GAY Marriage: a VERY-Religious discussion

[radamanthys]

Marriage, being a religious institution, means that the debate is, in fact, 100% religious. What the real focus should be (and the religious side has marketed this beautifully) is the separation of church and state. Argue it all you want, this is a secular nation that is primarily Protestant Christian.

I say marketed beautifully because the only substatial evidence against homosexuality is in Leviticus 20:13... If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Anyway... like Martin Luther reformed Catholicism into Protestantism because of its flaws, Jesus reformed Judaism. That fire and brimstone stuff from the old testament was forgiven and absolved, showing the "nicer" side of god. The sins and stuff that were written as law in the old testament were supposed to be forgiven by the death of Christ.


Christ died for the sins laid out in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is an Old Testament sin. How is chastising homosexuals not showing a lack of faith in Christ?

[TheEschaton]

You offer some good ideas, but I believe most "The Bible condemns gays" people also throw a little bit of the Pauline epistles in there as well. I believe there's a few passages where the KJV translates the Greek as "those who lie with men" from the original wording which was "those who are perverse". This is literally a literal, textual debate - how you interpret it changes what the message is. Frankly, I'm of the belief that since the Greeks had vocabulary for homosexuality (as it was widely practiced) and there's no indication Paul was trying to use those words, he means perversion.

There's a more nuanced debate on why homosexuality isn't a sin in Christianity, which is based on actual Catholic theology, but I think it's pretty given it isn't very biblical based - the surprising bit is that it isn't supported by the theology the Vatican supposedly endorses.

-TheE-

[Stretch]

People are quick to hate and condemn anything that is different from them.

I'm more than slightly disgusted at the xenophobia that still permeates the United States.

Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...different ends of the spectrum. They all have one thing in common: it's easier to shirk from responsibility and place blame than to truly promote progress.

[Latrinsorm]

Frankly, I'm of the belief that since the Greeks had vocabulary for homosexuality (as it was widely practiced) and there's no indication Paul was trying to use those words, he means perversion.It's not a question of belief. Paul was specifically referring to those elder men who dallied with catamites. There can't really be any factual debate on this any more than we can debate what a person from antiquity intends by "tree" or "wife" (which, amazingly, has happened here).

As an aside, that particular tidbit of Paul is an interesting counterpoint to people who find it so distressing for the Catholic Church to dictate matters of sexuality.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the very recently prevalent notions of complentarity go back to Aristotle, it seems everything else scientific does.

[radamanthys]

Don't forget Farrakan.
That was a great comment, btw.


BTW, TheE/Latrin, am I right in thinking that the sins of the Old Testament were all absolved? My old bible study (i've since developed a bunch of my own ideas and grown a bit removed from the dogma of the church) is getting a little lax over the years. I believe that was the idea within Faith though, right?

Do you think it negates faith in the Christ by doubting His ability to absolve even carnal sins such as that? I mean, morality is morality is morality, and what's sin is sin...

[TheEschaton]

translation into English?

I've no problem with the Bible saying its wrong for grown men to sleep with boys - that's a pedophilia thing (ironic, innit?) and a form of perversion. There's no textual basis for homosexuality being a sin.

Just like there's no textual basis for women not being priests.

Just like there's no textual basis for priests being celibate.

When it comes to sex, sexuality, and gender, the Church just makes shit up, Latrin. Face it. ;)

-TheE-

[radamanthys]

What's complentarity?

[TheEschaton]

The idea of Christ abolishing the Old Testament is a troubling one, as Xtians still hold the OT relevant. The way I think about it is this - the OT is literally the old law, and Christ is the new law which replaces the old law, but is still built on the foundation of the old law.

Think of it like the Constitution. The original document is important, but some parts were whack. Which is why Jesus came around, passed some Amendments. But there's still relevance to the original Constitution in general, though the Amendments hold precedent over the subjects where the two overlap.

But that isn't even entirely accurate. There's an implication that the things the OT covers in its laws in Leviticus, etc, which aren't covered in the NT (which is a lot) must still be viewed through the lens of the general ideals Christ embodied - unconditional love, joy, and servitude.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

WWJD

[radamanthys]

Christ lived free of sin, and to best have faith, it is best to emulate his sin-free lifestyle. However... that's what's best, and not requisite in order to get into heaven.

1 John, Chapter 3
15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
16: Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

[TheEschaton]

But Christ also never implied sex was a sin.

Perversion is a sin. Not sex in and of itself. I think JC would say sex within a loving relationship != sin.

-TheE-

[Back]

Leviticus had serious issues.

[Gan]

What if your basic premise that marriage is primarily a religious institution, is wrong?

If its a religious institution, then why do you need the sanctity of contract by a government official from a government office?

With that flaw in your basic premise, all your religiosity kind of falls apart...

[Jolena]

Not to mention, a 'religious institution' is used by the government to determine if you get tax benefits, for spousal rights, insurance, and all kinds of other very non-religious issues. It is hardly 100% a religious issue.

[Tsa`ah]

You have to separate your foundations here.

Your OT and NT may be intermeshed, but sin, original sin and all of that are Christian notions ... not of of Jewish origins.

That aside, I usually stand by this premise ...

Anyone using Kashrut law as an argument against homosexuality ... and doesn't follow Kashrut law to the letter .... needs to shut the fuck up. Religious texts are not cafeteria arguments. It's either take it all or leave it alone.

To make it clear for those who may not understand Kashrut law. You can't use homosexuality is an abomination (male homosexuality because women aren't mentioned) if you cut the hair from your temples, work on the sabbath (and I don't mean sunday), eat unclean foods, get a weekly paycheck (instead of getting paid daily) .... the list is long. You live by it or you can't hide behind it.

The notions that marriage is a religious institution became debatable the moment marriage was recognized by law. At that point it could be argued that marriage religious and legal bonding or a strictly legal bonding.

Since our constitution can't recognize any 1 religion over the other, the law will recognize a marriage performed by a church or court. The simple out for recognized gay marriage is to let the churches decide what they will recognize, and our courts to recognize any marriage.

The churches can denounce gay marriage all they want ... let gay people get married by churches that do recognize them ... or in the courthouse.

[Latrinsorm]

When it comes to sex, sexuality, and gender, the Church just makes shit up, Latrin.Doesn't that feel a little ad hoc to say? Everybody's got reasons.

Jesus is very specific about the OT. He explicitly says that "not one stroke of one letter" of the Law will be done away with, and further that anyone who says so is a bit of a peckerhead etc. etc. However, we all know that Jesus doesn't do things the OT way. An example of this is the whole anti-divorce thing, which happens to come up in the same speech as the not one letter shebang. That's a puzzling juxtaposition until we take the teachings of Jesus as a cohesive whole rather than isolated snippets: In another passage Jesus rails against (who else) the Pharisees for holding the traditions of men as the Law. He is not pleased by this, as you may imagine. Thus, the answer is that not all of the OT is the Law. It's gotten muddled (in the case of divorce, due to the hardness of the Israelites' hearts). Jesus shows us the Way (the Truth) and we can figure out which parts of the OT went awry: any part that directly contradicts Jesus, for sure.

As a topical for instance, Jesus loves everybody, so any passage that seems to say not to love someone must fall in the tradition and not the Law category or be misunderstood (as with Paul and the catamites).
am I right in thinking that the sins of the Old Testament were all absolved?There's a (rare) beautiful passage from Paul describing how all high priests before Jesus were men and therefore not perfect, but Jesus as the perfect high priest made the perfect sacrifice and everything was good forever. I don't have a Bible or citation handy, unfortunately. I'll try to grab one tomorrow.

That said, the whole point of Jesus is to not think of things in terms of sin and absolution. The Christian (as in of Christ) God is not a utilitarian, jotting down every bad thing and good thing you do and seeing how you balance out on the whole. The main focus is reconciliation, not restitution. Tax collectors weren't outcast just for the heck of it, they were government-endorsed thieves and traitors to their people. It's hard to overstate how monumental Jesus' behavior towards them was.
What's complentarity?That should say complementarity, my mistake. It's the theological basis for no gay marriage in the Roman Catholic Church, and it's eroding as we speak(/type).
Religious texts are not cafeteria arguments. It's either take it all or leave it alone.This is a fundamental misunderstanding that I hope was addressed in the above paragraph, though I recognize that you'll probably just snort rhetoric and cusses at it.

