General Question

DominicX's avatar

Does anyone know of any religions that are not against homosexuality?

Asked by DominicX (28762points) May 17th, 2010

Sometimes it seems to me like homosexuality will be one of the last accepted things by religions worldwide. Even some of the most progressive religions, such as Bahai, condemn homosexuality (as I learned from a question on here).

Please don’t take this question to mean that I’m looking for a religion; I’m not. I’m just curious and I haven’t been able to find too much information on this.

Do you know any religions that permit it? Do you belong to a religion that does not condemn homosexuality or homosexual acts?

I was raised Catholic and the Catholic church condemns homosexual acts, but does not believe gays choose to be that way. They just think we need to live our whole lives without any kind of sexual contact, although it’s clear to me what they really dislike is anal sex. I think the same goes for many religions.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

67 Answers

gailcalled's avatar

The last two visiting Rabbis in my Reconstructionist Synagogue in western MA. were both openly and happily gay. Everyone loved them.

jazmina88's avatar

There are liberal christian churches….....that truly believe in LOVE

ParaParaYukiko's avatar

Unitarian Universalism loves everybody!

Dr_Dredd's avatar

One of the rabbis in my Reform Jewish synagogue is a lesbian and openly introduces her partner at temple functions. Everyone treats it as no big deal.

Rarebear's avatar

Agree with @gailcalled and @drdredd I used to go to a Conservative Jewish congregation and the cantor was a lesbian (she was also a Catholic convert, interestingly enough). Currently I go to a Reform congregation and they have no problem with gay members.

Guy123123's avatar

Im not sure about a specific religion, but my school has a lot of kids of different religions, and almost everyone supports same sex marriage and has no problem with homosexuals. I think that the people who most support it are the jewish kids and atheist kids though.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

While it’s interesting to hear of many religious individuals that embrace homosexuality, I’m not convinced that it is accepted by the official doctrines of those religions. Anyone can claim to affiliate with a particular church. But to ignore the foundational teachings of those religions is a different matter. I don’t know of any religion that officially sanctions homosexuality. But even those religious people who don’t usually miss the teachings as well, that being, to accept people as they are, no matter what sin one judges them to bear. Something like, “Love the sinner, hate the sin”, or something like that. I study religion as a hobby, but haven’t set foot in a church in nearly 40 years. What do I know?

ParaParaYukiko's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies True, but I would think most official doctrines were written back before homosexuality started to be publicly acknowledged and, in some cases, accepted. You’re welcome to prove me wrong, though; that’s just my assumption.

So… are you saying people who are affiliated with a particular church should believe in their fundamental teachings 100 percent? People are religious for many reasons, and some “fundamental teachings” may not apply to modern society.

The_Idler's avatar

If you decide that one bit of the Sacred Text, the Holy Scripture, the Word of God Himself is untrue, on what authority is the remaining part to be taken as gospel?

dpworkin's avatar

“Religions” neither approve or disapprove of homosexuality. People approve or disapprove of homosexuality, and then interpret the ambiguous scriptural documents to suit their own purposes.

We see daily in the news examples of people who have spent their life persecuting homosexuals, under religious and other pretexts, be suddenly exposed having homosexual affairs themselves (the latest incident involved a male prostitute from

It is my considered opinion that homophobia is predominantly a phenomenon of “reaction formation”, in which homosexuals have internalized loathing for their own behavior and impulses, and are thus moved to punish others for what they fear in themselves.

zenvelo's avatar

@The_Idler It always surprises me when Fundamentalist Christians point to Old Testament text, especially Leviticus, to condemn homosexuality. As has often been pointed out, the Fundamentalists do not embrace all of Leviticus, just the part they like to their own ends. And they ignore that the New Testament was to bring a new covenant between God and His people, who were no longer just the Hebrews, but all people of all nations. In other words, the Old Testament is officially out-of date for Christians.

arpinum's avatar

St. Priapus Church is a somewhat new religion with the majority of members being homosexuals, though it seems to focus more on men, with the ritual consumption of semen and all.

rpm_pseud0name's avatar

“although it’s clear to me what they really dislike is anal sex”

Which is odd, because straight couples have anal sex as well.

Buttonstc's avatar

Metropolitan Community Church has branches in most States here in the US. Not really
Sure about elsewhere in the world.

