Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

I have to ask, if God hates homosexuality, why then is there a genetic component to being gay? Remind me where God forbids homosexuality?

Can you really use the term "sodomy" to refer to homosexuality when it's not clear that the citizens of Sodom are homosexual? I don't recall any mention of it in Genesis.I mean, yes, the word clearly stems from a perception that Sodom was a city full of gay people, but do you have any biblical evidence to support that perception? I haven't seen any.As for Romans doesn't "men with men working that which is unseemly" refer to temple prostitution, not homosexuality? I mean, why would the Bible use "unseemly" to refer to homosexuality without actually saying "homosexuality is unseemly" in any other part?The fact that the Bible doesn't exactly spell out what it is they're doing that's so unseemly gives you a lot of wiggle-room, I'd say. Sure, that passage could refer to homosexuality, but the question is, what does it literally refer to?

I submit that you found exactly what you were looking for in the Bible - homosexuality is an affront to you, and naturally you came to the conclusion that it is to god, too. You certainly haven't supported it from the Bible, and a considerable Christian presence in this country feels that you are also in error. Since god doesn't exist, I'll base my conclusions on the actual effects that behaviors have. Two men having sex with each other has no effect on my life or anybody's.

Two points: That's only because people like you won't let them get married. So it isn't that God doesn't like it, it's that people like you don't like it. Given that animals regularly engage in homosexual behavior are you willing to revise your definition of what is natural and what is not? I mean, if it's done in nature, how can it be unnatural?

If humans get a separate set of rules than nature, wouldn't that make every single thing we do unnatural, by definition?Not that I'm arguing with you, specifically. Just with this train of thought.

If humans are doing something not found in nature, that would make that action unnatural. This seems obvious to me.Humans can't have their own nature. I agree that humans can have their own rules, it's just that if they're human-specific, they can't be called "natural".

Why? It's precisely the kind of behavior that believers like you accuse atheists of every time you imply that we lack moral codes.

I read this in News of the Weird and found it quite amusing. Apparently God not only loves gay people but he's had it up to here with Pat Robertson (much like myself). Now if He'd only do something about that Phelps guy...

quote:

---

Hurricane Isabel roared through Virginia Beach, Va., in September, inflicting serious property damage, despite public calls for prayer to keep it away by prominent resident Rev. Pat Robertson, whose Christian Broadcasting Network is headquartered there. (In 1998, Robertson condemned the city of Orlando, Fla., for sponsoring a Gay Days festival, and warned that the city could be torn up during the subsequent hurricane season, as God punishes those who promote homosexuality. Instead, the first hurricane of that season (Bonnie) made a direct hit on Virginia Beach.) [The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk), 9-16-03]

---

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy - and probably wouldn't, either.

Well, the comment you thought was offensive wasn't directed to you, was it? Well, Dan Carroll did feel that need. He's not a disguisting person, he was simply making fun of the horrible atrocities Christians accuse atheists of being capable of almost every time the subject comes up. If you don't make such accusations then you have nothing to worry about, do you?

So, sucking another man's penis doesn't make you unclean. Good to know.

After eleven pages of discussion about how the English translations that refer to homosexual acts are actually mistranslations of words that refer to temple prostitution, why do you think these passages are relevant?

In the English, or the Greek? That's what we're talking about, here. I don't read greek, so I take Rrhain's word for it. Do you read Greek?

Right, but there's no evidence he is - so who are you to tell another person that they can't have sex with the consenting adults they're attracted to?I mean, we get it. Most (many?) Christians are compelled to take a dim view of homosexuality because of their religion. But guess what? This is America - where I have a Constitutional right not to be subject to laws that are justified only by religious belief.If there's a compelling secular reason to prevent gay sex or gay marriage, I'd love to hear it. "God sayz" is adequate to stop believers from having gay sex. But it's not enough reason to condemn gay people who just don't believe in your god.

So, then, you wouldn't support the Constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to a man and a woman?Because that's all I really care about. As an American you have the right to be as disapproving as you like about gay people. But you don't have the right to prevent them from having the same rights as you.

Rrhain beat me to posting a link to the discussion I started. Perhaps you'd like to bring along the questions you posed, I find them interesting... I've never heard one that doesn't boil down to "I don't like gay sex, so gays shouldn't get married." Why should they be? The majority may be religious, but laws are universal. The laws have to apply to everybody, and provisions that restrict behavior should only be made law if there's a compelling practical reason to do so. Religion doesn't count. You may wish to read The Federalist Papers for discussion on "the tyranny of the majority." How would it? Letting gays marry doesn't suddenly force straight Catholics to have gay sex. Nor are you forcing them to legitimize marriages they don't support. You're only forcing the government to do so.If the Catholic down the street doesn't like my marriage, that has no ill effect on me. If the government doesn't like my marriage, that precludes a number of protections and benefits that other married people are entitled to, and that's just not fair.No religious group has the freedom to prevent the free expression of another's religion. So you can hardly make an argument that gay marriage "infringes the freedom" of religious groups. Who cares about 'em? Seriously, I don't give a damn about what a Catholic or a Episcopalian thinks about my marriage, because I have no ties to those groups. What I care about is what the government thinks about my marriage, because they're in a position to bestow or deny benefits.