Is homosexuality a sin?

[SeddyRocky]

Seeing as I know that I am subjective and not objective, I try to show my opinions fairly clear as not to give a misleading impression.

Well-stated.  We are all subjective to some extent anyway.

I believe the issue at hand would be Homosexuality (sin or not?) even though we've gone slightly offtopic.

Yes, indeed.

And I am speaking from the viewpoint that it is not, mainly because I believe that if God created all beings, he also created homosexuals. And God doesn't make mistakes. Also I think that the God that created mankind would have everlasting love for all his children,
So far this seems to be a reasonable stance

and being with someone of the same sex is not comparable to for example murder or thievery (considered traditional sins).
Please clarify why some things people do are considered sins but not others.  By your own reasoning, if God doesn't make mistakes, and God created murderers, why would we call murder a sin?  In fact, why would we call any action a sin?  Some would point to the concept of freewill, and that God doesn't create sinners rather God allows us the choice to engage in sinful acts or not do so.  In this way, all God's creations are still loved but allowed to make their own choices.

I believe that we are all very subjective, as we not only "inherit" opinions from our parents/friends/relatives (whcih we can be aware of directly or indirectly, and as much as we try to step away from that I believe that it is simply not possible to be objective. But still, it is an ideal to strive for.

Well, the very concecpt of free will determines that ones has the power to choose. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice, but that it stems from biological and psychological factors (in some cases more the first, in some the latter). And since that I don't think that God would condemn (for the simplicity, assuming no sacrificial birds, etc) one of his children for something that the person has no power over. Just as I find it hard to see a God that would sentence someone to an eternity in hell for being born in a country that christianity has not reached. (If person A never heard of Christianity, how could he/she accept that religion?). Add to that: Jesus, I believe (please find a quote that proves me wrong, I do not know my bible too well) never stated that homosexuality = sin, but pretty much preached a message of love.

Boingo, I am curious as to your belief, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice? Persoanlly I find it hard to believe that anyone would not only be able to make a conscious choice ("Ah, today I'm gonna like boys! No wait, GIRLS!") and even less can I believe that anyone would want to be homosexual. Not saying that all homosexuals are selfhating, acceptance comes in time I guess, but seeing them as a rather hated and targeted group world-wide would not make them an appealing "choice".


*Edit: As interesting as johann and falcon's discussion is, I don't quite see the connection to the topic at hand.

The following statement is a muppish addon (does that translate?):
To be a textbook liberal: What is considered a sin has in most churches changed over time. Catholics have had an interesting stance on sin over the years. Only true fundamentalists adhere completely to the Bible, word by word. Thus, I believe that while homosexuality is not a sin while murder is, this differance lies in the damage one does to mankind and the seperation between oneself and God. I don't see loving another member of your sex as stepping away from God, nor that it would do any damage to society that a heterosexual relationship couldn't. This is of course according to the Christian definition of sin, the Islam one is rather clear on that subject and I don't know too much about the Jewish one (they got gay marriage in Isreal though?).

[Boingo]

Well, the very concecpt of free will determines that ones has the power to choose. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice, but that it stems from biological and psychological factors (in some cases more the first, in some the latter). And since that I don't think that God would condemn (for the simplicity, assuming no sacrificial birds, etc) one of his children for something that the person has no power over. Just as I find it hard to see a God that would sentence someone to an eternity in hell for being born in a country that christianity has not reached. (If person A never heard of Christianity, how could he/she accept that religion?). Add to that: Jesus, I believe (please find a quote that proves me wrong, I do not know my bible too well) never stated that homosexuality = sin, but pretty much preached a message of love.

Boingo, I am curious as to your belief, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice? Persoanlly I find it hard to believe that anyone would not only be able to make a conscious choice ("Ah, today I'm gonna like boys! No wait, GIRLS!") and even less can I believe that anyone would want to be homosexual. Not saying that all homosexuals are selfhating, acceptance comes in time I guess, but seeing them as a rather hated and targeted group world-wide would not make them an appealing "choice".

