Do Christians and God LOVE homosexuals?

My Dad made me a lesbian questioning her identity, while my Mother just stood by.

Does the Christian God of the Bible send gay people to hell?

Silk mylk's marketed to?

(Bible Animations) The God Jehovah (YHWH, Yahweh, Asherah's husband) hates gays, right? Homosexuality is an "abomination" to the almighty. We all know that. But that was the old Christianity. What's the new spin in the age of LGBTQIA+ rights? Same old gay hatred but using nicer and more inclusive words and pronouns? Do we let lesbianism and bisexuality slide but condemn male homosexuality, unless it's child molestation in which case we give fathers and priests (both patriarchs, who are the foundation of our Patriarchy) a big pass? Right, Padre? Right, Pope? Catholics have much to answer for in this respect, whereas Protestants mainly molest their own children rather than their neighbor's kids, right, relative to non-incest cases, when Mormons and all sects are added up.

TIMESTAMPS

• 0:12 - Is Being Gay a Sin?
• 1:47 - What is the outcome for those who act on their homosexuality?
• 2:01 - What does God think of gay people?
• 2:49 - What do good Christians think of gay people?
• 3:34 - Why do Christians care about the gay marriage debate?

Got any tough topics to have covered or answered the Bible Animation way? Send a comment. Sub Count: 7,475 #homosexuality #pridemonth #jesus

What about Buddhism?

Buddhism loves gays. Which is not to say that all Buddhists do. Buddhists are not told to hate gays or homosexuality. But the patriarchs (apart from the Japanese Zen ones and others who practiced or advocated pederasty, a kind of homosexual child molestation made famous by the ancient Greeks and, it would seem, the Muslim Pashtuns in Afghanistan) seem to love them.

Ancient scholar-monks may have been less favorably disposed to any non-normative "gay" practices, particularly cross-dressing, which in many countries around the world was a stoning offense. The wrinkle is that "homosexual" is not actually a perfectly defined term. It is, and just ask any gay person or social science buff, a social construct.

That means it is socially constructed by implicit bias and made into a consensus reality. Once it gets to that point, it seems like a natural category and we say and honestly believe that "everybody knows what it means."

But this is just not true. There is no fixed definition of "gay," even now. Do an experiment. Ask around. Go to Brazil or an American prison and ask them what "gay" means. The answer may shock you until you realize that the self-serving definition they're using is pretty popular around the world and throughout history. It may even make one wonder what definition one has been using all this time.

Isn't effeminate behavior "gay"? No, of course not. One can lisp, droop the wrists, talk in a high-pitched, whining, or singsongy way all one wants. That doesn't make one "gay." It may earn them the title. But surely homosexuality has to do with sexual behavior and desire, not one's choice of wardrobe. But because we cannot see their internal states or past conduct, we simply infer it.

What is "gay" in Brazil, parts of Europe such as Greece, and in American prisons? Making love to men? Nope. (Huh?!) Getting aroused by males and their openings and then raping them? Nope. (Say what?!) Wanting to be with a member of the same sex in a sexual way to satisfy some sexual urge? Nope. (You gotta be kidding!) A man knowing another man biblically? Nope. (Goddammit, that must be it?!) A male placing his aroused sexual organ into another male -- by force, trickery, implied threat, or financial compulsion -- with the intent of sexual pleasure that consummates in a futile procreative act? Nope. (Aw, you gotta be kidding?!)

"Gay" in Greece and some other parts of Europe, Brazil and many parts of Latin America, and throughout the American prison system means, get this, "being on the bottom." What?? Being the receptive partner makes one "gay" or developing feelings of attachment and puppy love or going about acting weak, receptive, effeminate, or insufficiently masculine and tough?

For example, in Brazil, go to the beach where all the beautiful people are, with stunningly attractive women are wearing bikinis and showing off their Brazilian hair removal, and ask the men hitting on them if they also want to have sex with males and boys walking around the beach. They're likely to say yes, in this way showing off their masculinity or machismo. Now ask if they want males having sex with them, and the answer is likely to be disbelief or something like, "What do you think I am, a 'gay'?"

But you just said you want to have sex with guys. "Yeah," they will explain, "but I want to be on top." This means they want to be aroused, active, and have agency, which will make them -- by this popular definition of "gay" -- perfectly "straight." In fact, ask the women, and they are likely to agree that only receivers are "gay," whereas as givers are even more "macho" for being indiscriminate sodomites, rapists, molesters, and virile givers.

It's the same in prison, where everything is perverted and topsy turvy in distinction to the world and mores outside the prison. The same in Greece. It's almost certainly the same in some parts of Afghanistan where foreign Pashtuns have settled and brought their own mores and ideas. See the practice that horrified American soldiers fighting for capitalism and world domination during the 20-year US War on Afghanistan called sex with "dancing lady boys" (bacha bazi) or "boy play."

There are girls they could be molesting, but they prefer to trick, force, or hire boys to dress as girls and then be passed around by normatively "heterosexual" men whose wives and daughters are home as they drink, sing, and have a gay night out with the boys (their peers) and their victims.

If we say "bitch" or "punk" in prison and subsequently in the ghetto, barrio, and machine shop or blue-collar workplace where whites on parole congregate, these terms do not refer to females so much as "weak" males, victims, receivers, prostitutes, gays, and those who were sexually abused or about to be sexually assaulted by "straight" gay manly men.

Therefore, as in ancient times, the Buddhist scholars, particularly the most famous one of all named Buddhaghosa (the "ghost or voice of the Buddha") wrestled with the catchall term pandaka. In a kind way we could translate this strange term as "pansexual," but the traditional rendering has been more akin to "pervert." And one did not need to be "gay" to be labeled one.

• "Gay" as we have been using the term to far has the functional definition, for this purpose and saying nothing about its changing nature and definition, of a member of one biological sex (XX or XY or an anomaly such as an intersex or hermaphroditic individual)
• Bible Animations, June 17, 2023; CC Liu, Sheldon S., Seth Auberon (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly