I second that. Christianity does not constitute “most religions”.
surely you wouldn’t require a cite if “hate” were replaced with “vehemently disapprove of” ?
Sure I would. This is GD, and unproved assertions have no place here.
There are a large number of religions which do not even disapprove of homosexuality. From http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur3.htm and pages linked from there:
[quote]
[ul]
[li]In many aboriginal traditional faiths, homosexuals are held in high regard as having received a special blessing. They often became the shamans (healers) of the community.[/li][Although Pagans celebrate female-male polarity, and many of their rituals are based on a balance of women and men, they generally accept homosexuality and bisexuality as natural and unchangeable orientations for a minority of adults. Most groups welcome people without regard to their sexual orientation.
[li]From the Theravada Buddhist standpoint, all relationships: gay, lesbian or straight, are often considered personal matters of mutual consent.[/li][li]Zen Buddhism does not “make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual” sex. It encourages sexual relationships that are “mutually loving and supportive.”[/li][li]The Theosphical Society does not impose any dogma upon its membership. Thus, the Theosophical Society does not in any way discriminate against persons based upon their sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian members are accepted as any other members of the human family.[/li][li]For many years, their Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association has supported rabbis who chose to perform same-sex commitment ceremonies.[/li][li]The Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC) is a somewhat smaller group within Reform Judaism. The UAHC represents 860 synagogues across the US. They has stated that “In accordance with the teaching of Reform Judaism that all human beings are created ‘Betselem elohim’ (in the divine image), Reform Judaism has strongly condemned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”.[/li][li]The UU Association was the first large religious organization in North America to welcome homosexuals and bisexuals as full members, eligible to become clergy. They were also the first major religious group to open an office to in support of equal civil rights for (and social acceptance of) Gays and Lesbians. This has expanded in recent years to include both Bisexual and Transgendered people.[/ul][/li][/quote]
There are other religions that affirm homosexuality; for instance the Western Reform Taoist Organization says (on http://wrt.org/beliefs_m-z.html) the following:
I’m not going to claim that this list constitutes “most” religions, simply because it’s extremely difficult to make a list of all religions in the world. But this does show that a large number of religious groups are not anti-homosexuality.
I am serious. And don’t call me Shirley.
As a follow-up to my previous post, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm contains a list of essays that describe the positions of various Christian groups towards homosexuality. I don’t have time to go through them all, but any interested person can find information there.
Surely I would. I’m aware that a lot of Christian denominations, most of Islam, Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, and a lot of Hinduism hate/vehemently disapprove of/aren’t all that fond of homosexuality, but that’s hardly all religions. If you see my first post in this thread, you’ll note that I mentioned Buddhism, Shinto, the ancient Greek and Roman religions, the ancient Celtic religion, and a number of Native American religions as religions that don’t strongly homosexuality. Ultrafilter has been kind enough to add neo-paganism, the theosophical society, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, Unitarianism-Universalism and Western Reform Taoism to that list. Thanks, Ultrafilter.
Hey…we were all made by Almighty God, and He dosen’t make mistakes.
One dosen’t choose to be gay any more than one chooses to be left-handed.
You are as God made you.
\
Let us all hope and pray for a day when everyone realizes this.
Hey, no problem.
I think many of us are misunderstanding(IMHO) the phrase “judge not or you will be judged.”
In my understanding(which can be fallible), telling someone something is wrong or a “sin” is not judging them. Judging is when you say something is wrong and then claim that you are “better” or more “holy” than that person.
Only God judges in the end. He does, however, tell us by what standard he will judge(his own holiness). Because none of could be found “not guilty” under that standard, he took the punishment himself.
So when you see people screaming(or just saying), “I hate fags and condemn them to hell” and all that, they are judging and that is wrong(as you can see, I am not judging them for doing it). But if I say to a homosexual friend of mine, “You know, I think the Bible says homosexual behaviour is a sin.”, it is different.
It is the responsibility of the Christian to go out of his/her way to make sure anyone, including homosexuals, understand that they are not judging them. One of the great flaws in modern Christian society is that we have not worked hard on making this point clear.
Telling someone they are wrong is not judging.
Anyway, that is my understanding of the text and I believe it fits within the context, but I could be wrong.
Of course it is. You are making a determination of right and wrong, based on the tenets of your religion. That’s pretty much the definition of the word right there.
Judge not lest ye be judged!!
The Catholic church thinks no less of a gay person(who engages in homosexual sex) than a person who has sex before marriage. Okay? Just thought I would try to get that through your thick skulls. Jeez, you ppl never listen.
My skull is no thicker than yours. What we are disturbed about is the fact that there are religous people preaching hatred of gay people. That just isn’t right, and until it is stopped, we won’t be silenced.
heh…and wouldn’t that thought be that they are both sinners? and if i hear a “we are all sinners” thing…
My guess as to the question in the OP would be that in ancient times, a married couple needed to have a half dozen children just to ensure a stable or slowly growing population, what with infant mortality, childhood diseases, and so on. Any sexual activity which couldn’t potentially lead to conception was therefore considered an affront, and such activity would have included not only homosexuality, but also masturbation (mentioned in the Sodom and Gomorrah story), and heterosexual intercourse with contraception.
Masturbation isn’t mentioned in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.
ssj, I don’t think anyone would dispute that preaching hatred is wrong. But if you narrowed your target a little to the individuals who preach that, rather than the shotgun approach against all religions, you might be surprised at the support you get. (Me, for one.)
True, but i’ve never hear one, not one, christian or catholic person say that it is alright to be a homosexual.
Several others have posited this theory in this thread in various forms, and there is only one problem with it - it may not be true.
Assuming that homosexuality is genetic, if homosexuality were not a beneficial or neutral trait, it would not have survived in the population to this day, at least not at the 2-10% range. A rational, though unproven, hypothesis is that homosexuality is a beneficial trait, as it creates relatives without their own children who can contribute to gathering resources for their heterosexual kin’s children. Such children are more likely to survive to breeding age and pass on the family’s genes to the next generation.
Under this theory, tribes that tolerated homosexuality would do as well as or better than tribes that didn’t.
Sua