A question for theists

[Ali]

Exactly.  I don't buy the whole "viscerally disgusting" argument as proof that believers are taking their belief about homosexuality from anywhere but the bible.  Proof 1: I know of very few atheists that feel that homosexuality is "viscerally disgusting" because we aren't coming at it from the standpoint of someone who already beliefs that it is a "perversion."  I think in order for it to be "viscerally disgusting" you need to already have the bias that it is wrong.  Otherwise, why would two men kissing or two women kissing be any more "disgusting" than any other people? ......   Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.

I disagree.  Somethings can be found disgusting by putting yourself in that situation, imagining yourself doing that.  Having sex with a man would be in that category for me.  Yuck.  The Bible has nothing to do with it.  I don't oppose gay marriage.  People should generally be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others, which gay marriage doesn't.  But it's still weird to me, and I don't think that really has anything to do with the Bible.

I agree that somethings can be found disgusting by putting yourself in that situation.  Maybe it's just me (I'm having a Margaret Cho moment here*) but I typically find actions disgusting, but people not so much.  Like, the idea of letting someone pee on me totally grosses me out.  I don't want to make peeing on consenting adults illegal, because to each their own, but I find it gross.  However, that action is gross to me no matter who is doing it.  Man peeing on me, or woman, it's gross.  When it comes to a sex act that I don't find gross (I won't go into specifics, but I'm sure you can think of some) it doesn't suddenly become gross because it's a woman vs a man, or vice cersa.  Certain specific people gross me out, sure.  Like, I wouldn't want to do that with a family member, or Mitt Romney, or somebody like that, but in general, man, woman, whatever.  It's either a gross act, or it's not.  That's not to say that I would *do* that act with just anyone.  Just as you probably wouldn't sleep with just any woman, right?  But the idea of a random faceless woman doing act X probably isn't gross to you, right?  That's how I feel about act X, whether it's a man or a woman.  It's not gross unless the act itself is gross.  Does that make sense?

Margaret Cho: "Am I gaaaay? Am I straaaaight?" And then I realized: I'm just slutty. Where's my parade?"

[fester30]

I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so."  The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another.  Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages.  But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think.  I've never really encountered it.  A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.

What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage.  I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so.  Do they have other reasons?

I think I've made my stance on homosexuality clear in other threads.  Even in light of Christianity, in short, there is no degree of sin where homosexuality is any more worse a sin than my own heterosexual desires outside of what is "right".  The ONLY sin deemed unpardonable is the sin of continual and eventual complete rejection of God.

Having said that...

If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign.  This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim.  Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects.  In that context the believer sees it as wrong.

However, I agree, there is no compelling secular argument why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong if there is no God.  If there is no God, then there is no perversion of any sort other than the subjective morals of a given society.   

So God, the creator of the universe, created gay people.  What was he thinking?  He also created other gay animals.  Sheesh what gives?  I think I know the answer to the gay... force straight people to stop having sex.  No more babies means no more gay children born into the world.

[Ali]

the answer to the gay...

The phrase "the answer to the gay" made me laugh.

[AnimatedDirt]

So God, the creator of the universe, created gay people.  What was he thinking?  He also created other gay animals.  Sheesh what gives?  I think I know the answer to the gay... force straight people to stop having sex.  No more babies means no more gay children born into the world.

No.  This goes back to the context of the bible.  God created man perfectly.  Man was tempted and sinned.  Once man sinned, his offspring was also sinful.  Sin is what has created, if you will, that which was not by design...in a nutshell.

Who tempted, why was he allowed to tempt...why is the offspring sinful...lots of indepth questions on this for sure.

[Stevil]

I'm not certain I have ever claimed something is true because the bible says so.  From my beginnings here at HAF, I've tried to EXPLAIN situations IN LIGHT of the bible and IN CONTEXT of the "fairytale".

OK, sorry, my bad.

Again, taking into account the original language, the words translated to "children" could also mean a gang of youths and not preschool kids as you guess to mean from the exact wording in English.  And in context of the WHOLE bible (also taking into account that it teaches that kids up to a certain age are not necessarily accountable for their actions) it would be a better interpretation that these "children" mauled were at least teens if not young adults.  But again, full knowledge on the matter eludes you by your own admission.

My confusion with this is not whether they were children, young adults, mature adults or elderly.
My confusion is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
In NZ I can shout out obscenities at my prime minister and I would not get punished at all.
If the prime minister set two bears to maul me to death then the country would be in shock, there would be calls for the prime minister to get sent to prison.

[Crow]

If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign.  This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim.  Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects.  In that context the believer sees it as wrong.

Ahh but what if his design was suppose to have multiple uses and the believer has miss interpreted that design, its not like the designer wasn't a fan of having multiple uses for body parts. Also why would the sphincter have the second highest concentration of nerve endings after the bell end/clitoris and when stimulated can cause orgasms in both sexes.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Just as you probably wouldn't sleep with just any woman, right?  But the idea of a random faceless woman doing act X probably isn't gross to you, right?  That's how I feel about act X, whether it's a man or a woman.  It's not gross unless the act itself is gross.  Does that make sense?

Yeah, it makes sense, but for me any sex act with a man would gross me out.  I don't find gays gross in and of themselves - they're just people.  It's only in the context of the act of two men having sex that I get yucked out.  Two women having sex is not disgusting, although it is kinky.  Two men is a different thing.  Again, that's just me.  That has nothing to do with political policy or law.  It grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.   

