than having children that share your choromosomes. I realize that you said "different, not better" at one point, but you also suggested that the inablility to have children together was a handicap, which has negative connotations...

If this were true, while homosexuality, like infertility, might be considered a disorder, it could not be considered corruptive to the soul. IMHO, you can't have it both ways. It can't be a sin AND an illness.

The biggest problem I felt when responding in this thread is that I could not find effective words to express what I mean to say. "Different, not better" was the best that I could do. But all of the words we have in English to express what I wanted to say either have a negative connotation or are too luke-warm to describe what I mean.

What word or phrase is there in English that means one who is missing out on something, while at the same time is not missing out on anything because they are happy with what they have?

I certainly agree that love is not biological, and that parents who have adopted children are able to love those children to the fullest of their ability. After all, biological parents don't have a different set of emotions than adopting parents. The difference is that two parents who are able to conceive a child are also able to adopt a child, while two parents who are not able to conceive a child can adopt a child. We must agree that this is a difference. It's up to individuals to decide if that difference is also an inequality. And we're all entitled to our opinion on the matter, even if that opinion is politically incorrect or unpopular.

And I still can't figure out why people are accusing me of saying that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't say it; the Bible did. So please place your accusations where they belong.

What I did say was that homosexuality is just one more indication that the original equilibrium with which the world was created has been thrown off. Funny how nobody has questioned me on this.

 

[lunamoth]

Re: Handicaps, such as language

Hi Marsh,

Thank you for considering and replying to my post. I agree that it is sticky trying to explain 'different, not better.' I posted my view on adoption because I felt it was a viewpoint not yet represented in the discussion. I think that ultimately it is a weak argument against homosexuality. You are raising some very interesting ideas, and I would like to respond to a couple of them.

Right after I submitted my post I thought of a dozen different ways to refute my own ideas because, well, they are just that. My ideas, my experiences. But this is different from the main objective of this thread, which is to examine homosexuality from a religionist standpoint. So the question is what do you do when you profess a religion but are challenged by some of its dogma. I think your first post handled that quite well, whether you view yourself as challenged by this issue or not.

I'll answer my own rhetorical question first. Who is being tested? I am. I'm not gay but it is my challenge how I will reconcile my religion with my very human perception of homosexuality, a perception colored by culture, science, and personal experiences. Tests and challenges are good. Without them we do not grow. It would be much easier, simpler, if I were to just put this struggle down, to say either yup, no brainer, all homosexual acts are sinful or to say well, the Bible is outdated or flat out wrong about this issue. But I am not willing to do either. I believe the Bible to be God-inspired and God-protected. But I also believe that God's revelation to us progresses. Sometimes it comes in the form of scientific inquiry and data. Sometimes it comes in the form of Elizabeth Cady Stanton re-writing her bible and opening the door for women to vote and have other important rights. Sometimes it comes to us in the form of a Teacher who shows us the truth right before our eyes. Am I an "evolutionist?" You bet! Right down to the idea that religion itself evolves. But the heart wisdom is always constant.

Marsh said: "And I still can't figure out why people are accusing me of saying that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't say it; the Bible did. So please place your accusations where they belong."

lunamoth: No accusations here! Sorry if it seemed that way. The end of my post was directed in general. My take on it is that if one considers homosexuality a physical illness, then it can't be also considered a sin. I didn't say it had to be one or the other.

Honestly, at this moment I could not give you any firm conclusions I have made about this issue. I am very much struggling with it. I conclude for now that homosexuality is an adaptation made in response to genetic predisposition and/or early nurturing conditions. I use adaptation neutrally. Humans have a need to establish initmate relationships with other humans and some people find they have no choice but to do so with people of the same sex. I may be wrong, but I have chosen to err on the side of acceptance until proven otherwise. I hope I don't have to next defend why I find it easy to believe that promiscuity, polygamy, incest, rape, adultery and murder are wrong.

Marsh said: What I did say was that homosexuality is just one more indication that the original equilibrium with which the world was created has been thrown off. Funny how nobody has questioned me on this.[/QUOTE]

lunamoth: This is a great discussion point! I have a couple of thoughts about this, and they are just that. I do not read the creation story of genesis literally, so we have no basis for debate.

I think Genesis is informing me about my creation. It think it is telling me quite clearly that I was not created in sin, but created pure and good. And as I gained knowledge I started to question God, and even rebel! I still do! So what hope is there for me? Well, I follow a Christian path now, so I will state it this way: My hope lies in the forgiveness promised to me by Jesus for believing in Him. People in other religions will phrase this in different ways. One way or another we each try to conquer our baser instincts and rise to a more noble being.

Equilibrium is a good way to think of God and an ideal state. But I don't think we humans ever started out in an equilibrium. As soon as there were two humans there were two different ideas about how things can be done. It is easy to imagine an idyllic primative world where humans lived in harmony with nature, but I think that is more a goal to strive toward rather than an ideal we have left behind us because of original sin.

Would it be correct to say that you postulate that homosexuality is a symptom of world disorder? And that the world has essentially been out of order since the day of Adam and Eve? OK, I would like to think more about this but my daughters both just got up from their naps, so I will have to come back to this later.

Cheers!

