Why Homosexuality Is Gay
 

Many people condemn the religious view that homosexuality is wrong and in the 21st century they feel it is a mere view of traditionally conservative religious views as opposed to true religious principle. In the end, many liberal Christians have even begun to regard homosexuality as not even necessarily a sin -- this view is very harmful to the Christian body as it utterly distorts the reality of the matter and in their effort to have "modern" Christian views they've only succeeded in making Christianity appear as a watered down religion, one subject to change and thus not subject even to the binding words of God.


More than that, few Christians seem to explain in the most coherent of terms why homosexuality is regarded as a sin and when they do so often revert to simple images of the intent of God as opposed to satiating the alternative opinion with longer, more apt explanations.
This is a simple explanation I have for the matter.


Homosexuality is a sin because of these few main reasons:


Man and woman were created to be together; woman was created to complement man and act as his companion; man and woman were put on this earth together to endure hard times together and to be fruitful and multiply (both very common themes in the Bible). The intent God has for human sexuality exists only in marriage. Outside of marriage, sexuality is considered a lustful and licentious, while in marriage it is sanctified, as we are to find comfort in our spouse as well as propagate mankind.


Sexual passions outside of this are disrespectful to our other half and dishonorable to our society. If we sleep with someone who is not our spouse and never will be our spouse we are in fact committing adultery: adultery against our spouse, adultery against their spouse (if they choose to have a spouse as opposed to staying celibate to God), and it is a transgression against each family, future and present, when immoral sexual acts are committed.



Non-marital sexual activity in Christianity, like it is in most religions ranging from Buddhism to Hinduism to Islam, is a form of indulgence and decadence. To have sex outside of the sanctified union is to engage in behavior harmful to your own family and to other families, to the community as a whole, as it creates pain in the lives of those affected. But even more than that: it is a sign of spiritual weakness.
Sexual impropriety is like drunkenness, greed, gluttony, vanity, passion for glory, passion for power, lying, cheating, pride. The soul which engages in these activities is finding their passions in their physical body, in fulfilling physical desires. These desires are temporary and fleeting and can grow into a form of addiction; these passions are divisive. They play to the most basic instincts of man.
Man is called to live a life of simplicity, enjoying the fruits of his labor and nothing more. Man is called to not possess much, to not wallow in his own luxury and power and pride.



The 21st century is difficult for the human soul as it is one where we have too much luxury, too much emphasis on personal glory and social position and have the power to submit to drunkenness, drug use, sexual indulgence and other things. But because it is a difficult and trying time for us, it does not mean we change our religion to justify the above but rather means we change ourselves.


Homosexuality can never be condoned because it is giving in to sexual desires. The only sex which is appropriate is within a marriage and of course, homosexuality can never be done within a marriage as man and woman were put on this Earth to be together as companions and to multiply on this Earth.


Homosexuals indeed have these feelings from birth, but there is a really glorious option for the homosexual people that has always existed. It is the outright path of the Saints. Many people through the centuries have given up their sexuality and no longer crave companionship, and instead revel in God and His Creation.


All people are called to suppress their worldly desires and only act on them in marriage; some are called to suppress them completely and pursue celibacy. It is a path that people ought to contemplate.
People who take vows of poverty, of celibacy, people who vow to never succumb to worldly passions have committed themselves to God and have been working for the alleviation of poverty across the world, providing education, health services and other charitable activities as their life calling. That is the absolute highest road that any person can take.


Even those who choose to marry ought to remember the great deeds of the Saints and recognize this path: we're called to never value riches or power, called to never give in to drunkenness or lust, to be charitable and loving of our neighbors, to be helpful. We enjoy the pleasures which God has given to us: each other, nature, our families, our companion, our friends, our arts and our God Himself.
The Christian life ought to carry the full weight of the Gospel of God and look for the profound truth therein, and as homosexuality is condemned for it being a form of sex outside of marriage and a form of sex outside of the intent God has for us.



I would like to leave you with the famous St. Isaac The Syrian quotation concerning the idea of death to the world:


"The world is the general name for all passions. When we wish to call the passions by a common name, we call them the world. But when we wish to distinguish them by their special names, we call them passions. The passions are the following: love of riches, desire for possessions, bodily pleasures from which comes sexual passion, love of honor gives rise to envy, lust for power, arrogance and pride of position, the craving to adorn oneself with luxurious clothing and vain ornaments, the itch for human glory which is a source of rancor and resentment, and physical fear. Where these passions cease to be active, there the world is dead....

