Gays at Prom?!

[Alex314]

And when I said I could argue otherwise I meant that America was based on so many Christian believes, values, etc, that one could say America is almost a Christian nation
After all references to God appear on our money, in our Pledge of Alligencs (Sorry, I don't know I'd that's spelled correctly), really it's the Church and its followers that oppose Gay Marriage. Because they do oppose it and that's why Gay Marraige hasn't been passed yet. And the only agenda gays have is equal rights. We don't want special privileges, just the ones we've been denied. I don't mean to make this a huge argument but if you want to argue it with me message me or something.

In God we trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The phrase "In God We Trust" was added officially in 1956 and was gradually added on the paper currency to replace the 'unofficial' motto that had thus far been 'E Pluribus Unum', Ouf of many One, which had been used since the founding of the US in 1782. As such, In God We Trust has been there for only 55 years, replacing the E Pluribus Unum which had been on for 174 years. The US was NOT founded as a christian nation.

Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Pledge of Allegiance has been written in 1892, adopted by Congress in 1942 and has been modified 4 times since, the most recent change in 1954 being the addition of the words "Under God". The US was NOT founded as a christian nation.

It has been speculated that the addition of so many religious references was added to the US's political stance to counter the rise of the atheistic Soviet Union, acting sort of like a big middle finger to the Russians. To counter the atheism of the USSR, the US basically boosted their own religiosity. This is of course speculation, and I'm really not sure of the details, but I think it's far more likely than the US being founded as a christian nation, considering the changes in the 1950, corresponding conspicuously with the beginning of the Cold War.

It is by knowing what the first amendment says, that I know what the first amendment does not say.

My only point is that the phrase "separation of church and state", while used often, and (erroneously) respected as law by some, is not actually in the Constitution.

The main difference between the two phrases ("separation of church and state" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), is that the first one could (for example) be used to disallow schoolchildren from holding a voluntary bible study on school property. The second one would prevent the government from making laws that say schoolchildren must/may not attend a bible study on school property. They are indeed different.

I don't think that would be possible to use the former (separation of Church and State) to forbid the gathering of people to hold a bible study anymore than it would be possible to stop people from gathering for a frisbee tournament. There is no law that I am aware of that forbids the practice of praying in public, and I don't see how individuals doing it of their own free time of their own free will in a public space (the school, once they have permission) is in any way illegal. Separation of church and state does not necessarily mean that the church and any people of faith must stay out of public spaces or public property to express their personal religious convictions. If that were the case, bible-thumpers and preachers preaching on the street or on public transit would be violating the law.
I honestly don't see the difference. I think they are both reflecting the same thing, but one is more in 'legalese' and the other is simpler, shorter, catchier, common speak basically. I'm sure there are a lot of differences between the layman's definition of murder and that of the law, but that doesn't mean they reflect different things.

 

[LightningClap0002]

It is by knowing what the first amendment says, that I know what the first amendment does not say.

My only point is that the phrase "separation of church and state", while used often, and (erroneously) respected as law by some, is not actually in the Constitution.

The main difference between the two phrases ("separation of church and state" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), is that the first one could (for example) be used to disallow schoolchildren from holding a voluntary bible study on school property. The second one would prevent the government from making laws that say schoolchildren must/may not attend a bible study on school property. They are indeed different.

es·tab·lish·ment/iˈstabliSHmənt/
Noun:
The recognition by the state of a national church or religion.

IMHO, A private citizen can perform any number of acts in a public place without the government respecting "an establishment" of the religion associated with said act. The government can not recognize(declare, or appear to declare) a national religion. That is all.

 

[PopClick]

I don't think that would be possible to use the former (separation of Church and State) to forbid the gathering of people to hold a bible study anymore than it would be possible to stop people from gathering for a frisbee tournament.