It’s founder Rev. Troy Perry, as a gay man, did not want to discard his religious faith just because it was horribly represented by homophobic people.

Even tho the Church itself is predominantly comprised of GLBT people, they are actively welcoming of ALL non-homophobic people of faith.

Its easy to find an MCC Church in practically any area of the country. They are thriving and constantly growing community.

From what I’ve read about Buddhism, afaik they are pretty non-commital regarding homosexuality, neither actively approving or disapproving.

I’m not familiar with the Priapus one mentioned earlier, but I know of absolutely no group which is not against rampant promiscuity for either gay or straight. Primarily because this is incompatible with seeking a higher spiritual path. For those groups who are supportive and affirming of gay folks, they are fully supportive of couples in committee relationships pursuing all the rights available to straights including having/adopting and raising children.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

I don’t think it’s written against in any of the ‘holy texts’ – it’s just assumed that it’s written against and assumed that the religion is against homosexuality.

The_Idler's avatar

@zenvelo “In other words, the Old Testament is officially out-of date for Christians.”

I guess that’s why they had to reiterate the fact that homosexuality is a crime against God in the New Testament.


And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

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 one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
— Romans 1:23–27

Talking about the Greeks and their abominable culture, which involves depicting God and burning man-love.


Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
— 1 Corinthians 6:9–10


knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
— 1 Timothy 1:9–11

Buttonstc's avatar


You may find some interesting counter arguments to the viewpoint you present on that site.

You might also be interested in Troy Perry’s book titled: “The Lord is my Shepherd. And he Knows I’m Gay”.

Or not…

Others may find it interesting.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@The_Idler Who knew you were religious?

The_Idler's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m not religious, I’ve read the Bible.

I didn’t feel comfortable rejecting something that shaped millions of people’s lives over thousands of years, until I’d read it myself.

After reading it myself, however, I am completely comfortable with rejecting it. It is fucking ridiculous.

The_Idler's avatar

@Buttonstc Yeah I just read through the arguments on that website, and I’ll have something to say about them when I get back from work tomorrow. I have to sleep now though. Night.

MissAnthrope's avatar

Wicca/Paganism and the Unitarians.

Buttonstc's avatar

For all the avid New Testament quoters I encounter, I just have a few simple questions for them.

1.) can you read and translate New Testament Greek?

2.) define the word “arsenokoites” and how it was used in THAT TIME PERIOD.

If they have little comprehension regarding this, then I know that they’re getting their opinion from the KJV version—one of the worst outdated and biased translations in existence.

That’s the end of the discussion for me since knowledge has flown out the window and its just a bunch of prejudiced justifications for homophobia.

I’ve heard enough of that to last a lifetime.

dpworkin's avatar

I love the KJV because it has preserved some beautiful Elizabethan English that otherwise would have been lost.I don’t know how it translates “arsenokoites” but I like the way it translates Ecclesiastes.

Buttonstc's avatar


For poetical purposes, I agree wholeheartedly.

For accuracy, not so much. Ask Galileo, for instance :)

dpworkin's avatar

I do not depend on any version of the Bible for accuracy, other than Tanakh, and even that only textually. Also I do agree that the popular notion that arsenokoites and malakos refer to male homosexuality is on mighty, mighty thin ice, and I’m glad you took the time to point that out.

Sarcasm's avatar

I don’t recall Taoism having anything against homosexuality.

laureth's avatar

There’s always Wicca. (Heck, sometimes it seems like half the Wiccans/Pagans I know are gay, bi, or not overly worried about where they fit in.) My husband is Asatrú (Norse brand Paganism – think Odin, Thor, Freya, etc.) and he says there’s no official Asatrú position on it, and that people just have their own views (much like the general population).

Dianic Wicca, in particular, is pretty embracing of homosexuality – but I don’t think you’ll be able to visit a Dianic coven. ;) That’s usually women-only. Similarly, I suspect that any Greek reconstructionist Pagans would be pretty tolerant as well. Buddhism doesn’t seem to care that much either way.

Early Christianity was pretty pro-gay, but they seem to want to forget that. Perhaps they want to be more like the other Abrahamic faiths.

Buttonstc's avatar


The info presented in the link you posted about Early Christianity is one of the most fascinating bits of research I’ve read in a long time. Thanks for posting that.