 

[Mohsin]

Regards to all

A few things that I have noticed from the so many replies here is that among the Christians, there is a great concept of forgiveness. I respect that. The Qur'an also has a good concept of forgiveness, its called Taubah(sincerely praying for forgiveness). But in Islam, there is a saying that if someone who does a sin but without knowing will recieve one degree of sin while someone who knows and does wrong, he will recieve seven degree more sin. Thus, the one who knows will be held more sinful for his wrong doing then someone who does not. But still, the door of Taubah is open until death.
In the case of Christianity, the concept of forgiveness is being misused. I do recall somewhere that in the Gospels it is said that a true believer in Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) will not do sin. This is not the case observed. There are articals even in news papers saying about the acts of homosexuality among the fathers of churches. It is agreed upon that The Qur'an and the Bible holds this act as a sin. So if some Muslims, according to some are involved in homosexuality, they are wrong and they will be held responsible for their acts.

Also, there is a Hadith which is actually among the prophacies or a sign of the Last of Day(the day of Judgement).
People will indulge in homosexuality and lesbianism. (Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi, Muntakhab Kanzul Ummaal). You can find more on this artical(Signs of the last days) from the following link http://harunyahya.com/signs05.php .

I hope that none are offended.
Sincerely,
Mohsin

 

[iBrian]

Also, there is a Hadith which is actually among the prophacies or a sign of the Last of Day(the day of Judgement).
People will indulge in homosexuality and lesbianism. (Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi, Muntakhab Kanzul Ummaal).

Have you heard of the Ancient Greeks, though?

 

[Marsh]

Have you heard of the Ancient Greeks, though?

Or what happened in the first hour after Constantinople fell to the Turks?

 

[Avinash]

a hurtful remark packaged in a religious quotation is still a hurtful remark

Ah, now, let's not state that other people are "nasty" or do not practice "genuine spiritual practice", simply for having different opinions, thank you.

With respect Brian, but I never said that Marsh was "nasty". I simply said that I find his typifications of homosexuality nasty which is my personal opinion about such ideas and not about the person.

I also did not comment in any way on the spiritual practices of Marsh. How could I do such a thing when he hasn't told me what kind of practices he is actually into?

It does seem that Marsh is being treated as something of a "fundie bashing stool" in this thread, simply for being honest with his opinions.

Again, I am not attacking Marsh as a "fundie" because I have no detailed picture of where he stands in general. But I did express my opinion that certain things he expresses about homosexuality are done so from a fundamentalist viewpoint. If someone says things like
>>And I still can't figure out why people are accusing me of saying that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't say it; the Bible did. So please place your accusations where they belong>>
then it is clear to me that such a person is not using any logic but religious dogma. I think this is a fundamentalist viewpoint (religious writings are the fundament and not a logically coherent spiritual philosophy).

As with all of us here, we may not share the same views, but we should at least share a little more civility.

If I am called a handicapped person or a sinner, I should at least be able to make my case in a clear way. Noone who makes questionable and/or hurtful remarks and then hides behind statements in religious writings should IMHO be defended. If this is the policy on this site, then I'm out of here today.

 

[iBrian]

Re: a hurtful remark packaged in a religious quotation is still a hurtful remark

Avinash, the point is simply that there is going to be a lot of opinion that a lot of people disagree with on an interfaith forum. It is an expression of human diversity. It is not the place of this forum to judge any individual for their ideology, merely ask for good manners.

Your previous posts on a variety of subjects have been interesting, and you have been careful not to intrude on others beliefs. I simply put a gentle word in to attempt to guide the dialogue in a more constructive and positive direction.

My earlier point is to not let someone be turned into a straw man for our own prejudices - Marsh simply states an opinion from a Christian perspective - but certainly not from the rabidly anti-gay camp that Falwell's boys seem to live in.

 

[Marsh]

Logic

it is clear to me that such a person is not using any logic but religious dogma.

I'll ask this question in language that you will certainly understand:

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who do not use logic.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who does not use logic.

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who believe in religious dogma.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who believes in religious dogma.

My question: Do you agree with these two syllogisms, Avinash?

 

[Avinash]

Logic and religious dogma

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who do not use logic.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who does not use logic.

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who believe in religious dogma.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who believes in religious dogma.

My question: Do you agree with these two syllogisms, Avinash?

Namaskar Marsh,

No, I cannot agree because I obviously have a different definition of scripture than you do. I have said before that religious writings contain some scripture and a lot of dogma, myth and superstition. All persons who believe in dogma, myth and superstition are persons who do not use logic (all the time).

Many religious people take their religious writings as sacred. They will accept the dogma, the myths and superstitions together with the scriptures in their religious writings. I am not addressing any religion in particular here but am speaking in general terms. When I answer your postings they are equally applicable to people who believe in the sacredness of other religious writings. If you use a dogma as your starting point then any logical discussion becomes impossible. When I try to get to this root of the problem, I get into trouble with the moderator for not being civil enough.

If you say that homosexuality is unnatural or sinful, then I would like to hear a rational argument and not simply a text that you believe to be true because someone else told you it is true and you decided to believe him or her. If you want to think in such a way, then that is your right and freedom but then I can't have a rational exchange of thoughts with you on the subject.

This is an inter-religious forum and you may well argue there is no place here for people who do not have a religion. Or perhaps I should just stay clear of the Monotheism section, although I don't believe there is more than one God. Yes, I think I will do this because my path is not mentioned in the three/four subsections of Monotheism.

 

[Avinash]

Religion and dogma

So Marsh, if you wish to discuss this matter further with me, please move the topic (on religion and dogma) to a section where I fit in better.

 

[iBrian]

Re: Logic and religious dogma

When I try to get to this root of the problem, I get into trouble with the moderator for not being civil enough.

...

This is an inter-religious forum and you may well argue there is no place here for people who do not have a religion.

Nobody is in trouble - as before, I am simply trying to guide the discussion towards a more constructive dialogue.

As for people having no religion - I don't carry any such titles either. This is
an emotive subject matter, though, and it obviously hits very close to hoime for you - as you've already stated.