Well Crypted Wolf, i'm glad that you brought up the topic of religion, as that is most certainly one of the touchiest subjects out there regarding homosexuality.
Is God or Jesus really against homosexuals? Or is that just the modern teachings of Christianity regarding sexuality?
Well, to start off, Sodom was not destroyed because of the Sodomites being gay. If it was, then why were the owmen and children all killed as well? Were they all homosexual? No. In fact puberty doesn't even begin until you are about 10.
Second of all, Ezekiel 16:49 lists the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality/sodomy is not among that list.
Now, we come to Lot and two visitors he protected. these two visitors were angels. the Bible states that angels are irresistable. It does not limit what sex they are irresistable to, interestignly enough.
Next are the two Leviticus passages, 18:22 and 20:13. these two passages are found after the first 16 chapters, which create the priestly codes, and the following ten collectively create the Holiness Codes. At the very beginning of Leviticus, god states that these rules are for the workings of God's covenant with Israel. God even says that the rules found in Leviticus DO NOT apply to fellow Christians. Now, the four of five versions (I can't rmember which one) of the Bible I read, only one called homosexuality abominable. All the others called it detestable.
Detestable has a very different meaning from sin. Detestable means to cause feelings of disgust. Sins are acts that break laws. Very different thigns, if you ask me.
Now, 20:13 is much more hostile, as it says that homosexuals should be put to death. Why don't we put homosexuals to death nowadays? If the Bible is right, we must do what it says.
Anyways, 20:13 contradicts what God told Asa to do, which was to expell, or move, the homosexuals from the land. So first God says to kill homosexuals and then to move (and alienate) them. Which one is right?
Genesis only talk about a man and a woman that have the option to procreate. it says nothing about any other kind of couple.
Now, Revelation 14:1-4 are vague. In 14:1, it says “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.” 14:3 says that these men were redeemed from earth and 14:4 then goes on to say that these 144,000 men were not defiled by women, and leaves it as that. It is unclear whether these men are virgins or homosexual men seeing as how neither are defiled by women.
Finally there is this:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html which, using proper translations and research shows that Jesus actually saved a homosexual couple from death.
1. Church positions vary radically on this. It's hard to really know what it's stance is because of.... well... how spread out we are.
2. God would be considered against it. Jesus, however, being the ever loving person he was, accepted everyone as the humans they were.
3. Sodom was destroyed indeed, homosexuality being one of the reasons. Children and women were also caught in the act, women mostly being prostitutes and the children being stuck in the middle. However, that was the old testament God. Comparatively, the old testament God was easily ****** and often exacted demise to his enemies and lost people. (Even his own people.) However, we see a slight curve on the nice scale as one progresses through the Bible.
4. Angels are heavenly beings, who are probably Level 100. I'd probably find one irresistible, but perhaps party wise.
5. Detestable and sin are very different, but are also in a way alike to each other. My paraphasing may be off, but one can find a few passages stating that the least of sin is no different from the greatest. (So stealing that 28" TV might still land you in the same arena as that 20/20 serial killer you saw last week on that very tv.) This is where most debate occurs, one side stating that homosexuality is on par with the other sins while the opposing side protests the extremist view on it. This is an argument likely to never reach an end.
6. The Bible is not always right. If a passage is quoted from the old testament, there is likely a new testament verse that is an update, if not ursuption of the previous passage. While one may say to kill homosexuals, and soon after that merely wants them relocated, the meaning of it is still the same. Like I said before, early-bible God was easily ****** off, and some of his people learned to 'not-go-there' on some issues. Chances are, the 'kill' verse was either in extreme terror of what might happen if one were to accept the targeted. However, someone a bit more peace-minded would see it fit to only move the targeted rather than killing. God is the server admin of life- Very little can ever truly be certain of God, as he has script commands for everything. ^_^ It's been proven that even God has sometimes change his mind (second guess to a degree) about some of what he does. (EX: Flooding the entire world. His deal with Noah was to ensure he'd never do such a thing to the world again.)
7. There being only two humans, the script probably didn't see a need to address man on man or woman on woman since it would theoretically be impossible at the time.
8. Jesus, in a blunt view, saved just about everyone he loved. The thought of him saving a homosexual couple is not sound but considering his kind nature, is entirely workable.
Supreme discrimination against homosexuals is quite a minefield. I was raised Catholic, but tend to act more accepting than others (especially since some are pretty extreme Catholics.). While I still cannot truthfully support something that I was taught against, I like to see the goodness in people and both sides of the argument. Admittedly, Catholics can sometimes be a very hypocritical group. We're not the saints that most of our own church think we are- Like nearly every other group, we've had our highs, and sadly, our lows- The times I shudder to think that my religion was responsible for. (Looking back on history, how many times can you think of a horrible act being committed in the name of the church?)
No one has a sparkling flawless record- At least, I can't fathom such a group. (Maybe monks. They seem agreeable enough. >_>)
On the other hand, homosexuality is still against natural order, Catholic reputation or not.
This is where the debate never ends.
I feel sad for a few friends I have that are gay, lesbian, etc. Not because of what they are, but because of this entire ordeal. Sure- sometimes I sorely wish they were actually straight. But further thought strikes me- Even though they have this flaw, what are they like as a human? This is where I become confused and sad. This is where I realize that my friends who have this 'flaw' are sometimes, if not always, higher than people in my church when it comes to a set virtuous standards and moral conduct. That's why I'm sad- My church does not truly accept these people- But what happens to the few that are more of a better person than people who are supposed to be instilled with Christianly love?
It's quite the standstill. My only real answer for this?
Everyone has their flaws. My church specifically does not support this one. But there are cases where the one is somehow better than the many. As an individual, I still can't go against something that seems like a staple in my beliefs. As a human, however, I believe that we were all created, giving will, yadda-yadda and so on. Homosexuals may be going against my church teachings- But then again, Jesus taught us to love. The only way I can think of how to describe it at the moment is an 'indifferent but grudging acceptance'.
Enough with the religious debate for now- You can see that as a Catholic who generally just likes fellow people, I can't really go anywhere with this. Let's talk social values-
One reason this is a huge debate as it is nowadays is because homosexuality is often linked to something that is unrelated. I had watched a debate between two girls not too long ago, where one said that the sexual revolution had helped females becomes more in today's world. Now, assuming that she had the right thought of what the revolution was (freely enjoying sex, freely enjoying lesbianism / bi-oriented lifestyles) I had a hard time making sense of her argument, because at the end of it, I reasonably deducted from her presentation that she genuinely believe females had come farther in this world by shackin' it up more often with a wider market, so to speak.
That's the point I had to dismiss the argument as a whole. (I'm still open to it, sure, but hopefully next time the message will be clearer.)
Recently, a 'Day of Silence' was observed at my school, where many of the people in question and the supporters of said people took it upon themselves to remain silent. This was to represent homosexuals not having a voice in some things.
That. Is the LAZIEST. IDEA. Of a protest- EVER.
Aside from most of these silence-fanatics not truly being 'silent' with the introduction of texting (no kiddies, it doesn't count if you text), I had an extremely difficult time seeing the point of this. If this group was truly fearing their society discriminating against them, why would they think a day of silence would help? Silence does not get your point across. Martin Luther King wasn't silent- He spoke for what he believed. Susan B. Anthony spoke for womens' suffrage. Samuel Adams spoke for independence. Thurgood Marshall fought for civil rights. Some crazy lady threw herself to her death in front of an ongoing horse-track race to further her voice in womens' inability to talk against unfair voting treatment.
These people didn't take a day off with dead-silence. They spoke for their cause. They fought for it.