Why do many christians not like homosexuals?

[Murray]

if i'm a homophobic bigot for disagreeing with your views, you are a christophobic bigot for disagreeing with mine.

[CallMeDave]

if i'm a homophobic bigot for disagreeing with your views, you are a christophobic bigot for disagreeing with mine.

AMEN ! Ill remember that one . Thanks.

[Danieltwotwenty]

if i'm a homophobic bigot for disagreeing with your views, you are a christophobic bigot for disagreeing with mine.

Amen.

[Ivellious]

Despite what you say, there are ample non-religious reasons to oppose homosexual behavior.

That's great. Then when you make arguments for legal restrictions on homosexuality, please leave Christianity our of it. My point was that any time you bring up God or the Bible as legitimate reasons to make laws against homosexuality, you are forcing your religious beliefs on everyone. That is not legal. I refuted the other points brought up...

but i do believe (and know based on scientific evidence) that the practice of homosexuality is wrong ...if for no other reason than it is a killer of thousands and harms people.

Please show me a scientific paper showing that homosexuality is "wrong." Also, my point still stands: you can't say you oppose homosexuality because it kills people, when heterosexual sex kills even more people. That point is moot.

Since homosexuality is inherently harmful to their bodies just as smoking or exccessive drinking is..it is therefore an addiction that people could do without and could benefit from proper treatment. And that treatment is readily available in every major city across America.

You really don't understand medicine or addiction, do you? This is a scary concept straight out of the Great Depression; that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be eradicated. You can't change what someone naturally feels and is attracted to. Homosexuality is a natural condition. It is not learned or developed. No medical or psychological professional views homosexuality as a disorder anymore. That's an ancient practice that I wish we could eradicate...

Homosexuality in past civilizations have led to a higher rate of other sexually deviant crimes. I regret if you have friends or relatives caught up in the danger of homosexuality by lets not call something which is wrong, right . Lets try and help these folks see the light.

What does my family have to do with past civilizations? Seriously, talk about distracting from the point....And your supposed fact about homosexuality being accepted leading to more crime...Umm, we live in an era with more sexually-based crime than any of those societies, and we don't accept homosexuality as a normal way of life in this country. Do you have some basis to make that claim?

Common sense tells us that homosexual parents are going to be the catalyst for thier children to carry on the dangerous torch. which by the time they are adults will be plauged with much greater consequences.

Common sense vs. actual studies and evidence....Like I said before, this claim is repeated endlessly, without any basis. My last post addressed this. Homosexual parenting has zero effect (in some cases even a more positive effect) on the children they raise when compared to heterosexual couples.



And for the record, you're only a bigot if you stand behind lies and prejudice to justify your hate. I've refuted all the claims made by CallMeDave. If you want to stand by a bunch of arguments without any basis, go ahead. The bigots who supported hating black people, the Japanese, immigrants, Muslims, and so on stand behind the same types of arguments. You can have your religious beliefs. Just don't lie to find other areas of support. And most certainly don't tell me that your religious beliefs are justification to force your views on others.

[CallMeDave]

Despite what you say, there are ample non-religious reasons to oppose homosexual behavior.

That's great. Then when you make arguments for legal restrictions on homosexuality, please leave Christianity our of it. My point was that any time you bring up God or the Bible as legitimate reasons to make laws against homosexuality, you are forcing your religious beliefs on everyone. That is not legal. I refuted the other points brought up...

but i do believe (and know based on scientific evidence) that the practice of homosexuality is wrong ...if for no other reason than it is a killer of thousands and harms people.

Please show me a scientific paper showing that homosexuality is "wrong." Also, my point still stands: you can't say you oppose homosexuality because it kills people, when heterosexual sex kills even more people. That point is moot.

Since homosexuality is inherently harmful to their bodies just as smoking or exccessive drinking is..it is therefore an addiction that people could do without and could benefit from proper treatment. And that treatment is readily available in every major city across America.

You really don't understand medicine or addiction, do you? This is a scary concept straight out of the Great Depression; that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be eradicated. You can't change what someone naturally feels and is attracted to. Homosexuality is a natural condition. It is not learned or developed. No medical or psychological professional views homosexuality as a disorder anymore. That's an ancient practice that I wish we could eradicate...

Homosexuality in past civilizations have led to a higher rate of other sexually deviant crimes. I regret if you have friends or relatives caught up in the danger of homosexuality by lets not call something which is wrong, right . Lets try and help these folks see the light.

