hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural

so although in a wordly perception, I understand that logic,, it doesnt seem like it works in accord with the bible

a difference between attraction (what one might be tempted towards) and action (what one chooses to do)

we are creatures who are tempted and our choice is what gives us the option to give in or resist

That would be based solely on the assumption that there is no God and that he/she had no influence on it's writing.

I tend to fall in-between what you seem to believe, and the unquestioning acceptance of current church interpretation, I see from others.

Well, the only problem I have with this in connection with a supposedly all-wise and compassionate God, is that if two people of the same gender are genuinely attracted to each other with sincere intent and love, then this would suggest that God has a problem with sincere love based on nothing more than superfical physical gender.

To me, this just opens a whole can of worms associated with the attribtues that this so-called "God" supposedly has. This would be a highly superficial demand of a suppsedly "righteous" and all-wise compassionate God.

Therefore I have no other choice but to conclude that these writings are nothing more than that babbling predjudices and bigotries of men. They just don't fit in with a supposely divine being who isn't even supposed to give material things any merit. But gender is definitely a material thing in the sense that it's entirely a physical attribute.

This God is supposed to value LOVE, not physical bodies.

Ultimate for this to even work a person would need to show that it's impossible for two people of the same gender to actually LOVE each other. Good luck with that!

Why would I need to assume that there is no God to recognize that the Bible wasn't divinely inspired any more than any other fable men might write?

This very notion that "Either the Bible is the word of God, or there is no God", is an entirely bogus idea to start with. The Christians would LOVE for you to believe that, because that means that there are only TWO choices, Either the Bible is the Word of God, or you must become a complete and pure atheist.

That's whole notion is utter hogwash.

Also if you are supporting male to male relationships you are supporting sodomy.Sodomy is a sin and against Gods will.

And if you don't condemn oral sex between two consenting adults of opposite sex, married or not, you're also supporting a sin that's supposedly against that same Will of God. Because that's sodomy, too. Look it up.

Better yet, ask one of today's moral exemplars and former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Of course, I believe he said that oral sex is not really sex and therefore not adultry, so maybe God grants an exception for that,lol.

-Kerry O.

Well, that's just it right there. What defines the act of having "sex"? If "sex" is defined as copulation, then it's technical impossible to perform homosexual sex.

If "sex" is anything that leads to having an orgasm then, for some people, it's quite possible to have "sex" without even having physical contact with another person.

This is why I believe that all of these prejudices must necessarily be creations of the minds of men and not of any divine mind. They simple aren't intelligent enough to be the thoughts of an all-wise divine mind, IMHO.

We are actually having different perspectives . I see a difference between LOVE (agape, which God holds for us and we can hold for each other, regardless of gender) and ATTRACTION (which involves an interest in the physical) and can lead to the ACTION of SEX

I doubt God would take issue with love between any of us,,,it is only the sexual ACTIONS with which issue is taken

The question posed in the OP and reiterated several times throughout the post concerns what is viewed as a discrepancy in how the Bible reports and judges the supposed acts of homosexuality of men versus women. The purpose of this critical thought exercise, per the OP, is to form a connection between more ancient views and current societal views of homosexual behavior of men versus women.

First it’s important to recognize that this discussion has taken on a distinctly Americanized societal view. In this context we cannot accept that what will be compared here will be a broad world view. We have to remember that we are comparing a current closed cultural view (much of the Americas) with the history of a belief system which has undergone extenuating changes which have molded this belief system into various adaptations befitting many cultural standards of the times.

At some point the seed of men (semen) was held in the highest regard as the seed of life. There are differing views as to why or even when this came about; often it’s related to Adam being first therefore, all of humanity must naturally stem from the first, while the female is merely a receptacle for the development of that seed into a viable life.
Obviously this made a man's seed the substance of life and spilling it willfully without the intent of creating life (ejaculating into a womb) was in quite bad form. (To say the least) This is an important point because it plays a major role in how women were to become viewed as secondary within the coming Christian community and as merely sex figures in more current times.

