Homosexualitatis problema.

[Monarchist]

Greetings, believers and non-believers. I hope you're all healthy today.

I am wondering just how your diocese, bishopric, denomination, synagogue, mosque, or other sub-group deals with homosexuality. Of course, one must be a religious person to answer this question, but commentary is naturally allowed from my friends of an atheist persuasion. Also, I'd love to know the individual religious person's perspective on this view, taking it from either Testament (for Christians and Jews) or from the Qur’an. How do you interpret your own Holy Book, whatever that may be, in its revelations about this subject?

Speaking from the Judeo-Christian perspective, we are all familiar with Genesis I ("Be fruitful and multiply"), though this does not instruct any sort of punishment for not multiplying. Genesis XIX speaks of Sodom et Gomorrah. Of course, there is the infamous passage of Leviticus 18:22 ("abomination"), and that of Lev. 20:13 ("their blood shall be upon them"). There are various lines in Romans (1:26/27 - "Gave them up to their vile..."), Timothy (1:9/10 - "for them that defile themselves with mankind"), and minor passages in Deuteronomy and Kings. Just how does one interpret these in any way other than "punish those who have lust for the gender which is their own"? 1 Timothy specifically says that God "gave them up" to their vile affectations and affections, even though it was merely "lust" from woman to woman, and man to man, not sexual action. However, the current Catholic teaching regarding the issue is a problem; for, although Timothy clearly says that God "gives up" on those with homosexual lust, the Church says that it's perfectly fine to be homosexual in orientation, and thus in lust.

Protestants do not accept the idea of sexual orientation, but I am not a Protestant, so that can be left to the Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. The problem here is that the Catholic Church calls the orientation "disordered", while still being a natural, unalterable thing. Now, can any theists give me an idea why something natural (and thus created and planned for by God) such as orientation should be considered disordered, (and thus perverted by Satan) prima facie?

All of this comes from a Letter to the Roman Curia of 1986, from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, called "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons". The letter was subtitled "Homosexualitatis problema". In it, and to the surprise of many Catholics, Ratzinger said that Homosexual acts are sinful, but that the orientation itself is "disordered". He said that violence against homosexuals of any stripe should be condemned, as if it were violence to the most innocent child. Of course, one must remember the advice of Jesus regarding eunuchs: they who are castrated out of birth defects or childhood problems should not be scolded or punished for that, even though it means they can't marry or reproduce. Might this be applied to homosexuality, if it were objectively found to be completely biological in nature?

(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ersons_en.html) <- A Vatican archive of the Letter, the contents of which were approved by Pope John Paul II.

I would love to hear the Islamic and Judaic fonts on homosexuality; including, perhaps, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Eastern Orthodox Christian views, etc. The notion of banning, allowing, or punishing the very process which my own mind feels impelled to commit is quite a fascinating one for me. Please do try to refrain from any sort of horrid sarcasm or mean-spiritedness; I've tried my best not to, so far, so it can't be that hard. Also, if you're just going to use the thread to say "L.O.L. Religious views on sex are so ****ed up! How silly!", I hope that everyone will simply ignore you.

[Arch-hereticK]

The Buddha did not leave any teachings on homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior. He strongly encouraged his followers to "be a lamp onto yourself" -- to examine and test the truth of religious teachings before accepting them.
Buddhism is most concerned with whether an action is helpful, based on good intentions, and freedom from harm. Thus, a specific act can sometimes be either permissible or not permissible, depending upon its context. This differs from the positions taken by conservative faith groups within Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They often evaluate a specific action itself, based on whether it is good or evil according to a system of morality derived from that group's interpretation of their holy text(s).
Many women, gays and lesbians have been attracted to Buddhism because of its relative lack of misogyny and homophobia, when compared to some other religions. But others report "virulently anti-gay sentiments and teachings from religious teachers in Tibetan and other Buddhist" schools.

[wilpuri]

My church is more about pleasing Church hating cultural marxists than their actual congregations, so my church thinks its "just fabulous" that we have priest who underwent a sex-change operation and became a woman. Of course, wedding of homos, etc, is part of the deal.

I myself however am planning to leave that testicle-lacking institution and perhaps change it for one I find more in tune with my views.

[Fiyenyaa]

My church is more about pleasing Church hating cultural marxists than their actual congregations, so my church thinks its "just fabulous" that we have priest who underwent a sex-change operation and became a woman. Of course, wedding of homos, etc, is part of the deal.

I myself however am planning to leave that testicle-lacking institution and perhaps change it for one I find more in tune with my views.

Yeah, ing tolerance!

[wilpuri]

Yeah, ing tolerance!

I don't see why a religious institution should be forced to go against its teachings. One that does so willingly and with relish is corrupt to the core, selling out in order to appear trendy. I despise it. It has nothing to do with "tolerance".

[Arch-hereticK]

I don't see why a religious institution should be forced to go against its teachings. One that does so willingly and with relish is corrupt to the core, selling out in order to appear trendy. I despise it. It has nothing to do with "tolerance".

Well if it's teachings are immoral and are against progress it has to be changed whether it likes it or not. Like the Church of latter day saints that suddenly stopped being racist because it was suddenly uncool.