What does my family have to do with past civilizations? Seriously, talk about distracting from the point....And your supposed fact about homosexuality being accepted leading to more crime...Umm, we live in an era with more sexually-based crime than any of those societies, and we don't accept homosexuality as a normal way of life in this country. Do you have some basis to make that claim?

Common sense tells us that homosexual parents are going to be the catalyst for thier children to carry on the dangerous torch. which by the time they are adults will be plauged with much greater consequences.

Common sense vs. actual studies and evidence....Like I said before, this claim is repeated endlessly, without any basis. My last post addressed this. Homosexual parenting has zero effect (in some cases even a more positive effect) on the children they raise when compared to heterosexual couples.



And for the record, you're only a bigot if you stand behind lies and prejudice to justify your hate. I've refuted all the claims made by CallMeDave. If you want to stand by a bunch of arguments without any basis, go ahead. The bigots who supported hating black people, the Japanese, immigrants, Muslims, and so on stand behind the same types of arguments. You can have your religious beliefs. Just don't lie to find other areas of support. And most certainly don't tell me that your religious beliefs are justification to force your views on others.

I think before i give answer to your points, it might be good for both of us (and all who are participating in this thread) to establish some foundational model to which we all agree. So with that in mind, Id like to ask you personally a few questions to ascertain if we are on the same basic wavelength . And I ask these questions apart from ANY religious disposition :

A. Do you believe there are things including lifestyles which are really wrong and really right ?
B . Do you believe a very accurate indicator of that which is inherently wrong, can be discovered according to the level of bad, harmful, or even deadly consequences to Ones chosen actions/behavior ?
C. Do you believe if Ones chosen actions/behavior repeatedly and distinctly show harm to Oneself and Others ... that it could be concretely called dangerous (and even evil in extreme cases) ?

Please answer with elaboration. Thank you.

[Ivellious]

I understand where you are going with this.

A. Of course. But it's all subjective to some degree. For instance, some people think eating beef is a bad lifestyle choice, I do not. In certain contexts there are easier ways to discern good from bad behavior. B might be a better place to elaborate:

B. In some instances, yes. In some instances, no. For instance: Being an alcoholic and binge drinking every other night is generally considered a "bad" lifestyle choice. It can have tragic consequences, so it fits your description. However, watching pornography, while generally considered a poor lifestyle choice in most circles, has varying levels of consequences. Some people are never really affected by it, physically or mentally/emotionally. Others can suffer from psychological problems or it can interfere with their life in other tangible ways.

To further complicate the issue, good lifestyle choices can also have negative effects on the person. But that doesn't make them bad choices. Another factor is that different societies and cultures find different things bad, so while you might point to a correlation between something you see as bad (like homosexuality) and negative consequences, I might not see it that way. I guess my point is just that a correlation between choices and negative consequences is only applicable sometimes. It's not a cut-and-dry thing you can draw a relationship between.

C. There is a clear difference between dangerous and bad. Rock climbing is a great form of extreme exercising, but is extremely dangerous too. Football hurts many kids every year. It doesn't make them bad. Again, the correlation is only applicable in some cases, and isn't a legitimate case for blanketing the "bad consequences = bad lifestyle."

[CallMeDave]

I understand where you are going with this.

A. Of course. But it's all subjective to some degree. For instance, some people think eating beef is a bad lifestyle choice, I do not. In certain contexts there are easier ways to discern good from bad behavior. B might be a better place to elaborate:

B. In some instances, yes. In some instances, no. For instance: Being an alcoholic and binge drinking every other night is generally considered a "bad" lifestyle choice. It can have tragic consequences, so it fits your description. However, watching pornography, while generally considered a poor lifestyle choice in most circles, has varying levels of consequences. Some people are never really affected by it, physically or mentally/emotionally. Others can suffer from psychological problems or it can interfere with their life in other tangible ways.

To further complicate the issue, good lifestyle choices can also have negative effects on the person. But that doesn't make them bad choices. Another factor is that different societies and cultures find different things bad, so while you might point to a correlation between something you see as bad (like homosexuality) and negative consequences, I might not see it that way. I guess my point is just that a correlation between choices and negative consequences is only applicable sometimes. It's not a cut-and-dry thing you can draw a relationship between.

