Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Christianity The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality

Discussion in 'Interfaith Dialogues' started by Inderjeet Kaur, Apr 1, 2013.

  1. Inderjeet Kaur

    Inderjeet Kaur
    Expand Collapse
    Writer SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...e-not-condemning-homosexuality_b_1396345.html

    God does not ask us to choose between compassion and faith in the Bible.

    Christians are increasingly divided over the issue of the acceptance and inclusion of gay persons into the church. The debate itself is usually framed as essentially pitting the Bible, on one hand, against compassion and social justice on the other. Our Christian hearts, runs the (usually impassioned) argument, compel us to grant full moral and legal equality to gay and lesbian people; our Christian faith, comes the (usually impassioned) rebuttal, compels us to cleave, above all, to the word of God.

    Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics; the Bible is the bedrock of the Christian faith. What Christian can possibly choose between the two?

    The answer is that no Christian is called upon to make that choice. The text of the Bible on one hand, and full equality for gay and lesbian people on the other, is a false dichotomy. God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their heart and their faith.

    Reconciling the Bible with unqualified acceptance and equality for LGBT people does not necessitate discounting, recasting, deconstructing or reinterpreting the Bible. All it takes is reading those passages of the Bible wherein homosexuality is mentioned with the same care we would any other passage of the book.

    We can trust God; we can trust that God is loving.

    And we can trust that we can -- and that we certainly should -- take God, in this matter, as in all things, at his Word.

    If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then Christians continuing to do so is morally indefensible, and must cease.

    What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:
    Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church;

    Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage;

    Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families; and

    Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.

    Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a clear directive about homosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy Bible. They say that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful, instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-repentant sinners (including gay people), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or at least resolutely) denounce homosexual acts.
    Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community's treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as the most important commandment from God: to love one's neighbor as one's self.

    The gay community has cried out for justice to Christians, who have a biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the mistreatment of gay persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and ostracize gay people must be clear and explicit in the Bible. If there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian mistreatment of gay and lesbian people is morally indefensible, and must cease.

    Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.

    Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible's 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the "clobber passages," since they are typically used by Christians to "clobber" LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the degree of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.

    While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. All throughout it, the Bible insists on fairness, equity, love and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community's call to them for justice?

    Some Bible passages pertinent to this concern are:

    Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. --John 8:7

    Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. --Romans 13:8-10

    Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. --Colossians 3:11-13

    Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. --Matthew 23:22-24

    A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust or tell a lie.

    As we've seen, in the clobber passages Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, those three specific sins. But Christians don't think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk; between a lustful thought and committing adultery; between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying.

    Even a sin as heinous as murder we do not judge without first taking into account the context in which it occurred. Self-defense, protection of the innocent, during a war -- we recognize that there are times when even taking the life of another is not only not a sin, but a morally justified, and even heroic act.

    Christians evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at both the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin's perpetrator.

    They do, that is, for all sins except homosexuality.

    Virtually any degree of homosexual "transgression" gets treated by Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.

    Heterosexual Christians are being unfair and hypocritical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are never tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality (and applying no real penalty) for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.

    As there is no demonstrable harm arising from sex within a committed homosexual relationship, and there is significant demonstrable harm arising from discrimination and condemnation against gay persons, what possible biblical basis can there be for not recognizing the vast moral differential between sex acts done within the context of a loving committed relationship, and sex acts of any other sort?

    Here are a few Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:

    Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1

    Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. --Luke 6:41-43

    Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." --Matthew 23:22-24

    The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from the Bible, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.

    It is important to understand that even the most fundamentalist Christian sects do not take the Bible wholly literally. The New Testament is 2,000 years old. Its cultural contexts, along with the translation at hand, is always taken into consideration by any Christian serious about understanding this vast and complex work.

    Further, the Bible is not a contract, or a set of instructions, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific. It is not a rulebook for being Christian. It is instead a widely varying collection of poetry, history, proverbs, moral directives, parables, letters and wondrous visions. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning.

    Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.

    The Bible's first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.

    While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:

    The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. --Hebrews 7:18-19

    Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. -- Galatians 3:23-25

    So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another... --Romans 7:4

    For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14

    In practice, Christians do not follow the dictates of the Old Testament. If they did, polygamy would be legal, and forbidden would be things like tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses -- and the Christian day of worship would be Saturday, not Sunday. And if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband's request, prove that she's a virgin, then that bride would have to be stoned to death. And Christians would have to stone to death any other Christian guilty of adultery.

    Clearly, we no longer follow any such laws.

    Therefore, the use of the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is in keeping with neither any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.

    In the clobber passages Paul condemns the coercive, excessive and predatory same-sex sexual activity practiced by the Romans -- and would have condemned the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

    Because Christians' understanding and practice of New Testament prescriptions naturally and inevitably evolve along with the society and culture of which they are a part, at any given time in history Christians have always selectively followed dictates of the New Testament. This is why Christian women no longer feel morally constrained to follow Paul's directives to leave their hair uncut, to keep their heads covered in church, or to always remain quiet in church. It's also why the Bible is no longer used to justify the cruel institution of slavery, or to deny women the right to vote.

    Just as those thoughts and understandings of the New Testament changed and grew, so today is it becoming increasingly clear to Christians that the three New Testament clobber passages (each of which was written by Paul in letters to or about nascent distant churches), when understood in their historical context, do not constitute a directive from God against LGBT people today.

    Here are the three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament:

    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Corinthians 6:9-10

    We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. --1 Timothy 1:9-10:

    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. --Romans 1:26-27

    In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

    The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

    "...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic."

    This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts -- as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

    The Bible's clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

    It is also critical to our reading of the New Testament's three clobber passages to understand that while of course Paul knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul's time was "out"; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no concept of an entire population of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.

    Here is the opening of the OCD's article on homosexuality:
    "No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term 'homosexuality,' and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. ... The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised."

    We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smart phones or iPads. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between heterosexuals.
    If we are to rely on the Bible, then we must take its text as it is. It does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself -- much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians therefore have no Bible-based moral justification for themselves condemning such acts.

    Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of gay marriage.

    The Bible routinely, clearly and strongly classifies all sex acts outside of the bonds of marriage as sinful. But, because there was no concept of gay people when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of marriage. Christians therefore have no biblical basis for themselves condemning such acts.

    In fact, by denying marriage equality to gay people, Christians are compelling gay couples to sin, because their intimacy must happen outside of marriage, and is therefore, by biblical definition, sinful.

    Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn't make homosexual sex a sin.

    In addition to the Bible, many Christians cite as additional evidence of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual acts their raw emotional response to such acts. It is understandable that many straight people find homosexual sex repugnant (just as many gay people find heterosexual sex repugnant). It is normal for any one of us to be viscerally repelled by the idea of sex between, or with, people for whom we personally have no sexual attraction. Young people, for example, are often disgusted by the thought of senior citizens having sex. And who isn't repulsed by the idea of their parents having sex? (When, rationally speaking, we should rejoice in the fact that they did!) But it is much too easy for any person to mistake their instinctive reaction against something as a moral reaction to that thing. Outrage isn't always moral outrage, though the two usually feel the same.

    It may feel to a straight Christian that their instinctive negative reaction to homosexual sex arises out of the Bible. But all of us necessarily view the Bible through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices, and we must be very careful to ensure that lens does not distort our vision or understanding of God's sacrosanct word.

    "The greatest of these is love."

    The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love; Jesus preached love; Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obliged to always err on the side of love. Taken altogether, the evidence -- the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul's time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice being exclusion from God's church on earth and human love generally -- shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice. That evidence should instead lead Christians to the most obvious, and most Christian of all positions, stated so beautifully by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13:
    Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
    by John and Catherine Shore, excerpted from "UNFAIR: Why the 'Christian' View of Gays Doesn't Work."
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 5
    #1 Inderjeet Kaur, Apr 1, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2013
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    and finally, the best quote of them all Blogs Oct 17, 2015
    Sikhism, the best kept secret in the world Blogs Oct 17, 2015
    He’s The World’s Best Water Photographer… And He’s Just Released These Haunting Images. Sikh Sikhi Sikhism Aug 30, 2015
    General Best English Sikh History Books History of Sikhism Sep 21, 2013
    The best day of my life, ever! Inspirational Stories Aug 30, 2013

  3. dalvindersingh grewal

    dalvindersingh grewal India
    Expand Collapse
    Writer Historian SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    251
    Gays are blinded by lust and nothing else. All religions disassociate themselves from lust and lust full beings. I can only say that accepting their views is accepting lust as a part of religion.
     
  4. Mai Harinder Kaur

    Mai Harinder Kaur
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    I think that both homosexuals and heterosexuals tend to be blinded by lust; I really doubt if gays are really that much more lustful than straights. I do not know of a single straight couple who has sex only for procreation.

    We are sexual beings and this is part of our nature. We do, of course, need to exercise caution and discretion in all matters sexual, but the truth is that none of us totally overcomes our hard-wiring in this area.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    #3 Mai Harinder Kaur, Apr 1, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2013
  5. dalvindersingh grewal

    dalvindersingh grewal India
    Expand Collapse
    Writer Historian SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    251
    Gays are involved in unnatural sex; sex between a man and a woman is natural sex and is for the purpose of reproduction. This is a natural requirements. Sex not done for reproduction is unnatural hence lustful.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. SpiritualSingh

    SpiritualSingh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2013
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gays themselves say that homosexuality is a physiological problem at young age which untreated goes physical later in life.
     