Someone has said of the Saints that while alive they were dead; for though living in the flesh, they did not live for the flesh. See for which of these passions you are alive. Then you will know how far you are alive to the world, and how far you are dead to it." --St. Isaac the Syrian, 7th Century

Basically, we need to be dead to the world as much as we can be, and instead live in the Body of Christ.


By living a life free of all indulgences and worldly passions we can do more to help each other and do more to find inner happiness. Happiness that does not crumble with our wealth or power, happiness that does not decay with our aging body; happiness that does not even leave us when we are weak and persecuted, on our last legs standing against the world -- but a happiness that grows with each day we live, a happiness that is defined by our experiences and our relationship with our God that leads us down a glorious road so that even if we find ourselves in a prison cell or starving or sick, because our body is nothing but our vehicle we still have our Everything.

Does jerking off to gay porn count?

Where in the hell do you find views like that?

What if it's heterosexual porn, but I'm really only looking at the penis?

*snip*

Double post.

Did you marry all those prostitutes before you fucked them, KK?

He could only marry one because divorce is against god. He also made sure that the sex was for breeding purposes only and he accually stayed a virgin until he is married. He's magical. He also can tell people what is right because he himself is clean of spirit.

and peanutbuttered of wang

:lol

i read that someone made sperm cells out of female stem cells, and that's cool cuz as soon as gaymos can procreate with eachother then there won't be anything wrong with them anymore

So really, KK, what you're saying is that you're in favor of gay marriage.


Seriously, though, you're a monster hypocrite. Like Jeanette said, you did the deed outside of wedlock, so straight away, you're on the same level as gay people. You've also committed the sin of bestiality, so that drops you down another peg. We can see in this thread and your overlong thread about your subconcious that you're suffering from a major case of vanity, so that's another step backward. The drinking and fighting were good too, so I'd say that puts you way below the people you condemn on the Staircase of Sin.

You might as well start look for a timeshare in the Stygian Abyss, my friend.

Totally going to hell. Totally going to get homo sexed by boy demons.

So, this piece really should be more accurately titled "the case against sexuality," as you are not so much attacking homosexuality per se but the concept of sex for its own sake.

When you talk about the people who should feel consisigned to celibacy I can only assume that you are talking about that subset of homosexuals who are basically born queers. Like so utterly effeminate that no account of "socialization" could ever possibly account for just how fucking GAY they are. I know it's tempting to label them "diseased," and even if you wanna seriously look at human souls as existing in a hierarchy defined by darwinian fitness you can't argue against the utilitarian benefits of dykes and fags, and the unique skills they bring to society. You say fucking for comfort is cool, so if they wanna fuck eachother for comfort in healthy mutually supportive relationships, what's so bad about that?

It's just another way for one group of people to say they are better than another group of people in the end, isn't it?

What if I'm looking at straight porn, but then I accidentally click some gay porn, and then I come, does that count?

Watching 2 girls going at it with a doubledongdildo is gay, and I love it!

What if you just have a wide stance when using the restroom for its intended purpose? If someone then decides to have gay sex with you by accident, is it your fault?

i like a wide stance

I realize I'm being subjective here, but... Of all the things one person can do to another as an affront to God, giving them an orgasm seems one of the less horrible.

Strangely the bible promotes promiscuity (Hopefully it is not misspelled.) It is the churches and their desire for complete control of your life. (and wallet) That put most of these boundries on things.

oh god i haven't gotten answer yet i'm freaking outttttttt

emu i hope not ;_;

Actually Emu, jerking off to porn is already a sin, since by doing so you support the porn firms, which promote non-marital sexual activity...so unless you're 100% sure that the 2 porn models are married, and one is actually just a woman who looks like a man and has a penis, that's taboo. Guess no more jerking off for us...:x

I have another question though: Is anal sex allowed? I mean, the woman can't get pregnant through it, but it's not actually gay, so what's the deal with that, huh KK?

Edit: Man, I just love philosophizing (ugh, I'm sure that's spelled wrong) about important subjects like these. Don't you all agree?

Edit 2: Oh, 'nother question: What if you're not christian? What if you're buddhist, or just some religion that doesn't prohibit homosexuality? Is homoseuxality then still wrong, or can I pound that guys ass 'till it's raw, and vice versa?

What is the deal with guys like KK and Mel Gibson being all holier than thou, but are also drunken, homophobic slobs?

It's funny that this thread is directed at homosexuality when it could also be targetted at any couple that has sex for any purpose other than creating babies. Why not just title it, "WHY SEX IS WRONG UNLESS YOU"RE WEARING A BLINDFOLD AND PARALYZED FROM THE NECK DOWN."

I think that some "Saints" (MOSTLY ONES WHO COULDNT GET LAID BECAUSE THEIR PENISES DIDNT WORK MAYBE I DONT KNOW) even condemned marital sex as sinful, but accepted it was necessary.

Also everything you said in this thread relies on "Marriage" and "Religion" being objective and real or something. It's an undefended assumption. As such, none of what you said can be accepted as anything other than begging the question over and over. ITS WRONG BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS ITS WRONG. THE BIBLE SAYS ITS WRONG BECAUSE IT DOES BAD THINGS TO SOCIETY. ITS BAD FOR SOCIETY BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS ITS WRONG. or something I dont know I don't really feel like properly representing your argument but that's close enough!

and uh not all religions and societies condemn homosexual behavior so I guess homosexuality is a-okay right?

OH ya and you're kind of reverting to that whole "Natural" (MEN AND WOMEN ARE MEANT TO BE TOGETHER BECAUSE MEN HAVE PENISES THAT CAN GO INTO THE VAGINAS AND MAKE BABIES) argument again which I remember in the past we already discussed. And it being natural doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Cooking food isn't natural. Reading books and typing on the internet isn't natural. OR MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE IT EXISTS IN THE WORLD!? OH WAIT HOMOSEXUALS EXIST IN THE WORLD!

would you say that people who are sterile (incapable of having babies) should not be allowed to be married and should not be allowed to have sex? After-all, the only purpose their sex can serve is pleasure or some social benefit, because they can't have babies.

The sterility argument was used successfully by my college philosophy profesor in giving me a "C" in a paper on morality. One of the reasons I majored in Chemistry.

The way I see homosexuality is this.

First off, its not a biologically positive trait (curbs species propagation)

Now the, we get into the issue of whether its a choice or"not your fault", such as through genetics

If its a choice, than stop havin gay buttsex with men.

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we can in the future theoretically eliminate the gay gene, thus curing the world of homosexuality.

I don't know whether to take you seriously or not. Curbing species propagation? Are we really so behind in our science education that we still think that more people = better? Or is it just YOU who are retarded?

He's still nursing a grudge after that school dance where a hispanic grinded against him because he mistook him for a mamacita.

No, he's a retard.

Now the, we get into the issue of whether its a choice or "not your fault", such as through genetics

If its a choice, than stop being so fucking retarded you ignorant piece of shit.

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we need to just kill you now to stop your breeding, thus curing the world of ignorance.

STANDING BY...

I do believe KK has pulled a JOEBIALEK on us.

Looks like it, though you can hardly blame him. Would you reply to this rampaging horde of put-downs and insults? Granted, you might never have gotten into this position in the first place, but still, I'm feeling some pretty negative vibes towards KK here, so I don't think he'll be coming back...or he's just not here. Whatever, it's all good.

FH, read a real KK thread, he gets off on put-downs and insults.

I see your point. Well, I checked, and he just hasn't been online since Feb. 5th. We'll all get to see the masochistic displays we've all come to love so much as soon as he gets back! YAY!

Self-reproduction is not the only way to increase the frequency of a gene. Your genes are interested in making more copies of themselves, not just in getting you to reproduce. (Sorry) What I am saying is that there is a credible evolutionary argument for a homosexual predisposition as a trait beneficial to the group as a whole (via population control, checks placed on detrimental male-male competition etcetera) Just because say, rampant lesbianism among macaques is detrimental to short-term reproduction doesn't mean shit in the long run of evolution. In fact, homosexual coupling is actually more common than heterosexual among most animals.

If homosexuality is in fact a genetic abberration, why hasn't it been bred out? If it was a genetic disorder it would be by an order of magnitude the most common such disorder in existence. How many people do you know with Huntington's disease?

I don't think the matter of if homosexuality is a choice or not is really relevant at all to if it's wrong. Unless you're a deterministic sort in which case nothing is wrong because it's all predetermined am i right? I don't know that just runs the course of eventually saying something like, "SERIAL KILLERS ARENT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE GENES THAT MAKE THEM KILL!" ... or make them more predisposed to kill in which case we can still judge them for lack of control.

