Homosexuality

[Luke]

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children in the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
They are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves all the children in the world.

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children in the world.
Even blue or green or grey,
Just as long as they're not gay.
Jesus loves most of the children in the world.

[AppleQueso]

First off: I MISS INAZUMA.

I tried so hard to read every post in this thread, but unfortunately I've worked several double-shifts this week and can't keep my eyes open forever, so forgive me if someone raised a similar point, but there is a point mjm brought up which is common in a vast array of faith systems that I would like to investigate. Unfortunately, mjm seems to have scared himself away, so I suppose the question will be directed in the general direction of Breetai and BurningDoom who seem to be the residing representatives of a Christian basis for viewing homosexuality as a sin. Anyone else can jump in, obviously, but the B-brigade seem most likely to give a comprehensive answer at this point.

Mjm mentioned that homosexuality is inherently a sin because it is a "temporal" pursuit. That is to say -- following, for the sake of discussion, the common Christian belief that the physical body is a vessel for the soul -- that a "sin" constitutes utilizing the God-given body to serve that which is irrelevant to spiritual well-being. There is a quote which goes, "Classicism is the subordination of the parts to the whole; Decadence is the subordination of the whole to the parts," which, while it is not a saying of Christian origin, seems to be an eloquent summary of what is at the crux of the assertion which reasons that temporal pursuits are sins.

Hopefully ya'll will agree, and I've succeeded in building a bridge between us here, because that quote is something that I very much live by. However, our semantic interpretation of the term "whole" will be different as a result of our separate ideologies. My faith is a synthesis of several traditions, which could be sloppily summarized as "Naturalistic Pantheism, Sort Of". So, the way I see things, that "whole" is all that is life (and nothing which ultimately detracts from it). Obviously, this works on several layers -- personal, inter-personal, societal, et cetera. I "disapprove" of decadence (that which ultimately detracts from life). The way you guys would see things would be that the "whole" is the Will of God, if I'm not mistaken.

The difference being that I see the things which my existence immediately effects as being various degrees of temporal. I think that there is in some manner a degree of force which is not temporal (after all, the creation of our universe from any ideological background must be explained as the product of a 0:1 ratio at some point down the line), however all facets of my perception are temporal -- so I do my best, in mortal half-blindness, to serve the highest order that manifests itself. It is for this reason that I am an Environmentalist.

In serving your Lord, however, what is not temporal? The media that faith is transcribed in is temporal -- the apostles, the book, the language, the words. Your very cognitive perception of it is temporal -- might I remind you that you are a scholar of your faith; you discovered your faith by learning about it, just as secluded island-folk do not abide by its laws (unless by total coincidence) by way of unavoidable ignorance. Love between a man and woman is often as temporal as love between two men or two women, yet do they not feel the same sensations of elevation as though they have been freed of their mortal constraints for the duration of their deepest expressions of romance? Do they not feel the same welling of the tear-ducts when they gaze upon their lovers, feeling that even their sacrament of self is too low of a response to the majesty that they feel in eachothers' presence? From whence does the warmth of love arise? And when is that same warmth better called lust?

At what point does a behavior constitute a homosexual one? Many men (obviously women are part of this discussion too, but I hope everyone will be understanding if I shorthand for my own convenience here) with no sexual interest in other men whatsoever engage in anal stimulation within the confines of a heterosexual relationship. They enjoy the presence of objects which must be to some extent phallic to enter their bodies -- at which point does it become homosexual? If you'll excuse the vulgarity made necessary by the content of our discussion, how phallic must the phallus be?

I have a cousin born Nathan who is, and has always been, transgendered. She (she is family, and I choose to address her as the gender that she wishes. I hope you'll understand, at least from a distance) would sit down and tuck her male genitals between her legs everytime she used the restroom because the sight of that wobbling mass dangling between her legs was grotesque and nauseating to her as she mentally rendered her identity as female by default. I have never felt a pity which surpassed seeing my 15 year-old-cousin wiping nausea-induced vomit from her chin and sobbing in tremors because the site of her own body was still -- even after having so many years to cope -- emotionally devastating to her. Her name is Veronica now. She has the genitals of a female. She cried tears of joy when she described losing her virginity to her male fiance. I cried too. Forgive me for my wording, but I cried because I felt like I had witnessed a miracle.

Male. Female. Like the words used to communicate your doctrines of faith, in every passage, these are symbolic meanings placed on a very complex sexual biology which cannot be accurately represented in its entirety through such binaries. I may regret even posing the question, but what is God's Answer for hermaphrodites? Symbols are temporal. We give them meaning. Why would a God which is repulsed by the temporal provide the most widespread manifestation of His Will be known through the temporal?

So, your God endorses temporal love via temporal biological efficiency exclusively. But why then are so many other aberrations from serving the Will of the Lord excused? Playing video games -- a temporal pleasure if I ever heard of one! Why is it alright, even in moderation -- even if viewed as a form of enjoying all that God's creation has to offer -- if no amount of homosexual indulgence whatsoever can be permitted?

From my current perspective, I'm yet to see how the "disapproving" view of consentual, long-term oriented homosexual relationships cannot be at the very least incomprehensibly arbitrary, and damning of nearly all facets of physical existence outside of praise and tempered biological efficiency.

I doubt it'd change anyone's position on the issue, but this is a damn fine post.

[elmagicochrisg]

[BurningDoom]

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children in the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
They are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves all the children in the world.

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children in the world.
Even blue or green or grey,
Just as long as they're not gay.
Jesus loves most of the children in the world.

Again, it's about hating the sin, not the sinner. Jesus definetly doesn't have the attitude above.

[Luke]

[

Again, it's about hating the sin, not the sinner.

I was only making fun of some of the sentiments said here, but if you want to wax intellectual:

The sinner in essence is the sin manifested in the flesh. In your words God "Hates" the sin...so the sinner itself is the same damn thing.

Who is to say what is sin? Apparently man. Man wrote the Bible, and man is fallible, making everything in the two thousand+ year old book that has been edited thousands of times to suit the will of man. Would God edit his own "sacred word"? Nerp.

[sevin0seven]

Man wrote the Bible, and man is fallible, making everything in the two thousand+ year old book that has been edited thousands of times to suit the will of man. Would God edit his own "sacred word"? Nerp.

God inspired men to write the Bible...but He did wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone.

[Hobie-wan]

Daww

The soulless are thought of higher than same sex couples.

*sigh*

[harper]

Daww

The soulless are thought of higher than same sex couples.

*sigh*

Well, all dogs go to heaven.

[sevin0seven]

Daww

The soulless are thought of higher than same sex couples.

*sigh*

heh, it can't be worse than this: computer love..

[dunpeal2064]

Man wrote the Bible, and man is fallible, making everything in the two thousand+ year old book that has been edited thousands of times to suit the will of man. Would God edit his own "sacred word"? Nerp.

God inspired men to write the Bible...but He did wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone.

If God inspired men to write the bible, he must have been a big fan of Horus. He was also born of a virgin, on dec 25th, performed miracles, was crucified, was spotted by two women raising from the dead on the 3rd day.. about a thousand years before Jesus was born.

Also, are we still stoning people after they get divorced?

I'm sorry, but the Old Testament is as ridiculous as Scientology. And stolen. The Garden of Eden thing happened already in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

And yet people use this flawless book to hatemonger on those that disagree with them.