That will be in my bookmarks for life.

gailcalled's avatar

I forgot Congregation Beth Simchat Torah in NYC’s West Village. Last year at a graveside ceremony up here, I met the Lesbian rabbi who conducted the service. She told me about her shul :


Congregation Beth Simchat Torah is committed to the idea that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Jews are wholly legitimate members of the Jewish people, are equally legitimate members of civil society, and have a unique and essential contribution to make to the life of Judaism and society.

It is this commitment to social justice and gender equality that has also attracted straight and even non-Jewish adults to our community.

perspicacious's avatar

I’m sure there are many. The ones of which I am specifically familiar are the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ.

Rarebear's avatar

@perspicacious Oh, forgot about the Presbyterians. A buddy of mine is a gay Presbyterian monk.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I’m not sure how to answer your question. @The_Idler makes the same points that I would offer, also noting that one can be theologically educated, without being religious.

My position is that ALL religion is pure Evil. It is deception incarnate.

Yes, I am a Theist. I believe in an all powerful creator God being. But I do not believe that being is anything like what is depicted in the commonly taught and accepted world religions. And, as @dpworkin suggests, I believe that most of those ancient scriptures have indeed been misrepresented and misunderstood. I do not presume that a God being is anything we, or anyone, can Truly understand. We can only build relationships to the degree we ourselves allow.


Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

Rarebear's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Ironically enough, you will agree with Dawkins’ last statement in his famous debate with Collins.,9171,1555132,00.html

liminal's avatar

I think wikipedia has a decent overview on this subject.

In my experience with protestant Christianity it is probably easier to point at the christian denominations that don’t have some sort of division and conflict over homosexuality: here is a reference chart. (I notice that EFCA, Vineyard, and AOG denominations are not on this chart.)

@DominicX There is a group called Dignity that celebrates “the wholeness and holiness of LGBT catholics.” Of course, the catholic church does not offically sanction the group, but the group is present in many progressive parishes.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


“If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
Richard Dawkins

Ironically yes, I can agree with that statement.

lillycoyote's avatar

It really depends on the particular church and denomination and branch of a religion. At least that is true for Christianity, and my limited understanding other religions suggests that it may be true for them. For example, the Episcopalians may very well tear themselves apart over the issue of homosexuality, they may end up splitting into two different churches because of opposing views.

zenele's avatar

Does anyone know what Islam says about it? On the one hand, I think I read that it isn’t allowed – punishable by death in some places (like most things over there) – but then Arab men seem to always stroll hand in hand with each other, kissing each other (men to men) on the cheek several times. I dunno.

The Old Testament def. says no to mano a mano sex. Very expicitly in the Bible in Hebrew – haven’t read it in English.

Buttonstc's avatar

The type of interactions to which you refer are far more cultural than sexual.

That’s not to say that there aren’t a few gay guys who may use that to be freer with PDAs but the vast majority of men doing the hand holding, hugging, kissing etc. are not being sexual in their intent.

I don’t know this for certain but I’m inclined to think that gay guys might be LESS inclined to show affection in public lest it be misinterpreted. After all, if the penalty is death, it would tend to make one much more upright about such things.

Bugabear's avatar

Buddhism I think. As long as you dont kill things they’re happy.

Marianna's avatar

I gave up believing in fairy tales years ago and am proud to have become an Athiest. What has Religion done for the world.? Wars, lies, such as blowing yourself up and killing innocent people will get you 72 virgins in heaven. A lot of Islam men (losers) believe that. Women who have their hair covered. why?. How can intelligent people believe all that. When I see the Pope in his funny garbs, how can Catholics keep from laughing at that? Religion does some good helping the poor, not the way they should, though.Poor people seem to have the most children, let’s concentrate on birth control, tubal ligatation and vasectomy. Stop advertising for old men to use viagra.
Women can have only one baby a year,a man is able to impregnate 300 women a year

PandoraBoxx's avatar

Unitarian Universalists

Just saw the previous answer about UU. Sorry for the repeat.

mattbrowne's avatar

All liberal forms of religions are against the discrimination of homosexuals.

Keep in mind that 50 years even non-religious societies fought against homosexuality, e.g. by using repressive measures against homosexuals in the Soviet Union or Mao’s China.

2000 years ago most people considered slavery a normal thing. I think it’s more a matter of zeitgeist than religion.

The_Idler's avatar

@mattbrowne The issue is that religion based upon Sacred Text preserves any and all zeitgeist to the point of absurd irrelevance (See: Most of the Bible) or idiocy (See: Most of the rest of the Bible).

mattbrowne's avatar

@The_Idler – Not true. I reckon your neighbors might be radicals from the religious right and you seem to draw the hasty generalization that all of the 2 billion Christians are just like that. Religions evolve. And most Christians did evolve too. Perhaps not the ones you know.

In Proverbs 15:27 it reads ‘Greed brings grief to the whole family, but those who hate bribes will live.’

In Proverbs 19:2 it reads ‘It is not good to have zeal without knowledge.’

Well, I’d say 3000 years later that’s still pretty relevant.

The_Idler's avatar

I said “most”, do you want a few hundred lines of ridiculous Bible quotes, or have you read it yourself already?

I wasn’t saying that fundamentalism is inherent to, and inseparable from, all religions based upon sacred text, I was saying that this particular issue exists and IS a matter of religion, because sacred texts will preserve any Zeitgeist.

You say “it’s more a matter of Zeitgeist than religion.”, well yeah, but what is the Zeitgeist now?
tolerance and acceptance.
Why is there even an issue then?
because holding ancient texts to be the sacred word of God artificially preserves ancient Zeitgeists.

That’s why, now, it is a matter of religion, because of the resultant Zeitgeistgeists, if you will.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


There are plenty of people who simply feel uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality, regardless of religious brainwashing. It’s not just a religious thang.

And the current Zeitgeist is not tolerance and acceptance… The current Z is lies and adhoc disguised as tolerance and acceptance. I believe it was Dostoyevsky who proclaimed that power would be granted to those who could fool the masses into believing in and rallying around… The Noble Lie.

The_Idler's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I guess that’s one way in which the Southern States is different to the UK.

There are still plenty of people who feel uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality, but not quite so many to the point they would call it a sin and a crime against nature. Such assertions necessitate calling upon a supernatural authority…....

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Anyone who abides by Kant’s Categorical Imperative should technically be against homosexuality in any form, regardless of being religious, theist, atheist, or agnostic. Homosexuality does not fit within the parameters of that philosophy. Nothing to do with religion, or geography whatsoever.

The_Idler's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Would they be morally against it, solely for themselves, or would they feel the need to oppress all others that practise it?
I’m not well-versed in philosophy.

It’s one thing having a moral code for oneself, but to consider it proper to impose those morals upon every human on Earth requires some significant authority to legitimize them, and from where cometh this authority, in the case of the Categorical Imperative?

Besides, is that the authority by which most assertions of the sinful and unnatural nature of homosexuality are legitimized, anywhere?

I get your point, but I think it may be inconsequential in this world.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The only authority behind any philosophy is the particular philosopher who develops it and the logic and reasoning used to put forth the conclusions. The Categorical Imperative is not without its critics, and like any philosophy, it must withstand scrutiny from other philosophers. It’s only applicable if one removes ego altogether, of which Schopenhauer believed was impossible in matters concerning human nature. Kierkegaard supported Schopenhauer’s summation further by pointing out that humans tend more to judge the behaviors of others much harsher than themselves, thus acknowledging the unwarranted (but nonetheless expected) weighted leniency towards one’s own personal inclinations.

mattbrowne's avatar

I don’t think it makes sense for me to continue this debate. Terms like ‘ridiculous Bible quotes’ are a signal for me to stop.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I agree wholeheartedly Matt.

DominicX's avatar

I don’t understand the whole concept of “the Bible was written for the time it was written in”. If that’s true, then why it is supposed to be the ultimate word of God? It can’t be both at the same time. If it was meant to be timeless, why is it not written in a timeless fashion?

Actually, I think I might make this into a separate question.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

If one can graduate from the popular depiction of the Childrens Picture Bible, and actually put a bit of mature study into the deeper concepts, then one will find a treasure trove of timeless wisdom within the pages of most any ancient holy writ.