[En_Route]

Just as you probably wouldn't sleep with just any woman, right?  But the idea of a random faceless woman doing act X probably isn't gross to you, right?  That's how I feel about act X, whether it's a man or a woman.  It's not gross unless the act itself is gross.  Does that make sense?

Yeah, it makes sense, but for me any sex act with a man would gross me out.  I don't find gays gross in and of themselves - they're just people.  It's only in the context of the act of two men having sex that I get yucked out.  Two women having sex is not disgusting, although it is kinky.  Two men is a different thing.  Again, that's just me.  That has nothing to do with political policy or law.  It grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.  

I have never been sure why heterosexual men tend to squirm at the notion of gay men getting down to business, but  many are positively turned on by girl- on- girl action. Clearly , further research is called for on the latter phenomenon .

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I have never been sure why heterosexual men tend to squirm at the notion of gay men getting down to business, but  many are positively turned on by girl- on- girl action. Cleatly , further research is called for on the latter phenomenon .

It is a phenomenon.  This is me speaking personally - submission in the form of being penetrated (orally or anally) seems antithetical to the masculine nature, to me.  I can't help feeling that a man submitting himself to the advances of another man is, in some sense, degrading and debasing himself, and denying his true nature.  That idea does not come into play in the case of women, who by their natures are more open and nurturing, and whose love making (absent prosthetic devices) does not involve penetration to the same degree as males.  I'm just trying to focus in on what it is that revolts me, and this is sort of a summary of it.  Again, people should be able to do what they want without government interference.  The description above is just my own personal reaction to man-on-man sex.   

[Ali]

Oh Ecurb.  The heyday I could have with your idea that penetration is degrading....Asmo, my psych degree wants to come out and play!

[Recusant]

It grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.

It seems rather likely that the "eeew-factor" associated with male homosexual activity is just as culturally based as the "eeew-factor" associated with eating dogs. There is good evidence for this in the fact that the two-spirit (aka berdache) in Amerindian cultures was, far from being vilified or reviled (let alone considered to participate in disgusting practices), often a powerful and highly respected member of the tribe.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It seems rather likely that the "eeew-factor" associated with male homosexual activity is just as culturally based as the "eeew-factor" associated with eating dogs. There is good evidence for this in the fact that the two-spirit (aka berdache) in Amerindian cultures was, far from being vilified or reviled (let alone considered to participate in disgusting practices), often a powerful and highly respected member of the tribe.

I'm sure it is culturally biased to some degree, as most things are. We are all, to some extent, products of our culture.  But it is not necessarily based solely upon the Bible, which was one point being discussed.  I know atheists who have the same aversion to male homosexuality that many Christians do.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Oh Ecurb.  The heyday I could have with your idea that penetration is degrading....Asmo, my psych degree wants to come out and play!

Well, we are here to discuss things. Have at it.  I'm interested in it, as well.  I only see it as degrading when it relates to a male being penetrated by another male, as that seems contrary to the essence of masculinity to me. 

[Recusant]

It seems rather likely that the "eeew-factor" associated with male homosexual activity is just as culturally based as the "eeew-factor" associated with eating dogs. There is good evidence for this in the fact that the two-spirit (aka berdache) in Amerindian cultures was, far from being vilified or reviled (let alone considered to participate in disgusting practices), often a powerful and highly respected member of the tribe.

I'm sure it is culturally biased to some degree, as most things are. We are all, to some extent, products of our culture.  But it is not necessarily based solely upon the Bible, which was one point being discussed.  I know atheists who have the same aversion to male homosexuality that many Christians do.

I think that it's culturally based to a large degree. As I pointed out, it appears that there was at least a large percentage of a branch of human culture in which aversion to male homosexuality would have been the aberration, rather than the norm. In pre-Christian Europe it seems there was a whole spectrum of ways that male homosexuals integrated themselves in societies, but I don't deny that there is evidence of an element of aversion (greater or lesser) in some of those cultures.

In modern western culture, however, there is no way to deny that the anti-homosexual theme is strongly influenced by Christianity, and it doesn't matter whether one is atheist or not: Western culture has been under the influence, nay, the domination of Christianity for well over a thousand years. Even if someone is never indoctrinated into one of the Christian churches, merely growing up in a western society means that they're steeped in a Judeo-Christian milieu even to this day, though it is starting to become diluted.

[Stevil]

It grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.

I was at a Korean restaurant once and overheard a customer discussing with the owner that he misses eating dog.
I wouldn't do it, well, not with a dog I knew. They do may wonderful companions. But if a dog was already dead, and I wasn't paying for it, I might take a bite to see what it was like.
I get grossed out by the thought of eating offal or animal heads or ears, tail, tongue.
I used to even be grossed out by the thought of eating tofu, but i eat that no problems now.

With regards to sex, or porn, I don't think of woman on woman as kinky at all, kinky would be fetish type stuff. I've watched porn before, woman on woman is fine, I have never brought myself to watch man on man, not even for curiosities sake. I guess I do have some homophobia issues myself.
I totally respect homosexuals, total agree that there is nothing wrong with it.
I really do think I need to make myself more familiar with it, maybe just hang out at a gay bar one day, just to see men getting friendly with men, so that I can be desensitised, maybe watch gay porn at least once. I'm sure after 1 minute or so I won't have any gross out feelings whatsoever. I am actually embarrassed and ashamed to say that the thought of watching it does scare me a little.
This is my problem, not the problem of gay people.

I was probably grossed out the first time I ever saw heterosexual sex too. It was so long ago, hard to remember.
I don't watch heterosexual anal porn, I have seen it before, but it is not my cup of tea.