Essay on homosexuality in religion

Male love and desire for sex was a common erotic and affectional ground for males, a territory that was shared equally by men who did not have a desire for sex with female, and the rest of the male, who were having a desire for males, was a chance for them to get attracted. The traditions suggested that the excluded heterosexuality is just but a convection of latest vintage, based on the refusal of one’s own potential strength of homosexuality. There was some difference between present and past construction of men love and desire for homosexuality as it was highlighted by the Zeus and Ganymede culture and traditions.

One of these differences of between the present and the past homosexuality highlighted by the Zeus and Ganymede is the blend of culture, history, and religion that disclosed homosexuality in antiquity, the final outcome of several evolution years as well as the continuing process. However, the edifice was destroyed and the continuation of the evolution tradition was shortened in the West by the deformation of Greco-Roman westernization and the existence of love-life illegality grounded on religious dogma (Sarrel, 1980). The rituals and structure of homosexuality in antiquity evoke modern custom with evolutions that was not disturbed, such the one that are associated with marriages between a woman and a man. Another strong attribute of a living culture and tradition are formal legitimization and sanction, attribute that gay individuals fight hard to reclaim through their struggle for marriage rights. The popularity and longevity of the Ganymede and Zeus technical validates such as hard work, emphasizing that formalization of lesbianism and homosexuality is beneficial and possible, and can have a nomenclature of their own (Sarrel, 1980).

Paul’s reference was very important to the Romans, especially the references to “ male who practice sex with another male” and “ male who play the female sexual role” This text is comparable with the case incest at Corinth. Paul argues that the believers at Corinth are not supposed to deceive themselves: believers who are active unrepentant and serial fashion in idolatry e. g. participants in incest, prostitutes, gay, and adulterers. There are also a number of reasonable texts that implicitly or explicitly indicate condemnation of same-sex intercourse, noting little doubt that that condemnation was the consensus existence of both Testaments, as well as those of historical communities that Paul’s text arose.

Paul’s writings do not evidence the condemnation of Greco Romans same sex practices in that Jewish culture and tradition was opposed to homosexuality. The Jews’ extra-biblical sources and Scriptures did. However Paul did not just imposed Jewish culture onto the world of the Greek Romans. This is contrary to some values and affirmations that his (Paul) argument from the nature is connected neither to beliefs of natural law nor to the creations stated in Genesis. The book of Genesis does not say anything about homosexuality or even homosexual Behavior. Paul is therefore wrong on both accounts (Sarrel, 1980). Boswell went further to say that ‘ nature’ is an immoral thing according to Paul. Male may be good or evil by nature, though it depends on their deposition. However, after a thorough study, some philosophers such as DeYoung concluded that the term ‘ homosexuality’ have a perception of what is different and natural to many people. Nature according to the Romans implies to Biblical proscriptions of immorality and Homosexual Behavior.

Traditional commentators go further to argue that the sexuality condemnation is derived from Paul’s argument. Those who practiced homosexuality had a view that Paul’s text portrays condemnation homosexuality by homosexuals, rather than ‘’ homosexual acts done by heterosexual people’’. Some of the Jewish such as Boswell argued that the conceptual modality that could provide the rate of homosexual condemnation. The cults of Antinous strengthen Christianity in that his acknowledgement or worship was widespread beyond the territories and the city of Rome. As a result of this, Antinous is perceived as among the best-preserved faces from the old world (Sarrel, 1980). In 1998 there was a discovery of the remains of Antinous’ monumental tomb, or a discovery of his temple. The cult of Antinous was often condemned by catholic churches in Rome. It was viewed as both a celebration of homosexuality and blasphemy.

Athenians referred Antinous as the strong Christian who could communicate with God on behalf of the worshipers. After his death people goes to his tomb to offer sacrifices. He will be praised and glorified as the artesian who could respond to Thoth in his glory (Sarrel, 1980). Antinous goes out to rich several temples of the whole land; he gives requests to those who sought for him and he cures diseases by sending dreams to the sick, and punished those who practice immorality such as homosexuality and heterosexuality

An exegetical and contextual examination Roman books shows that attempts by some writers to avoid Paul’s prohibition against current and same-sex relationships are not true (Sarrel, 1980). Paul did not introduce Jewish customs and a tradition to readers instead of emphasizing on same-sex relationships from the God’s created order. Paul did also describe same-sex acts by heterosexuals.

References:

Sarrel, L. Sexual unfolding. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980.