Is It Wrong to Think Homosexuality is a Sin?

[Lysistrata]

What one does in public is subject to public comment, even ridicule. LGBTs are just people out and about in society, regardless of their choice of religion (or none). They have a right to not be bothered by your choice of religious practice. And what if they have chosen another form of religious practice than yours? There are many LGBT folks who are members of the Metropolitan Community Church, founded to provide a church home for LGBT Christians.

The MCC is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Church of Jesus Christ believes in the authority of Scripture.

The MCC is just as much a church as your's is, snob. Bet your's believes in biblical "inerrancy" and "infallibility," which basically is post-Reformation protestant fundie stuff. Believe what you wish, but don't get in anyone else's way or stick your nose in anyone else's business.

I'll speak my mind here as I wish. The Church of Jesus Christ believes the Bible to be the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. There will always be wolves in sheep's clothing and tares among the wheat. You go ahead and believe whatever you wish. No skin off my nose.

Are you a Mormon? I don't really know what the Mormons believe.

No, I'm not a Mormon. You're confused, dear. The Church of Jesus Christ isn't an earthly organization. The Church of Jesus Christ is comprised of everyone that believes the Bible and puts their faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination.

It's one thing to put one's faith in Jesus, but it's another to believe in a compendium of writings, many by unknown authors, that was put together years after Jesus left, does not include all writings on the subject, some of which may still lie out there in the desert, and is subject to interpretation by anybody and everybody. Believing literally in the protestant version of the bible is not a condition of Christianity, even if it is a condition of entry into your denomination.

Incidentally, the MCC is a Christian denomination. I'm not a member of the MCC. I'm not even LGBT. But I do know that MCC members don't need your permission in order to believe as they wish.

 

[TheParser]

IMHO:

1. NO, it is NOT wrong if you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

a. It is your right to believe what you want.

2. BUT it is wrong to use your personal beliefs in order to harm gay people.

a. For example, not too many years ago, some police departments would try to get gay people kicked out of their apartments. Presumably, those officers felt that homosexuality was a sin and that those tenants should be punished for their behavior.

3. IMHO, however, you DO have the right to legally and peacefully try to affect public policy.

a. For example, until recently, homosexuality was a crime, for enough people thought that it was a sin. Fortunately (IMHO), the Supreme Court listened to people who felt that it was wrong to smoke out gay men and throw them into jail. So the "Supremes" decided that what people did in their bedrooms was no one else's business.

b. Personally, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a so-called "sin," but I DO believe that people have a right to make sure that they are not impacted by the actions of gay men. That is to say, for example, I feel strongly that gay men should NOT donate blood, lest one accidentally pass on HIV. I am disappointed that the Red Cross is now allowing gay men to donate blood IF they swear that they have not had intimate relations for a certain period of time. I am hoping that health professionals have a screening process that detects HIV-tainted blood.

 

[BS Filter]

The MCC is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Church of Jesus Christ believes in the authority of Scripture.

The MCC is just as much a church as your's is, snob. Bet your's believes in biblical "inerrancy" and "infallibility," which basically is post-Reformation protestant fundie stuff. Believe what you wish, but don't get in anyone else's way or stick your nose in anyone else's business.

I'll speak my mind here as I wish. The Church of Jesus Christ believes the Bible to be the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. There will always be wolves in sheep's clothing and tares among the wheat. You go ahead and believe whatever you wish. No skin off my nose.

Are you a Mormon? I don't really know what the Mormons believe.

No, I'm not a Mormon. You're confused, dear. The Church of Jesus Christ isn't an earthly organization. The Church of Jesus Christ is comprised of everyone that believes the Bible and puts their faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination.

It's one thing to put one's faith in Jesus, but it's another to believe in a compendium of writings, many by unknown authors, that was put together years after Jesus left, does not include all writings on the subject, some of which may still lie out there in the desert, and is subject to interpretation by anybody and everybody. Believing literally in the protestant version of the bible is not a condition of Christianity, even if it is a condition of entry into your denomination.