But we must not assume that one persons impression of God is exactly the same as another persons impression of God. For within any disciplined discovery, be it science, mathematics, linguistics, baseball, skateboarding, dating, cooking… whatever… There are layers of Truth that must be peeled away in order to actually know any of them. It’s the difference in playing ball, and actually being a ball player. One does not unify with any pursuit unless one actually gives themselves over to that pursuit, sans their initial opinionated judgments about it.

Truth is free indeed, yet in all cases, it must be earned.

DominicX's avatar


Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that Bible is an authority for deontological ethics and it’s condemnation of homosexuality was meant to be timeless and not “written for the time it was written in”, at least according to most people who use the Bible as a religious authority.

These are just many of the reasons why I have been becoming more and more agnostic over the years. I really can’t see the Bible as an all-perfect authority on life.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


That’s a real can of worms you’re opening up there. It really deserves explaining. I don’t know what your knowledge base of the bible is to make such a global claim about it. I can only share what I have learned about it after reading five different versions and studying it for the past 35 years or more.

First off, please understand that my own personal interpretations of the bible are hardly similar to the popular understandings shared by both Christians and Atheists alike. As I’ve said before, the bible has been misread, misrepresented, and religion is responsible for that.

There are so many misconceptions about the bible that I hardly know where to begin. But keeping this as short as possible, let me point out a few common truancy’s.

When you say, “Bible is an authority for deontological ethics and it’s condemnation of homosexuality was meant to be timeless…”, that’s a really mixed bag.

Old Testament…

People have somehow gotten the impression that the Law of Moses is the same thing as the Law of God. They are not the same. But that is one of the most common sources of conflated confusions that prevent any truth from being discussed.

The Law of God is nothing more than the Ten Commandments. They are meant for governing the heart of man. The Law of Moses is meant for governing the nation of Israel. The Ten Commandments was the only Law that was supposedly written by the finger of God upon the stone tablets. There is nothing specifically against homosexuality in the Ten Commandments whatsoever. This Law of God was not from the mouth of Moses. It was directly from God almighty.

The Law of Moses was specifically crafted to keep the nation of Israel pure unto itself and safe from external threats. Homosexuality was given no more attention than Adultery, Fornication, Rape, Incest, Bestiality, Drunkenness, Spying, Thievery… Non of which could be tolerated for that nation and in that time. Our modern lives are completely incapable of comprehending human existence in that era of violence, where son would kill father to be king, and the loose tongue of a drunkard son could bring about war. Moses wanted to keep Israel pure. The Law of Moses was designed to do just that. Whether it came from God or not is a matter of debate. But if indeed it did, it cannot be denied that it would serve its intended purpose for that early nation, surrounded by predatory kingdoms. It was a vile time to be alive.

New Testament…

Jesus never once spoke out against Homosexuality. Again, his concern was for the sin of the heart… lying, cheating, adultery, greed, deception, pride, arrogance. Whenever the pharisees challenged him with a perceived sin of the flesh, he offered only forgiveness.

As well, sorry to ruin the Christian’s day, but Christ never claimed to be God nor the Son of God. He only referred to himself in two ways. Many times, as “I, the Son of Man”, and “I am the way, the truth, and the life”.

When Christ claimed to fulfill the Law, he was not speaking of the Law of Moses. He was speaking of the Law of God… The Ten Commandments.

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 5:17–20)

There are many more scriptures to confirm that Jesus was fulfilling the Law of God, and not the Law of Moses.

So Dominic, when you claim the fact that the bible is an “authority for deontological ethics”, that may be so for The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus, but there is no reason to include the Law of Moses as an authority for anything other than the Jews of that time, in that region, facing the challenges that we could never hope to associate with.

I want to write so much more on this. It’s quite involved, but hopefully you get the idea where I’m coming from.

DominicX's avatar

Believe me, I’ve heard all of this before and I find it very interesting, but in fact when I said that I wasn’t thinking of the condemnation of homosexuality by Leviticus, that was intended for the nation of Israel. What I was thinking of was the passage in 1 Corinthians when St. Paul states that “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” will not enter the kingdom of heaven, the latter of which is often translated as “homosexuals”. Believe me, I’ve discussed the concept of the Mosaic Law not applying anymore once Christ came, I was thinking more of the Pauline letters; however, there are many issues of translation with that Corinthians passage.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Regardless of what the debate in Corinthians is, do you have any issues with the Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As well, the term “Kingdom of Heaven” is a phrase deserving of dissection. Christ said the Kingdom of Heaven is in you. So what could Paul have meant by that statement other than, “shall not truly know themselves”... still regardless of the translations of malakoi and arsenokoitai.

