Is It Wrong to Think Homosexuality is a Sin?

[LittleNipper]

God holds us higher than other species. Animals don't have souls

Who says? Do people? Can you substantiate either claim?

Nope, but this is what many Christians believe, which, they have a right to. And, the theory is that we can exert self control to behave in a way pleasing to God if we love Him

Whereby; if "He" really loved me... he could exert self control to behave in a way that is pleasing to me... "Love" after all, in the classical sense has to be a two way street. Most would settle for him simply making himself known. And no... other people telling you about it through word of mouth, or writing doesn't cut it.

Those that choose to believe this way, defer to God as the ultimate rule maker. They are after all believers, so, they worship Him and realize as an unfallible being he is always right and perfect. Those that don't believe make their own rules and live by their own moral code

So basically, it's ok with you for people to live in a fantasy world.

And the world you are creating around your feelings/desires is real? I have found GOD and I notice that there is a big difference between those that have a regard for GOD and those that deny HIM. The difference is that the ungodly have no ideals, they only have a list of their personal demands. The godly seek what is best for everyone and not simply for their moment in the sun.

 

[petro]

Homosexuality is found throughout nature. So if you think that god created everything...

And Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so that point is moot.

God holds us higher than other species. Animals don't have souls

Some people's god think that even rocks have souls, let alone animals. What makes you think that your god is the right one and that animals don't have souls?

I was just stating what Christians believe. I am not knowledgable of other religions but they obviously have a right to voice their beliefs

So you don't believe it yourself? Good for you.

I believe in God, yes, but I am not committed to faith that much....if that makes sense

Actually yes. Spirituality really has nothing to do with human organized religion.

 

[Darkwind]

Why is it no one is actually addressing what she really asked?

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to think this? I don't think she, or anyone really, care what spin you put on it. The question is basic.

Do we, as a free people, have the right to think that homosexuality is wrong? This implies that if you disagree, that means you think it is acceptable to control what one believes and thinks.

That may be one way to look at it as wanting to "control" what people believe and think.

But what if you want to wait to answer until after people see more scientific study and proof what is going on with homosexuality? What if you want to wait until after people come to a conclusion and understanding spiritually of what is involved as a process?

I don't want people to be judged one way or another, but just held to be consistent. If you are going to ask to keep Christian beliefs in private then why not allow Christian's to ask to keep LGBT beliefs in private? If you insist on accepting LGBT beliefs as naturally occurring instead of rejecting this, then why not allow Christian's to teach those beliefs as natural truths to be included as well?

In general Darkwind I have as much trouble judging ppl for their beliefs if they don't have full information from all sources and sides, as I do with ppl who insist they already know but they refuse to include cases or information that shows their beliefs are not the only rule that applies. This happens on both sides, unfortunately, so it's unfair to judge one side without judging the other for this same tactic of discounting any evidence which might prove the other side is right in some cases but not others.

That's why I'd rather establish all the cases and evidence that explain why ppl on different sides have different views, and then ask ppl what they believe. Whatever is inconsistent or conflicting should take care of itself in the process. Thus there is no need to judge, since ppl ' s views are going to change to include each other instead of rejecting each other. I'd rather wait until ppl have fully informed choices before I assess who believes what. And by then there wont be any reason to judge because everyone will be equally right on some points and equally wrong on others. Everyone's thinking will expand to understand better where each other is coming from.

This is not what is being asked. Sometimes, people overthink things.

Its simple. Does anyone in this country have the right to have a moral position that homosexuality is a sin?

It is a yes/no question. Either they do have that right, or they don't. If you believe they don't, how, exactly, will that be enforced?

 

[Vastator]

Why is it no one is actually addressing what she really asked?

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to think this? I don't think she, or anyone really, care what spin you put on it. The question is basic.

Do we, as a free people, have the right to think that homosexuality is wrong? This implies that if you disagree, that means you think it is acceptable to control what one believes and thinks.

That may be one way to look at it as wanting to "control" what people believe and think.

But what if you want to wait to answer until after people see more scientific study and proof what is going on with homosexuality? What if you want to wait until after people come to a conclusion and understanding spiritually of what is involved as a process?

I don't want people to be judged one way or another, but just held to be consistent. If you are going to ask to keep Christian beliefs in private then why not allow Christian's to ask to keep LGBT beliefs in private? If you insist on accepting LGBT beliefs as naturally occurring instead of rejecting this, then why not allow Christian's to teach those beliefs as natural truths to be included as well?

In general Darkwind I have as much trouble judging ppl for their beliefs if they don't have full information from all sources and sides, as I do with ppl who insist they already know but they refuse to include cases or information that shows their beliefs are not the only rule that applies. This happens on both sides, unfortunately, so it's unfair to judge one side without judging the other for this same tactic of discounting any evidence which might prove the other side is right in some cases but not others.

That's why I'd rather establish all the cases and evidence that explain why ppl on different sides have different views, and then ask ppl what they believe. Whatever is inconsistent or conflicting should take care of itself in the process. Thus there is no need to judge, since ppl ' s views are going to change to include each other instead of rejecting each other. I'd rather wait until ppl have fully informed choices before I assess who believes what. And by then there wont be any reason to judge because everyone will be equally right on some points and equally wrong on others. Everyone's thinking will expand to understand better where each other is coming from.

This is not what is being asked. Sometimes, people overthink things.

Its simple. Does anyone in this country have the right to have a moral position that homosexuality is a sin?

It is a yes/no question. Either they do have that right, or they don't. If you believe they don't, how, exactly, will that be enforced?

Its not that simple. The question presupposes that all respondents believe in "sin". Which isnt true.

 

[Darkwind]

Why is it no one is actually addressing what she really asked?

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to think this? I don't think she, or anyone really, care what spin you put on it. The question is basic.

Do we, as a free people, have the right to think that homosexuality is wrong? This implies that if you disagree, that means you think it is acceptable to control what one believes and thinks.

That may be one way to look at it as wanting to "control" what people believe and think.

But what if you want to wait to answer until after people see more scientific study and proof what is going on with homosexuality? What if you want to wait until after people come to a conclusion and understanding spiritually of what is involved as a process?

I don't want people to be judged one way or another, but just held to be consistent. If you are going to ask to keep Christian beliefs in private then why not allow Christian's to ask to keep LGBT beliefs in private? If you insist on accepting LGBT beliefs as naturally occurring instead of rejecting this, then why not allow Christian's to teach those beliefs as natural truths to be included as well?

In general Darkwind I have as much trouble judging ppl for their beliefs if they don't have full information from all sources and sides, as I do with ppl who insist they already know but they refuse to include cases or information that shows their beliefs are not the only rule that applies. This happens on both sides, unfortunately, so it's unfair to judge one side without judging the other for this same tactic of discounting any evidence which might prove the other side is right in some cases but not others.

That's why I'd rather establish all the cases and evidence that explain why ppl on different sides have different views, and then ask ppl what they believe. Whatever is inconsistent or conflicting should take care of itself in the process. Thus there is no need to judge, since ppl ' s views are going to change to include each other instead of rejecting each other. I'd rather wait until ppl have fully informed choices before I assess who believes what. And by then there wont be any reason to judge because everyone will be equally right on some points and equally wrong on others. Everyone's thinking will expand to understand better where each other is coming from.

This is not what is being asked. Sometimes, people overthink things.

Its simple. Does anyone in this country have the right to have a moral position that homosexuality is a sin?

It is a yes/no question. Either they do have that right, or they don't. If you believe they don't, how, exactly, will that be enforced?

Its not that simple. The question presupposes that all respondents believe in "sin". Which isnt true.

They don't have to believe in it inorder to know what it is. However, that too is not the focus of the question.

I could easily rephrase the question to say, "Do people have a right to hold the moral position that abortion is wrong?"

It is the exact same question. The focuse of the sentence is on a person have a right to a moral position. The position can be anything. The issue is the right to have a moral belief.

 

[Vastator]

Why is it no one is actually addressing what she really asked?

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to think this? I don't think she, or anyone really, care what spin you put on it. The question is basic.

Do we, as a free people, have the right to think that homosexuality is wrong? This implies that if you disagree, that means you think it is acceptable to control what one believes and thinks.

That may be one way to look at it as wanting to "control" what people believe and think.

But what if you want to wait to answer until after people see more scientific study and proof what is going on with homosexuality? What if you want to wait until after people come to a conclusion and understanding spiritually of what is involved as a process?

