Homosexuality and Religion.

The debate still flares with such passion in a modern context, in regards to homosexuality coinciding with religion. Love being the main underlying factor of both of these attributes of humanity creates a tension between the two.

From a Catholic perspective the church condemns the act of homosexuality, that is the act of sexual relations between a man and another man, or a woman and indeed another woman. The church however does not condemn same-sex attraction or personal desires so long as they are contained to within the person. For most this is completely outrageous, as they should be able to express their sexuality in a way in which they feel comfortable and safe. But before one can place the blame entirely upon the church one must understand that the church also condemns sexual practices for mere pleasure (therefore the banning of contraception). It is stated that every act of sex should be open to the creation of a human being, which is the church’s main defence when dealing with matters of homosexuality.

 

Catholicism.

There is no doubt, in a Catholic belief system homosexuality is intrinsically “wrong.” However, there is a direct lack of evidence why. It is almost as though if questioned, a believer would merely say (in a more eloquent manner) “because God said so.” If as human beings we were to believe and worship everything with more power than ourselves then where would I society be headed? Would there be any scientific development? Would there be any progression of humanity?This other terribly discriminatory ideology that homosexual relationships have the capacity to devalue or in effect hinder a heterosexual relationship is completely illogical. How can a relationship that you have no knowledge of, destroy your relationship? In regards to homosexual marriage, American comedian Wanda Sykes puts it into a humorous colloquialism, “If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same-sex.” Marriage is another topic that is too lengthy to delve into right now, however, people argue that the sanctity of marriage must be protected at all costs. However, marriage existed before religion, before Christianity, before Islam, before Judaism. In fact many of modern church practices (the use of candles, incense, etc.) were derived from the more ritualistic services of paganism. The Church’s view on homosexuality is clear and concise. Clarity is usually beneficial in most situations. But the passion at which the Church argues that these acts of homosexuality are “wrong” has a direct relationship to the amount of discrimination that exists in the wider society. One might even go so far as to argue that it could be the one of the underlying factors in the higher rate of suicide in gay teens. It an absolutely appalling statistic that approximately 30% of GLBT youths will attempt suicide. The Church is also used as a justification for violent and discriminatory acts. Matthew Shepherd’s death is a tragic example of the extent to which fear and text can motivate someone. Imagine if it were you, tied to a fence post, beaten to a bloody pulp and left to die. Why? Merely because of the colour of your skin, the type of men you found attractive, your religion, your political beliefs, the way in which you desired to express your sexuality and who you were as a person.

This cycle of discrimination has to be stagnated. If not for the safety of the GLBT community, but so that we can function and develop as a species. The Church had made its stance loud and clear, but there must be logical and rational Christians and Catholics that see the flaw and larger consequences that this stance creates, not only for homosexuals, but for the wider human society.“Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.” –Wrong. Homosexuality is not a choice of lifestyle, but more of a part of a person perceives himself or herself to be. Modern psychology states that homosexuality is at least 30-70% genetic, therefore it can’t simply be argued that a man or woman wakes up one morning and decides that from this point in their lives that they will be homosexual. This is not to be confused with a period of discovery that many homosexuals undertake, but as Erikson defined in his stages of psychological development that all teens undergo this stage when they are attempting to find themselves and who they are as a person. The detrimental influence of society also creates this fear amongst many of today’s youth that instills into them a fear of being themselves. Not only around their peers, but also with family and even by themselves. Hiding from one self may also lead to many psychological problems in latter life.

 

The Bible.

To bring up a thoroughly visited topic, I thought I might point out that I didn’t use any biblical quotes or references regarding my discussion on homosexuality.

One of my intellectual and quizzically inclined readers pointed out some interesting biblical quotes regarding the church’s stance on homosexuality.

Let us begin:
Genesis 19:5-8-“Calling to Lot they said, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we may abuse them.’
Lot came out to them at the door, and having closed the door behind him said, ‘I beg you, brothers, do no such wicked thing. Listen, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, to treat as it pleases you. But as for the men, do nothing to them, for they have come under the shadow of my roof.'”

To place this in context the quote was articulated to be within the town of Sodom, and the two “men”? Well they were said to be angels of God. The ideologies contained within in the quote are not direct and clear. To begin the quote itself does not exclusively denote the act of homosexuality. But also in addition to this it does not even state that the abuse of the two angels was intended to be sexual. Regardless of the implications, even if this was intended to be sexual abuse, then would this simply mean that “Yahweh” as described in Genesis was condemning Rape, Sexual Abuse and Nonconsentual Sex? Rather than jumping to the discriminatory conclusion of homosexuality? Angels were beings completely void of sexual sin; meaning that even if women intended the same actions it could be stated that this would be “wicked” in the context as well.