The fact that schools are government property has led a lot of people to use the "separation of church and state" phrase to try and put a stop to a lot of things. This is (I think) one of the more interesting examples: Justices decline Columbine memorial case - CNN

The tiles in question had, according to what I've read, bible verses, (including "Jesus wept") crosses, and the phrase "God is love" on them. The CNN article states that "The case focuses on whether the display by students violates the Constitution's separation of church and state."

I think a lot of people would say that this is an example of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

 

[Youngman]

Huh, Alex, I had no idea about that. That actually sounds like a really good reason. Guess I was wrong. XD

 

[PopClick]

es·tab·lish·ment/iˈstabliSHmənt/
Noun:
The recognition by the state of a national church or religion.

IMHO, A private citizen can perform any number of acts in a public place without the government respecting "an establishment" of the religion associated with said act. The government can not recognize(declare, or appear to declare) a national religion. That is all.

And I would agree with you... that is what it should mean.

 

[jack4022]

It can be hurtful for lesbian and gay couples not to be able to go to prom, but a lot of LGBT groups host their own proms for queer couples to attend. I personally wasn't devastated by the fact that I had to go with a girl to prom. Also if it's a public school and LGBT people are part of society shouldn't they be allowed into prom if they are allowed in the school?

 

[Nancyer]

If Christians aren't allowed to read the Bible in school or pray in public because it might offend others, that is just as wrong. I've never understood how it can offend anyone if someone ELSE reads the Bible or prays in their presence. Would you be offended to see someone bowing to the East and praying to (insert name of spiritual leader here) ? I wouldn't. Should it bother you to see someone with the red dot on their forehead? No, it shouldn't. These are the differences in our world, the world God put here and the people God filled it with. I spend my lunch hours, when I get one, on Bible study quite often in a fast food place. I've never been told I can't or it's bothering anyone. I have been congratulated several times, asked what book I'm in, where I attend church, etc.

I just feel we should let God take care of His own and He will handle it all in the end anyway. God knew who He made before He made them, none of us are a surprise to Him, so I leave all this to God and I love my neighbor as I love my self.

 

[Alex314]

If the public entities were pushing it, I can definitely name some cons. Most immediate is a push for "shock" homosexuality (Madonna), especially prevalent at that age.

Agreed.

This then leads to a perception that the gay life style is more prevalent in today's culture.

Not sure that's such a terribly bad thing, but okay.

A shift in perception leads to many things. In the end, this likely leads to a larger rift forming between religious conservatives and religious liberals/others.

There was a pretty large rift in regards to the perception of the rights of black people also, and I don't see how that was such a terrible thing, seeing as it lead to their emancipation.

If we stretch things a little, a shift in perception leads to more people accepting homosexuality as a choice, which leads to more people living homosexual lives, which leads to fewer people honoring an institution put in place by God himself. Thus sin abounds, and with sin, suffering.

That's a pretty big con. Then again, it's all hypothetical anyways, Ritter's alternative wasn't the true one.

That's assuming that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice in the first place, which evidence suggests it is not. If you can't choose to become attracted to people of the same sex, then LGBTQ people can't choose to have a 'normal' heterosexuality. They can't change their sexual preference any more than you can.
What I do think will happen, is the acceptance of LGBTQ people as human beings with just as many rights as any other, and accept differences and the varied shades and hues of human sexuality, without demonizing them, taking their rights away, and letting people get away with being intolerant and violent towards a group of people because God said they were abominations.

I'd think instead of suffering coming from the 'sin' of any other kind of sexuality than the heteronormal view, suffering might come instead for people who are intolerant and unacceptable of anything they view as different from themselves and persecuting other groups. 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' sounds great in theory, not so much in practice. Perhaps one can help relieve suffering in the world before worrying about sin?




@ Nancyer, true words of wisdom! More people need to be accepting of others, especially people of other cultures and with different opinions than one's own!

 

[bonnie2]

Bonnie, allow me to slightly rephrase your statements below. Emphasis mine


Not founded on Christianity but certainly on Christian principles.. probably any of our founding fathers, even the ones who were not Christians, would be apalled at the idea of a mixed couple attending a prom It's not progress, it's degeneration.