I don't want people to be judged one way or another, but just held to be consistent. If you are going to ask to keep Christian beliefs in private then why not allow Christian's to ask to keep LGBT beliefs in private? If you insist on accepting LGBT beliefs as naturally occurring instead of rejecting this, then why not allow Christian's to teach those beliefs as natural truths to be included as well?

In general Darkwind I have as much trouble judging ppl for their beliefs if they don't have full information from all sources and sides, as I do with ppl who insist they already know but they refuse to include cases or information that shows their beliefs are not the only rule that applies. This happens on both sides, unfortunately, so it's unfair to judge one side without judging the other for this same tactic of discounting any evidence which might prove the other side is right in some cases but not others.

That's why I'd rather establish all the cases and evidence that explain why ppl on different sides have different views, and then ask ppl what they believe. Whatever is inconsistent or conflicting should take care of itself in the process. Thus there is no need to judge, since ppl ' s views are going to change to include each other instead of rejecting each other. I'd rather wait until ppl have fully informed choices before I assess who believes what. And by then there wont be any reason to judge because everyone will be equally right on some points and equally wrong on others. Everyone's thinking will expand to understand better where each other is coming from.

This is not what is being asked. Sometimes, people overthink things.

Its simple. Does anyone in this country have the right to have a moral position that homosexuality is a sin?

It is a yes/no question. Either they do have that right, or they don't. If you believe they don't, how, exactly, will that be enforced?

Its not that simple. The question presupposes that all respondents believe in "sin". Which isnt true.

They don't have to believe in it inorder to know what it is. However, that too is not the focus of the question.

I could easily rephrase the question to say, "Do people have a right to hold the moral position that abortion is wrong?"

It is the exact same question. The focuse of the sentence is on a person have a right to a moral position. The position can be anything. The issue is the right to have a moral belief.

Could you prevent a person from having a belief begin with...? If "no"; where do rights enter the picture?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

It is wrong to think so but you have every right to believe it.

 

[Michelle420]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

It's not a sin imo. I have a right to my opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

Just remember that God hates Fags

 

[Darkwind]

Why is it no one is actually addressing what she really asked?

Do you think it is acceptable for someone to think this? I don't think she, or anyone really, care what spin you put on it. The question is basic.

Do we, as a free people, have the right to think that homosexuality is wrong? This implies that if you disagree, that means you think it is acceptable to control what one believes and thinks.

That may be one way to look at it as wanting to "control" what people believe and think.

But what if you want to wait to answer until after people see more scientific study and proof what is going on with homosexuality? What if you want to wait until after people come to a conclusion and understanding spiritually of what is involved as a process?

I don't want people to be judged one way or another, but just held to be consistent. If you are going to ask to keep Christian beliefs in private then why not allow Christian's to ask to keep LGBT beliefs in private? If you insist on accepting LGBT beliefs as naturally occurring instead of rejecting this, then why not allow Christian's to teach those beliefs as natural truths to be included as well?

In general Darkwind I have as much trouble judging ppl for their beliefs if they don't have full information from all sources and sides, as I do with ppl who insist they already know but they refuse to include cases or information that shows their beliefs are not the only rule that applies. This happens on both sides, unfortunately, so it's unfair to judge one side without judging the other for this same tactic of discounting any evidence which might prove the other side is right in some cases but not others.

That's why I'd rather establish all the cases and evidence that explain why ppl on different sides have different views, and then ask ppl what they believe. Whatever is inconsistent or conflicting should take care of itself in the process. Thus there is no need to judge, since ppl ' s views are going to change to include each other instead of rejecting each other. I'd rather wait until ppl have fully informed choices before I assess who believes what. And by then there wont be any reason to judge because everyone will be equally right on some points and equally wrong on others. Everyone's thinking will expand to understand better where each other is coming from.

This is not what is being asked. Sometimes, people overthink things.

Its simple. Does anyone in this country have the right to have a moral position that homosexuality is a sin?

It is a yes/no question. Either they do have that right, or they don't. If you believe they don't, how, exactly, will that be enforced?

Its not that simple. The question presupposes that all respondents believe in "sin". Which isnt true.

They don't have to believe in it inorder to know what it is. However, that too is not the focus of the question.

I could easily rephrase the question to say, "Do people have a right to hold the moral position that abortion is wrong?"

It is the exact same question. The focuse of the sentence is on a person have a right to a moral position. The position can be anything. The issue is the right to have a moral belief.