The simple fact of the matter is, that Sodom was not an exclusively homosexually inclined town, but a cacophony of sinning did occur. Rape, murder, incest, bestiality were all the norms of this province, meaning that one cannot simply jump to the simplest conclusion to merely justify their own beliefs.

 

Primal Instinct?

Jude 7–“The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural, and it is a warning to us that they are paying for their crimes in eternal fire.” I’ll try to stay as simplistic in regards to this quote. It has been scientifically proven that there is direct evidence of gay animal behaviour. In fact homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species in nature, for a full details please see the live science Website, regarding the Homosexuality of Animals.
This thereby proving that this type of sexual practice is not in any way shape or form unnatural. Regarding punishment and eternal fire, philosophers have argued for centuries over life after death and possible implications of our earthy actions, one cannot simply answer that there is a definite heaven and hell, nor a lack of existence.

 

Biblical Quotations.

Leviticus 18:22-23-“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.”
Leviticus 20:13- “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are quite direct and exact. The simple question is why is man lying with another man abomination? Or would it be enough to argue that the mere fact that “God” interpreted through a cryptic prophet has stated so that this is true. The death penalty for sexuality is also illegal (in western civilisation) in a contemporary context meaning this is in no way applicable.
What is abomination?
Abomination-“The Biblical words usually translated abomination do not always convey the same sense of moral exceptionalism as the English term does today, as it often may signify that which is forbidden or unclean according to the religion.
To put this into a colloquialism, “acting on natural homosexual desires is wrong because a deity stated that it was wrong.”
Regarding bestiality, personally I have entire moral objection to any sexual act encapsulates an animal and human. But the matter is that humans are animals, in fact we are separated from chimpanzees by a tiny 1.2-% of our genetics. This is NOT to say, that bestiality is correct, but merely to prove the way in which the quote was written is not exact and one cannot expect people to blindly follow an ideology, especially when we have the scientific resources that humanity has at it’s disposal in a modern context. The issue has also been raised, why it is apt for myself to postulate that a man may indeed, love another man, woman and woman, but not a human and animal. But then I would merely state that an animal has no capacity to state its desires. No form of communication to articulate its innermost thoughts. Therefore it would be wrong to love, lay or anything in between with a being that has no choice in the matter. People also postulate that animals lack the capacity to love in the same manner as humanity. Sex in the contexts of animals, is for the sole purposes of reproduction. Whilst animals portray facets of a maternal love, this is not the love of which I speak. The love that transcends, body and flesh, love between two consenting adults, a love that sets the heart of both beings into an uncontrollable fire.
NB: Love between two consenting adults might also be viewed as incestuous, which I am also opposed. However, my logical justification for this, is that the love that a brother, sister, father, mother may experience for their relatives is again, a maternal love. Not a passionate fire, it is a love that is philanthropic, not sexual. The reason that these forms of sexual encounters have a logical immorality attached to them, is that, genetically the bodies are rather similar. It would almost be as loving one self, which is again a different kind of love. In addition to the various physiological diseases that can be created through the doubling up of genes – What kind of intrinsic, morally just love would go on to harm another living being?

Progressive Change

1 Corinthians 6:9-“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

The reference has massive contemporary implications. This quote can’t be applied to a contemporary society context as, the standard to which this ancient society held each other has changed enormously regarding the standard today. What might be considered greed back then may simply be common practice today. This other term, homosexual offenders, can be interpreted in a numerous number of ways, it might simply be those who are violently sexual + homosexual, one may even go so far as to say that a homosexual offender is a being that offends a person of the homosexual persuasion, personally I find it difficult to comprehend people devising their morals from a text published over 2000 years from now, as how could it possibly have any application to a modern society? Romans 1:26-27- “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust t one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [sic] of their error which was meet.”

I would merely use the words of another in a situation like this, regarding the Romans passage, there are many view points, two being:
J. Nelson: “Paul didn’t write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek beahaviour in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behaviour in temple worship.”
D. Bartlett: “This is the tough one. I think one doesn’t get around this. It’s the only place in the New Testament where there’s any extensive discussion of homosexual relations. In Romas, there’s no question that Paul thinks certain kinds of homosexual beahaviour are a result of the idolatry of the pagan world.”

The Archbishop of Cantebury: – “Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality.
Put in a more simplistic way, it could be said that these passages are often misconceived to give a detrimental view on homosexualirt. Even if this were the intended case, it does not have a substantiating practical application to the wider society and is there by interesting to examine for the purposes of history, but useless. It has merely been interpreted by humanity giving a discriminatory yet cryptic impression of that which we refer to as God.