Why is homosexuality wrong?

I think that the Judeo Christain stance against homosexuality is based on God's creation not acting is designed. Defiance to God's plan of one man and one woman and all that...

I did have a back and forth with Aaron on this subject awhile ago, not the religious aspect of it but wether or not it was a choice at all, I'll see if I can link the thread later, I got stuff to do right now

I think he discriminates against them because what they do is unnatural/abnormal.

In response:


Whosoever Magazine

and also,


From Uthur's Alcove- a liberal Christian opinion site
In this corner-Church and Homosexuality (a booklet) (In Part)

Who is
UTHUR
from the Town
by the Sea,
...and where did he get that strange name?

UTHUR'S ugly pussThe name is a pseudonym. "Uthur" is the ancient Celtic version of my given name. "From the town by the sea" is a literal translation of the Scottish slur that eventually became my sir name. "Uthur, from the Town by the Sea" suits my purposes for my writing and is the name I shall use in that activity. I have no intention of legally changing my real name to this. In answer to the question, "where did he get that strange name?" I made it up. If that makes me strange, so be it.

I was born in Spokane, WA in 1950, and have spent most of my life in the town of my birth. I graduated from West Valley High School in 1969 and went into the Coast Guard that summer, primarily to evade the draft and avoid fighting in a war which I considered immoral. While still in the service I met and married my first (and so far only) wife. Together we have a daughter, born in 1973, almost two years after we were married, and a son, born in 1985, on Thanksgiving Day. In 1994, our daughter blessed us with our one and only grandchild, a girl. In the fall of 2001 we will celebrate a full 30 years together, and if we both live long enough, will most likely celebrate our golden anniversary together as well.

our logosI celebrate my faith in the United Church of Christ. (The UCC logo can be seen on the back of my logo as it spins on my clan's tartan to the left. Clicking on that graphic will take you to the UCC Web Site, in a new window.) I prefer this denomination for several reasons. First, the UCC is the most liberal denomination in the United States that still considers itself to be Christian. Next, the UCC is the only denomination that has adopted a policy which accepts gays, lesbians, and transsexuals or transgendered, not only into the church, but into all areas of the ministry as well. However, since they are congregational in governmental style, this policy has to be adopted by each church or regional judicatory (conference) before it applies to them. Then, the formation of this denomination says a lot about it. The UCC is made up of two very dissimilar denomination which, in 1957, joined fully aware of their difference determined that their commonality, their faith in Christ, was more important than all the differences put together, and that with Christ's help, those differences would be worked out...and the denomination continues to work for unity. While the UCC doesn't advocate that all denominations combine under one roof, it is continuing it's work for unity looking to see if it might join with the Christian Church (Disciples Of Christ) as well as the Alliance of Baptists. Finally, the UCC is the only Christian denomination that truly recognizes that real unity can only be experienced when there is a full spectrum of diversity. This attitude gives me the liberty (Galations 5:1) that I need to fully explore my faith and fit it to me. My formal education consists of a high school diploma, an Associates of Arts degree, and a Bachelor's in Applied Psychology. Beyond this, I have completed training for the lay-ministry which was comissioned by the Washington-North Idaho and Central Pacific Conferences of the United Church of Christ.

Currently I am employed as a manager in a home-grown convenience store chain. I am assigned to a store not three blocks from the high-school I graduated from. I am continuing to learn managerial responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is preparing my people for advancement. One thing I am continuing to learn is that by enabling my people to do a better job, I make my own job easier. I also get the satisfaction of seeing people I have trained grow into their own responsibilities and cite me as a reason for that growth.

While all this may give you a glimpse of who I am, I hope that it is my work which is most important to you. If I held seven master's degrees and five doctorates, yet was off the wall, all of my education would not matter to you. If you find what I have to offer here meaningful, I hope that my lack of post-graduate work will not hinder your acceptance of this work.


IS THE BIBLE REALLY
THE WORD OF GOD?


If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, perfect and without error, then the issue is settled. Homosexuality is a sin and we must condemn it's practice. However, if the Bible is the writings of men who were only capable of seeing dimly, as if in a mirror, the way Paul described it, then we have a long way to go before we settle the question.
John's teaching concerning the third person of the trinity, God's Holy Spirit, has that person leading us into truth, and not a book...even if that book is called "the Holy Bible."
I maintain that the conservative doctrine that the Bible is the express Word of God, perfect and without error, is a heresy. This doctrine is a heresy as the ancient Greeks used the word, a teaching or attitude which us used to cause divisiveness in the community. It is used by the conservatives to separate out those who do not accept a divinely inspired Bible, in the same manner as Jesus describes the shepherd separating out the sheep from the goats. It is also a heresy in the manner that the church uses the word, a false doctrine which might lead to the worship of a false God. It elevates the book into the status of God.
If, as I believe, God is leading us to openly accept and affirm those with differing sexual orientations and gender identities that the "norm," the doctrine of an inerrant Bible must be destroyed. Not only must we object to this doctrine when we find it among the conservatives, the Fundamentalists, the Orthodox, the Pentecostal and the Charismatic, but we must also object to this doctrine when we find it in those Churches and believers which do support the claim of the gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered and transvestite, that God accepts them on equal status with the straight.
To support my claim,, that the Bible is not the express Word of God, I bring two very credible witnesses. These are none other than Isaiah, the prophet, and the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel. Then, I will call on another, who will lay the foundation for my case that the Bible is wrong when it condemns homosexual behavior.

INTRODUCTION


Try a little experiment. Bring up the subject of homosexuality in a conversation and see how long it takes before the Bible enters that conversation. Don't do it once. Do this several times, with different groups of people. Unless your group consists entirely of first or second generation immigrants from Eastern Pacific-Rim countries, it should only take a few minutes, or comments, before the Bible enters into the conversation.
This should not surprise you. The Bible influenced our nation all of its more than two hundred years of history. This influence has been so foundational to our way of thinking that religious right believe we are a Christian nation, as if Christ were our monarch and the president only an agent of Christ. Those who realize the non-Christian attitudes of many of our founding fathers recognize that the Bible did play an important part in the thinking of our pre-nation history. Even Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term Unitarian, and could be considered the first of that group, spent countless hours with that book. He probably knew it better than most fundamentalist preachers do today. Therefor, it would be surprising if a conversation about homosexuality was held and the Bible never entered in.
The problem is that while there are three passages which do condemn homosexuality, the use of those passages to represent the entire Bible is one of the most unscriptural misrepresentations of that Book the church has ever committed. Even so, the church has confounded this misrepresentation by using passages which are totally unrelated to the issue. She also used passages which concern a very limited aspect of homosexual behavior to bolster her case. This has been done with total disregard for one of the greatest themes of the Bible, the theme inclusion. The evolution of this theme even caused some bible writers to over-ride laws ascribed to Moses.
On the other side, there have been attempts to undo the effects of these passages which are wanting. These attempts include trying to argue that Moses in Leviticus and therefor Paul in Romans were discussing male temple prostitution, not homosexuality. There are attempts to say that the ordinances against homosexual behavior were part of the ceremonial law and became void with the cross of Christ. I have even read one attempt to say that since the laws against homosexual behavior was written specifically against the Canniness and their religion, once that ethnic group was destroyed these laws became void. This argument continues by suggesting that homosexuality was nothing more than a social indiscretion like picking your nose and eating it is today, (the writer's example, not mine).
Part of the problem is the erroneous mystique that surrounds the Bible. This book has been called, in extreme cases, the written "Word of God" in the same manner as Jesus is the living "Word of God." This false doctrine makes many incapable of seeing the forest because of the trees. (The above clich? has been so overused that it looses its meaning. It describes a person who doesn't realize that the forest has under-brush, flowers, moss, as well as animal life and even micro-organisms. Yet, in this case, the person is even more limited. He is so involved in one tree, such as a pine, that he becomes incapable of recognizing not only other evergreens such as fir, spruce and tamarack, but deciduous such as apple, oak and maple in the same forest.) Many become involved in one proof-text, such as Moses' proscription of an eye for an eye, that they become incapable of seeing any passage that would tend to contradict their pet proof-text, such as Jesus' command to turn the other cheek. They also become incapable of seeing the context, which would explain that Moses proscribed a limit on revenge, not a hard fast rule of justice. When people use the Bible to condemn homosexual behavior they are using it in the same manner, beating the issue with one tree and failing to recognize the diversity of trees, as well as the other life forms that make up the entire forest.

The prohibition against homosexual behavior comes from the law of Moses, specifically Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. I maintain that, while these passages do condemn homosexual behavior, specifically male homosexual behavior and all forms of male homosexual behavior in every occasion and for every purpose, they are wrong. They do not represent God. To make my case, I present to you, the jury, several small essays in which I will begin by "examining witnesses" against Moses. After I have destroyed the credibility of Moses in this manner and explained Paul's prejudice as an uncritical extension of Moses' prejudice, then I will move on to examine the use of passages which the anti-gay contingent use that have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality at all, or consider such a limited aspect of homosexual behavior as to have nothing to add to the case. Next, I will call Paul back to witness to some aspects of the issue that we have not considered in our hell-bent rush to condemn the gay, the bisexual, the transgendered and the transsexual. (Let me point out here that when I say "we," I am using that word in the generic sense, speaking of the majority. I do not include myself in that "we," except to admit that while I vehemently disagree with the majority, as a member of the greater church I am a part of that group which condemns differing forms of sexual identity, orientation and behavior.) Finally, I will summarize by calling on the Holy Spirit, the third person of the divine trinity, to explain Her attitudes and actions in this matter.
Will I make my case? That is up to you to decide.
Each of these essays will be under 1,500 words. This will allow you to consume each of them in less time than it takes to listen to your pastor's sermon on Sunday morning. This will allow you to fully digest each essay before moving on to the next, if you wish. The concepts presented here build upon one another, moving to the conclusion, so I do suggest you read this booklet in order, instead of jumping around. In that manner, you can follow my thinking as it progresses.







WHAT HAS JESUS DONE?


Have you taken the time to wade through all the material in this booklet? If you have, you might feel overwhelmed at this point. You have seen me use logic, comparative religion, definitions of Hebrew and Greek terms, and even the argument that the Bible just isn't trustworthy on this issue. You have seen me refute several of the classical proof texts that the fundamentalists use to justify their stand against homosexuality. You have also seen me give my reasons for not accepting many of the arguments the open and inclusive proponents use to justify their acceptance of homosexuality. Then, you have also seen me use Paul's famous (or infamous) passage found in the latter half of Romans chapter one to point the suspicious finger at both sides. But...have you been convinced of anything, except that ol' UTHUR is mighty skilled at making the Bible say just what he wants it to say?
It is time to turn from debate, and the pseudo-scientific study of the Bible, and apply a more spiritual argument.
Karl Barth, the premier theologian of this century for Germany, and the major contributor to the document that freed the German Church from Hitler's influence, said that all Christian Theology must begin and end with the person of Jesus Christ, or it is not Christian Theology. To this I would add, and I do not think that Karl Barth would object, in that journey from beginning to end, Christian theology must center on the person of Jesus Christ, as well.
Unfortunately, the gospels do not record any saying of Jesus about the issue of homosexuality. Consequently, we must start by speculating about Jesus' position on the issue on the basis of what we do know about Him.
The most definitive statement about the person of Jesus Christ is found in John 3:16&17, which reads;

For God so loved the world that He gave His own begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, For God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. (KJV)

This statement does not say, "...whosoever except for gays, bisexuals and transgendered persons..." It just says "...whosoever..." that is, "...who-so-ever..."; (I have Candace Chellew, editor of the on-line bi-monthly magazine WHOSOEVER, to thank for pointing that one out.)
Now it is time for the anti-inclusion position to respond with its "Yeah, but's..."

* "Yeah, but if a gay, upon accepting Christ as Savior, doesn't immediately leave the gay life style, that gay hasn't really accepted Christ as Savior;" or,
* "Yeah, but if a gay, after accepting Christ as savior, continues to sin by living the gay life-style, that gay should not be accepted into the church on the same status as one who does not practice sin."

That one doesn't get us too far. The law still has its say, so let us begin our journey, remembering to keep the Person of Jesus Christ at the center of our theological attempts.
A popular saying among many Christians today, both conservative and liberal, is "What Would Jesus Do?" You can now purchase bracelets and necklaces displaying the first letters of those words: "W.W.J.D." which serve to remind the wearers of this motto. So, what would Jesus do about homosexuality?
If Jesus were alive and walking the earth today, would he refuse to accept a gay, a bisexual or a transgendered person into his band of disciples?
If Jesus understood the current scientific conclusions, that the gay, the bisexual or the transgendered are a result of genetic make up, would he conclude that these people are sinners, unfit to join him?
I can cite numerous examples of how Jesus went against the social norms of the day. Jesus accepted and affirmed people whom the rest of the Jews would not include in their circle of friends, or even acquaintances.
The anti-inclusion position can still cite the law found in Leviticus and Paul's statements found in Romans chapter one. They can still argue, and quite convincingly, that Jesus came not to destroy these laws, but to fulfill them.
Again, we've reached an impasse.
Let us return to the person of Jesus Christ, and forget our speculation based on what we think we know about what Jesus might have done. Let us do this by rephrasing that question and asking, "What HAS Jesus DONE?"
If I can find just one gay, one bisexual or one transgendered person who:

* has not only accepted Jesus as Savior, but has also sought to make this very same Jesus his or her Lord...
* is able to revel in the Love of Jesus just as Snoopy revels in a spring day...
* is a member of the family of Christ and knows that this is where he or she belongs...

If I can find just one gay, one bisexual or one transgendered person who fits any one of the above descriptions, then I am forced to conclude that Jesus has accepted this person on the same ground as myself, with all the same rights, privileges and responsibilities If Jesus has indeed accepted the one, then the possibility exists that Jesus is prepared to accept others, that -- in fact -- Jesus has accepted others.; If this is true, then I find myself compelled to paraphrase Isaiah's remark about eunuchs and prophesy;

neither let the gay, the bisexual and the transgendered say, 'Behold, I am a dry tree.' For thus saith the Lord unto the gay, the bisexual and the transgendered that keep my Sabbaths and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant: 'Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of the sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.'" (Isaiah 56:4-6, KJV Italicized words are my changes to this text.)

I have known several Gay Christians who are far more spiritual than I am. I have known several Gay Christians who exude the Love of Christ to the same degree as the teen boy exudes the cologne of the day while out on his first date. I have also known several Straight Christians who match that description, line for line. And...I have also known several Christians, both Straight and Gay, who make me look exceptionally spiritual; Christians, both straight and gay, who are so afraid of offending God that they attach themselves to some other human to mold them, to teach them how to behave, what to think and even when to breath. So, I must conclude that gayness, or lack of gayness has nothing to do with either saving faith or spirituality.
We have gone full circle, beginning with the Person of Jesus Christ as he and his mission are described with the words that the gospel writer John put into this mouth, ending with the Person of Jesus Christ as revealed by the work of the Holy Spirit who serves to glorify Christ, and centering ourselves on the person of Jesus Christ as we speculate about how he might have handled the question were he physically here today. In all three portions of this journey, the beginning, the middle and the end, the overwhelming evidence is in favor of including the gay, the bisexual and the transgendered into the church. But...the most compelling evidence of all is the action of Jesus Christ today, as he demonstrates his acceptance of the gay, the bisexual and the transgendered by allowing such people to know the joy of salvation, and to serve to the same degree as any spiritual person that we may decide to use for a measuring stick.
If Jesus Christ, through the person of the Holy Spirit of God, is willing to accept the gay, the bisexual or the transgendered, can I...no, can we do less? Even the Bible teaches that, in the final analysis, it matters not what the Bible says, it matters not what the Church (or churches) says, it matters not what good sound doctrine or dogma says. No, in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is what Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit of God, is doing in the world today, even as I write, and as you read this document. In the words of Peter, when he was asked to defend his actions in the house of Cornelius, the Roman Centurion,

Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the same gift as he did unto us, who believeth on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 12:17, KJV)

I didn't want to post in this thread but the Why keeps drawing me to it.
Why because the old testement say so. period. If your for it then your not following Gods' laws. pay the price at judgement day! Is that simple enough to understand. And no I know several lesbiens and we get along fine. I just don't discuss how they are wrong. remember Free Will of Choice. So don't start to blast me as a Homo hater. that isn't it at all.

Not a word was mentioned of it, by Christ, himself...if it was so important, why didn't He address it? Many of the Levitical Code laws are violated daily...why is a vague reference to homosexuality the only one that has carried over into present day???? Maybe because people still have hangups about it...maybe they doubt themselves....men that are confident in their sexuality don't seem to be threatened or bothered by gay men...I would think the same is true of women and lesbians( is how it's spelled)
No one knows who is going to pay what on Judgement Day, so stop speculating. I know all the people eating shellfish are going down...
"homo hater".....why do I find that phraseology offensive? You could have phrased that better...calling someone 'a homo" is pejorative. How insensitive.