*Edit: As interesting as johann and falcon's discussion is, I don't quite see the connection to the topic at hand.

The following statement is a muppish addon (does that translate?):
To be a textbook liberal: What is considered a sin has in most churches changed over time. Catholics have had an interesting stance on sin over the years. Only true fundamentalists adhere completely to the Bible, word by word. Thus, I believe that while homosexuality is not a sin while murder is, this differance lies in the damage one does to mankind and the seperation between oneself and God. I don't see loving another member of your sex as stepping away from God, nor that it would do any damage to society that a heterosexual relationship couldn't. This is of course according to the Christian definition of sin, the Islam one is rather clear on that subject and I don't know too much about the Jewish one (they got gay marriage in Isreal though?).

This is a thread dealing with sin.  I consider sin to be a religious issue.  Therefore, you need to consider the religious sources to answer the question.  The Catholic church has clearly stated its position on many things and has them available *gasp* online (http://www.vatican.va/) for all to see in many languages.  The Catholic position is that homosexuality itself is NOT a sin, but that engaging in homosexual acts CAN BE a sin.  People are not sins, but their actions can be.  To understand the position more fully and in their own words, read here (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html).

As for other religious affiliations, I do not have such a good source.  While I could be mistaken, I get the distinct impression that Islam considers homosexual acts sinful and possibly homosexuality a sin as well.  I don't have any idea what the Jewish answer would be (though there may be more than one answer here.)

As for a personal view, the idea that sexuality is fixed like a light-switch is unlikely.  There are likely a spectrum of desires and attractions, and these may change through a person's lifetime.  If the choices were really: absolute heterosexual vs absolute homosexual, it'd be difficult to explain why even within those communities there are different tastes (e.g., lipstick lesbians vs butch lesbians) or how bisexuality would even exist.  Moreover, even those who self-identify with one or the other sexual identity will report experimentation with both types.  (There's a phenomenon seen in colleges where women will consort with other women, but not afterward.  They're sometimes referred to as LUGs--lesbians until graduation.)  In this way, sexuality is a plastic phenomenon in which, at some level, we do determine some level of control.

Finally, there has to be recognition that we are active players in our own lives, not merely victims of our desires.  This victim mentality seems a popular position to take when doing something naughty, bad or evil but almost never when doing something cool, good or heroic.  I wonder why that is?

*SeddyRocky, thanks for sticking to the thread topic.
*What does "muppish" mean?

[falconbane]

@johann
And "as usual", you attempt to go through said "library of books" when I'm referring to my chicken and egg question.  This is either me not understanding you or vice versa, or just both ways.  The BRAIN as you put it does not reflect social complexity as there are multiple competing theories, it (according to the most prevalent theory) affect cognitive, logic and time awareness (does not include reference to culture).  The recent research on tradition in chimpanzees, mongoose and other mammals have reflected this (they have variable brain size as well), elephants show characteristics similar to mourning, but as no one can yet speak elephant, the result is up for debate.  Various teams (I have no idea how Norwegians do research on bees so far up there ) are in the research phase for the insects (mainly bees, ants and beetles), hypothesis being that cultural identity is separate from biological factors (brains, or the lack of, included).

"Probably", change it to definitely, sects from various religions (Sikh, Christian, Islam and Judaism) declared "homosexuality is an act against nature".  Some religion just doesn't care since it's already included in their other area of teaching (that does not consider it a "sin" independently).

As for your "nice" reply (is it sarcasm?  no idea), there's still enough information regarding the Xi-ha for views from a Matriarch society (in short, male were slaves >.<), just not the other ones (until someone find a well preserve "silkroad post" anyways). 

So sure, the males can try to swoon, better do it right too or you are getting a whipping. /sarcasm

@Seddy
I think we did get off topic a little, but it still does deal with homosexuality.  My main tethers throughout are
"Homosexuality is not an act against nature" as apparent in nature and human history.
"Cultural pressure can override biological tendencies" which can be from something as to how to eat something to homosexuality (but what if biological tendencies can in effect produce cultural pressure?  Which came first?). 
Marriage is related to homosexuality, but I agree it's does not really matter since it only matters for the religious, so it's moot to continue with my line of reasoning.