As Christian concepts began to take form, the Judeo-Christians themselves where undergoing great cultural changes, along with the rest of the civilized world. As with all societies, those who claim rights to the ruling class will attempt to blend the various cultures they rule in order to maintain control. This was the greatest influence of change which would shape the Christian faith. A great deal of pagan ritual and thought were meshed with the “newly forming” Christian religion. Pagans often gravitated to the new faith and its monotheistic views, BUT rather than abandon their own rituals, they combined them, like the fertility rituals which had a very high content of sexuality – even including entire families. The formation of the early Christian church (still viewing man’s seed as the seed of life) considered this one of the most aberrant sins. In fact of the five ‘so-called’ references to homosexuality in the Bible, at least two of them that I know of, reference these acts and not the loving and caring acts of homosexual partnership. (I know, that’s beside the point here, just saying)

As the Roman Catholic Church gained leverage throughout Europe with the ruling elites, both parties used each other to wield their respective powers over cultural and societal views. The greatest influence, over the topic at hand, carrying into our current culture, was the writing and production of the King James version of the Bible. Women had little place in its pages and the Church saw little need to share its glory with women and either ignored the role of women as equals, or played up to the sinful, emotional, and non-intellectual nature of the ‘subservient’ woman whose only value lies in her ability to bare the children of her husband.

SPEED FORWARD: Industrial revolution, Colonization of the America’s, mass colonization of Africa by Europe – huge urban growth and development.

Pin-point – U.S.A. –Women had long been considered property and both men and women had been taught through their Christian roots, that either chastity or faithfulness was mandatory, so that men would have no doubt of their children’s paternity. REMEMBER that this has roots as deep as the early Hebrew faith, because each of the 12 tribes had a hierarchy in God’s favor. You did not want to mix your lineage with a lesser tribe, so you had to know who your children were. Of course no one really remembered that anymore, except for the actual Jews who still followed original sacred texts.

Notice that the issues of homophobia have different priorities. Men carry the unformed babies, which require a woman’s womb to develop. AHA! A good way to keep an archaic ideology alive, in a Bible which cannot be fallible, is to create a culturally acceptable reason to follow the biblical law. The law says not to spill your unborn babies but we have learned so much that we know that semen is not the baby, and not only that, but men have many billions of semen that can continue to impregnate almost for an entire life time. So how do we keep this archaic biblical law alive – HOMOPHOBIA.

Why isn’t it as big a deal for women - reverse the whole thing. Women were nothing but a receptacle and seeking physical solace from another woman did not get her pregnant and no one had to know. Not only that but by this time men had become so culturally attuned to seeing women at their best as a sex symbol and both men and women tend to like seeing the love play of two women. (What’s not to like?)

So in the end, there is a connection between how Judeo-Christianity viewed male and female sexuality to present standards, but the connection of homosexuality in the Bible is a totally concocted idea created in order NOT to give in to the fallible nature of its writings.

OOPS, this section doesn’t mean anything anymore, we have learned more and have outgrown it – what to do – it has to be right—it’s the bible??? AH! Let’s just change its meaning even if we have to oppress a bunch of people to do it.

Religion – No one can deny that some of the greatest works of human good have been instigated by very religious people. We cannot deny that very often people of faith-based organizations are first responders anywhere in the world in times of catastrophe. BUT – I really cannot believe that human beings require these beliefs in order to be so responsive. As we can see – the same religious people who lay claim to their fame as first responders are often the same people that can illogically change an ancient text, using it to oppress millions, for the sake of saying “we can’t be wrong, we believe.”

The question posed in the OP and reiterated several times throughout the post concerns what is viewed as a discrepancy in how the Bible reports and judges the supposed acts of homosexuality of men versus women. The purpose of this critical thought exercise, per the OP, is to form a connection between more ancient views and current societal views of homosexual behavior of men versus women.

First it’s important to recognize that this discussion has taken on a distinctly Americanized societal view. In this context we cannot accept that what will be compared here will be a broad world view. We have to remember that we are comparing a current closed cultural view (much of the Americas) with the history of a belief system which has undergone extenuating changes which have molded this belief system into various adaptations befitting many cultural standards of the times.

At some point the seed of men (semen) was held in the highest regard as the seed of life. There are differing views as to why or even when this came about; often it’s related to Adam being first therefore, all of humanity must naturally stem from the first, while the female is merely a receptacle for the development of that seed into a viable life.
Obviously this made a man's seed the substance of life and spilling it willfully without the intent of creating life (ejaculating into a womb) was in quite bad form. (To say the least) This is an important point because it plays a major role in how women were to become viewed as secondary within the coming Christian community and as merely sex figures in more current times.

As Christian concepts began to take form, the Judeo-Christians themselves where undergoing great cultural changes, along with the rest of the civilized world. As with all societies, those who claim rights to the ruling class will attempt to blend the various cultures they rule in order to maintain control. This was the greatest influence of change which would shape the Christian faith. A great deal of pagan ritual and thought were meshed with the “newly forming” Christian religion. Pagans often gravitated to the new faith and its monotheistic views, BUT rather than abandon their own rituals, they combined them, like the fertility rituals which had a very high content of sexuality – even including entire families. The formation of the early Christian church (still viewing man’s seed as the seed of life) considered this one of the most aberrant sins. In fact of the five ‘so-called’ references to homosexuality in the Bible, at least two of them that I know of, reference these acts and not the loving and caring acts of homosexual partnership. (I know, that’s beside the point here, just saying)

As the Roman Catholic Church gained leverage throughout Europe with the ruling elites, both parties used each other to wield their respective powers over cultural and societal views. The greatest influence, over the topic at hand, carrying into our current culture, was the writing and production of the King James version of the Bible. Women had little place in its pages and the Church saw little need to share its glory with women and either ignored the role of women as equals, or played up to the sinful, emotional, and non-intellectual nature of the ‘subservient’ woman whose only value lies in her ability to bare the children of her husband.

SPEED FORWARD: Industrial revolution, Colonization of the America’s, mass colonization of Africa by Europe – huge urban growth and development.

Pin-point – U.S.A. –Women had long been considered property and both men and women had been taught through their Christian roots, that either chastity or faithfulness was mandatory, so that men would have no doubt of their children’s paternity. REMEMBER that this has roots as deep as the early Hebrew faith, because each of the 12 tribes had a hierarchy in God’s favor. You did not want to mix your lineage with a lesser tribe, so you had to know who your children were. Of course no one really remembered that anymore, except for the actual Jews who still followed original sacred texts.

Notice that the issues of homophobia have different priorities. Men carry the unformed babies, which require a woman’s womb to develop. AHA! A good way to keep an archaic ideology alive, in a Bible which cannot be fallible, is to create a culturally acceptable reason to follow the biblical law. The law says not to spill your unborn babies but we have learned so much that we know that semen is not the baby, and not only that, but men have many billions of semen that can continue to impregnate almost for an entire life time. So how do we keep this archaic biblical law alive – HOMOPHOBIA.

Why isn’t it as big a deal for women - reverse the whole thing. Women were nothing but a receptacle and seeking physical solace from another woman did not get her pregnant and no one had to know. Not only that but by this time men had become so culturally attuned to seeing women at their best as a sex symbol and both men and women tend to like seeing the love play of two women. (What’s not to like?)

So in the end, there is a connection between how Judeo-Christianity viewed male and female sexuality to present standards, but the connection of homosexuality in the Bible is a totally concocted idea created in order NOT to give in to the fallible nature of its writings.

OOPS, this section doesn’t mean anything anymore, we have learned more and have outgrown it – what to do – it has to be right—it’s the bible??? AH! Let’s just change its meaning even if we have to oppress a bunch of people to do it.

Religion – No one can deny that some of the greatest works of human good have been instigated by very religious people. We cannot deny that very often people of faith-based organizations are first responders anywhere in the world in times of catastrophe. BUT – I really cannot believe that human beings require these beliefs in order to be so responsive. As we can see – the same religious people who lay claim to their fame as first responders are often the same people that can illogically change an ancient text, using it to oppress millions, for the sake of saying “we can’t be wrong, we believe.”

Why would he/she/it have issues with sex if it a natural course of action for most organisms and yes homosexual sex happens in more than humans?

As usual with opinions and the bible there is no scriptures posted because had you posted scriptures you would find out that you are wrong.

I would really love to hear your opinion on how Christians are suppressing millions of people in this world… Can you name a single biblical made law in our Government that when broken people are punished?

I will tell you something.I have met my fair share of uneducated people concerning the bible but on a ignorance scale of 1 to 10 this would have to be a 30. You ever THINK before you write these things?

If you knew anything about the Catholic church you would know that they worship and pray to the Virgin Mary nearly as much as they pray to Jesus.They honor Mary the same way they honor Jesus.

So your theory that women became irrelevant with the Catholic church is totally backwards.The Catholic church took women to the highest honor possible.

Corinthians 11:12 KJV
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

"Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Ephesians 5:33 NKJV).

"Do not deprive one another [sexually] except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:5 NKJV).

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen" (Ephesians 4:29 NIV).

"And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you" (Ephesians 4:32 NKJV).

1 Corinthians 7:39 KJV
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Proverbs 19:14 KJV
House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.

Matthew 19:9 KJV And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

Mark 6:18 KJV For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

Lev 20:21 KJV And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it [is] an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

I will ask him if I see him,, but I believe that not everything that we are capable of doing was ever meant to be 'natural' and certainly not everything that is natural to animals is natural to us,,,heck,, there are even some things that are natural to one animal and not another

I wont debate the issue of natural. But if one believes in his word, as I do, it is clear that there were some things that we CAN do with our body that were not natural. I would imagine his creation of adam and eve were his EXAMPLE of mating for human beings.