Buttonstc's avatar


The last phrase in your post really hits the nail on the head regarding the presumed New Testament condemnation of homosexuality for all time.

The Fundy types of Christians who clobber people over the head with those passages have made their case based TOTALLY upon how both those words are translated. Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims (sp?) hearken back to the Latin Vulgate which does not always do a good job from the original Greek.

The problem is that there really is absolutely no equivalent between the lives of ordinary homosexuals and what was in Ancient times an exploitative practice known as Temple Prostitution which was well ingrained in some pagan cultures.

There was the expectation that when these people converted to Christianity, that these practices would cease, thus strong prohibitions were uttered by Paul against these practices.

This issue has nothing to do with gay orientation but with pagan practices.

That’s why the RC Church at least gets it half right (unlike Protestant Fundies) by recognizing that people don’t choose the direction in which their attractions naturally lie (Herero or Homo).

But I have actually had conversations with some of these Fundies who, when replying to my question about how do they explain the existence of a gay child (who presumably has not had sex with anyone yet but is still gay)
have replied with a straight face and absolute certainty that: “there is no such thing as a gay child !”

The other absolute statement they tend to assertively proclaim is that “a gay Christian is an oxymoron”

How can one have an intelligent conversation with someone who issues ignorant proclamations like that ?

These types of people are very unlikely to do in depth language studies of what they proclaim as the word of God. Nor are they likely willing to.

Hence my two screening questions. I just got tired of wasting my time with ignoramuses.

There is an interesting in depth study of those two words which really clarifies this well if you’re interested.

In order to post it (since I’m on iPhone) I would have to type it out rather than just c/p.

It’s late now, plus I have to locate it, so I’ll give it a try tomorrow.

The prohibition against homosexual Temple Prostitution was for all people for all time as you put it.

But the problem is that it bears no relationship to the regular lives of gay folks, many of whom desire to be in committed relationships. Temple Prostitutes from pagan cults or groups no longer exist (at least afaik). Gays and Lesbians are a convenient, but TOTALLY INACCURATE substitute for the judgemental.

When the “word of God” is obscured by translation problems, it ceases to be the accurate word of God and becomes an instrument of oppression and even hatred.

Buttonstc's avatar

BTW. this is why Rev Troy Perry decided on the DIY approach.

He didn’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. He didn’t want to give up his faith just because of a bunch of bigots justifying their bigotry with a crappy translation.

But there are numerous open minded Christian groups of various denominations who have looked beneath the surface of translations to realize that this is not how Jesus treated people and decided to follow his example. They also realize that there is no conflict with the word of God, ACCURATELY translated.

DominicX's avatar


No, I have no problems with the Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus. When I was being brought up Catholic, that was really all that was told me and I had no problem with it. According to some, if I believed in God and followed those, it would be enough to be a Christian and get into heaven. According to others, the fact that I’m homosexual and sexually active with my boyfriend means I’m damned to hell. You don’t know how many times I’ve been told that “gay Christian” is an oxymoron.


Really, I find all of that very interesting and I don’t disagree with any of that and I think it really ties into the fact that it was “written for the time it was written in”, especially in regards to temple prostitution. This is something that I do like to research on the side and we discuss it in some of my religious studies classes.

Rarebear's avatar

@DominicX I have a problem with the 10 commandments.
I prefer this version:

Scarikah's avatar

I believe I saw Wicca up there, and that’s true, for sure. I’m not Wiccan, but my best friend is. It’s funny, because she’s not a lesbian, but I am. And I was raised Pentecostal. Her parents let her decide to become a vegetarian when she was 11 and a Wiccan when she was 15. I wasn’t allowed to do anything. (Most of that had nothing to do with anything. Maybe if I were in a “Does being a super strict parent keep your children from being gay?” discussion..)

bea2345's avatar

@Buttonstc : perhaps this is ancient history to you. In the link that was directed to @The_Idler : the Marriage Equality page is missing. Instead I got this: This user has elected to delete their account and the content is no longer available (emphasis mine). Which user? certainly not I.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther