homophobia is now defined as the belief that homosexuality is a sin

Homophobia is now defined as the belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Tolerance is called for when another is wrong not merely different.

Homosexuality is to be tolerated not equivocated with heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is only a sin because it is sex outside of marriage. Homosexuality is only a sin because it is a form of fornication.

Where is the outcry about heterosexual fornication. With divorce, baby-daddies and hoochie-mommas, my people, the heterosexuals have disgraced sexuality to an extent that homosexuals do not have the biological capacity to inflict.

Weak phobic people are most likely to be intolerant of what they are least likely to do.

 

I do always love when the religious right claims marriage is "sacred."

Especially when they're on wife number four.

 

Homosexuality is not "sex outside of marriage." Homosexuality is having an attraction to the same-sex, and exists regardless of whether or not it is acted upon through sex.

Second, if you think it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage, then you should support same-sex marriage.

 

The attraction is not sinful. It may be evil, but it is not sinful. Sin is an act, a complex of intent, affect and effect.
Redefining marriage is wishful thinking at best and delusional at worst.

My larger point is simply that I do not believe that homosexual-fornication is, by any measure, 'worse' than heterosexual-fornication.

The consequences of heterosexual-fornication are much more grious to society and offensive to marriage and sexuality in general than homosexual-fornication (which is all homosexual sex) has the biological capacity to inflict.

 

If sex outside of marriage a problem, prohibiting marriage (thus ensuring sex will be outside of marriage) is clearly not the solution.

 

Nor is redefining marriage. Why not redefine 'outside' ? or 'sex' ?

 

Just leave gay people alone. Stop trying to deny them their rights and seeking to manipulate their lives.

 

What a load of crap. Who defined marriage, by what authority and what makes that definition absolute or even correct?

 

...because of your religious bias.

I felt I had to add that part because clearly with the mention of sin and blah blah blah it's a religious bias.

 

Many people have said that homosexuality is a sin. To my knowledge that has never been true. Sex outside of marriage is a sin in some religions, not one's sexual orientation. The issue is, what I do, sinful or not is no one's business but mine and my God's. Judgement is for God and God alone (except in a civil situation in which case the court does the judging.)

 

You are correct.

Even so, as much as that is the "religious bias" of SOME Christians... that is not so with all. And I want nothing to do with Christians who discriminate so exclusively against homosexual people. I can't stand it anymore.

Homophobia is what it is, whether it comes from a person or their interpretation of a book.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep.That is what it boils down to.

 

Do you believe that it's homophobic to say that homosexuality is a sin?

 

Some people don't believe in sin per se. Very few religions condone homosexual sex. I believe that as our culture evolves the perceived "stain" of homosexual sex will disappear. I hope so. I have a niece and a 1st cousin who are gay. I suspect every big family has one or two whether they know it or not.

 

Great question.

I would like to read other's answers also.

The question would make for a good poll thread.

 

No, but neither is it pertinent to the legal arguments surrounding same sex marriage.

Calling homosexuality a sin does nothing to hinder the legal recognition of same sex marriage, nor any other gay rights issue.

So, knock yourself out.

It does however serve as a lightening rod to draw energy to the gay rights movement...so in short...continue helping the gay rights movement.

 

Hmm, I'm not sure. But on the same note, there are opinions that I may have about religion that I chose not to say because I want to be respectful and not cause unnecessary offence. Not that I am unwilling to talk about them in a candid discourse, but there are appropriate circumstances and things that need not be said. Just let people live and don't worry about others, that is what I find to be appropriate.

 

I found a number of different definitions of the word online, but none that define it as you have declared above. Moreover, I would propose that the word has been overused, diluting its meaning.

Practicing tolerance acknowledges the right of others to conduct their lives according to their own standards. Declaring moral judgments and then calling one's self tolerant or respectful without any sense of irony isn't persuasive.

From which we can glean that you think heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals. Not scoring any points for your 'tolerance' with me.

This is the Gay & Lesbian Rights forum, not the Religion forum. As a person who holds no religious beliefs, I don't much care what you think is or isn't a sin, or why you think so. I realize that some Christians think they have a mandate to preach to the rest of us, but it's truly boorish behavior.

Heterosexuals are "your people"? This betrays an "us" vs. "them" attitude, along with all the judging going on above. How very Christian. (intentionally ironic)

Actually, I find it to be the other way around. Weak, phobic people are more likely to be intolerant of what tempts them.

 

No. Perhaps mistaken, judgmental, and boorish to think that everyone should care what Christians deem to be sinful. But no, not homophobic.

 

Homosexuals get from me the same tolerance I show heterosexual fornicators. Just because I am guilty of heterosexual fornication, which is of equal or greater gravity, I do not then conclude that neither the homosexual or the heterosexual offender are guilty.

I am not the standard by which I calibrate morality.

 

Bible references:
And God warns all those who simply "approve of" these things . . .

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven

against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . .

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,

burning in their lust for one another,

men with men committing what is shameful (homosexuality) . . .

that those who practice these things are worthy of death (Hell),

and not only those who do the same

but also those who approve of those who practice them!"

(Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32)

"(Note: Other offences were also included which were not listed here.)"

http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning 7 Homosexuality.html

 

Deleted by author.

 

Right.

If all laws were based upon Biblical definitions, the greed of corporations would see many executives incarcerated (even now).

 

What is being redefined is the marriage license. You can keep your definition of marriage and others can keep theirs. Marriage has no one definition--it varies depending across religions(or lack thereof), cultures, and history.

In my opinion, a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples is unjust, and should be changed. Legally, defining the marriage license to mean such is even more unjust, and violates constitutionally guaranteed rights. As far as I know, the definitions of 'outside' and 'sex' do no such thing, nor is there a government license corresponding to either word.

 

No, but I believe it is an extremely ignorant position to take and that it's wrong to think that just because you think someone is being 'sinful' that you get to dictate how they should live their lives.

I also think it would be very rude to just walk up to someone and say that to their face.

 

Bigotry is only defined as "That which the left doesn't support" so why not change all words to have have one-sided meanings?