Why Do So Many Christians Detest Homosexuality, Yet Welcome All Other Vice?

[TonySutton]

Four children with a woman(en) when you aren't even sexually attracted? How do you fake it for so long?

singular, woman, we are still good friends and all 4 of my adult children are still in my life. I have an interesting life story that I only share with close friends. Btw, there are a surprising number of 40-50 year old gay fathers in similar circumstances as myself although our life stories vary a bit. There are some not so surprising trends.

Have you ever watched Brokeback Mountain?

 

[jmdrake]

Well some Christians don't eat pork or shellfish. (Seventh-Day Adventists, and while other Christians criticize SDAs for that, nobody can argue against the 7 extra years of life of SDAs in general, though that's not all because of diet.).

That said, you only mentioned OT prohibitions. Why did you not mention anything prohibited in the New Testament like fornication? (And you didn't give a reference on cutting bread. That's a new one on me.). I don't know of any mainstream Christian church that has taken the position that pornography, for example, is okay as long as it is heterosexual.

I believe the reason that homosexuality has be become such an issue is that society is pushing the idea that there is nothing wrong with it as opposed to Christians pushing the idea that it is especially wrong. Proof? Just look at this forum! A while back I posted a thread about an anti-porn pastor that was reaching out to porn stars including the infamous Ron Jeremy. NOBODY responded! Yet someone posts a thread about Exodus International shutting down and it becomes a big deal. Why is it okay for Christians to reach out to porn stars who want to change (and who are probably serious sex addicts at that point) and not okay to reach out to gays who want to change?

Ok, so I've recently noticed a few threads discussing the issue of homosexuality and there seems to be agreement among many Christians here and in society that it is immoral. I understand that. Now, my question is why do so many people of faith focus on homosexuality and not all of the other actions deemed sinful in the Bible? Cutting your bread, eating pork, shellfish, on and on.

Many people will quote this passage from Leviticus 18:



Yet, in Leviticus 19, we have this:




I bring this up because I know several people who are devout church-goers, think gays are 'evil' (exact words), and believe the government should promote 'Biblical values', yet are into body modification, including tattoos, gauges, etc. I don't understand their thought process here? Am I missing something or what?

 

[jmdrake]

Key words here "all the law and the prophets HANG on these to commands". Take the Ten Commandments. The first four are about loving God. The last six are about loving your fellow humans.

Jesus' own words:

Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[Todd]

I'm reminded of the passage about being drunk and gluttony. The Bible holds no distinction as to which is the worse sin.

I used to get ridiculed for having a beer or two or a couple glasses of wine by some of the people I went to church with. I used to remind them that the bible talks about drunkeness, not the partaking in drink from time to time. Those people didn't have one problem going back for Thirds when they could hardly walk from overeating at the Sunday picnic. I think it's the emphasis Christian leaders put on certain vices that make people believe they are worse than others.

 

[Tor_Hershman]

Because they never lived in an apartment buildin' with a quite, respectful of others, gay couple on one side AND a noisily battlin' straight couple on the other.

 

[Nobexliberty]

I'm a Christian. Jesus gave us two commandments, love your neighbor and love God. There was no third commandment "detest homosexuality". Actually, loving the homosexual falls into His first commandment, so you're a little off base there.

Maybe the word "Christian" you chose is too broad a brush for whichever denomination you are referring to.

Or maybe you're differentiating between "homosexuality" (the act) and "homosexual" (the person) - I totally understanding being against the act and still loving the person. If that's what you're getting at.

Just kind of a harsh absolute you threw out there. Just trying to grasp your meaning.

Christians live according to the morals but not the ceremonial and judical parts of the old testament. Sacraficing animals for forgivness or unclean laws about the female period are no longer revelants but moral rules about homosexuality and respecting parents still live on.

 

[Republicanguy]

fear and ignorance are tall hurdles for many bible thumpers.

That is right, a person should never look down on somebody for being different. That is why religion is dangerous. Because it will eat a person from the inside.

 

[James Madison]

That is right, a person should never look down on somebody for being different. That is why religion is dangerous. Because it will eat a person from the inside.

How is that unique to -- or even the product of -- religion? You just described every Marxist revolution since 20th Century.

 

[Republicanguy]

How is that unique to -- or even the product of -- religion? You just described every Marxist revolution since 20th Century.

Who said I was a Marxist? Class is a fact of life. But human nature has been stuck in a cycle of pure ignorance for eons. And religion has dominated our ancestors lives ever since. We have to try and let people be without the imposition of religious know all crap!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

1Tim1:8-11 equates oath-breakers with slave-takers murderers and male homosexuals. So the vast majority of politicians who are obsessed with homosexuality, regularly commit sins that the scriptures equate with the one they obsess over.