C. There is a clear difference between dangerous and bad. Rock climbing is a great form of extreme exercising, but is extremely dangerous too. Football hurts many kids every year. It doesn't make them bad. Again, the correlation is only applicable in some cases, and isn't a legitimate case for blanketing the "bad consequences = bad lifestyle."

What can we reasonably conclude about ANY lifestyle choice then, where its Participants die prematurely and very painfully , from DIRECT involvement (over 614,000 fatal AIDS cases in the U.S. / 34,000,000 worldwide
since the epidemic began ) .... when they could have been avoided ? Is it rational to conclude that it hasnt been good , and has been very dangerous to the Participants and others ? Is it rational to conclude that there is a cut n dry relationship between them ? Would it be wise and logical to stay away from any optional lifestyle that offers a proven guaranteed death sentence ...or minimally, proven physical and emotional harm .... when it could have been entirely avoided ?

[Ivellious]

Again, I bring in the other side: Not everyone with AIDS is participating in homosexual sex. AIDS is not a result of homosexuality. There are people who die of AIDS without ever performing homosexual or adulterous acts. So I ask again: How do you say that because gay people die of AIDS, it is bad? Sex is ALWAYS dangerous, and capable of passing on STDs. The rate is higher in homosexuals, yes, but not exclusive. So I ask again, if you think that gay sex is bad because it carries the possibility of giving you AIDS, should heterosexual sex be classified the same way when it carries that risk as well?

[Murray]

Again, I bring in the other side: Not everyone with AIDS is participating in homosexual sex. AIDS is not a result of homosexuality. There are people who die of AIDS without ever performing homosexual or adulterous acts. So I ask again: How do you say that because gay people die of AIDS, it is bad? Sex is ALWAYS dangerous, and capable of passing on STDs. The rate is higher in homosexuals, yes, but not exclusive. So I ask again, if you think that gay sex is bad because it carries the possibility of giving you AIDS, should heterosexual sex be classified the same way when it carries that risk as well?

Homosexuals cannot have natural sex, their bodys are not created for it. Some Hetrosexuals choose to participate in homosexual activites (sodomy), but many do not. Homosexuals can only have sex by sodomy and thus is filthy, unnatural, and immoral, thus leading to higher rates of stds. This is actually the reason why sodomy is banned in leviticus, due to the spreading of disease as a result of it.

[CallMeDave]

Again, I bring in the other side: Not everyone with AIDS is participating in homosexual sex. AIDS is not a result of homosexuality. There are people who die of AIDS without ever performing homosexual or adulterous acts. So I ask again: How do you say that because gay people die of AIDS, it is bad? Sex is ALWAYS dangerous, and capable of passing on STDs. The rate is higher in homosexuals, yes, but not exclusive. So I ask again, if you think that gay sex is bad because it carries the possibility of giving you AIDS, should heterosexual sex be classified the same way when it carries that risk as well?

1. You are skipping over my questions asked in my last post.
1.a. Are you or a loved one or friend, a practicing Homosexual ?
2. Obviously you are not aware of AIDS being caused by Homosexuality in male and females . Scroll down in this site to the second Pie shaped Transmission Table based on 2008 statistics...how much more currently ?) : http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm : 61% HIVAIDS from homosexual males ...so please dont tell me that AIDS isnt predominately a homosexual cause. It certainly is.
3. I never denied that others outside of homosexuality are dying of AIDS, but does that disqualify my question as to whether chosen homosexuality is bad and unwise based on ITS consequences ?
4. ALL forms of sexual hedonism including sexual perverted Lifestyles, are scientifically classified as dangerous according to the bad consequences for individuals and a nation. How do you think 33 circulating STDs shared among over some 40,000,000 adult Americans (not including Teenagers) of which many are permanent and 2 have proven to be fatal, came to exist ? Perhaps our hyper-sexualized Culture is lieing to us and making it look so permissable and titilizingly attractive ... in conjuction with the populace having the willful addiction of gross apathy .

[CallMeDave]

Again, I bring in the other side: Not everyone with AIDS is participating in homosexual sex. AIDS is not a result of homosexuality. There are people who die of AIDS without ever performing homosexual or adulterous acts. So I ask again: How do you say that because gay people die of AIDS, it is bad? Sex is ALWAYS dangerous, and capable of passing on STDs. The rate is higher in homosexuals, yes, but not exclusive. So I ask again, if you think that gay sex is bad because it carries the possibility of giving you AIDS, should heterosexual sex be classified the same way when it carries that risk as well?

