Honest questions about homosexuality and religions which consider it to be a sin

[Greatshield17]

Also on practical level, I personally suspect porn does much more harm to people than homosexuality, and I think we would be better off banning or greatly restricting pornography before we focus on homosexuality; but this is only my 100% fallible opinion and may also be influenced by the fact that I've struggled with a porn addiction. (and a sexual perversion or fetish on top of that.)

Out of curiosity, what would everyone’s reaction be if we kept same sex marriage and the like, but outlawed or heavily, heavily restricted pornography?

 

[Sherlock77]

Hmmm...

I am a Christian, and attend a Baptist church, I have some views on this general topic... As a photographer and person I just don't get involved with anything to do with Pride Week when it happens... I say "photographer" because I suspect lots of my fellow photographers flock to the colours and energy of Pride Week and Pride Parade... Having said that I've thought I might watch the parade one year, without taking photos

I do disagree with countries around the world (even in modern times) who effectively ban homosexuality, I think that is a step too far

My general feeling is that people who live in suburbs and/or small towns have had very little exposure to that world, and I also think that many Christians are very similar that way

I have been involved with arts sector for many years, where I've known many homosexual people, or perhaps the people in the arts sector are more open to expressing it (??), some of them are my friends and/or acquaintances, I certainly don't practice hatred against them, I think some (many?) Christians would... As has been stated earlier God's command in The Bible is to love people and that is what I strive to live by

One experience in particular is from when I was closely involved in the poetry community, and I kept seeing a name pop up that indicated she was lesbian (in the arts world people hide that less), I wasn't sure if it was the same person I was thinking... The lady with her other female friend who were my Sunday School teachers back in the 1980's at my church... Turned out it was the same person, and I still call her a friend...

 

[Rodafina]

@Magna,
As you ask these important questions about your faith, please consider the impact that the church and its members have on the LGBT population, particularly LGBT youth.

The question of impact here seems to be in the wrong direction for me.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Magna

It makes sense if you look at the question from their perspective. I've seen the rationale documented on a Catholic web site.
Of course a lot of those beliefs aren't objectively rational, but nothing based on supernatural beliefs is likely to be objectively rational. OTOH if you accept their premise, the rest can be made to appear reasonable.

Ultimately this will turn out like your last question. You can't educate someone like your relative.

You can shut them up, exclude them from your life, or make them pay you to listen to them.

 

[Knower of nothing]

Many of the old seemingly harsh standards originate in disease prevention. The weird meat rules, the weird relationship meddling, all these things utterly are irrelevant to ethics but simply packaged alongside them for lawmaking, as was the function of faith. Later co-opted into social hatred and discrimination but only because that social hate and discrimination was already there and its the kind of environment that the beliefs had to grow in. The people are always first. And they ultimately are the ones deciding what values to focus on.
It requires hate to hold the value, so if someone holds it, they had the hate required to do so. As always, the great moral luxury is being given the righteous go-ahead to be evil to others.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Knower of nothing

I don't think it's possible to know whether e.g. the dietary stuff is based on good reasons, or is a rationalization made long after the rule was established.

e.g. for a very long time the Catholic church had a rule that members couldn't eat meat on Fridays, so they would eat fish that day instead.
There's a pseudo-rationalization for it, but it's much more likely it was just a random rule to make people feel they (a) belong to something, and (b) were being virtuous by following the rule. A bit like wearing a T-Short or cap supporting a mainstream political position.

Personally I believe the "historically important health factors" reasoning is almost entirely rationalization.

Remember that the old testament includes a lot of material lifted from a different kind of religion - one that has a very different style of belief and ritual. Rationalizing away material that implies or mirrors that difference in style makes sense.

 

[Streetwise]

You sound defensive.

I don't believe that Christians caused all the evil that ever occurred.

Anyone or any organization that takes a position in relation to morals, politics, etc should expect to explain their/its position as to why they believe it superior, "right", etc to other viewpoints if they're making such a claim. I don't see why that would or should be an issue.