Geee I think I type "old testement" Or do you need mor eto undestand God, hates fifty things and male on male is one. You judge I accept the Free Will of Choice attitude.

It's Old Testament....guess that tells how much you know or understand about it...you can't even spell it. The Bible says a lot...some of it should be taken with a grain of salt or sand, as man is infamous for getting s... wrong.
And we all know God didn't send out xerox copies...from his Microsoft Office.

look I'm trying hard to keep upo. I'm sorry I mis-spelled a word for you to read.
But your remarks shoew just how much a fool you are. End of the thread for me. Bye

Fool? If misspelling words is a clear sign of lack of intelligence, or cleverness, then a whole bunch of folks up in her are on the short end of the stick...present company included.
Uh, ooops, you did it again.

Homosexuality isn't morally wrong, Christians just found it icky when penning the bible, so they decided to make it sinful.

However, homosexuality IS a benign mental disorder. Men are genetically designed to be attracted to women, and thus maintain the population, and vice versa. If a man likes men, or a woman likes women, they aren't firing on all cylinders. It's nothing of which they should be ashamed, but it is not something of which to be proud either.

Dementia has set in....conventional wisdom states that homosexuality is a normal variant...and be thankful, because were the world totally heterosexual, resources would have been exhausted long ago, by overpopulation....hence nature's answer to that, keeping the equilibrium.

Once again....better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. I won't be responding to you any further...you're "otherworldly"......
Aren't there any other intellectuals in this forum other than myself, and the few civil persons I've met? Guess not.

Good words but what is abnormal, what is unnatural?

Orgasms are normal and natural.
Why would God create unnatural or abnormal people.
He has done so forever.
Why?
Just for us to hate.

What about justice. God usually discriminates against those who create victims, except in this case. Why?

Regards
DL

Aaronsongs

While the name of Jesus is tied to a Bible that denigrates against homosexuals the way it does, His message will be lost by the homophobic noise of scripture.
The Bible must change it's stance.

Regards
DL

If you are to follow the Bible blindly then I guess it is OK for you when it tells us to kill our unruly sons and just how to handle our slave transactions. Not to mention the killing of wives.

Stay blind if you like but then do not be surprised if you walk off a cliff.

We do this because we have always done this and that makes it right. So there.
Do not be an idiot please.

Regards
DL

The question is not should they be proud of what they are. All should be proud of who they are. After all we are created by God right?

The question concerns our inappropriate use of discrimination and God's wrongful discrimination against people that do not create victims. This is against His usual good sence.

You would not recognize our culpability and end Gay pride day.
You are part of the problem by not embracing these people as a normal part of humanity.
Hate mongering is a poor substitute for common sence.

Regards
DL

I don't care a lick about sexuality, it really shouldn't be an issue on the national scale. Homosexuality IS a defect, albeit harmless, regardless of the numbers of homosexuals, homosexuality is a defect, were it normal, humanity would die off yes?

I have a wonderful idea. How about we let Christians who hate gays, hate gays? Then, we let the people who like gays, like gays. THEN, just for kicks, we'll let the gays BE GAY without talking about it. What two people do in their bedroom isn't our concern. Don't like the Christian view of homosexuality? Don't be a Christian, it's pretty simple.

Aaron, you're not an intellectual, by any stretch of the imagination. You are closed-minded and ignorant concerning opposing views to your own, in fact, you are probably the most obstinent liberal I have ever met. Your **** stinks too, so knock it off.

Me being told that I'm not intellectual, by someone who frequently misspells words, is totally laughable...you incapable of judging me. I have friends and interests that remind me constantly that I am. And you may be right ...I am probably the most obstinate liberal you have ever met...
And my sock does not stink. LOL (that is what you meant, isn't it?)

Convenient that we can pick and choose which of gawds laws to follow.

The Old testament Says

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)



If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


Thank gawd (LOL) we have since chosen not to follow that one huh?

To continue on my previous point, I am unaware of Jesus (new testament) saying Homosexuality is wrong. You would thing that might appear somewhere, Paul says it three or four times, actually rants about it, but Jesus did not... hmmm