Forget for a moment that you're talking about gay couples here and think instead of mixed couples between black and white people. I'm sorry, but you are making the same arguments people were making not too long ago as to why blacks should be second class citizens. Should you be forced to look at mixed couples? How is that any different from a gay couple?
Also, do please remember that perhaps those gays don't have the same faith as you, and you can't restrict their freedoms because your religion tells you their behavior is inappropriate, when they might not subscribe to your religion. If they ARE christian, don't you think they're well aware of the fact the Bible says their behavior is sinful by now?
As for political correctness, I think it is about on the same level as denouncing people for their skin color, as it rightly should be.



Do remember that you can read the Bible in private all you want, so can teachers, but you cannot in state-sponsored public schools be led by a teacher (a figure of authority representing the government) to endorse a religious behavior. That teacher might organize a bible meeting after school hours and say rent a room just the same as any other organizations would like to rent the school, but he cannot have any special privileges because he is a teacher at that school.
If something is offensive to you, I'm sorry, but tough. You have no right to censor others because you don't like something. I personally find gross stupidity offensive (NOT saying you are stupid, far from it) but that doesn't mean I'm going to say people are only allowed to be stupid in private. You have no right not to be offended. You go out in public, you have exactly the same rights as any other individual.


People shouldn't be subjected to the constant obnoxious message that they are sinners in the eyes of God and are going to hell as a result of it. Christians are allowed to air their messages and promote their values in public, and so is everyone else. You cannot silence a minority because you don't agree with them.
Also, would you please present evidence other than what is in the Bible that homosexuality is not normal nor fine?
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of what you say here makes sense. Although I disagree with your view of homosexuality, I realize that it is probably unrealistic to restrict gay couples from attending prom in today's society. However, that fact makes me sad.. and scared that we are becoming so accepting of it as a nation! I don't agree that it's like desegregation of blacks and whites.. apples and oranges.. black people aren't choosing to sin by being black obviously, and I believe homosexuality has to be a choice. Otherwise how could God have commanded us not to have sex with the same gender? Do you believe in God and if so, do you believe He has a right to make the rules?

 

[bonnie2]

Ah, just saw all your -ists. Nevermind.

 

[bonnie2]

You believe John 13:34 but not the rest of the Bible?

 

[LightningClap0002]

That's assuming that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice in the first place, which evidence suggests it is not. If you can't choose to become attracted to people of the same sex, then LGBTQ people can't choose to have a 'normal' heterosexuality. They can't change their sexual preference any more than you can.

Alex - you are dead wrong about one thing: Your lifestyle is ALWAYS a choice. I made no claim about whether homosexual tendencies were a choice or not. That said, even if homosexual tendencies are something someone is born with, the increased prevalence would lead to an increase in people choosing the homosexual lifestyle whether they were born with the tendency or not. This is the problem.

I'd think instead of suffering coming from the 'sin' of any other kind of sexuality than the heteronormal view, suffering might come instead for people who are intolerant and unacceptable of anything they view as different from themselves and persecuting other groups. 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' sounds great in theory, not so much in practice. Perhaps one can help relieve suffering in the world before worrying about sin?

Alex, how long have you been a christian? I'd love to delve into some deep theology here with you, but if you're not able to understand it yet I can not. Your analysis of suffering is far from what my statement was. Sin leads to suffering, period. All sin, any sin. When you increase sin, you increase suffering. You can't have one without the other. I made no claim about who would suffer; everyone suffers because of sin. The more the sin, the more we suffer.

I'm kind of struggling here because I don't want to insult you, but many of the arguments you are making seem to be dogmatic and are non-specific arguments , which don't really apply to the discussions here. Yes, I've heard many arguments about homosexuality. Yes, I have been friends with many homosexuals. I have heard all of these arguments before. However, they don't really address the points I made.