Incidentally, the MCC is a Christian denomination. I'm not a member of the MCC. I'm not even LGBT. But I do know that MCC members don't need your permission in order to believe as they wish.

Yes, you continually repeat that the bible is written years after Jesus and unknown authors, etc, etc. The Christian believes the Bible is the authoritative inerrant Word of God. You're not a Christian and I understand where you're coming from.

 

[BS Filter]

IMHO:

1. NO, it is NOT wrong if you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

a. It is your right to believe what you want.

2. BUT it is wrong to use your personal beliefs in order to harm gay people.

a. For example, not too many years ago, some police departments would try to get gay people kicked out of their apartments. Presumably, those officers felt that homosexuality was a sin and that those tenants should be punished for their behavior.

3. And -- IMHO -- you DO have the right to legally and peacefully try to affect public policy.

a. For example, until recently, homosexuality was a crime, for enough people thought that it was a sin. Fortunately (IMHO), the Supreme Court listened to people who felt that it was wrong to smoke out gay men and throw them into jail. So the "Supremes" decided that what people did in their bedrooms was no one else's business.

b. Personally, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a so-called "sin," but I DO believe that people have a right to make sure that they are not impacted by the actions of gay men. That is to say, for example, I feel strongly that gay men should NOT donate blood, lest one accidentally pass on HIV. I am disappointed that the Red Cross is now allowing gay men to donate blood IF they swear that they have not had intimate relations for a certain period of time. I am hoping that health professionals have a screening process that detects HIV-tainted blood.

There is no harm in refusing to decorate a cake that violates a baker's religious beliefs. The queer can get someone else to do it. No harm. The one that would be harmed is the baker for being FORCED to violate their religious beliefs.

 

[Taz]

IMHO:

1. NO, it is NOT wrong if you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

a. It is your right to believe what you want.

2. BUT it is wrong to use your personal beliefs in order to harm gay people.

a. For example, not too many years ago, some police departments would try to get gay people kicked out of their apartments. Presumably, those officers felt that homosexuality was a sin and that those tenants should be punished for their behavior.

3. And -- IMHO -- you DO have the right to legally and peacefully try to affect public policy.

a. For example, until recently, homosexuality was a crime, for enough people thought that it was a sin. Fortunately (IMHO), the Supreme Court listened to people who felt that it was wrong to smoke out gay men and throw them into jail. So the "Supremes" decided that what people did in their bedrooms was no one else's business.

b. Personally, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a so-called "sin," but I DO believe that people have a right to make sure that they are not impacted by the actions of gay men. That is to say, for example, I feel strongly that gay men should NOT donate blood, lest one accidentally pass on HIV. I am disappointed that the Red Cross is now allowing gay men to donate blood IF they swear that they have not had intimate relations for a certain period of time. I am hoping that health professionals have a screening process that detects HIV-tainted blood.

There is no harm in refusing to decorate a cake that violates a baker's religious beliefs. The queer can get someone else to do it. No harm. The one that would be harmed is the baker for being FORCED to violate their religious beliefs.

Jesus would not have refused to make a gay cake. You're just a fake Christian.

 

[featherlite]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

Being gay is OK.

It's divorce and adultery that are sins.

Actually sin is sin. Divorce & adultery "came out" as acceptable years ago. Abusive marriages or, for those who only saw women as extensions of men... divorce is a good thing.
There are always many downsides to normalizing needful behaviors. (ie. adultery)

 

[featherlite]

IMHO:

1. NO, it is NOT wrong if you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

a. It is your right to believe what you want.

2. BUT it is wrong to use your personal beliefs in order to harm gay people.

a. For example, not too many years ago, some police departments would try to get gay people kicked out of their apartments. Presumably, those officers felt that homosexuality was a sin and that those tenants should be punished for their behavior.

3. And -- IMHO -- you DO have the right to legally and peacefully try to affect public policy.

a. For example, until recently, homosexuality was a crime, for enough people thought that it was a sin. Fortunately (IMHO), the Supreme Court listened to people who felt that it was wrong to smoke out gay men and throw them into jail. So the "Supremes" decided that what people did in their bedrooms was no one else's business.

b. Personally, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a so-called "sin," but I DO believe that people have a right to make sure that they are not impacted by the actions of gay men. That is to say, for example, I feel strongly that gay men should NOT donate blood, lest one accidentally pass on HIV. I am disappointed that the Red Cross is now allowing gay men to donate blood IF they swear that they have not had intimate relations for a certain period of time. I am hoping that health professionals have a screening process that detects HIV-tainted blood.

There is no harm in refusing to decorate a cake that violates a baker's religious beliefs. The queer can get someone else to do it. No harm. The one that would be harmed is the baker for being FORCED to violate their religious beliefs.

Im sure people come in daily to order cakes that violate that bakers beliefs. He/she is doing business...not participating in anything.

What if someone wanted a cake for a communion or baptism celebration and the baker didnt like serving Christians. We could go elsewhere but most of us would be offended... wouldnt you?

 

[BS Filter]

IMHO:

1. NO, it is NOT wrong if you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

a. It is your right to believe what you want.

2. BUT it is wrong to use your personal beliefs in order to harm gay people.

a. For example, not too many years ago, some police departments would try to get gay people kicked out of their apartments. Presumably, those officers felt that homosexuality was a sin and that those tenants should be punished for their behavior.

3. And -- IMHO -- you DO have the right to legally and peacefully try to affect public policy.

a. For example, until recently, homosexuality was a crime, for enough people thought that it was a sin. Fortunately (IMHO), the Supreme Court listened to people who felt that it was wrong to smoke out gay men and throw them into jail. So the "Supremes" decided that what people did in their bedrooms was no one else's business.

b. Personally, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a so-called "sin," but I DO believe that people have a right to make sure that they are not impacted by the actions of gay men. That is to say, for example, I feel strongly that gay men should NOT donate blood, lest one accidentally pass on HIV. I am disappointed that the Red Cross is now allowing gay men to donate blood IF they swear that they have not had intimate relations for a certain period of time. I am hoping that health professionals have a screening process that detects HIV-tainted blood.

There is no harm in refusing to decorate a cake that violates a baker's religious beliefs. The queer can get someone else to do it. No harm. The one that would be harmed is the baker for being FORCED to violate their religious beliefs.

Im sure people come in daily to order cakes that violate that bakers beliefs. He/she is doing business...not participating in anything.

What if someone wanted a cake for a communion or baptism celebration and the baker didnt like serving Christians. We could go elsewhere but most of us would be offended... wouldnt you?

The only time I needed to tell the baker what the cake was for was my wife's 60th birthday. She is a huge fan of the Rock and I wanted his picture on the cake. It was in their book of cake decorations. There is no need to tell the baker what the cake is going to be used for unless you're looking to offend someone and test a new anti-discrimination law, which is why we are seeing this rash of lawsuits by the queer mafia lately.

 

[featherlite]

IMHO:

1. NO, it is NOT wrong if you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

a. It is your right to believe what you want.

2. BUT it is wrong to use your personal beliefs in order to harm gay people.

a. For example, not too many years ago, some police departments would try to get gay people kicked out of their apartments. Presumably, those officers felt that homosexuality was a sin and that those tenants should be punished for their behavior.

3. And -- IMHO -- you DO have the right to legally and peacefully try to affect public policy.

a. For example, until recently, homosexuality was a crime, for enough people thought that it was a sin. Fortunately (IMHO), the Supreme Court listened to people who felt that it was wrong to smoke out gay men and throw them into jail. So the "Supremes" decided that what people did in their bedrooms was no one else's business.

b. Personally, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a so-called "sin," but I DO believe that people have a right to make sure that they are not impacted by the actions of gay men. That is to say, for example, I feel strongly that gay men should NOT donate blood, lest one accidentally pass on HIV. I am disappointed that the Red Cross is now allowing gay men to donate blood IF they swear that they have not had intimate relations for a certain period of time. I am hoping that health professionals have a screening process that detects HIV-tainted blood.

There is no harm in refusing to decorate a cake that violates a baker's religious beliefs. The queer can get someone else to do it. No harm. The one that would be harmed is the baker for being FORCED to violate their religious beliefs.

Im sure people come in daily to order cakes that violate that bakers beliefs. He/she is doing business...not participating in anything.

What if someone wanted a cake for a communion or baptism celebration and the baker didnt like serving Christians. We could go elsewhere but most of us would be offended... wouldnt you?

The only time I needed to tell the baker what the cake was for was my wife's 60th birthday. She is a huge fan of the Rock and I wanted his picture on the cake. It was in their book of cake decorations. There is no need to tell the baker what the cake is going to be used for unless you're looking to offend someone and test a new anti-discrimination law, which is why we are seeing this rash of lawsuits by the queer mafia lately.

What if they wrote on the cake order form to place 2 grooms on top and were fine with being charged for breaking into another little plastic bride and groom toppers.

but yes I agree its bs if someone is obnoxiously trying to test a business for discrimination

 

[BS Filter]

IMHO:

1. NO, it is NOT wrong if you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

a. It is your right to believe what you want.

2. BUT it is wrong to use your personal beliefs in order to harm gay people.

a. For example, not too many years ago, some police departments would try to get gay people kicked out of their apartments. Presumably, those officers felt that homosexuality was a sin and that those tenants should be punished for their behavior.

3. And -- IMHO -- you DO have the right to legally and peacefully try to affect public policy.

a. For example, until recently, homosexuality was a crime, for enough people thought that it was a sin. Fortunately (IMHO), the Supreme Court listened to people who felt that it was wrong to smoke out gay men and throw them into jail. So the "Supremes" decided that what people did in their bedrooms was no one else's business.

b. Personally, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a so-called "sin," but I DO believe that people have a right to make sure that they are not impacted by the actions of gay men. That is to say, for example, I feel strongly that gay men should NOT donate blood, lest one accidentally pass on HIV. I am disappointed that the Red Cross is now allowing gay men to donate blood IF they swear that they have not had intimate relations for a certain period of time. I am hoping that health professionals have a screening process that detects HIV-tainted blood.

There is no harm in refusing to decorate a cake that violates a baker's religious beliefs. The queer can get someone else to do it. No harm. The one that would be harmed is the baker for being FORCED to violate their religious beliefs.

Im sure people come in daily to order cakes that violate that bakers beliefs. He/she is doing business...not participating in anything.

What if someone wanted a cake for a communion or baptism celebration and the baker didnt like serving Christians. We could go elsewhere but most of us would be offended... wouldnt you?

The only time I needed to tell the baker what the cake was for was my wife's 60th birthday. She is a huge fan of the Rock and I wanted his picture on the cake. It was in their book of cake decorations. There is no need to tell the baker what the cake is going to be used for unless you're looking to offend someone and test a new anti-discrimination law, which is why we are seeing this rash of lawsuits by the queer mafia lately.

What if they wrote on the cake order form to place 2 grooms on top and were fine with being charged for breaking into another little plastic bride and groom toppers.

but yes I agree its bs if someone is obnoxiously trying to test a business for discrimination

It should be up to the baker. It's not right to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. Notice the queer mafia only attacks Christian businesses, never muslims. Muslims treat queers much worse than Christians, but muslims are also a protected class by the left so they leave them alone. Christians are the target.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And we do--or, at least the greatest majority of us. We also recognize that we are free to practice our faith in public, in the marketplace, etc. Homosexuality can be named a sin without it being considered unlawful. Adultery is considered a sin, but it is not unlawful, either.