Also, @Streetwise my intent isn't to attack religion or your own personal faith beliefs. Questioning something isn't necessarily an attack against something. Influential beliefs no matter what they are should be open to questions and scrutiny. I think of all the different scientific theories; scientists expect (or should expect) questions and scrutiny of the theories they believe in. It would be puzzling if a scientist became defensive or considered questions about the theory as a personal attack.

Saying you sound defensive is the typical retort to anyone christian not being a scapegoat

 

[Gerontius]

These are questions for anyone who cares to respond and who is either part of a religion that condemns the practice of homosexuality, or perhaps belonged previously to such a religion or believes they're knowledgeable on this subject:

According to your religion or religions that you are aware of that condemn the practice of homosexuality, how does homosexuality as a whole affect people who are not homosexual? For example: If a person is heterosexual, how does a practicing homosexual person who lives somewhere in the same community affect the heterosexual person? Equally, what is the rationale that the heterosexual person can or should mandate the life of the homosexual person?

I ask this because I have a relative that I talk to now and again and every time I talk to the person they rail against homosexuality and how according to their religion (Catholic), it's a grave sin, etc. Every time I talk to this relative I find myself trying to think of ways that other people's sexual orientation directly affects or hurts this relative. I can't come up with anything.

I don't know, but even as a Catholic it sounds like this relative is just using religion as a means of finding a social justification for prejudices or aversions against gay people. I don't know what it is, because I don't know this person, but that's what it sounds like. There's a lot of things that could be said about a lot of this issue. It's a convenient political scapegoat these days if you look at all the raging about "woke," whatever that's supposed to be. I wonder if this person has watched too much television.

 

[Knower of nothing]

@Knower of nothing

I don't think it's possible to know whether e.g. the dietary stuff is based on good reasons, or is a rationalization made long after the rule was established.

e.g. for a very long time the Catholic church had a rule that members couldn't eat meat on Fridays, so they would eat fish that day instead.
There's a pseudo-rationalization for it, but it's much more likely it was just a random rule to make people feel they (a) belong to something, and (b) were being virtuous by following the rule. A bit like wearing a T-Short or cap supporting a mainstream political position.

Personally I believe the "historically important health factors" reasoning is almost entirely rationalization.

Remember that the old testament includes a lot of material lifted from a different kind of religion - one that has a very different style of belief and ritual. Rationalizing away material that implies or mirrors that difference in style makes sense.

Not "good" reasons, but reasons. They're attempts. All law is fallible. I don't believe mentioning these origins functions as rationalization but culture has this aspect called tradition and tradition is the repeating of old rituals simply because they are passed on. These are the rituals for which the benefits and downsides can become obfuscated as their original context is long gone and people simply remain attached to the symbols of it. Leviticus and all its mentions of "clean" and "unclean" and their related rituals which involved a lot of quarantine and offerings come to mind. Doubt any of that is upheld by anyone these days. All scripture is full of things like that, because it was made in a different world and only a truly centered worldview can withstand the test of time. Popular faith will always be too detailed, lenient and grand to fit much beyond the culture it grew in without alteration. Thus we see the warping of faith based on region and an infinite splintering of sects.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

Here's a bit of a different slant:

Some people (notice I said some and not all or most) belong to a religion because it promises to tell them what to do and when to do it. These religions have rules that may or may not have come from the Bible. The point is there are rules, and if you follow them, you will be saved/go to heaven/ or whatever.

Some people (probably a good deal of overlap in the Venn diagram) believe that everything in the Bible should be taken as fact/law/unquestionable.

These two beliefs, above, for some, create a sense of security about life, which we know is not secure,

So, if sexual orientation is not cis-male to cis-female, that threatens their existence, their....the word is not coming to me. It is an existential threat to people whose religion is based, or includes, the above.

Magna, this is the same as with your other thread, about the relatives who want to save you. You, as a nonbeliever, are an existential threat.

Now, this all may be at a subconscious level. I'm not sure people who practice religion as rigid and Bible-as-law are aware of the benefits they are getting from the two above.

Also consider, depending on the individual's life, conforming to the above rules provides them with stability and a way to live their lives in a productive manner. Just because you or I don't choose to live with those precepts, does not mean they do not have value, and real value, existential value to those who do live with those precepts.

The problem comes when people take these precepts to mean they must convert you, to their religion or sexual orientation. They do it because they MUST. It is a part of their faith, part of the rules they must follow, and if they don't, the world does not make sense to them.

The fact that this proselytizing violates the boundaries of nonbelievers, is moot to them. Their faith rules are more important than the overwhelming Western cultural rules of respecting differences. Their faith encourages them to keep proselytizing even if others resist it, especially if others resist it.

This is not a small town vs the city. I used to live in a small town. There was a lesbian couple who lived down the block, in a thoroughly middle class home in a thoroughly middle class neighborhood in the Midwest. And this was 40-50 years ago.

 

[Greatshield17]

Thus we see the warping of faith based on region and an infinite splintering of sects.

Funny that it took centuries for Martin Luther split the Catholic Church which spanned whole swaths of different climates on the European continent, and also many very different ethnicities, like my Pre-Indo-European Basque ancestors which I mentioned on my thread. Also funny that likewise, the Eastern Orthodox are also relatively untied despite also enveloping a wide variety of ethnicities and climates ranging from Siberia to the Middle East.

 

[Greatshield17]

Their faith rules are more important than the overwhelming Western cultural rules of respecting differences.

It may also be the case that they were harmed by Western Cultural Norms:

Also on practical level, I personally suspect porn does much more harm to people than homosexuality, and I think we would be better off banning or greatly restricting pornography before we focus on homosexuality; but this is only my 100% fallible opinion and may also be influenced by the fact that I've struggled with a porn addiction. (and a sexual perversion or fetish on top of that.)

 

[Greatshield17]

Leviticus and all its mentions of "clean" and "unclean" and their related rituals which involved a lot of quarantine and offerings come to mind. Doubt any of that is upheld by anyone these days. All scripture is full of things like that, because it was made in a different world and only a truly centered worldview can withstand the test of time.

Leviticus plays an important role in understanding Catholic liturgy and the priesthood, and it also plays an important role in understanding Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross; which is also a part of the Catholic priesthood and liturgy indeed it’s at the very heart of the two.

Scripture also contains a lot of things that aren’t as irrelevant as you might think, there’s a thing called Typology which actually played a huge role in the Lord of the Rings it is a key reason the books were so successful; Tolkien wasn’t writing Christian Allegory but Catholic Typology.

For a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, the Bible is not just a recording of your religion’s history, it’s something you’re immersed in and are continuing on through. Martin Luther unfortunately disconnected a lot of people from the Bible when he made his own teaching of Sola Scriptura, the Bible in effect was reduced merely to something you study, not something you immerse yourself in.

 

[tree]

I have a relative that I talk to now and again and every time I talk to the person they rail against homosexuality and how according to their religion (Catholic), it's a grave sin, etc. Every time I talk to this relative I find myself trying to think of ways that other people's sexual orientation directly affects or hurts this relative. I can't come up with anything.

Have you asked this relative those particular questions?
Asked what bearing another person's sexual orientation has upon them?

 

[Greatshield17]

And please share my advice from earlier that he should focus on his own Sanctification, I assume @Magna you don't have a problem with your relative doing that.

 

[Magna]

Have you asked this relative those particular questions?
Asked what bearing another person's sexual orientation has upon them?

No I haven't. Because as someone said on here, the person's belief is so ingrained that no amount of discussion would change their belief on the subject in any way.

 

[Magna]

And please share my advice from earlier that he should focus on his own Sanctification, I assume @Magna you don't have a problem with your relative doing that.

I have zero problem with how my relative focuses on their own spirituality. It would not affect me if my relative strove to "pray without ceasing" around the clock or be like a certain order or sect of monks that from what I understand, pray every three hours...around the clock. That's right. Never a full night's sleep for them. Literally up every three hours around the clock to pray briefly...until the next time three hours later. More power to them.