NOTE: A Christian living in sin is far different from any one else living in sin. We are commanded to repent, to turn away. That is where choice comes. Nobody said it would be easy, but it is possible. I'm not asking, God isn't asking, people to all have heterosexual attractions. God is asking us to not follow through on homosexual attractions/desires. To not dwell on them, to not live our life embracing them.

 

[owyka]

Bonnie, allow me to slightly rephrase your statements below. Emphasis mine


Not founded on Christianity but certainly on Christian principles.. probably any of our founding fathers, even the ones who were not Christians, would be apalled at the idea of a mixed couple attending a prom It's not progress, it's degeneration.


Forget for a moment that you're talking about gay couples here and think instead of mixed couples between black and white people. I'm sorry, but you are making the same arguments people were making not too long ago as to why blacks should be second class citizens. Should you be forced to look at mixed couples? How is that any different from a gay couple?
Also, do please remember that perhaps those gays don't have the same faith as you, and you can't restrict their freedoms because your religion tells you their behavior is inappropriate, when they might not subscribe to your religion. If they ARE christian, don't you think they're well aware of the fact the Bible says their behavior is sinful by now?
As for political correctness, I think it is about on the same level as denouncing people for their skin color, as it rightly should be.



Do remember that you can read the Bible in private all you want, so can teachers, but you cannot in state-sponsored public schools be led by a teacher (a figure of authority representing the government) to endorse a religious behavior. That teacher might organize a bible meeting after school hours and say rent a room just the same as any other organizations would like to rent the school, but he cannot have any special privileges because he is a teacher at that school.
If something is offensive to you, I'm sorry, but tough. You have no right to censor others because you don't like something. I personally find gross stupidity offensive (NOT saying you are stupid, far from it) but that doesn't mean I'm going to say people are only allowed to be stupid in private. You have no right not to be offended. You go out in public, you have exactly the same rights as any other individual.


People shouldn't be subjected to the constant obnoxious message that they are sinners in the eyes of God and are going to hell as a result of it. Christians are allowed to air their messages and promote their values in public, and so is everyone else. You cannot silence a minority because you don't agree with them.
Also, would you please present evidence other than what is in the Bible that homosexuality is not normal nor fine?
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Psychomom

I'm sorry, because the Bible-thumping Republicans don't have an agenda?
There is also a difference between being accepting and tolerant of other people's beliefs, and letting the Christian majority get away with special privileges. As for God saying being black is not a sin, the Mormons do. Do you think we should respect the Mormon's faith and let them enslave black people because it expressively allows them to in their holy book? Come to think of it, that is also allowed in the Bible's Old Testament...
It would make people uncomfortable, I agree, and that would be a con. However, that is in no way shape or form a valid reason for trying to ban the practice or suppress a gay/LGBTQ person's rights. If Muslims told you that a woman not wearing a veil is disrespectful to their beliefs, do you think we should force women to wear the veil? How is this any different from Christians and LGBTQ people?



Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first amendment of your Constitution? Saying your because I'm Canadian, and we have a Charter of Rights and Freedom, basically the same thing with a different name I think.
And you can argue all you want, but it's beyond reasonable doubt that the founding fathers did NOT want to establish a christian nation.


To all, I'm not attacking your beliefs or saying that they are stupid in any ways, I'm saying it is perfectly all right and reasonable for you as individuals to hold these private convictions. However, the moment you wish to apply those convictions to the public sphere, you'll need a lot more and much better arguments to get there. I also wish to point out that gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2003, and gay rights is very much a non-issue here. People who don't like homosexuality are not homosexual, and people who do are. LGBTQ don't go out of their way to piss off people, and the people who don't like LGBTQ don't go out of their way to take their rights away. Live and let live, don't like it don't do it, do unto others as you would have done unto you, and don't assume everyone has the same morals as you do.

