Christians are immoral people. To draw a simple parallel; would you say criminals are effectively immoral people, since they break the social conventions of society? I would say so. Most states do not allow criminals to vote (approx 2.5% of the voting population are disallowed because of their convictions), so why should Christians be allowed to vote?

Why am I even arguing that Christians should not be allowed to vote? Because it displays something very interesting; many people consider Christians to be as morally corrupt as criminals - if not more so! (for example, Hitler was a Christian, and he attributed his genocide of the Jewish people to be due to his interpretation of Christianity. While most Christians won't go that far, they do still hate homosexuals, women, science, and based on the odds, they probably hate you too!).

In other words, Christians have irrational hate for most people. But even if they do hate all things maybe they have good reason to, right? Well actually, that isn't how the brain works. You see, most Christians have been indoctrinated from a young age, or even if they have been later in life, it has been the result of much brain-washing. One of the core tenants of Christianity is to simply accept the beliefs of those above you without question (be it God, Jesus, the Pope, or the local boy-loving pastor). A human brain can easily assimilate an opinion, however if someone asks the owner of said brain to explain why they hold that belief, they will not answer "no particular reason", they will instead try to justify it - but since they are merely mimicking the opinions of those above them, they don't know the reasoning! This is "reverse chaining", working backwards from the conclusion to derive the hypothesis. Of course, this leads to ridiculous logic - "adam and eve, not adam and steve", "marriage is sacred", "it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man". Of course, if you "forward chain" (use the evidence to derive conclusions) then you can come to other conclusions - "incest is the way of God!", "divorce is far worse than gay marriage!", "selling your daughters as slaves is a great way to make income!". Of course, even for these ridiculous conclusions there are people who believe them too! (Ok, there probably aren't many people who sell their daughters as slaves in the west!)

To sum up, do we even need to respond to the arguments of brain-washed zombies (ironicly, I am using 'zombie' with a different meaning to the meaning that describes their savior Jesus) who don't even understand their own opinions?

RayA75's Moderated Message:

Ok :(

I'll take this as an opportunity to clarify somethings I'd like to have a better idea on.

From what I can remember, the Bible only mentions homosexual relationships in the form of the Sodomites. Yet sodomy and homosexuality are entirely different things. So I'm wondering two things. One, is homosexuality actually outright mentioned in the Bible, rather than sodomy? Two, am I taking a modern interpretation of the definition of sodomy, and that sodomy and homosexuality were synonymous at the time of the Bible's writing?

From what I know, I've only seen the religious argument, at least from the Christian side, seem to hold little foundation with fundamental scripture and more so with personal ideology on morality. I'm just trying to see if my knowledge is incomplete in some way, or if my reasoning is justified.

Even in apologetics, this is an unsure point. Debates go on about whether the sin of the Sodomites were that for hedonism, rape, or simply they were inhospitable to guests who turned out to be angels (this would be due to a recent war).

Source.

Also, there is a scripture verse in Corinthians that mentions homosexuality.

"1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10 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."

I shall address this later.


I believe that sodomy is only mentioned in the Old Testament, while the only reference to homosexuality in the New Testament is above.


It is possible, but still the debate rages on about Sodom's sin.


I don't really think you made a point. Proper theses are hard to come by nowadays, but I will present mine right now:

The argument concerning Christianity's position on homosexuality is as follows:
Homosexuality is a temptation along the lines of hedonism, that it only exists for pleasure, as we interpret it in the Bible. This makes homosexuality immoral, and no government should condone it.

My argument is as follows:
Modern sexuality has a very different dimension to it than marriages in the Bible's time, it is romantic. Nowadays, we marry because we love each other. We also have reason to believe that homosexuality is genetic and natural, and that a man and another man or a woman and another woman can actually legitimately love each other and devote themselves to one another; just like heterosexual relationships and marriages. This means that we cannot make over-arching laws condemning homosexuality just because some may be simply hedonistic, just as it can be with heterosexuality.

Now, let's consider that verse from Corinthians: "1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10 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."

I use hedonism a lot in this post and my other ones. If you haven't googled it yet, I'll define it here.
Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).
So what Paul of Tarsus lays out and condemns in the passage is not homosexuality or fornication, but hedonism. Hedonism was rampant in ancient Rome and Corinth, and that was what Paul was addressing.

Had Paul known that two people of the same gender can fall in love, devote themselves to one another, raise children, and be properly functioning members of society, do you really think he would have condemned it?

I certainly don't.

And does this mean that the Bible is wrong?

No. Hedonism is still immoral and an imbalanced life style. The Bible is not wrong about that; and that is all the Bible addresses.

The Bible just does not apply to modern homosexuality or sexuality in general.