  7. findingmyway

    findingmyway
    Expand Collapse
    Writer SPNer Contributor Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    3,767
    Evidence please?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Kanwaljit Singh

    Kanwaljit Singh India
    Expand Collapse
    Apache Spark, Scala developer
    Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    2,147
    SpiritualSingh ji how many gay people have you come across in real life? I have come across not more than 2 or 3, but none said they were suffering from disorders. This is what the society would like them to believe. For we are really scared of individuals who believe in themselves. There has been probably no case of a gay person realizing his folly and going in for a heterosexual relationship.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  9. Tejwant Singh

    Tejwant Singh United States
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    6,988
    Dalvinder Singh ji,

    Guru Fateh.

    I am going to ask you some questions and I am sure you will respond to them in a sikhi manner:

    1. Did you choose your own sexuality or were you born the way you are?

    2. If the answer to 1 is YES, then can you change it anytime you want to. Am I wrong in that assumption?

    3. What does equality means to you according to Sikhi when Gurbani says," Sabh Gobind hein, Gobind bin nahin koi?

    4. What happens if tomorrow one of your own kids or some one near to you comes and says, I am gay? How would you react to his/her reality?

    5. If it were a choice, then you mean these gays like to be outcast, ill-treated, stoned at, getting spat by slurs. Do you mean they relish all these insults and bigotry?

    Hope for you to share your enlightenment in this matter.

    Regards

    Tejwant Singh.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    I do not think the point of the original post was about condoning homosexual relationships. It was pointing to a fundamental hypocrisy in the way a small number of Biblical verses (clobbers) are misused. Right now I don't want to talk so much about that. It is more important to post some reliable information in order to support the value of "straight thinking" in the face of a lot of misinformation. Some reading from reputable, established sources. I have a few paragraphs from each source, and you can follow up with the links.

    First of all, science is not agreed that homosexuality is genetic in its source, but is fairly certain it is biological.

    For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found in up to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?

    Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.

    Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/...genetic-roots-of-homosexuality/#ixzz2PF9lHShv

    Second, efforts to reprogram homosexuals can result in substandard medical care and ineffective psychological therapies for those who need therapy. Socially and religiously motivated programming is no substitute for effective care.

    The American Medical Association (c) opposes, the use of "reparative" or "conversion" therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/abo.../ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.page

    The policies of the American Medical Association are shared by the American Psychiatric Association, America Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, just in the US. The opposition to "conversion" therapies is also true of major medical associations throughout Europe and Canada.

    Finally, the information about the reform of homosexuals is a movement, with increasing support from politics. The movement is promoted by religionists on a mission. Their motives are not grounded in scientific information. From the American Psychological Association.


    Sexual orientation conversion therapy refers to counseling and psychotherapy to attempt to eliminate individuals’ sexual desires for members of their own sex. Ex-gay ministry refers to the religious groups that use religion to attempt to eliminate those desires. Typically, sexual orientation conversion therapy is promoted by providers who have close ties to religious institutions and organizations. Some religion-based organizations such as Focus on the Family have invested significant resources in the promotion of sexual orientation conversion therapy and ex-gay ministries to educators and young people in conferences, in advertising, and in the media. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.aspx

    Focus on the Family is political lobby funded by the religious right in the US.

    Bottom line! Ex-gay ministries, conversion therapies, and the like are spreading information that is politically motivated, and potentially harmful. Homosexuality is not a morally corrupt choice and it is not a learned behavior that can be unlearned by re-programming. Mainstream religions are not of one mind on these issues, as the thread starter has already shown.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    #9 spnadmin, Apr 2, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2013
  11. Mai Harinder Kaur

    Mai Harinder Kaur
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    Sex not done for reproduction is unnatural hence lustful.

    So is a married woman who is unable to have children, as well as her husband, to remain without sex for the remainder of her life?

    And are you certain that all sex is either reproductive or lust? Cannot sex be used to express love, compassion, caring between husband and wife? I could go on, but, having made my point, I'll stop here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    #10 Mai Harinder Kaur, Apr 2, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2013
  12. dalvindersingh grewal

    dalvindersingh grewal India
    Expand Collapse
    Writer Historian SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    251

    Problem projected here is not of natural selection but of control, direction and motivation. If the child is rightfully explained the wrong social, physical and natural implications, one can bring the child back to originality. It is like converting a drug addict to be drug free. One has to have full knowledge of the bad and good aspects before one gets into this venture. Child cannot be improved by ill treating, stoning etc. It is making one more adamant sometime. Politeness, love and affection are the best way to treat such cases. I am sure that with concerted effort one can solve the problem rightfully.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Tejwant Singh

    Tejwant Singh United States
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    6,988
    Davinder Singh ji,

    Guru Fateh.

    Sad to notice that you have not been able to respond to any one of my questions in a Sikhi manner as requested.Rather you ran away from them as if they were the outcast people of India whom the bigoted Gandhi named them Harijans- Servants of God- for his own ambitions.

    Why this fear from the one who claims to seek the Nirbhau, Nirvair?

    Try to give another shot as a brave Sikh who dwells in Satt. Does "Sabh Gobing hein, Gobind bin nahin Koi" from the SGGS, our only Guru mean something to you?

    Tejwant Singh
     

Share This Page