I think you need to read your bible welll to a level of understanding cause you are trying to defend the right of gay but i must tell you, you can't justify sin with explanation sin is sin and they are bad influence to the society. Be careful what you say.
SHALLOM

 

[bonnie2]

Alex, how long have you been a christian? I'd love to delve into some deep theology here with you, but if you're not able to understand it yet I can not. Your analysis of suffering is far from what my statement was. Sin leads to suffering, period. All sin, any sin. When you increase sin, you increase suffering. You can't have one without the other. I made no claim about who would suffer; everyone suffers because of sin. The more the sin, the more we suffer.

I'm kind of struggling here because I don't want to insult you, but many of the arguments you are making seem to be dogmatic and are non-specific arguments , which don't really apply to the discussions here. Yes, I've heard many arguments about homosexuality. Yes, I have been friends with many homosexuals. I have heard all of these arguments before. However, they don't really address the points I made.

NOTE: A Christian living in sin is far different from any one else living in sin. We are commanded to repent, to turn away. That is where choice comes. Nobody said it would be easy, but it is possible. I'm not asking, God isn't asking, people to all have heterosexual attractions. God is asking us to not follow through on homosexual attractions/desires. To not dwell on them, to not live our life embracing them.

You do seem a little condescending here just saying. And he's not a Christian lol

 

[Alex314]

Most of what you say here makes sense. Although I disagree with your view of homosexuality, I realize that it is probably unrealistic to restrict gay couples from attending prom in today's society. However, that fact makes me sad.. and scared that we are becoming so accepting of it as a nation! I don't agree that it's like desegregation of blacks and whites.. apples and oranges.. black people aren't choosing to sin by being black obviously, and I believe homosexuality has to be a choice.

Homosexual people are not choosing their orientation either. Telling LGBTQ people not to act on their feelings would be akin to tell black people not to act on feelings that would lead to mixed couples. Love is love is love. I understand that you may not like homosexual acts, but I don't understand why or how it scares you.
As for homosexuality being a choice, I think this link might help you a bit: Newsvine - Homosexuality, It's Not a Choice.
People do not choose their sexual orientation. Gay people did not choose to be homosexual any more than you chose to be heterosexual. You are simply attracted to people of the opposite gender, is all. Same for people with same-sex attraction. I personally know someone who came to within an inch of suicide because she was being bullied and psychologically abused by people around her, because she was bisexual and confused about her sexuality. The only thing that stopped her from killing herself is that she didn't have the energy to go in the kitchen, grab a knife, and end it all. Why on earth would she choose to b gay if it was so hard? She didn't, it was never a choice, nor was it her choice say to be blonde or to have brown eyes or to be right-handed. Telling people it's a choice and punishing them because they're making the wrong one is a wrong behavior, it only serves to increase the problem and end more lives.

Otherwise how could God have commanded us not to have sex with the same gender? Do you believe in God and if so, do you believe He has a right to make the rules?

Do also remember that God has commanded people to do a lot of things in Leviticus, such as not eating shellfish (shrimp, lobster, crab, and a lot of seafood) or wearing clothes of mixed fiber. If you're going to take homosexuality literally in Leviticus, you have to take the rest seriously too.
Do also remember that God has ordered people not to relieve themselves sexually when they are alone, despite NO evidence showing that such a behavior is bad, and MUCH evidence showing that sexual deprivation and denial of one's sexual nature is unhealthy. People do not have a choice to have sexual urges, yet God commands us not to obey them and not to feel them. That's not a choice any more than being gay is.

Ah, just saw all your -ists. Nevermind.

I don't understand???

You believe John 13:34 but not the rest of the Bible?

I don't think the Bible is divinely inspired any more than the hundreds of other holy books written in human history. I don't need to think the Bible is divinely inspired to see the good messages in it, and that allows me also to see the bad messages in the Bible also. 'Love one another as I have loved you' is a powerful and beautiful message, and much good would come to the world if people followed this more closely. I don't need to be religious to see that.
I'm curious o you follow every word written in the Bible? If not, how do you choose which to follow and which not to?

 

[bonnie2]

I don't understand???

Lol. On your profile you said you're an atheist/ agnostic, etc.