@topic
Being vague on the question is not helpful.  If religion A supports (or is indifferent about) homosexuality, but religion B consider it a sin.  Who can say which religion is right? (word against word, god(s) against god(s)).  If we are to specific which religion, it would be much easier (and easier to stay out of xD)

[johannhowitzer]

@johann
And "as usual", you attempt to go through said "library of books" when I'm referring to my chicken and egg question.  This is either me not understanding you or vice versa, or just both ways.  The BRAIN as you put it does not reflect social complexity as there are multiple competing theories, it (according to the most prevalent theory) affect cognitive, logic and time awareness (does not include reference to culture).  The recent research on tradition in chimpanzees, mongoose and other mammals have reflected this (they have variable brain size as well), elephants show characteristics similar to mourning, but as no one can yet speak elephant, the result is up for debate.  Various teams (I have no idea how Norwegians do research on bees so far up there ) are in the research phase for the insects (mainly bees, ants and beetles), hypothesis being that cultural identity is separate from biological factors (brains, or the lack of, included).

Separate in one sense, but everything an organism IS is biological.  Everything we form, from simple tools, to bodily fluids, to interactions with other organisms, to the systems developed FOR those interactions, traces its roots back to biological makeup.  Not to say that sociology and cultural theories don't have a place, I never said they didn't (you seem to think I did... you do that an awful lot).  There is a hierarchy of sciences here, though.

As for your "nice" reply (is it sarcasm?  no idea), there's still enough information regarding the Xi-ha for views from a Matriarch society (in short, male were slaves >.<), just not the other ones (until someone find a well preserve "silkroad post" anyways).

It was sarcasm, pointed at your final phrase in that post, though it seems I assumed the bit about it not being "usable to support your point" was aimed at the whole final paragraph, while you intended it to cover only the "others."  Yay for ambiguity!  Of course as you said, most or all outward declarations of commitment to loving one woman would likely be treated as disrespect and punished, though this doesn't stop the internal emotional attachment (undocumented, but still useless as a counterexample), and I wouldn't be surprised if Stockholm syndrome didn't show up from time to time.

Friendly request - can you put my words in [ quote ] [ /quote ] tags like I do?  That will make it much easier to read.  Just delete the spaces within the brackets.

[SeddyRocky]

This is a thread dealing with sin.  I consider sin to be a religious issue.  Therefore, you need to consider the religious sources to answer the question.  The Catholic church has clearly stated its position on many things and has them available *gasp* online for all to see in many languages.  The Catholic position is that homosexuality itself is NOT a sin, but that engaging in homosexual acts CAN BE a sin.  People are not sins, but their actions can be.  To understand the position more fully and in their own words, read here.

Hmm, sadly I see here that you make a connection that is not obligatory nor obvious. The Catholic church is but one of many, (as it is in itself very much divided, everything from Methodist to Roman Catholic with the pope and all) religious paths. Also, I personally think that using the Bible as a source (not quoting exactly, but I'm sure that the passages can be found fairly easily) is a religious source. The Catholic church does not equal all religion, nor does it even equal all christianity, so I wonder why you seem to take them as an almighty example (bad use of almighty, excuse my vocabulary, but I can't find a good word for it).

As for other religious affiliations, I do not have such a good source.  While I could be mistaken, I get the distinct impression that Islam considers homosexual acts sinful and possibly homosexuality a sin as well.  I don't have any idea what the Jewish answer would be (though there may be more than one answer here.)

Islam, I think, pretty much considers homosexuality, homosexual acts, and harboring a homosexual, to be sins of a deadly level.

As for a personal view, the idea that sexuality is fixed like a light-switch is unlikely.  There are likely a spectrum of desires and attractions, and these may change through a person's lifetime.  If the choices were really: absolute heterosexual vs absolute homosexual, it'd be difficult to explain why even within those communities there are different tastes (e.g., lipstick lesbians vs butch lesbians) or how bisexuality would even exist.  Moreover, even those who self-identify with one or the other sexual identity will report experimentation with both types.  (There's a phenomenon seen in colleges where women will consort with other women, but not afterward.  They're sometimes referred to as LUGs--lesbians until graduation.)  In this way, sexuality is a plastic phenomenon in which, at some level, we do determine some level of control.

A lightswitch is indeed a very unlikely way to make a metaphor of sexuality. Though surely attraction may vary over ones lifetime (When I was 7, I had a huge crush on another boy, then a girl, then a boy... Though evento this day I'm not bisexual). But the question is if it is voluntary? If you wanted to, do you think that you could see extremly obese/generally not the most appealing type of women as attractive? (There's a half-funny movie of Jack Black getting hypnotized to see inner beauty that talks about this). I have heard of that phenomenon, though I don't think it exists in male form or in other nations than USA... which puts it as a rather unverified example. Choosing to experiment is one thing, but (warning, crude language)you can't choose wether or not to get a boner for a girl or a boy.[/color]

Finally, there has to be recognition that we are active players in our own lives, not merely victims of our desires.  This victim mentality seems a popular position to take when doing something naughty, bad or evil but almost never when doing something cool, good or heroic.  I wonder why that is?

Victims of our desires or victims of the dogmas of society? A homosexual is no more a victim than a heterosexual, if you see it from a desire point of view. But neither would most likely be very comfortable with, what to them would be, the "wrong" sex. You make an assumption here that I have to disagree with. I do not cosider homosexuality to be naughty (do adults actually use that word towards other adults?) bad OR evil. So I don't think that you have a point there. But of course, with that simple frame, you can never be wrong, because you can always label stuff as "victim, bad, naughty, evil, bad". Personally, I think that coming to accept who you are and love thyself (^^) is pretty cool, good and heroic. This of course, goes for all sexual orientations.

*SeddyRocky, thanks for sticking to the thread topic.
*What does "muppish" mean?

[johannhowitzer]

Personally, I think that coming to accept who you are and love thyself (^^) is pretty cool, good and heroic.

[emphasis mine]
You just named the theme of my past three years.  I went so far to burn the words "Ama te Ipsum" (Love Thyself) into a pine plaque to hang over my front door.  Man, I still need to get that thing varnished...

[SeddyRocky]

You shalt haveth an applause for that!

@falcon: I do agree with your stance (homosexuality is not against nature) (though I have nooooo idea what you mean by "Marriage is related to homosexuality", because I frankly don't see marriage, as we know it today, as being related to anything but the romance novels of the fifteenhundreds.). But please, use construcitve and relevant arguments. The topic is homosexuality = sin?, not Homosexuality = natural? or same-sex marriage = ok? If using material that is only indirectly connected to the topic at hand, it is recommended to always make the correlation in every post.

I'll jump into yours and johanns discussion later probably

[johannhowitzer]

If it continues.  I'm getting pretty bored with it.

[SeddyRocky]

Can't say I blame you. Seems a bit like mine and boingo's debate. Banging on ze drums for deaf ears.

[johannhowitzer]

Not trying to flatter, but I much prefer debating someone like you - someone I can learn from, rather than someone addicted to being right.  Learning, after all, is the purpose of debate (at least it used to be).

[SeddyRocky]

To fake a chinese saying:

Man who debates with closed mind, talks to self.

If I'd have a fixed standpoint and refused to listen to others, man... It would be extremly boring to debate. And pointless, since you can very rarely convince someone by saying that they are completely wrong

Out of couriousity, and since that this is in the oof-topic section already: Which state do you live in johann?

[Rastafla]

To the OPs question: No.

There is no god. And if there were a superior* being styling himself god I hardly think it cares. Matters of mind and science is far more important than what people do in their bedrooms.