BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » So you still think homosexuality is sinful?

Ivy · October 24, 2012 10:49 am

I found this month ago on tumblr

SusiGo · October 24, 2012 10:59 am

This is really good, Ivy. Thanks for posting it. Isn't it strange that all arguments against homosexuality seem to be based on religious assumptions?

Mattlocked · October 24, 2012 11:10 am

Well, that was a short one for me.

Fits especially because I just read from a user at Tumblr called holmosexuality.

Ivy · October 24, 2012 11:51 am

@Susi, well it is. I'm atheist, so there's really no reason for me to be against it. I'm not even grew up with any religion.

My favourite part is the Adam and Steve answer.

Harriet · October 24, 2012 12:01 pm

A short one for me, too, a well done piece

But, Susi, Ivy I think this chart shows also that certain people use the bible rather to have their hostility confirmed.
They don't read the bible carefully and they don't mind their own contradictions.

Also, the chart question was about it being a sin. This term calls of course for religious answers. We could go and seek for other contexts than a religious one - for example Stalin calling homosexuality a fascist perversion. The Nazis also didn't murder gays and lesbians for committing a "sin", but for "being anormal" and "enemies of the german people". Conservatives saying it destroys family values. American Psychiatric Association saying until 1973 it's an illness...

Last edited by Harriet (October 24, 2012 12:25 pm)

SusiGo · October 24, 2012 12:28 pm

Yes, I think religion is often used and misused by people to support their opinions. Harriet, you're right about the non-religious reasons given. I just didn't think of them because they weren't mentioned in the pic. If you want to object against something you'll always find an "argument", be it of a religious, political or scientific nature.
I'm a non-religious person but always ask myself: If God did create humanity he must have created heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Wouldn't it be criticizing God to say that they do not conform with his creation?

Harriet · October 24, 2012 12:41 pm

I like your question :-) As a religious person I find homophobia a sin.

Actually, many churches today don't speak of homosexuality as a sin any longer. Some accept gay/lesbian priests/pastors/bishops, look at the Church of England. Still a way to go towards full equality and healing of the wounds, though...
I hope that charts like this will help somewhat in this struggle, bringing light into the darkness of ignorance and mental dullness.

Last edited by Harriet (October 24, 2012 12:45 pm)

Ivy · October 24, 2012 12:56 pm

Oh I didn't mean that religious people are the only ones that might have problems with homosexuality, just everything else like Stalin, the nazis etc. belongs to "it just disgust me" and the corresponding answer in the chart, in my opinion.

The religious people I know (protestants) say they don't need a book or a church anyway, they believe in god not a institution.

My motto is, when sex is just for breeding why is it so much fun. I think that works for heteros and gays.

SusiGo · October 24, 2012 1:15 pm

Harriet wrote:
I like your question :-) As a religious person I find homophobia a sin.

Actually, many churches today don't speak of homosexuality as a sin any longer. Some accept gay/lesbian priests/pastors/bishops, look at the Church of England. Still a way to go towards full equality and healing of the wounds, though...
I hope that charts like this will help somewhat in this struggle, bringing light into the darkness of ignorance and mental dullness.

I've been a Catholic for the longest part of my life and there it's still very difficult. But then sexuality is always difficult with Catholics.

Ivy · October 24, 2012 1:23 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I've been a Catholic for the longest part of my life and there it's still very difficult. But then sexuality is always difficult with Catholics.

*LOL*

That reminds me, the thing with Catholic priests and celibacy isn't written somewhere either, if I'm informed right.

Harriet · October 24, 2012 1:27 pm

Could be that problems with sexuality and problems with homosexuality are always related. Interesting...

Eugen Drewermanns "Kleriker" was a big eye-opener to me. Not being from a catholic background I found it much worth reading.
I don't think much has changed since.

Harriet · October 24, 2012 1:35 pm

Ivy wrote:
That reminds me, the thing with Catholic priests and celibacy isn't written somewhere either, if I'm informed right.

Yes, it is a recommendation, not an obligation.
Also, there are verses where bishops and deacons are required to have one wife - only!
This gets all very confusing when you tend to take the bible literally (like can be seen in your chart)
And why don't catholic priests have to be jewish bearded fishermen, if the catholic church insists on "Jesus called only men"?

Last edited by Harriet (October 24, 2012 1:36 pm)

hypergreenfrog · October 24, 2012 4:34 pm

Ivy wrote:
That reminds me, the thing with Catholic priests and celibacy isn't written somewhere either, if I'm informed right.

As with many religious rules, the real reason behind celibacy for priests was quite different from what is said today (at least for the last Millenium or so).
The Catholic church was always quite rich, not least because of all the land it owned. If priests of high standing, such as bishops and cardinals had children (or sons, more rather), it was feared that they would inherit their fathers' land. The church had a lot to lose from such a system, therefore they tought it best to keep the "arrangement" that all priests must be celibate.

That said, I guess we just have a completely different outlook on such issues as family and relationships nowadays. It used to be quite common to sacrifice the chance to have a family in favour of a good job or career (though of course that didn't mean you couldn't find happiness elsewhere ). Often superiors could deny someone the right to marry (e.g. soldiers, personal servants).Therefore, I believe the concept of a priest not being allowed to marry didn't seem as cruel or outlandish to former generations as it does to us.

Slightly diverged from the original topic there, sorry about that.

More to the point of this thread, I think everyone is a product of their environment, so the important thing is to live and lead by example. Maybe there were a few jokes about the German government being led by a woman and a gay man, but overall everybody had respect for them and learned to see beyond gender and sexuality.The more such role models we see, the more "normal" things tend to get.
As a society we have come a long way in a short span of time, and I am optimistic that (at least here in Europe) we are still moving in the right direction.

SusiGo · October 24, 2012 4:41 pm

Yes, in Germany things have changed, and it is a good that politicians by now are more open about their homosexuality (even if their coming out hasn't always been by choice).

Regarding celibacy: The problem is that the original reasons for this rule have become obsolete but the rule still persists. For me the most cruel thing about this is not about having no sex but having no opportunity to share your life with someone you love. But the Catholic church isn't exactly known for its willingness to embrace social or scientific change.

besleybean · October 24, 2012 5:03 pm

Or I would add honesty, but sorry if this offends anybody.

SusiGo · October 24, 2012 6:26 pm

besleybean wrote:
Or I would add honesty, but sorry if this offends anybody.

You mean regarding the Catholic church? Doesn't offend me at all. Although at least they admitted 500 years after it happened that Galilei was wrongly convicted by the Inquisition.

besleybean · October 24, 2012 6:27 pm

If it wasn't so awful, you'd have to laugh!

SusiGo · October 24, 2012 6:32 pm

In the wonderful words of Douglas Richardson: We're putting our finger as is so often the case on the crux of thorny theological problem.

besleybean · October 24, 2012 6:33 pm

Oh, it's no problem for me...

Harriet · October 24, 2012 6:55 pm

SusiGo wrote:
In the wonderful words of Douglas Richardson: We're putting our finger as is so often the case on the crux of thorny theological problem.

I really should get into Cabin Pressure, I suppose If only I had the time.