[bushbush]

My church is more about pleasing Church hating cultural marxists than their actual congregations, so my church thinks its "just fabulous" that we have priest who underwent a sex-change operation and became a woman. Of course, wedding of homos, etc, is part of the deal.

I myself however am planning to leave that testicle-lacking institution and perhaps change it for one I find more in tune with my views.

you are your own god then, congrat.

[MaximiIian]

My religion has, historically, been notable for tolerating, accepting, and even accommodating homosexuality and LGBT people. In some sects, such as the more old-guard branches of Alexandrian Wicca, homosexual acts are a requisite component of third-degree initiation. Though most Alexandrian groups don't require it; and Alexandrian Wicca is just one of many, many Wiccan denominations.
On the other hand, Gardnerian Wicca, the original sect of the religion, was at one time opposed to homosexuality. Since it was, essentially, a fertility cult, they had religious and ritual reasons to do so. Though most Gardnerians don't exactly hold to those views anymore, and have changed with the times. There are, however, probably some conservative Gardnerian groups that oppose it.

As a Solitary practitioner, it's of no consequence to me, since I'm not homosexual.
But I think it's a good thing that Wicca in general accepts homosexuality.

[Celsius]

My religion doest not accept homosexuals and believes they are defected.

But I have to agree with Wilpuri on everything he has said so far

[wilpuri]

I win.

[Visna]

I would love to hear the Islamic and Judaic fonts on homosexuality; including, perhaps, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Eastern Orthodox Christian views, etc. The notion of banning, allowing, or punishing the very process which my own mind feels impelled to commit is quite a fascinating one for me. Please do try to refrain from any sort of horrid sarcasm or mean-spiritedness; I've tried my best not to, so far, so it can't be that hard. Also, if you're just going to use the thread to say "L.O.L. Religious views on sex are so ****ed up! How silly!", I hope that everyone will simply ignore you.

In Orthodox Judaism the view has gradually shifted over the centuries to the point where homosexual acts are frowned upon, but homosexuals themselves have become more accepted. Of course, when the initial stance was to drag them outside and stone them to death, it can only get better. Due to the nature of Jewish law an official death penalty would be difficult to carry out in practice if one was to follow the offical "guidelines", but as is always the case when dealing with large groups of people there is bound to be some vigilantes among them.
In Conservative Judaism it has been a debated issue for quite some decades now, with views ranging from how it would be best to stick with the old ways and consider homosexual acts an open rebellion against God, but not necessarily punishable by death, to the idea that homosexual acts today can't be compared to the ones in the ancient world because both in Latin and Greek writings it's not an equal relationship, there is always some level of abuse involved.
In Reform Judaism they reject the traditional Jewish law on the issue and have largely adopted the more modern scientific view of homosexuality, they have homosexual rabbis etc. No homosexual religious marriage (yet), though.

Wanted to do a bit on homosexuality in Islam, but running low on time, I hope the above helped a bit.

[Visna]

Quoting myself here... Could Muslims be the segment of TWC Phier was referring to earlier I wonder.

Wanted to do a bit on homosexuality in Islam, but running low on time, I hope the above helped a bit.

Homosexuality in Islam is, like in all the other Abrahamic religions, a debated issue. The Qu'ran and the Hadiths are pretty clear, homosexual acts are a sin. But attitudes have changed over the centuries, from a remarkable tolerance for the time to a much more hardline approach in many parts of the Islamic world. This partly has to do with the adoption of Victorian values by the westernised elite in the mid-1800, and partly to do with the rise in the political Islam later on.
The views these days range from for example the risk of a death penalty in Iran or Saudi-Arabia to open tolerance in for example Lebanon or Turkey. The movements within Islam who view homosexuality as natural, either reject the verses in the Qu'ran condemning the practice because they consider the verses "obsolete", or because they point out that the Qu'ran always condemns lust, but that love is fine. And the same should be the case with homosexuality.

[Musthavename]

They can do whatever they like aslong as it doesn't affect me.

[Ciabhán]

What other people do with themselves doesn't concern me so I support them by default.

I do have to agree with Wilpuri concerning an institution suddenly flip flopping it's views on something just because it became 'popular'.

[Veni]

They can do whatever they like aslong as it doesn't affect me.

What are you talking about? Are you afraid homosexuals will break into your home and have sex in ur bedroom?

[wilpuri]

What are you talking about? Are you afraid homosexuals will break into your home and have sex in ur bedroom?

A lot of these "pride parades" have become public celebration of sexual deviance. While sexual deviation is one's own personal matter, public displays of it funded by tax payer money in places were minors and children are present is criminal imo.

[GuineaPig]

Good to see a massive 3/4 majority of tolerant people.

[wilpuri]

Good to see a massive 3/4 majority of tolerant people.

You must mean me as I tolerate religious freedom. And alcohol - lot's and lot's of it.

[Dubersive]

I love how fundamentalists hide their bigotry under the guise of "faith."

So much fail in this thread

[wilpuri]

I love how fundamentalists hide their bigotry under the guise of "faith."

So much fail in this thread

Whose the fundamentalist here? Who wants everyone to think alike, and who would allow "each to his own"? Who wants to cram religions into a "one size fits all" and who would tolerate diversity, have a long think about it.