Could you prevent a person from having a belief begin with...? If "no"; where do rights enter the picture?

We're going to find out soon. It seems that there are many who think that having a moral belief contrary to what the ones they hold is grounds for removing them from this country. That is what the phrase, "No room in this country for that kind of belief," means.

I was just curious as to why everyone was avoding the real questio asked in the OP. This just lends itself to My belief that people on this forum will argue anything, just for the sake of arguing. Have a good one.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What would you think of a man who wore a dress, spent his whole life hanging out with men, never got married or was seen with a woman in "That" way?

I would think men look strange in dresses, and that's between him and God.

 

[Vastator]

Roman Soldier

Greek Hopelite

I would think men look strange in dresses, and that's between him and God.[/QUOTE]

 

[tecoyah]

What would you think of a man who wore a dress, spent his whole life hanging out with men, never got married or was seen with a woman in "That" way?

I would think men look strange in dresses, and that's between him and God.

What if he IS God?

 

[Marion Morrison]

What would you think of a man who wore a dress, spent his whole life hanging out with men, never got married or was seen with a woman in "That" way?

I would think men look strange in dresses, and that's between him and God.

What if he IS God?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

There is no such thing as sin. Sin is a construct of religion, that is used to keep those under its sway controlled. There is no magical sky genie lurking overhead watching to see what you stick in your butt. The idea alone is a barrel of laughs.
On a side note; when someone invents a religion that is all about freaky unhindered hetero sex; let me know. I'll be all in. Now that would be something to believe in...

In the spirit of freedom and tolerance, was just seeing if there was tolerance for those that choose to believe in a God that requires us to strive to suppress our sins out of love for Him

For most – if not all – gay theists who believe with whom one is intimate is not a ‘sin,’ there’s nothing to ‘suppress.’

The lack of tolerance, unfortunately, manifests with those who are not gay yet perceive homosexuality to be a ‘sin.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

Homosexuality is found throughout nature. So if you think that god created everything...

And Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so that point is moot.

God holds us higher than other species. Animals don't have souls

Some people's god think that even rocks have souls, let alone animals. What makes you think that your god is the right one and that animals don't have souls?

I was just stating what Christians believe. I am not knowledgable of other religions but they obviously have a right to voice their beliefs

With regard to homosexuality, there is no consensus among Christians as how to believe – hence gay Christians, gay members of the clergy, and the marrying of same-sex couples in Christian churches; none of whom consider homosexuality a sin.

 

[Mudda]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

Homosexuality is found throughout nature. So if you think that god created everything...

And Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so that point is moot.

Again, GOD created a perfect universe. When Adam and Eve decided to listen to Satan, they corrupted not only themselves but the entire Creation. Nature groans under the weight of sin. Animals now attack each other, insects carry diseases, plants are poisonous and give rashes, mountains and oceans now separate people. What you are trying to promote is corrupted lies and half-truths. You either never read the Bible or you simply close your eyes and ears to those things that annoy you!

If god created the perfect universe, why do babies get cancer and die? And didn't god created homosexuality in nature?

 

[Mudda]

Who says? Do people? Can you substantiate either claim?

Nope, but this is what many Christians believe, which, they have a right to. And, the theory is that we can exert self control to behave in a way pleasing to God if we love Him

Whereby; if "He" really loved me... he could exert self control to behave in a way that is pleasing to me... "Love" after all, in the classical sense has to be a two way street. Most would settle for him simply making himself known. And no... other people telling you about it through word of mouth, or writing doesn't cut it.

Those that choose to believe this way, defer to God as the ultimate rule maker. They are after all believers, so, they worship Him and realize as an unfallible being he is always right and perfect. Those that don't believe make their own rules and live by their own moral code

So basically, it's ok with you for people to live in a fantasy world.

And the world you are creating around your feelings/desires is real? I have found GOD and I notice that there is a big difference between those that have a regard for GOD and those that deny HIM. The difference is that the ungodly have no ideals, they only have a list of their personal demands. The godly seek what is best for everyone and not simply for their moment in the sun.

I am open to god contacting me. And if the godly seek what is best for everyone then why do some of them vote republican?

 

[Mudda]

God said to Adam: don't fuck the woman or I'll ban you. Now how gay is that?

 

[Papageorgio]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

It is wrong to think so but you have every right to believe it.

No it's not wrong. Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean it is wrong. Where is your liberal tolerance?