 

[Alex314]

Alex - you are dead wrong about one thing: Your lifestyle is ALWAYS a choice. I made no claim about whether homosexual tendencies were a choice or not. That said, even if homosexual tendencies are something someone is born with, the increased prevalence would lead to an increase in people choosing the homosexual lifestyle whether they were born with the tendency or not. This is the problem.

Ah, yes, then I would agree with you. While same-sex attraction is not a choice, one can choose to act upon it or not. I agree. However, that does not mean that I agree with the rest of your reasoning.
I would say though that there is no reason why someone who is not homosexual would choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. The only increase in people living a homosexual lifestyle would be people who are gay and choose to live accordingly, and all the people who have been deluding themselves into thinking they can makes themselves straight if they ignore their feelings who would stop and follow their feelings. The ONLY increase would be of homosexual people choosing to be homosexual.

Alex, how long have you been a christian? I'd love to delve into some deep theology here with you, but if you're not able to understand it yet I can not. Your analysis of suffering is far from what my statement was. Sin leads to suffering, period. All sin, any sin. When you increase sin, you increase suffering. You can't have one without the other. I made no claim about who would suffer; everyone suffers because of sin. The more the sin, the more we suffer.

Technically I've been christian my whole life (baptized and confirmed) but in reality, I have never once had faith, I just didn't know I was an atheist
If you wish to go in deep theology, go ahead! I'll tell you if I can't follow or if I don't understand
I would disagree with the absolutist statement that sin leads to suffering. If relieving oneself (masturbation) is a sin, then not being sinful can lead to a lot of tension and anguish. There is a lot of research showing that sexual development is a normal part of the human body, and denying those needs can be harmful, whereas there is no documented harmful reasons associated with masturbation.
I would also like to show that increase in sin = increase in suffering is not always correct. Murder is sin, and I agree it brings a LOT of suffering. Yet, would the murder of say Hitler or Stalin actually increase the suffering in the world, if they were to be killed before they could murder millions? This is a reason why I dislike the religious mentality, in that everything must be black or white, either/or, when there is an infinite amount of grey areas everywhere in our lives. Your statement that increase in sin = increase in suffering can go against the principle of reducing suffering for all, by not allowing any kind of nuance.

I'm kind of struggling here because I don't want to insult you, but many of the arguments you are making seem to be dogmatic and are non-specific arguments , which don't really apply to the discussions here. Yes, I've heard many arguments about homosexuality. Yes, I have been friends with many homosexuals. I have heard all of these arguments before. However, they don't really address the points I made.

Go ahead if you wish, and don't worry Apparently I'm very hard to anger. The fact you show concern in not wanting to insult me tells me you are a good person who worries about others, not a prick who goes around pissing people off for the fun of it. So no worries
If my argments sound dogmatic and/or non-specific, do point them out to me I'll either clarify, correct, or retract statements as need be, and change my position accordingly.
What point did you make that I missed? I'm not sure I understand. Was it about the prom thing? If so, I agree with pretty much everything you've said so far, that's why I didn't have much to comment about

NOTE: A Christian living in sin is far different from any one else living in sin. We are commanded to repent, to turn away. That is where choice comes. Nobody said it would be easy, but it is possible. I'm not asking, God isn't asking, people to all have heterosexual attractions. God is asking us to not follow through on homosexual attractions/desires. To not dwell on them, to not live our life embracing them.

I understand what you mean, and if you restrict that position to christian people, or simply to yourself, then I agree. I do not agree if such a principle is meant to be applied to everyone regardless of them being christian or not.
As for people all having heterosexual attractions, not all people have them. Just saying
Kinsey scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for not embracing those behaviors, except for what is written in Leviticus, I don't see many valid personal reasons not to. I mean, if homosexuality being an abomination is the only reason one isn't gay, then he/she shouldn't eat shellfish and wear clothes made of mixed fibers also, no?

I think you need to read your bible welll to a level of understanding cause you are trying to defend the right of gay but i must tell you, you can't justify sin with explanation sin is sin and they are bad influence to the society. Be careful what you say.
SHALLOM

I admit that I haven't read the Bible cover to cover, and that is one of my projects for this and/or next summer.
I would disagree with your statements that sin is sin, inevitably leads to a bad influence and cannot be justified with explanations. If that were so, then slavery would still be present today. I agree that a person's belief is personal, however no matter what any religious book says, I prefer to look at worldly evidence (the suffering of homosexual people due to peer pressure, and the fact homosexual feelings aren't a choice, for example) to see what works and what doesn't.
By the way, what flag is that? I don't recognize it.

Huh, Alex, I had no idea about that. That actually sounds like a really good reason. Guess I was wrong. XD

Thanks Youngman! That's a refreshing difference from some of the other forums I had been going to

 

[Alex314]

Lol. On your profile you said you're an atheist/ agnostic, etc.

Ah ok Yeah, the fun thing with the religious people is that all values come in a great big bag, sort of like an 'all included' deal. For the not so religious, you've got to go out and find out what are the terms that describe your positions individually, because there's no 'all included' position anymore

 

[bonnie2]

Homosexual people are not choosing their orientation either. Telling LGBTQ people not to act on their feelings would be akin to tell black people not to act on feelings that would lead to mixed couples. Love is love is love. I understand that you may not like homosexual acts, but I don't understand why or how it scares you.
As for homosexuality being a choice, I think this link might help you a bit: Newsvine - Homosexuality, It's Not a Choice.
People do not choose their sexual orientation. Gay people did not choose to be homosexual any more than you chose to be heterosexual. You are simply attracted to people of the opposite gender, is all. Same for people with same-sex attraction. I personally know someone who came to within an inch of suicide because she was being bullied and psychologically abused by people around her, because she was bisexual and confused about her sexuality. The only thing that stopped her from killing herself is that she didn't have the energy to go in the kitchen, grab a knife, and end it all. Why on earth would she choose to b gay if it was so hard? She didn't, it was never a choice, nor was it her choice say to be blonde or to have brown eyes or to be right-handed. Telling people it's a choice and punishing them because they're making the wrong one is a wrong behavior, it only serves to increase the problem and end more lives.

Do also remember that God has ordered people not to relieve themselves sexually when they are alone, despite NO evidence showing that such a behavior is bad, and MUCH evidence showing that sexual deprivation and denial of one's sexual nature is unhealthy. People do not have a choice to have sexual urges, yet God commands us not to obey them and not to feel them. That's not a choice any more than being gay is.

Hm, you are probably right about natural attractions to people of the same gender.
I'm curious, where do you see that the Bible says that about relieving oneself..? I have never found it, but I do believe that we are not to do that because of more general commands about lust and sex outside of marriage.

Luke 9:23 And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

I believe that God's way is better. It's hard but there is great joy in denying one's self and misery in going my own way. I know this from experience. I believe it would be the same way for a homosexual.

 

[bonnie2]

I would disagree with the absolutist statement that sin leads to suffering. If relieving oneself (masturbation) is a sin, then not being sinful can lead to a lot of tension and anguish. There is a lot of research showing that sexual development is a normal part of the human body, and denying those needs can be harmful, whereas there is no documented harmful reasons associated with masturbation.
I would also like to show that increase in sin = increase in suffering is not always correct. Murder is sin, and I agree it brings a LOT of suffering. Yet, would the murder of say Hitler or Stalin actually increase the suffering in the world, if they were to be killed before they could murder millions? This is a reason why I dislike the religious mentality, in that everything must be black or white, either/or, when there is an infinite amount of grey areas everywhere in our lives. Your statement that increase in sin = increase in suffering can go against the principle of reducing suffering for all, by not allowing any kind of nuance.

I disagree that it brings tension and anguish. If you stop for only a short time it does but it gets easier and there is great freedom in not having to do thatl. I can't help feeling that it would be the same way for gay people even though I've never experienced that.