Really you can say nobody is guilty of anything if you're that deterministic *shrug* Other than that it's kind of pointless. And even assuming it is a choice you still have to show how it's a bad choice which dumbass thread author tried to do with his gay arguments about MEN AND WOMEN TOGERTHER 4 EVERER

i really look forward to the day when people can look back and wonder how anyone ever thought genes could affect a person's inclinations, but it looks like this circle's going to keep on repeating itself - now god is dead it just seems like we've found something else to decide our fate for us. after all, it's easy to laugh at phrenology but what are CT brain scans purporting to prove? its as if mankind - intelligent mankind - is fundamentally incompatible with accepting responsibility for itself.

ummm ya know the 10 commandments dont say anything about masturbation so wank away my friend

I don't like you very much

awww really, cause i really like you

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE THE ONLY RULES IN THE BIBLE> IGNORE CORINTHIANS OR WHATEVER.

I don't see how it's impossible that genes could affect what we do, but I don't think they dictate a "fate." Thinking mankind is supremely responsible and in absolute control of itself is just as ridiculous as thinking god or genes are solely responsible for our actions -- Especially if you accept it without any evidence.

I found this posted on a different forum, and I thought I'd post it here because this thread is BORING.

You know, I actually feel like I kind of care about this thread now.

No, you shouldn't

Sorry, my biology is a bit out of date, but aren't group selection theories of such a nature usually considered to be not very accurate? I mean, I understand kinship altruism and so forth, but population control and the checking of male-male competition are exactly the kind of group benefits that are absolutely unbeneficial to whoever is carrying the gene for them.
I mean really, if evolution provided for genes that checked detrimental male-male competition and controlled population, what would we need governments for?

lol ya plus wouldn't everybody except the chosen ruler-gene class be homosexuals and then the chosen ruler class would fuck all the women and everybody would be inbred and sick and they would smell like mcdonalds all the time.

yes.

If you life like me, you notice that there's not any christian God. So there isn't any kind of sin either. Being homo isn't just sexual. It's same to fuck to cunt or ass. Being homo is also emotional. I think that thinking women only as a pussyes is more wrong than being just a friend with girls and fuck men. Only thing i doesn't like about homos is that they put their penis to ass, and shit comes out from ass. That's disgusting. Fortunately there is also other kind of homosexual forms than assfuck. My final opinion is that hating homos is just another genre of hating enything different. Sorry hahrsh language, i don't know any other words than i learn from tv : <

I'm in favor of anything that curbs human propagation.

GAY! The new green!

So? Are people like apple trees now? Or do you consider fruitless plants like...roses, to be abominations too? Huh? HUH!?

P.S.: Yes, it's SUPPOSED to be stupid.:dunce

You're right MacLeon what this world needs is more people!

And don't act like you've never felt the urge to give a guy a good cornholing.;):orgasm
We know all your secrets.

lol so all your points are about how it states in the bible that it's wrong...so where does that leave an atheist like me? convince ME....i have no problem with homosexuality and many of my friends are either gay or bi....i'd really like to hear your opinions on that.

Hey, you know "Bare Fruit"? They make awesome natural dried apple snacks!

I have a lot of problems with homosexuality

Serious problems?

I missed you Pub, can I have gay love with you now?

But a book written 50 years after the death of a carpenter who has been dead for more than 2000 years is bound to be true!
Why? Because the bible says it is, of course!

Why? Homosexuality is easy!

So I've heard ....

Yeah, those things are unbeneficial to the organism of the species carrying the gene, but what if the gene was only passed down maternally, or only toggled on in the presence of other genes, or morphogens, or a number of other factors (understanding mechanisms of gene expression requires way too much math for my brain)

Here's a quote from Darwin:

"Although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe...an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another."

So, the notion of group selection isn't new (even though it's been taboo I guess since the 60's.) but what we know now about genes is that they are far more complex than a simple input-output function.

I think a useful way to understand evolution is the fact that you have groups that are divided by both geographical and ecological boundaries. These boundaries get blurred either by migration, or by scarcity, when selection pressures laterally compress co-existing niches.

derrida said: "Blah fart"
Translation!

I SOUND SMART TALKING ABOUT IRRELEVANT THINGS.

Guys I don't know if you're aware of this but generally we don't rely on what is genetically prominent to find out what's morally right or wrong. IN fact sometimes that is considered a GENETIC FALLACY and it's gay so shut the fuck up.

So like a tribe of pacifists will have an ADVANTAGE over a tribe over aggresors who like to kill pacifists? So does that mean aggressively killing pacifists is moral or something like that?

Morality here clearly has to be understood as it has generally been understood throughout most of human history; doing good for your friends and harm to your enemies, which I guess is more like justice than morality as such, but still I think that's basically what we're talking about here. That kind of morality (=justice) is basically advantageous for any particular group; it's just that the concept of populations as a unit that is selected for in terms of biological evolution is tough to grasp. The way I always saw it was that the populations provided something like a context for the evolution of different genes within the population, but I never really got that far along in biology I suppose.

You raise a good point in general about the complexity of gene expression, I guess if we can't really know how genes get expressed that could say a lot about how much we can know about how genes get selected for. Makes talking about evolutionary biology and behaviour pretty complicated for sure.

As for kahljorn; I think what we're talking about here is a descriptive account of how 'morality' came to be, we're not trying to justify anything on the basis of it's origins, which I think is what you mean by the genetic fallacy. Like I said earlier, the morality we're talking about is doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies, not a philosophically sophisticated morality, but certainly a prominent one in human history. It is an opinion about what is right and wrong whose origins can be traced to evolutionary biology, tracing the origins of something is not the same as justifying it by those origins. But that doesn't mean we can just forget about nature and say that it's all just meaningless epiphenomena, the nature (=origins) of human things (like morality) is still important to understanding and dealing with them. Like this bad morality that evolution gave us; just because Plato showed what was wrong with it about 2000 years ago (and any reasonable person can see what's wrong with it on their own anyway) doesn't mean that it's gone away, so living with the biological reality of (biologically) evolved morality remains important.

I've been rambling, so let me just get to the point: being gay is gross.

Basically all you guys are saying is that certain types of moralities and societies propagate certain types of "People" or genes. So what? Thanks for wasting anybody who is reading this threads time.

Through genes, right? Genes created morality? lol just kidding. OR AM I?

I guess you're right about the genetic fallacy. I just wanted to mention it because where this argument comes from is something that relies on it's genes to justify it.
What you guys are doing is more like a red herring and bringing up irrelevant shit that has nothing to do with it for god knows what reason. What purpose does derrida have for bringing this up other than to be gay? He's just responding to some gay faggots point that the gay gene could be bred out and trying to show it won't necessarily be so - but that has nothing to do with morality. Not even the "origins of morality." I think you misunderstand derrida's gayness.

and all that relies on the notion that homosexuality is explicitely genetic and not environmental anyway.

Real morality begins when you start questioning who are your friends and what is a benefit and a harm ;/ i dont know I guess i just think you guys are talking out of your ass and not really adding anything to the conversation.

Talking about the morality of gayness is boring anyway

So is the genetics of gayness. Especially considering there's not even any proof that gayness is genetic.

If gayness is genetic, it doesn't matter, as it won't be passed down anyway.:rolleyes

Honestly, people, this is way more than any thread started by KK deserves.

only if you repeat it or enjoy it

I guess listening to derrida talk buttholes would've been worth destroying this eyerolable joke :rolleyes

Okay, first of all, screwing gay guys isn't wrong if you like to do it. Screwing UGLY gay guys is TOTALY IMMORAL because it's unnatural to be okay with screwing someone who us ugly. Why do you think we are made so that ugly people tend to revolt us physically? Because it's wrong.

Same goes for fat gay people, and your darker black skinned homos, and any fag at all with a limb missing. What the fuck is wrong with you if you want that?

Any girl at all is pretty much fair game unless they are horrendously ugly or so fat you can't find where to go or are missing more than one limb, but you have to draw the line somewhere, so next time you're doing it, look at your partner and make a truthful guess as to just how close to the line you are getting. Pretty close isn't wrong, but it's not a good sign.

I hope this helped.

OH! DO NOT screw animals at all. Not even really super cute ones.

Oh, also?

Guy with the dark red font?

I cannot read a single word you wrote. I mean, sure, you can when you look at it, because you already know what you wrote, but have a heart, okay? It's totally wrong that I don't know what you have to say in this thread, it's like I'm missing a whole part of the conversation, and that's fucked up. No offense. Probably nobody told you but I guess I'm just the asshole around here, but it's only because if your posting I want what you say to be hear as that is the point. So it's all good.

Word.

Trust Max to bring it all back into perspective.

Homosexuality is great, because it actually brings out the crazy people who oppose it.

It usually takes some global calamity - like in the movies! - to make them twitch and sputter into the streets. Fortunately, gay people (and abortion clinics) have peacefully revealed these crazies so that we may all avoid their rants and religious nonsense.

Shemales are really hot. Didn't they?

lol i dont think all of them are hot but thanks anyway ;o and not all of them are uh homosexual.

I think it's time to get the KK thread out of retirement.

lol @ title change :lol