You respect secular law? That's good to know , although, from the zeal with which the religious right peruses it's agenda, it's hard to believe that it is "most of us" You can consider want a sin " No one is depriving you of that and you are in fact free to practice your faith where ever you wish, as long as you understand that freedom from religion is the other side of that same coin that grants you freedom of religion.

No such thing as "freedom from religion".

I believe the phrase they're looking for is Freedom OF Religion .... if they choose to be free FROM rleigion that is their choice - but not imposable on other members of the community via legislation or any other form of governmental controls

Of course, you are 100% wrong, and freedom FROM state-sponsored religion absolutely is imposed on everyone, and thank goodness for that....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Church of Jesus Christ isn't an earthly organization.

Hahaha...oh man, hilarious...

Really, shaman? Is it a magical cloud church in the sky?

It's an earthly organization madeup by humans, based on bronze age fairy tales.

 

[ding]

The Church of Jesus Christ isn't an earthly organization.

Hahaha...oh man, hilarious...

Really, shaman? Is it a magical cloud church in the sky?

It's an earthly organization madeup by humans, based on bronze age fairy tales.

Actually belief in God has been the dominant belief since the beginning of man.

 

[MaryL]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

I am offended that people want to define the legitimacy of homosexuality by excusing it as victim of past wrongs...No. Homosexuality is a just broken human sexuality, it doesn't need to be excused. Or explained. Freud said, sometimes a cigar is a cigar. Like THAT.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

I am offended that people want to define the legitimacy of homosexuality by excusing it as victim of past wrongs...No. Homosexuality is a just broken human sexuality, it doesn't need to be excused. Or explained. Freud said, sometimes a cigar is a cigar. Like THAT.

It's "legitimate", because it is just not very important and is a natural occurrence, and the fact that homosexuals are still people harming nobody means we also excuse it.

 

[MaryL]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

I am offended that people want to define the legitimacy of homosexuality by excusing it as victim of past wrongs...No. Homosexuality is a just broken human sexuality, it doesn't need to be excused. Or explained. Freud said, sometimes a cigar is a cigar. Like THAT.

It's "legitimate", because it is just not very important and is a natural occurrence, and the fact that homosexuals are still people harming nobody means we also excuse it.

 

[GreenBean]

And we do--or, at least the greatest majority of us. We also recognize that we are free to practice our faith in public, in the marketplace, etc. Homosexuality can be named a sin without it being considered unlawful. Adultery is considered a sin, but it is not unlawful, either.

You respect secular law? That's good to know , although, from the zeal with which the religious right peruses it's agenda, it's hard to believe that it is "most of us" You can consider want a sin " No one is depriving you of that and you are in fact free to practice your faith where ever you wish, as long as you understand that freedom from religion is the other side of that same coin that grants you freedom of religion.

No such thing as "freedom from religion".

I believe the phrase they're looking for is Freedom OF Religion .... if they choose to be free FROM rleigion that is their choice - but not imposable on other members of the community via legislation or any other form of governmental controls

Of course, you are 100% wrong, and freedom FROM state-sponsored religion absolutely is imposed on everyone, and thank goodness for that....

You're a buffoon - stfu

 

[GreenBean]

still people harming nobody

If only that were truly the case we could ride unicorns off into the sunset while farting rainbows ......

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're a buffoon - stfu

That's nice. get it all out of your system.

Nevertheless, it's true that we are all guaranteed, by law, the freedom from any state-sponsored religion and from laws respecting religion. Cry all night, cry tomorrow too, it's a fact.

 

[MaryL]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

I am offended that people want to define the legitimacy of homosexuality by excusing it as victim of past wrongs...No. Homosexuality is a just broken human sexuality, it doesn't need to be excused. Or explained. Freud said, sometimes a cigar is a cigar. Like THAT.

It's "legitimate", because it is just not very important and is a natural occurrence, and the fact that homosexuals are still people harming nobody means we also excuse it.

Homosexuals are a such a tiny tinsy dysfunctional slice of humanity they can afford lawyers instead of kids. They want KIDS to legitimize their cause? Well, beware of what you ask for...