Homosexuals cannot have natural sex, their bodys are not created for it. Some Hetrosexuals choose to participate in homosexual activites (sodomy), but many do not. Homosexuals can only have sex by sodomy and thus is filthy, unnatural, and immoral, thus leading to higher rates of stds. This is actually the reason why sodomy is banned in leviticus, due to the spreading of disease as a result of it.

Not only sodomy, but many participate in a plethera of disgusting ways that are extremely dangerous to acquiring diseases other than HIV/AIDS ; heres a statistics table as of 1991 (how much greater the perversion , currently) . For someone to condone and enable Homosexuality, requires a total suppression of ones moral conscience ... yet this is whats occuring with the massive delusion that has swept our Nation ---

Homosexual Activities (in %)
US16 US13 US US18 Denmark20 US19 London27 Sydney/
London26
Canada25
1940s1977 83/84 1983 1984 1983 1985
1991
ever ever ever in yr in yr in mo in mo last
6mo
oral/penile 83 99 100/99 99 86
67
anal/penile 68 91 93/98 95 92 95
100
oral/anal 59 83 92/92 63 69 89
55/65
urine sex 10 23
29/
fisting/toys 22 41/47 34
fecal sex-eating 4
8
enemas 11
11
torture sex 22 37
37
public/orgy sex 61 76
88
sex with minors 37 23 24

[mlynchrules]

So I don't actually feel like jumping in on other people's conversations, so I'm just going to start my own thread of comments and see where we go. Apologies if I bring up points brought up by others in the previous 13 pages. I understand that in Christianity, homosexuality is an extremely touchy subject and I want to do my best to not offend anyone, but I would love my opinion to be heard by a large group of respectable people.

I am a Christian. I was born, raised, and brought up as a faithful Christian who believes that Jesus Christ died for the world's sins on the cross. I have accepted Jesus as my personal saviour and I have a very strong love for Him. I would do anything if I believed it to be His will. This being said, I cannot see Jesus as being hateful towards homosexual people. I am of the strong belief that Jesus/God loves all of His creations and would not create something that he does not love. Why, then, would God create people who are homosexual if He hates homosexuality? I think that God loves everyone equally and has a special place in Heaven for all of his people.

I know that the general argument against homosexuality is the fact that homosexual relationships are "unnatural". I understand where this argument may come from, but there are several instances of homosexuality found right in nature. You could even argue that not being open to thought of other sexuality is actually unnatural, because nature is constantly changing and doesn't necessarily get stuck in one path.

I hope that you all have a wonderful day and feel free to respond to my post. I would love to hear your responses!

[Kurieuo]

As a Naturalist one should surely believe that homosexuality is wrong -- because it goes against survival of the fittest in that ones gene is not propogated. Oh, that's right. Right and wrong do not exist without God, only pleasure and pain. If it feels good do it. We own our own lives.

I don't know why non-Christians even raise this topic with Christians. The two worldviews talk entirely different languages. And this is the problem with any dialogue on this or any other moral topic.

[Echoside]

I am of the strong belief that Jesus/God loves all of His creations and would not create something that he does not love. Why, then, would God create people who are homosexual if He hates homosexuality?

Why did God create any of us at all, knowing we would all fall short of his righteousness? God does not create PRACTICING homosexuals, being attracted to the opposite sex is no more hated than being inclined to want to steal or lie. The difference is when you perform the action. Temptation is not itself a bad thing, it is the response.

[kmr]

Glancing at the posts on this page, I just have to make a note that I have made on another thread.

Ivellious, I want to call your attention to a very important fact regarding sin.

Many people with more liberal social ideals hold what is right and wrong based on its impact on society... that is, how much harm it causes. This is a helpful way to look at it from a secular point of view, because it isolates what behavior is truly harmful with the least benefits, and thus, "bad" behavior.

Religiously, what is right and wrong is different than just the above. Evil is anything that is done apart from God's will, and the Bible shows that homosexuality, while it may have few factors that are uniquely harmful, is apart from God's will. This is a completely separate perspective than the secular one above, which it seems that you adhere to at least more strictly. Legally, in a secular nation I have to agree with many of your points; indeed, we cannot force our religion on others but must let them make their own choices. But just because they have a social right to choose a homosexual lifestyle does not make it morally correct, at least in accordance with the Bible.