 

[Origanalist]

Who said I was a Marxist? Class is a fact of life. But human nature has been stuck in a cycle of pure ignorance for eons. And religion has dominated our ancestors lives ever since. We have to try and let people be without the imposition of religious know all crap!

You're a funny guy.

 

[James Madison]

Who said I was a Marxist? Class is a fact of life. But human nature has been stuck in a cycle of pure ignorance for eons. And religion has dominated our ancestors lives ever since. We have to try and let people be without the imposition of religious know all crap!

No one said you were a Marxist, but I did call you out on your 'the world would be better without religion' talking point. Humanity has done pretty well with itself. We've grown from cavemen to pyramid-builders to Moon-walkers in 20,000 years, all the time under the watchful eyes of religion.


As for 'human nature', religion is very much a part of it. Atheists such as yourself kid themselves into thinking religion is the source of human suffering and that if we could just break free from religion's deathgrip then all of a sudden the skies will clear, our minds will be opened, and humanity will reach a state that is so far removed from its current condition that it would be unrecognizable to anyone burdened with the curse of a religious inclination. Humanity has tried that and failed at every attempt. The only time real freedom was achieved came after the Reformation, where theologians laid the foundations of free society.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why Do So Many Christians Detest Homosexuality...Now, my question is why do so many people of faith focus on homosexuality and not all of the other actions deemed sinful in the Bible?

I know this is in the religion sub-forum, but IMHO, this is a human issue, not a religious issue.

Take a huge step back from the issue. All forms of sex are disgusting and "detestable". Even french kissing. Think about it. That natural revulsion is overcome by the opposing natural imperative to reproduce. Thus some forms of sex become acceptable, and more than that, desirable. But any sex that an individual does not desire, reverts back to the "disgusting" category.

Attempting to force one's preferences on the rest of the world is, unfortunately, also very common. But that's a different subject that we are all very familiar with.

 

[James Madison]

Take a huge step back from the issue. All forms of sex are disgusting and "detestable". Even french kissing. Think about it. That natural revulsion is overcome by the opposing natural imperative to reproduce. Thus some forms of sex become acceptable, and more than that, desirable. But any sex that an individual does not desire, reverts back to the "disgusting" category.

This simply isn't true and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works at the individual and societal level. I would say that all forms of sex are neutral, as is the case with all behavior. Genetic pressure and environmental factors combine to delineate 'acceptable' from 'disgusting'. And we desire sex because we are the descendants of those who desired sex. It's a positive feedback loop that has perfected itself over the eons. And it's quite an ingenious design choice for God.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This simply isn't true and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works at the individual and societal level.

Oh really? What part of what I said "misunderstands" evolution?

I would say that all forms of sex are neutral, as is the case with all behavior.

Really? All forms of sex are neutral? Then there is no point to this thread or any controversy whatsoever about sexual practices. Nothing is offensive or desirable, just neutral.

Genetic pressure and environmental factors combine to delineate 'acceptable' from 'disgusting'.

Environmental factors change constantly. Did I say that they don't influence what is considered "acceptable"? The media and general consensus can effect what people "desire" or what is considered normal through the sheer force of conditioning. But it can't change the most basic level of motivations that lead to reproduction. No reproduction as a norm leads to failure.

And we desire sex because we are the descendants of those who desired sex. It's a positive feedback loop that has perfected itself over the eons..

No disagreement there. Although there is always variety, which allows for the species to adapt within certain parameters (which lead to successful propagation).

 

[James Madison]

Oh really? What part of what I said "misunderstands" evolution?

You describe sex, at its core, as "disgusting". Sexual reproduction offers many advantages over asexual reproduction, namely increased genetic diversity. It allows for specialization at the cellular level, increases species survivorship, and is generally more sophisticated in every way.

As for right or wrong, neither is 'right' nor 'wrong'. Sexual and asexually reproducing species are able to coexist with both having positives and negatives. Sexual reproduction allows for advanced intelligence and here we are to contemplate the question.

Really? All forms of sex are neutral? Then there is no point to this thread or any controversy whatsoever about sexual practices. Nothing is offensive or desirable, just neutral.

If you define 'sex' as a series of events at the cellular and organismal level that directly lead to the sire of offspring, then, biologically they are the same. You can discuss the ethics of sexuality in soft science land over there ------------->

Environmental factors change constantly. Did I say that they don't influence what is considered "acceptable"? The media and general consensus can effect what people "desire" or what is considered normal through the sheer force of conditioning. But it can't change the most basic level of motivations that lead to reproduction. No reproduction as a norm leads to failure.

Sure, environmental factors change constantly. Those changes, however, are typically small and easily adapted to. Rarely are there events that produce a genetic bottleneck. And I agree that the environment can have a large degree of influence on sexuality, but any current civility (read: standards) about sex is the product of modern lifestyle and a deviation from the norm. Because evolution doesn't favor 'right' or 'wrong', but rather reproductive success, those who are the most efficient at fornicating -- so to speak -- are favored. Consider the history of marriage. It was common for girls and boys in their early teens to be married just a few centuries ago. Now, we are aghast at such a notion. And yet, if everything were to collapse tomorrow, that is the lifestyle humans would adopt. Now if something is acceptable on a conditional basis like I have just described, it is objectively neutral with environmental factors regarding morality filling in the shades of gray.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You describe sex, at its core, as "disgusting". Sexual reproduction offers many advantages over asexual reproduction, namely increased genetic diversity. It allows for specialization at the cellular level, increases species survivorship, and is generally more sophisticated in every way.

As for right or wrong, neither is 'right' nor 'wrong'.
...

I never said anything about right or wrong. And I wasn't talking about the advantages or disadvantages of sexual reproduction.

You asked about why people would "detest" homosexuality. I gave you an answer, from a human standpoint. "Disgust" and "revulsion" play a part in human thought processes and actions. They can not be taken out of the equation.

There are opposing motivations at play. Take away the motivation of reproduction, and the pleasure motivation that drives it, and then sex boils down to people swapping spit (among other things). That is "disgusting", absent the other motivations. You don't think that's true? Go make out with your grandfather and prove that it is a "neutral" activity. Then imagine making out with the celebrity you desire most. Now it's not so bad.

The same thesis applies to food, for essentially the same reasons. Different people have different ideas of what is desirable to eat, and what is disgusting. Culture and conditioning play a part. Some people may want to eat a rare steak, some people may want to eat lawn clippings, some live cockroaches, some people eat dirt, some people eat microwaved fish heads, and some people "eat da poo-poo, poo-poo, like ice-cream, like ice-cream". Many vegetarians find eating animals disgusting.

Everybody has their own preferences. The point is that when it is not their personal preference, they often find it "disgusting". Just the way it is. People will apply right or wrong to it, but most people prefer to let everyone do their own thing. It's more obvious when it comes to food, but the same concept applies to sexuality.

 

[James Madison]

You asked about why people would "detest" homosexuality. I gave you an answer, from a human standpoint. "Disgust" and "revulsion" play a part in human thought processes and actions. They can not be taken out of the equation.

There are opposing motivations at play. Take away the motivation of reproduction, and the pleasure motivation that drives it, and then sex boils down to people swapping spit (among other things). That is "disgusting", absent the other motivations. You don't think that's true? Go make out with your grandfather and prove that it is a "neutral" activity. Then imagine making out with the celebrity you desire most. Now it's not so bad.
.

Disgust and revulsion do not simply appear from nothing. I have already explained in other threads why homophobic individuals will enjoy higher reproductive success than homo-tolerant ones. The revulsion you speak of is a product of the positive feedback loop, but does not support the notion that the act is inherently disgusting.

'Swapping spit' has immunological origins. I'm not interested in swapping spit with my grandfather, but that is derived from our revulsion to inbreeding, another positive feedback loop. Exchanging spit is objectively no worse than receiving a blood transfusion or organ transplant from a family member. It just doesn't have the sexual connotation is therefore not subject to a feedback loop.

 

[Republicanguy]

I guess that is just me. It's painfully sad, and awful to see so much superstitious rubbish all over. From House of Lords member-Sachs at Aipac in 2013 to Dawah is easy in the street in West London.

Freedom has origins through human experience, how does religion contribute to that exactly?

Science would of spear headed facts if it wasn't for religion as well as state run religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXeUhUpHYY Sachs speech at Aipac - fourteen minutes.

It would be cool if Ron Paul and Rand Paul gave it up. That would so cool.

Willam Anders became enlightened because of his trip to the Moon on christmas day 1968. He was a creationist, and gave it up after his mission. It did end up causing some division in his family. Only one of twenty four to give up superstition. May be Edgar Mitchell he believes in all that UFO and life stuff without any evidence for it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I for one, would hope Ron and Rand would want to spend eternity in heaven rather than going to Hell for all eternity, so I would hope they would not do what you suggest.