[Drew]

Frankly, I'm of the belief that since the Greeks had vocabulary for homosexuality (as it was widely practiced)

Slightly off topic, the Greeks didn't really practice homosexuality, they practiced men sleeping with boys or, seldom, other men. Our modern concept of homosexuality would be completely alien to them.

[StrayRogue]

The Roman's did too.

[Bartlett]

Christ is the fulfillment of the law. As was mentioned, he was the sacrifice. Many sins of the old testament are carried over and mentioned in the new testament. The main difference is, the Jews got their salvation from obeying the law to the letter and making sacrifices for when they fell short. The sacrifices for when we fall short are no longer necessary, because it has been made. Fleeing from sin is still something that we need to do.

It is a popular Christian belief that we can indulge ourselves in a sinful life after reaching salvation and still get to heaven. This is a major point that creates athiests and, unfortunately, fools many Christians. While all sin is regarded the same way, how it is applied can be different. The Bible doesn't say someone who stole one thing in their life will not inherit the kingdom of God, is says thieves, which imply to me a lifestyle that is chosen in disobedience to God. Homosexuality, while a sin like any other, often includes marching bands and parades of how proud they are to be gay. Whether or not a church should accept homosexuality as being right is a whole different discussion, but the short answer is no. Whether or not the church should accept homosexuals as sinners who need Christ requires no thought, and the answer is yes.

[StrayRogue]

The thing is, Homosexuality has been around for longer than Christianity.

[Nieninque]

Asking if homosexuality is "right" makes as much sense as asking if water is "right".

[CrystalTears]

Bartlett babble
You really need to stop while you're this behind. Seriously.

[AestheticDeath]

Asking if homosexuality is "right" makes as much sense as asking if water is "right".

That doesn't even make sense. Water is required to stay alive. Homosexuality is not.

[Nieninque]

I didnt say "water is needed", I said "water is right".

Some things just are.

[AestheticDeath]

You are also then, stating that homosexuality is right?

So since there are homosexuals, there should be no question of if its right or wrong?

In that case there are alot of murderers out there, that really shouldn't be labeled as wrong, or criminals.

Or am I still missing the point you are making?

[Nieninque]

You are also then, stating that homosexuality is right?

No, Im saying it just is.
Im saying that trying to determine if it is right or wrong is a stupid as trying to determine if water is right or wrong.


So since there are homosexuals, there should be no question of if its right or wrong?

In that case there are alot of murderers out there, that really shouldn't be labeled as wrong, or criminals.

Or am I still missing the point you are making?

If you cant see the difference between a homosexual and a murderer then there is clearly no point trying to enlighten you any further.

[Gan]

You are also then, stating that homosexuality is right?

So since there are homosexuals, there should be no question of if its right or wrong?

In that case there are alot of murderers out there, that really shouldn't be labeled as wrong, or criminals.

Or am I still missing the point you are making?

You're using the "it exists therefore it is" argument... or restating it.

The real question is, who or what determines that its right or wrong? Individual man (Darwin)? Society? Government? God? And based on what logic or principal?

[Tsa`ah]

She's not saying it's "right".

Her analogy is understandable as posted ... it's not right, nor is it wrong ... it's normal ... it ... just .... is.

It's no more "right" or "wrong" than heterosexuality. Sexual acts can be right or wrong when one or more people aren't consenting, able to give concent, or not mature enough to give concent. But sexuality in and of it's self is not wrong no matter what gender preference.


This is a fundamental misunderstanding that I hope was addressed in the above paragraph, though I recognize that you'll probably just snort rhetoric and cusses at it.

Hahahahahaha ..... hahahahahahahaha .... hahahahahahahahaha .... wheeeze .... hahahahahaha .... hahahahaha.

You're telling me that your savior pretty much said "pick and choose whatever you will from my words and the words of old to support your flimsy arguments and petty bigotry".

The misunderstanding is not on my part. I know the laws and lived by them for the first 20 years of my life. I may not know how your Christ enables you to use passages of Kashrut Law to condemn homosexuality ... but I do know that using one law to condemn it means you follow the laws to the letter (sans the killing) or you're just using the law to hide your own bigotry.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what Christ said and exactly how that allows any religious entity to condemn homosexuality, because right now I can only think of about 100-500k people on the face of this planet that are able to say "it says male homosexuality is wrong right here and it describes the punishment we must carry out" .... and not a single one of them are Christian.

[Latrinsorm]

Whether or not a church should accept homosexuality as being right is a whole different discussion, but the short answer is no.I'm pretty sure that's the whole point to this discussion. Why don't you lay it out and we'll see where it goes?
The thing is, Homosexuality has been around for longer than Christianity.Wow so has pedophilia. :jerkit:
If you cant see the difference between a homosexual and a murderer then there is clearly no point trying to enlighten you any further.If you can't see the difference between a homosexual and water then there is clearly no point trying to enlighten you any further.

Again, I really don't get the purpose of statements like that. Who exactly do you expect to convince? If you're not trying to convince anyone, why waste your energy? If you can't justify your position without basically saying "it's obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot", how can you hold it?

[TheEschaton]

Christ is the fulfillment of the law. As was mentioned, he was the sacrifice. Many sins of the old testament are carried over and mentioned in the new testament. The main difference is, the Jews got their salvation from obeying the law to the letter and making sacrifices for when they fell short. The sacrifices for when we fall short are no longer necessary, because it has been made. Fleeing from sin is still something that we need to do.

It is a popular Christian belief that we can indulge ourselves in a sinful life after reaching salvation and still get to heaven. This is a major point that creates athiests and, unfortunately, fools many Christians. While all sin is regarded the same way, how it is applied can be different. The Bible doesn't say someone who stole one thing in their life will not inherit the kingdom of God, is says thieves, which imply to me a lifestyle that is chosen in disobedience to God. Homosexuality, while a sin like any other, often includes marching bands and parades of how proud they are to be gay. Whether or not a church should accept homosexuality as being right is a whole different discussion, but the short answer is no. Whether or not the church should accept homosexuals as sinners who need Christ requires no thought, and the answer is yes.

which Church do you belong to? Because the RC has acknowledged the inherent nature of homosexuality is NOT a sin, but rather, how God made homosexuals (and the way God made you can never be a sin). They imply then that to act out on how God made you is a sin (IE, expressing your homosexuality) but I don't see the logical jump they're making. Homosexuality ISN'T a sin in the Catholic Church, it is a state of being, and furthermore, a God-made state of being, and therefore inherently CANNOT be bad. The Church would argue (and I would disagree) that the acting out on one's homosexuality is a sin.

Secondly, you talk about how we must flee from sin. Yet you are a police officer, if I'm not mistaken. Part of your job is to use violent force against criminals if need be. This is certainly not fleeing from sin in any sense of the word (you'd have some backup with "eye for an eye" if it was self-defense in the OT, but the NT's "turn the other cheek" would be in direct contradiction). However, it is the practical choice you make for living in the world we live in. When you turn your sword into a plowshare, then you can judge those who decide to express their God-given identity. ;)

Latrin, wanna explain how expressing one's God-given identity is a sin? How can homosexual love be a "disordered" love, if God created it? How can being yourself be a sin?

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Let's see, we've got some reiterated rhetoric:
but I do know that using one law to condemn it means you follow the laws to the letter (sans the killing) or you're just using the law to hide your own bigotry.I again must commend you on your restraint with regards to profanity, though. I think you've really turned a corner. :)
Perhaps you can explain exactly what Christ said and exactly how that allows any religious entity to condemn homosexualityI'm a little surprised that you would draw that from my posts, but not all that surprised. I'll post this again with a little more separation from the rest of the post.


"As a topical for instance, Jesus loves everybody, so any passage that seems to say not to love someone must fall in the tradition and not the Law category or be misunderstood (as with Paul and the catamites)."


Do you see now?

[Skeeter]

If you can't justify your position without basically saying "it's obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot", how can you hold it?

IRONY!

[Latrinsorm]

I wish people would stop posting 2 seconds before I do. :\
Latrin, wanna explain how expressing one's God-given identity is a sin? How can homosexual love be a "disordered" love, if God created it? How can being yourself be a sin?The RCC's theological justification comes down to complementarity, and like I said it's already on its way to being reformed (so to speak). Trying to recall the articles I've read, spiritual complementarity trumps biological complementarity, or something like that.
IRONY!Tut tut, I've never said that my positions are obvious on their face. Why do you think I bother with enormous splinter posts and clarifications? What I claim is that if we were behaving rationally we would have no compelling reason to disagree with a particular position.

[TheEschaton]

So the idea that there's a physical way God made us, and a spiritual way God makes us strive for, and our desire to be spiritually in line might mean denying our physical nature? Why would God create physical natures out of line with God's spiritual goals for human beings, then?

And I might remind you, as Roman Catholics, we, moreso than most, if not all Christian sects, emphasize the balance between both the divinity of Christ (and therefore his message) and the humanity of Christ.

-TheE-

[Skeeter]

What I claim is that if we were behaving rationally we would have no compelling reason to disagree with a particular position.

meaning my position is rational but since you don't agree with me your opinion is not. ie. the rational latrin argument.

[Stanley Burrell]

Latrin, wanna explain how expressing one's God-given identity is a sin? How can homosexual love be a "disordered" love, if God created it? How can being yourself be a sin?

Horned Jews and The Mark of the Beast, quite obviously. (http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/slcpunk/stillsclips/clip3.html)*

*SLC Punk! scene a bit NSFW. 'Ware ye ;)

[Skirmisher]

So we have one person saying homosexuality is like murder and one saying it's like pedophilia now.

Anyone else want to take a shot?

[Gan]

You're telling me that your savior pretty much said "pick and choose whatever you will from my words and the words of old to support your flimsy arguments and petty bigotry".

Its called Biblical Perforation. (rip out what you dont need)

Its a very popular movement with SBC Baptists (southern).

[Gan]

So we have one person saying homosexuality is like murder and one saying it's like pedophilia now.

Anyone else want to take a shot?

Shooting something already dead is just wasting ammo.

[Drew2]

If you can't see the difference between a homosexual and water then there is clearly no point trying to enlighten you any further.

Dude, you're retarded. By water, she could have said gender. Or the fact that the earth is not flat. Or the fact that you'll never get laid. All of these things just ARE.

The other guy who compared homosexuality to murder was being stupid too. He was relating something that IS to an action. A noun to a verb. Sure he said "murderers", but a murderer is only such after he has killed someone. I was homosexual before I had sex. The ACT of murder is a morality issue. BEING homosexual is not.

Sure you could throw out the ACT of (homosexual) sex is a morality issue, but you would have to bring religion into that argument, which is exactly what Nein was separating it from.

[Latrinsorm]

So the idea that there's a physical way God made us, and a spiritual way God makes us strive for, and our desire to be spiritually in line might mean denying our physical nature?Is this seriously in response to me? Do you even read my posts anymore? :(
So we have one person saying homosexuality is like murder and one saying it's like pedophilia now.Are you saying pedophilia doesn't occur in nature? It's a noun, Skirm, it just is.

I'm not anti-gay, I'm anti-faulty arguments. Stray's argument is faulty, as there's plenty of stuff that predates Christianity that nobody here is going to support. Nien's argument is faulty for essentially the same reason, reductio ad absurdum. Tsa`ah's argument that the OT is a package deal is faulty (for Christians) because Jesus said so.
meaning my position is rational but since you don't agree with me your opinion is not. ie. the rational latrin argument.Again, no. If "you" disagree without reason, that's irrational (by definition). If "you" have a reason but refuse to divulge or support it, that's also irrational (as I elaborated in my first post to Nieninque).

I hope that clears things up for you. :)

[StrayRogue]

You see it's moron's like Bartlett and Latrinstorm that seriously make me question religion and those that choose to follow it. Their narrow minded, judgemental and dogmatic beliefs leave no room for logic, fact or truth. People who think homosexuality to be a disease or ailment are just...well I can't even express how stupidly ignorant I think such people to be.

However I guess some people need that omnipotent Father figure telling them how to behave, and why you need to be good.

[Drew2]

Again, moron, pedophila is an ACT. Murder is an ACT. A pedophile isn't such until he has sex with a child. Unless we're labeling anyone who has thoughts of having sex with a child as a pedophile. But really, that crosses into a territory I don't want to touch (teehee).

A homosexual isn't a homosexual because he has thoughts of having sex with a man. He/she is one because they just are.

Wait, why am I even defending homosexuality versus pedophilia? Shut the fuck up. Seriously.

[StrayRogue]

Wait, why am I even defending homosexuality versus pedophilia? Shut the fuck up. Seriously.

Agreed x 1 billion.

[Drew]

The thing is, Homosexuality has been around for longer than Christianity.



No it hasn't. Men having sex with men has. But gay cohabitation is an idea that wasn't invented until recent modern times (1800s, maybe 1700s at the earliest). Since gay marriage deals with gay cohabitation, you are wrong here. Christianity has been around about 1800 years longer than homosexuality.

[Nieninque]

No it hasn't. Men having sex with men has.

That would generally be described as homosexuality.


But gay cohabitation is an idea that wasn't invented until recent modern times (1800s, maybe 1700s at the earliest). Since gay marriage deals with gay cohabitation, you are wrong here. Christianity has been around about 1800 years longer than homosexuality.

He said homosexuality, not gay marriage.

Keep up.

[Drew2]

Hell if all we have to do is stop calling it homosexuality for it to be perfectly acceptable and widley practiced, I'll jump on that bandwagon anytime.

[Methais]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVEc7ULzy4

"Queering doesn't make the world work."

Hard to argue with that.

[DeV]

Men having sex with men = homosexuality

[Nieninque]

No it hasn't. Men having sex with men has. But gay cohabitation is an idea that wasn't invented until recent modern times (1800s, maybe 1700s at the earliest). Since gay marriage deals with gay cohabitation, you are wrong here. Christianity has been around about 1800 years longer than homosexuality.

Just an afterthought, if you think that no same sex couples existed in any culture anywhere in the world before the 1700-1800's youre pretty stupid.

[Sean of the Thread]

Men having sex with men has.


= homosexuality

Let's not forget my favorite form of homosexuality = Women having sex with Women.

[Latrinsorm]

You see it's moron's like Bartlett and Latrinstorm that seriously make me question religion and those that choose to follow it. Their narrow minded, judgemental and dogmatic beliefs leave no room for logic, fact or truth. People who think homosexuality to be a disease or ailment are just...well I can't even express how stupidly ignorant I think such people to be.

However I guess some people need that omnipotent Father figure telling them how to behave, and why you need to be good.And you guys wonder why I have to clean up your arguments when all you have to bring to bear against people who you think disagree with you are insults and cussing. [This is putting aside for the moment that I'm agreeing with your general position.]

I originally had a couple paragraphs of gibberish here to prove a point, but I figured it would go over the targets' heads, so there would be no point to it. Instead I'll just say that for someone so eager to champion "fact" and "truth", Strayrogue, you're awfully careless when you read peoples' posts.

[StrayRogue]

I don't waste my time reading drivel sorry. Thats why I have ParkBandit blocked. All I needed to read from you was some feeble connection between homosexuality and paedophilia before my eyes rolled.

[Drew]

= homosexuality



I think you, Nieninque, and Tayre are too eager to modernize an anachronistic practice. The way the greeks, romans and others practiced erotic love between men is no longer practiced in today's world. The Greeks had a wife who they cohabitated with, whom they were married to and whom they shared erotic love with. They would also usually take on a boy as a mentor and a lover.

This is completely different from what we call homosexuality now, the word homosexual wasn't even coined until 1892. So to say that two men living together as partners is an age old tradition is completely wrong. I'm not saying it NEVER ONCE happened, but there was no culture where this was practiced in any form until the past few hundred years.

[Nieninque]

So something never exists until we invent a word for it...interesting concept.

Stupid one, but interesting nonetheless.

[StrayRogue]

1886, actually. But then homosexuality is defined differently. There are some pre-1800 examples of exclusive, same sex "relationships" which you seem to be getting at, but in other area's, you're right. The "type" of homosexuality we know to day is different from how it was viewed many centuries ago. It is still homosexuality, though.

[DeV]

So to say that two men living together as partners is an age old tradition is completely wrong. Two men living together could just be two men living together. What you've stated above is hardly the modern or even ancient definition of homosexuality. You did however mention two men having sex, which is most definitely a homosexual act between two people we can assume are either homosexual or are so incredibly sexually aroused they're resigned to acting out their sexual desires on each other.


It is still homosexuality, though.

[Latrinsorm]

All I needed to read from you was some feeble connection between homosexuality and paedophilia before my eyes rolled.The connection that occurred halfway through my third post?

This is exactly what I'm talking about, btw. By your own declaration, you didn't bother to read the post you responded to. What could you possibly hope to accomplish? What were you thinking?

[TheEschaton]

Is this seriously in response to me? Do you even read my posts anymore? :(

Dude, you didn't explain it all that clearly. I was just ASKING A QUESTION if that was what it was? It referring to complementary whatever whatever.

-TheE-

[Nieninque]

I don't normally stoop to flames because I think that it's the refuge of the unintelligent, but in this case I'll speak in language you can understand: You are dumb as shit.

Clearly.

I'm the one saying that homosexuality is a recent phenomenon and that it never happened before the last two hundred years, that was just men having sex with each other.

Oh, wait...

[Drew]

Clearly.

I'm the one saying that homosexuality is a recent phenomenon and that it never happened before the last two hundred years, that was just men having sex with each other.

Oh, wait...


The fact that you don't get simple points is amazing.

[Nieninque]

Totally amazing.
The fact that you think your point has any bearing on the conversation is equally amazing.

The fact is that homosexuality has been around forever.
The term homosexual may be a recent construct, however it is describing something that has happened throughout time.


It is generally accepted that the lives of historical figures such as Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello and Christopher Marlowe included or were centered upon love and sexual relationships with people of their own gender. Terms such as gay or bisexual have been applied to them, but many regard this as risking the anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of sexuality foreign to their times. Variations from modern standards of beauty, social roles, sexual positions, and age disparities are of such magnitude so as to render meaningless any projection of modern roles onto historical personages. This does not mean, however, that people in the past experienced the physical phenomenon of homosexual attraction any differently than people experience it today.

While some pre-modern societies did not employ categories fully comparable to the modern homosexual or heterosexual dichotomy, this does not demonstrate that the polarity is not applicable to those societies. A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality. John Boswell has criticized this argument by citing ancient Greek writings by Plato,[39] which he says indicate knowledge of exclusive homosexuality.

Michel Foucault and historians following his line of thought have argued that the homosexual person is a modern invention, a social construct of the last 100 years. While true of homosexuality as a scientific or psychological category, there are examples from earlier ages of those viewing their sexuality as a part of a human identity and not merely a sexual act. One cited example is the 16th century Italian artist Giovanni Antonio Bazzi who adopted the nickname "Sodoma", which is viewed by Louis Crompton as something analogous to the modern gay identity.

[Latrinsorm]

Dude, you didn't explain it all that clearly. I was just ASKING A QUESTION if that was what it was? It referring to complementary whatever whatever.Oh okay. I recommend you look it up, but here's an off-the-cuff what-I-remember version: Biological complementarity is the sex for babies version, and it's that version of complementarity that was used to work out things like marriage and whatnot. We can have complementary relationships that don't have to do with offspring, though, so there's something else going on there. As you might imagine, it's immeasurably more complicated than that, but IIRC that's the general idea. Theology papers are just like philosophy papers that way.

edit: Nien, removing the "citation needed"s doesn't make it any less from Wikipedia. :D

[Nieninque]

Oh okay. I recommend you look it up, but here's an off-the-cuff what-I-remember version: Biological complementarity is the sex for babies version, and it's that version of complementarity that was used to work out things like marriage and whatnot. We can have complementary relationships that don't have to do with offspring, though, so there's something else going on there. As you might imagine, it's immeasurably more complicated than that, but IIRC that's the general idea. Theology papers are just like philosophy papers that way.

edit: Nien, removing the "citation needed"s doesn't make it any less from Wikipedia. :D


Wikipedia is a better source than "I think I remember it but I cant be sure, go and look it up"

[Eoghain]

I think you, Nieninque, and Tayre are too eager to modernize an anachronistic practice. The way the greeks, romans and others practiced erotic love between men is no longer practiced in today's world. The Greeks had a wife who they cohabitated with, whom they were married to and whom they shared erotic love with. They would also usually take on a boy as a mentor and a lover.

This is completely different from what we call homosexuality now, the word homosexual wasn't even coined until 1892. So to say that two men living together as partners is an age old tradition is completely wrong. I'm not saying it NEVER ONCE happened, but there was no culture where this was practiced in any form until the past few hundred years.

I love retarded debates :) That's why I play a Dhe'nar. however, you sir have taken retarded to a whole new level.

The act of men having sex with men is present as far back as Greek mythology, and in the mythologies of cultures far older than christianity OR Judaism. It's in Native American mythology, and Hindu mythology, to name a few.

The idea of men co-habitating (sp?) with each other is also present in times well before the freakin 1800s. Zeus himself took Ganymede as a lover, and the sex was so freakin hawt that he decided to take Ganymede from Earth and have him dwell in Heaven/Olympus with him (the penultimate idea of a sugar daddy and the pool boy). If it's in mythology, then obviously there was a need to have the very presence of this idea or mode of thought/living which was present in every day life, be explained. Unless we take myth as being actual fact that happened, in which case I was created by Jesus a few hundred years ago and every redneck in the South is right.

To say also that the idea or way in which the greeks and romans practiced homosexuality or having same-sex lovers no longer exists is also woefully ignorant. Obviously NOTHING is exactly the same as it was back then, but the general premises you laid out still do exist today. I know of countless examples of men from those specific european cultures who have wives and children they love very much, who also have men on the side. And they are certainly not "gay". They have wives who they are attracted enough to in order to have offspring. They also like to fuck men. Why not? It's hawt :)

This occurs around the world. you need to pull your American head out of your ass and actually look around before you go making blanket statements about the rest of the world.

-Seamus

PS Flames welcomed, flamers.

[Drew]

To say also that the idea or way in which the greeks and romans practiced homosexuality or having same-sex lovers no longer exists is also woefully ignorant. Obviously NOTHING is exactly the same as it was back then, but the general premises you laid out still do exist today. I know of countless examples of men from those specific european cultures who have wives and children they love very much, who also have men on the side. And they are certainly not "gay". They have wives who they are attracted enough to in order to have offspring. They also like to fuck men. Why not? It's hawt :)




European men have sex with young boys while mentoring them?

[Nieninque]

Yeah they are called priests

[Back]

ZING!

[TheEschaton]

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaamn.

I'm upset I didn't think of that joke. As a Catholic, it's my duty to make jokes like this and laugh uncomfortably.

-TheE-

[AestheticDeath]

Just got home - so I am playing catch up here.


She's not saying it's "right".

Her analogy is understandable as posted ... it's not right, nor is it wrong ... it's normal ... it ... just .... is.

It's no more "right" or "wrong" than heterosexuality. Sexual acts can be right or wrong when one or more people aren't consenting, able to give concent, or not mature enough to give concent. But sexuality in and of it's self is not wrong no matter what gender preference.

So we have one person saying homosexuality is like murder and one saying it's like pedophilia now.

Anyone else want to take a shot?

Just to clarify, I am not actually comparing homosexuality to murder. It was a simple way for me to get Nieninque to further clarify what she was saying.

However, I do not believe you can say homosexuality is "right", or "normal", and most especially not widely accepted - otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.


Dude, you're retarded. By water, she could have said gender. Or the fact that the earth is not flat. Or the fact that you'll never get laid. All of these things just ARE.

The other guy who compared homosexuality to murder was being stupid too. He was relating something that IS to an action. A noun to a verb. Sure he said "murderers", but a murderer is only such after he has killed someone. I was homosexual before I had sex. The ACT of murder is a morality issue. BEING homosexual is not.

Sure you could throw out the ACT of (homosexual) sex is a morality issue, but you would have to bring religion into that argument, which is exactly what Nein was separating it from.

Despite the fact that she compared two nouns, the ones she used doesn't make any sense. Its a quality or desire, compared to a thing. It would be like comparing hunger to mountains. It just doesn't work.

About the murderer comparison. Your reaching there. For one, I DID say murderer, not murder. And, you can be tried and convicted of a felony for attempting murder - for wanting to commit murder. I see it as, if you have the intent, or the desire to do murder, then you are a murderer. If you have the intent or the desire to have homosexual encounters, then you are a homosexual.

I don't see how you can seperate being homosexual and the act of sex between homosexuals.

And on the religion issue in the end of that quote, this thread was made for the discussion of homosexuality based on religious beliefs.


Again, moron, pedophila is an ACT. Murder is an ACT. A pedophile isn't such until he has sex with a child. Unless we're labeling anyone who has thoughts of having sex with a child as a pedophile. But really, that crosses into a territory I don't want to touch (teehee).

A homosexual isn't a homosexual because he has thoughts of having sex with a man. He/she is one because they just are.

Wait, why am I even defending homosexuality versus pedophilia? Shut the fuck up. Seriously.

Your arguments here aren't really valid. Pedophilia isn't an act. Homosexuality and pedophilia are both nouns. They are both nouns describing the intentions of a person, if you will.

A homosexual is someone who is attracted to others of the same sex.
A pedophile is someone who is attacted to young children.

You can be a pedophile without having had sex with a child, and you can be a homosexual without having had sex with another person of the same sex.

I personally do not believe people are born as, or destined to become pedophiles, homosexuals, or murderers.

And no, I am still not trying to compare them, I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument.



Flame on and all that. Keep calling people bigots because they don't see things exactly as you see them, when all you can say is 'homosexuality just is - its right'.

I don't really see any valid points from the homosexual side. Please realize this is a discussion, are you are here not to just cuss at people, but you are here to help us see your point of view. Try to convince us why you think homosexuality is just as right, or normal as heterosexuality.


And as a general, if somewhat stupidly simple joke I will leave you with these simple words.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[TheEschaton]

I personally do not believe people are born as, or destined to become pedophiles, homosexuals, or murderers.

And I believe the earth is flat. Nevermind all the evidence saying it isn't, but I believe it.

And I don't think it's a question of people saying homosexuality is right as in right and wrong, but they are saying it is right as in a person's natural state cannot be inherently wrong.

-TheE-

[Back]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Theres another nasty rumor going around that God created Lilith before Eve amongst all creation. Eve is rumored to have been jealous and Lilith split the garden when Adam wouldn’t lay on his back for her.

[Latrinsorm]

Wikipedia is a better source than "I think I remember it but I cant be sure, go and look it up"No, honesty always wins. If I don't know for sure (or completely), it's plain irresponsible to find what agrees with me and throw it up cloaked in supposed authority.
I personally do not believe people are born as, or destined to become pedophiles, homosexuals, or murderers.Why use personal belief, though? Scientists have looked into this, why don't we use science? The AMA doesn't say homosexuality is an illness anymore, what more could you want?
Try to convince us why you think homosexuality is just as right, or normal as heterosexuality.It sure looks like once a sexual preference takes hold it can't really be done away with. If that's the case, certainly it wouldn't make sense to condemn a person simply for having a sexual preference (of any kind). Jesus doesn't say either way (on homosexuality, anyway), so we can't use anything from the OT for fear of that tradition problem. Trying to force homosexuals who happen to be men into procreation would be bad all the way around, certainly, but it really seems like the sort of beings we are are designed to have sex in some way. Might as well be the inclined way with analogous constraints to the explicit lawful instructions for heterosexuals.
Theres another nasty rumor going around that God created Lilith before Eve amongst all creation. Eve is rumored to have been jealous and Lilith split the garden when Adam wouldn’t lay on his back for her.This is one of those neat medieval accretions that's due (ironically enough) to a misunderstanding of the dual creation stories. It didn't make it all the way into the Bible, but it'd be another example of that tradition versus law/history thing I was talking about if it had.

[Bartlett]

Anyone who thinks "God made them gay" is simply incorrect. We were created in the image of God in the Garden of Eden, where no sin existed. Satan brought temptation to the garden and Man fell into sin, at which point we took on a nature of sin that needs to be denied in order to contiinue living a Godly life. Being a Christian means attempting to live like Christ. If Christ were on the other end of your computer, He would be telling you that Homosexuality is a sin. I am sure he would be much less likely to offend than I apparently am, but His teachings were not particularly popular in His time, and they still aren't.

I expect that it makes it a lot easier for you to just hate me, and call me a hater because I think that fulfilling homosexual desires is a sin. To my knowledge, I have not said anything about hating anyone, and that would be because I don't hate anybody (to the best of my ability.)

[TheEschaton]

Wow.

Edited to add: The AMDG in my sig refers to the Jesuit motto of "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam" - for the greater Glory of God. So let me tack a crack. God, if you believe, literally, Genesis, created one couple, and thus one race. Are you saying blacks are wrong? Or...take this. God created the serpent, and everything God created was good, then the serpent, which had no free will to make his own choices, was acting the way God made the serpent, which was good, and the temptation was thus a good thing.

Or, if you believe the serpent was really Lucifer (which is a Miltonian interpretation, not a literal one), Lucifer was created by God - and is thus good.

Or, you might believe everything was created in 6 days.

Or maybe you believe that there is actually a Garden of Eden somewhere, with an angel with a fiery sword guarding the entrance.

Or maybe you think blackness is one of those sins humankind picks.

Retard.

-TheE-

[Back]

This is one of those neat medieval accretions that's due (ironically enough) to a misunderstanding of the dual creation stories. It didn't make it all the way into the Bible, but it'd be another example of that tradition versus law/history thing I was talking about if it had.

Amazing she did not make the Bible. Then again neither did Ragnarok, Hanuman, Bhudda or all mighty Isis.

[Stanley Burrell]

Just got home - so I am playing catch up here.




Just to clarify, I am not actually comparing homosexuality to murder. It was a simple way for me to get Nieninque to further clarify what she was saying.

However, I do not believe you can say homosexuality is "right", or "normal", and most especially not widely accepted - otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.



Despite the fact that she compared two nouns, the ones she used doesn't make any sense. Its a quality or desire, compared to a thing. It would be like comparing hunger to mountains. It just doesn't work.

About the murderer comparison. Your reaching there. For one, I DID say murderer, not murder. And, you can be tried and convicted of a felony for attempting murder - for wanting to commit murder. I see it as, if you have the intent, or the desire to do murder, then you are a murderer. If you have the intent or the desire to have homosexual encounters, then you are a homosexual.

I don't see how you can seperate being homosexual and the act of sex between homosexuals.

And on the religion issue in the end of that quote, this thread was made for the discussion of homosexuality based on religious beliefs.



Your arguments here aren't really valid. Pedophilia isn't an act. Homosexuality and pedophilia are both nouns. They are both nouns describing the intentions of a person, if you will.

A homosexual is someone who is attracted to others of the same sex.
A pedophile is someone who is attacted to young children.

You can be a pedophile without having had sex with a child, and you can be a homosexual without having had sex with another person of the same sex.

I personally do not believe people are born as, or destined to become pedophiles, homosexuals, or murderers.

And no, I am still not trying to compare them, I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument.



Flame on and all that. Keep calling people bigots because they don't see things exactly as you see them, when all you can say is 'homosexuality just is - its right'.

I don't really see any valid points from the homosexual side. Please realize this is a discussion, are you are here not to just cuss at people, but you are here to help us see your point of view. Try to convince us why you think homosexuality is just as right, or normal as heterosexuality.


And as a general, if somewhat stupidly simple joke I will leave you with these simple words.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

I dare you to type out a wall of text regarding only gay marriage, without the whole pedophile/murderer/God thing.

[Gan]

Yeah they are called priests


:lol:

10,000 points!

[AestheticDeath]

And I believe the earth is flat. Nevermind all the evidence saying it isn't, but I believe it.

And I don't think it's a question of people saying homosexuality is right as in right and wrong, but they are saying it is right as in a person's natural state cannot be inherently wrong.

-TheE-

So you have proof that homosexuals are born that way? Please.

[TheEschaton]

Oh, so we're gonna take this into a nature vs. nurture thing? Because it's come out nature every time before.

[Bartlett]

Wow.

Edited to add: The AMDG in my sig refers to the Jesuit motto of "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam" - for the greater Glory of God. So let me tack a crack. God, if you believe, literally, Genesis, created one couple, and thus one race. Are you saying blacks are wrong? Or...take this. God created the serpent, and everything God created was good, then the serpent, which had no free will to make his own choices, was acting the way God made the serpent, which was good, and the temptation was thus a good thing.

Or, if you believe the serpent was really Lucifer (which is a Miltonian interpretation, not a literal one), Lucifer was created by God - and is thus good.

Or, you might believe everything was created in 6 days.

Or maybe you believe that there is actually a Garden of Eden somewhere, with an angel with a fiery sword guarding the entrance.

Or maybe you think blackness is one of those sins humankind picks.

Retard.

-TheE-


Dang, looks like I am pwnt. Looks like God made us to enjoy our sins and Christ didn't have to come for the salvation of all men. Looks like He made a mistake.

Unfortunately, there is not much info regarding the fall of Satan, other than that it happened. The negative influence in the Garden came from Satan. If it is convenient for you to believe otherwise, that is your right.

Lets twist your line of thought, as seems to be ever popular on this particular subject, and call you a hating biggoted racist. What makes you automatically assume that Adam and Eve were not black?

There are variations in our genetic code, and many traits were likely taken on from the environment that prevailed. Before you take this opportunity to say that I believe in evolution, I will add that we are adaptable, but this does not mean we will become something else, or that new genetic material is actually created instead of slightly altered.

[Back]

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and it has not gone extinct. In fact, hermaphrodites exist in nature. Long before humans.

I would not be surprised if it served a vital function of our survival.

[TheEschaton]

Did I ever say they weren't? I just said that there was one race at creation. :P

I happen to believe in evolution though, not Adam and Eve, like reasonable Christians everywhere.

If you believe in variations in the genetic code, and sexuality is a genetically controlled thing (which I don't really see how you can argue against that), why can't there be a genetic "variation" on sexuality that makes people gay?

As for your idea that "people are adaptable" but doesn't "become something else", uh, that's been proven wrong before. Creationist "theory" has been shot down so many times it isn't funny any more.

-TheE-

[Bartlett]

Oh, so we're gonna take this into a nature vs. nurture thing? Because it's come out nature every time before.

Well, you can't really say every time. For instance, a girl in my 8th grade class got pregnant and had an abortion over the summer. Come Freshman year, she magically became a lesbian. I am not saying everyone with homosexual tendencies is the result of some some kind of abuse or anything else, but you can't deny that some are a result of it. This number is unknown, and many people who go through abuse don't even remember it, though they do suffer with consequences. We do know that there is at least one, which debunks the every time argument.

[TheEschaton]

A) you don't know if she hadn't been repressing her homosexuality due to a dominant societal paradigm (have you heard of black people trying to downplay their blackness? Same thing, but it's easier to hide one's sexuality than one's skin color).

and

B) If she did "magically" become a lesbian, she's no more a lesbian than I am. She's just acting like one, due to trauma. How some people who are abused turn to drugs...or become sluts...or do any number of things to "rebel" against the "normative trend" which abused them in the first place.

-TheE-

[AestheticDeath]

Why use personal belief, though? Scientists have looked into this, why don't we use science? The AMA doesn't say homosexuality is an illness anymore, what more could you want?It sure looks like once a sexual preference takes hold it can't really be done away with. If that's the case, certainly it wouldn't make sense to condemn a person simply for having a sexual preference (of any kind). Jesus doesn't say either way (on homosexuality, anyway), so we can't use anything from the OT for fear of that tradition problem. Trying to force homosexuals who happen to be men into procreation would be bad all the way around, certainly, but it really seems like the sort of beings we are are designed to have sex in some way. Might as well be the inclined way with analogous constraints to the explicit lawful instructions for heterosexuals.

AMA? Illness? I am not saying its an illness either. I still haven't seen a study that proves homosexuality is something you are born with.

As far as sexual preferences not being done away with? WTF? I hear stories all the time about people 'experimenting' during college dorm days, they were attracted, they tried it.. and they stopped it.

You ever heard of the kids who were sexually abused young in life, usually fathers or uncles or something.. and then turn to homosexuality later? You think they were already homos and that just brought it out?

[Bartlett]

If you can show me where something has come from nothing, be my guest. Once again, however, regardless of whether or not homosexual tendencies is a variation of genetic code, many things that are sins, and considered wrong by our society are also likely to be controlled by genetic tendencies, which is the point of the comparison to alsoholism, pedophilia, being a thief, murderer, compulsive liar, adulterer, having sex outside of marriage, and the list goes on. That is not to say that a homosexual is equivalent to a pedophile in this world, but going on the basis that "it's genetic, so it's okay" doesn't fly.

[TheEschaton]

Well, if the religious viewpoint is "God created us in God's image" in conjunction with "God and God's creation is Good", then yes, it does seem to fly.

Duh, this is the religious thread. ;)

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

I still haven't seen a study that proves homosexuality is something you are born with.


And maybe if you opened a medical or a sociological journal every once in awhile, you would have. What you wouldn't of read is anything saying that homosexuality is a choice.

-TheE-

[DeV]

Anyone who thinks "God made them gay" is simply incorrect. [We were created in the image of God in the Garden of Eden, where no sin existed. Satan brought temptation to the garden and Man fell into sin, at which point we took on a nature of sin that needs to be denied in order to contiinue living a Godly life. Being a Christian means attempting to live like Christ. If Christ were on the other end of your computer, He would be telling you that Homosexuality is a sin. I am sure he would be much less likely to offend than I apparently am, but His teachings were not particularly popular in His time, and they still aren't.

And while we're at it why not address these sins as well:

Planting Two Crops in the same field (Leviticus 19:19)
Wearing Garments made of two different fibers (Leviticus 19:19)
Contact with a female during her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24)
Touching the Skin of a Dead Pig (Leviticus 11:6-8)
Male having a haircut - especially having the hair around the temples cut (Leviticus 19:27)
Wearing glasses or afflicted with pimples, acne or excema etc. (Leviticus 21:20)
Man lying with man (Leviticus 18:22)
Curse, Blaspheme or otherwise take the lords name in vain (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Eat Shellfish (inclusive of prawns, crabs, lobster etc) (Leviticus 11:10)Well darn Bartlett, if any of this applies to you, I guess you are just as bad as a homosexual if not worse depending on how many of Leviticus' edicts you've violated over the years.

People like you: Interpret Bible passages literally, unless there is a good reason not to. Consider all Bible passages as instructive and appropriate in today's society. When you see any same-sex activity condemned, you believe it applies to all homosexual activity. You don't give heterosexual activity the same courtesy oddly enough. All homosexual behavior is sinful, regardless of the nature of the relationship. Homosexuality is a chosen, unnatural, abnormal, changeable, and perverted lifestyle, which is hated by God.

Did that about cover it?

[Bartlett]

You seem to have missed the part where man sinned and was seperated from God. It was at this moment that man deviated from the way they were created and were sent out to choose the right way, or the wrong way. So unless you are trying to indicate that pedophiles and murderers and thieves and blah blah blah were made this way by God and their actions should therefore be accepted, you are grasping at straws. Pedophiles and the like are clearly "wired differently" than most people.

[DeV]

And the whole nature vs. nuture debate tends to center around what the person is familar with versus what they are unfamilar with. People who view homosexual behavior as "unnatural" also tend to view it as disgusting, offensive, and dirty.

Ultimately, these justifications tend to be completely moral in nature and have nothing to do with scientific observation whatsoever.

[AestheticDeath]

Wow.

Edited to add: The AMDG in my sig refers to the Jesuit motto of "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam" - for the greater Glory of God. So let me tack a crack. God, if you believe, literally, Genesis, created one couple, and thus one race. Are you saying blacks are wrong? Or...take this. God created the serpent, and everything God created was good, then the serpent, which had no free will to make his own choices, was acting the way God made the serpent, which was good, and the temptation was thus a good thing.

Or, if you believe the serpent was really Lucifer (which is a Miltonian interpretation, not a literal one), Lucifer was created by God - and is thus good.

Or, you might believe everything was created in 6 days.

Or maybe you believe that there is actually a Garden of Eden somewhere, with an angel with a fiery sword guarding the entrance.

Or maybe you think blackness is one of those sins humankind picks.

Retard.

-TheE-

I guess I should have said earlier that I am an athiest. So, no I am not seriously arguing a religious Christian side, I am just throwing out stuff I have heard in order to have input in this discussion as I am interested in hearing everyones thoughts. Since its supposed to be religious I threw that bone in there about Adam and Eve.

As far as God creating one race and whatnot. Are YOU saying that blacks are not part of the human race? Please expand upon this...

God would have created the serpent yes. The theories/stories I was told or have heard were that the serpent was Lucifer, and he was a fallen Angel. Said fallen angel was not 'made' as a serpent. He fell from grace because he thought he was better than God. And I always supposed the serpent was being used figuratively. So god didnt make a serpent as such.

God supposedly created us, and gave us freedom, free will, choices. The ability to make mistakes, and do wrong, do harm etc... This was supposedly his test. You have to earn your way into Heaven, and prove you are worthy, that you love him or whatever BS it was... I didn't read the Bible, or pay too much attention when I was forced to attend the Baptist churchs my family went to somewhat frequently on a few different occasions.

If you don't prove your love/faith, and live a life of sin, of wrongful ideas and actions, then you are forced to goto Hell, as a punishment. So God punishes people for not being perfect.. when he made us that way. Yippee!

Bitch.

(Yeah I can throw stupid names out there for no reason too.)

[Gan]

Speaking from a religious standpoint. What gives us the right to judge our peers if they live a peaceful co-existant life in society?

Is it because being a certain religion makes some of us superior?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how having a gay household 2 houses down (hypothetical) will affect my life or my family's life as I normally go about my daily activities. Therefore justifying why that gay household should not be allowed a place in a free society.

Where do we have the right to judge someone who's not infringed upon anyone's natural or constitutional rights?

[Gan]

One last thing...

If you're following the religious line of reasoning... God gave man free will. The right to choose how to live. What gives man the right to take that away?

[DeV]

So unless you are trying to indicate that pedophiles and murderers and thieves and blah blah blah were made this way by God and their actions should therefore be accepted, you are grasping at straws. In my opinion you have a very thin grasp of the bible and no concept whatsoever of reading it within the context of time it was written. You don't speak for God or Christ, but you do a good job representing your own views albeit some being a tad too warped to deserve even a heartfelt reply.

[AestheticDeath]

I dare you to type out a wall of text regarding only gay marriage, without the whole pedophile/murderer/God thing.

Scuse me? What the fuck have you contributed here besides inane comments on other peoples comments. Thats exactly what that wall of text you quoted was. My comments on what other people said.

I am not here to argue FOR or AGAINST gay marriage. I am just discussing the topic.

If you want to argue for or against, you can damn well say whatever you want.

And I will point out things I can agree with if I do, and things that I don't agree with, and hopefully I can explain in a coherant way why I disagree. (I am not always coherant in what I say, and alot of the time what I say is misunderstood because I dont articulate it properly.) I will also tend to point out things which don't make sense.

It is a questioning nature that I have, and I am just trying to understand some of the basic principles of why people BECOME homosexual. In trying to get some of the pro-homosexuals to respond I question or debate etc..

If I do have something to say about gay marriage - I will most definately post it. If it happens to have something in that same post that doesnt have to do with gay marriage - you can skip over it, or have a Moderator delete it if thats neccessary.

Whatever.

[AestheticDeath]

Oh, so we're gonna take this into a nature vs. nurture thing? Because it's come out nature every time before.

Thats fine. Prove it. Add something to the discussion that I can read and understand. You telling me "this is so" because I said so, doesn't change my mind. Hard facts please. Who proved homosexuality is born in us, and how did they prove it?

[Bartlett]

Many of the "sins" you mentioned are largely considered to have been a) rules for the Jews to follow to set them apart from the world, or b) The instruction was based on the danger of those items. Pigs are unable to remove toxins from their body like most animals, which makes the meat from them particularly susceptible to bacteria and whatnot. Lobsters, if not cooked properly, will kill you. I am not a farmer, but I would also imagine that different crops in the same field would be bad for the resources of the ground.

Blasphemy and sexual impurity have both been rehashed in the New Testament while the laws about food were specifically lifted.

You tell me that I am just as bad as a homosexual, as if you are condemning me of something. However, in the sight of God - aside from Christ, you are correct. If you meant to offend me, you missed the mark. You believe that since I think engaging in homosexual behavior is wrong, that I somehow think I am better than someone who does. This is just false. We are all human, and we all fall short of the glory of God. We live with a sinful nature and desire sinful things, which we are supposed to not be indulging in. I understand that it is easier for you to think that the reason I think homosexual acts are wrong is because I hate you. This is just not the case.

There is a laundry list of sins I have committed, and will commit in the future. It is my intention not to, but I have to accept that I will do it, and thank Jesus Christ that He gave me Salvation. This does not make the sins committed any better, and I cannot pretend that it is okay to just keep doing it.

[AestheticDeath]

Dang, looks like I am pwnt. Looks like God made us to enjoy our sins and Christ didn't have to come for the salvation of all men. Looks like He made a mistake.

Unfortunately, there is not much info regarding the fall of Satan, other than that it happened. The negative influence in the Garden came from Satan. If it is convenient for you to believe otherwise, that is your right.

Lets twist your line of thought, as seems to be ever popular on this particular subject, and call you a hating biggoted racist. What makes you automatically assume that Adam and Eve were not black?

There are variations in our genetic code, and many traits were likely taken on from the environment that prevailed. Before you take this opportunity to say that I believe in evolution, I will add that we are adaptable, but this does not mean we will become something else, or that new genetic material is actually created instead of slightly altered.

Quoted since I basically just tried to say the same thing, and Agree.

Adam could have been purple and green for all we know. I tend to believe no matter what color Adam and Eve were, humanity changed and adapted to better survive their environment. Melanin anyone?

[Stanley Burrell]

a) rules for the Jews to follow to set them apart from the world

You mean like giving rise to Judaism v2.0?

Y'know, the religion that keeps the same original publication features involving the basic intructions before leaving Earth inside of it?

[Bartlett]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how having a gay household 2 houses down (hypothetical) will affect my life or my family's life as I normally go about my daily activities. Therefore justifying why that gay household should not be allowed a place in a free society.

Influence.

As to whether or not the law of the land can remove our own free will of choice, that is exactly the slippery slope I was talking about. What gives anyone the right to tell someone else what they are doing is wrong if the other party finds enjoyment from it?

[AestheticDeath]

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and it has not gone extinct. In fact, hermaphrodites exist in nature. Long before humans.

I would not be surprised if it served a vital function of our survival.

hermaphrodites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite)

Try reading that.

I will quote a few things.


Generally, hermaphroditism occurs in the invertebrates, although it occurs in a fair number of fish, and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates. On very rare occasions, such a hermaphrodite can even impregnate itself, but this will result in complications, such as the offspring having identical DNA to its parent.


A simultaneous hermaphrodite (or synchronous hermaphrodite) is an adult organism that has both male and female sexual organs at the same time. Usually, self-fertilization does not occur.

[AestheticDeath]

B) If she did "magically" become a lesbian, she's no more a lesbian than I am. She's just acting like one, due to trauma. How some people who are abused turn to drugs...or become sluts...or do any number of things to "rebel" against the "normative trend" which abused them in the first place.

-TheE-

Just acting like one? Ok. Heh.

I was told not to kill people, while playing gory video games. In order to rebel I went and killed people. But I am not a murderer because I wasn't born that way. I am just 'acting' out the part.

[DeV]

Many of the "sins" you mentioned are largely considered to have been a) rules for the Jews to follow to set them apart from the world, or b) The instruction was based on the danger of those items. So since I'm not Jewish my homosexuality is not considered a sin afterall. And since loving my girlfriend and making love to her everynight is not causing either of us danger or harm, I'm free from sin yet again. Woot!


Blasphemy and sexual impurity have both been rehashed in the New Testament while the laws about food were specifically lifted.Oh how clever and convenient all at once.


There is a laundry list of sins I have committed, and will commit in the future. It is my intention not to, but I have to accept that I will do it, and thank Jesus Christ that He gave me Salvation. This does not make the sins committed any better, and I cannot pretend that it is okay to just keep doing it.:wtf:

[TheEschaton]

Influence? Is it a gay conspiracy to make all our kids gay? I thought it was just Republicans trying to make our kids hate other people. ;)

Influence - that's a fucking joke. Our society is built on the idea that you are FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT.....with the caveat of AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. It's called the individual rights which I thought you conservatives were so hot and bothered about.

-TheE-

[AestheticDeath]

And maybe if you opened a medical or a sociological journal every once in awhile, you would have. What you wouldn't of read is anything saying that homosexuality is a choice.

-TheE-

Since you have obvisouly read such things. Point me to one which I should read. You seriously arent doing much to try and change my viewpoint yet.

[Stanley Burrell]

You could always read up a lil bitta history on Hermaphroditus' introduction to Saturnalia festivals and then its being renamed Christmas and whatnot :shrug:

[TheEschaton]

Oh, and Bartlett, if it's true you commit sin (after all, we all do), you might wanna review the part of the NT which says, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

That don't just apply to capital punishment, hombre

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

I just don't get you religious birds.

[DeV]

Since you have obvisouly read such things. Point me to one which I should read. You seriously arent doing much to try and change my viewpoint yet.
When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

[TheEschaton]

I'm sorry I don't have a bibliography of available materials for you, but I will quote the relevant wikipedia article. I'm sure you can do your own research from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

This is a long post.
We were created in the image of God in the Garden of EdenActually the "image and likeness of God" thing is in the first, non-botanical creation story, in which no mention of mankind's sexual orientation is made. (Eschaton, I'm a little disappointed that you didn't catch this. JUG for you!)
Being a Christian means attempting to live like Christ.Do you think Christ had a sexual orientation?
Blasphemy and sexual impurity have both been rehashed in the New Testament while the laws about food were specifically lifted.There's nothing in the New Testament that prohibits homosexuality per se.
WTF? I hear stories all the time about people 'experimenting' during college dorm days, they were attracted, they tried it.. and they stopped it.What better way to find out which sexual preference one really is? Freud at least got right that the self is not transparent.
You ever heard of the kids who were sexually abused young in life, usually fathers or uncles or something.. and then turn to homosexuality later? You think they were already homos and that just brought it out?Like I said, "once a sexual preference takes hold". What I've heard is that puberty is around the time when sexual preferences really sink in, which makes sense to me.
everything God created was goodAh ah, careful there. God pronounced everything he is listed as creating as good. God is not listed as creating (for instance) juvenile diabetes, or brain cancer, or suffering. These things are not good, but clearly God created them (God created everything). JUG #2!
What gives us the right to judge our peers if they live a peaceful co-existant life in society?Because society makes some really stupid calls sometimes (c.f. child prostitution, slavery). This is why legislature devoid of ethics is the worst governmental idea since the agrarian empire.
Where do we have the right to judge someone who's not infringed upon anyone's natural or constitutional rights?lol, natural rights. You can't hear some Roman dude saying he has a natural right (assuming they had the language for that) to the trade of his money for sex, even with a 10 year old? You and I would both judge that guy Taxi Driver style if we had to. The tough part would be finding a shoulder holster for a pilum.

[AestheticDeath]

When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

When I was first attracted to a girl. It was confirmed when each and every other person I felt an attraction to was female.

I don't have dates or even recall the girl I was first attracted to. But in my memory, I cannot recall ever having been attracted to a male in a sexual way.

I wasn't really attracted to girls until later in life though. I do know it was before I reached puberty. While I was a child (read as say under 8-10 years of age or so) I wasn't attracted to males or females sexually. Everyone was just another person, I liked them or hated them depending on how well we got along.

Somewhere between 8 and 13 years of age I had my first crush. It was sometime after my 13th birthday that I went through puberty and started pitching a tent anytime I thought too hard about a girl I was attracted to. Made for some very embarrasing situations at times...

I didn't even know what a vagina was back then, and had no clue what I would do with a woman if I were to get physical - beyond playing with her boobs or kissing. And I had a dreadful fear of kissing because I had no real idea what that was either.

I will say that early on the thing that attracted me the most was a girls face or breasts. The difference from myself was something that I was enthralled by, the delicateness of her face etc.. And to this day I still cannot fathom why I(or anyone) is so attracted to boobs. I just know that I am.


Your turn. Can you tell me when you first knew you were a lesbian? What do you feel towards women, and what do you not like about men?

[AestheticDeath]

I'm sorry I don't have a bibliography of available materials for you, but I will quote the relevant wikipedia article. I'm sure you can do your own research from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

-TheE-


Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation.

Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as an homosexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environment factors.

Thats the main thing I caught in the top portion. I will try and read some of the other stuff, and perhaps try and find which "twin studies" were done. I don't actually see a link to those studies at the moment.

[AestheticDeath]

Do you think Christ had a sexual orientation? Assuming there is a God, and hence Christ at some point being a part of a Trilogy. I myself have no reason to believe Christ had a sexual preference. Unless he was procreating with the angels, who would he have knocked up? Does God have a wife? God could have made man in his image.. without a penis. And only added a penis later in order to give Adam and Eve a way to procreate. Who knows?

Does God have to urinate?



What better way to find out which sexual preference one really is? Freud at least got right that the self is not transparent.
Well I for one, think I knew well before college age, unless I have been lying to myself this whole time. I never experimented with males, and doubt I ever will.



Like I said, "once a sexual preference takes hold". What I've heard is that puberty is around the time when sexual preferences really sink in, which makes sense to me. So is this saying you aren't born homo/hetero? You won't know what you like until puberty? Or is this just when the homo/hetero gene activates and re-orders your life? :)

[DeV]

Your turn. Can you tell me when you first knew you were a lesbian?
I was raised in a very strict religious home from birth well into my teenage years. I was taught my entire life that homosexuality was a sin even though I had no idea what it consisted of. Despite that every person I've ever felt an attraction toward was female. I've always had close friendships with females from my pre-teens on up and I cannot recall having been attracted to a male in a physical way. I have never been with a man sexually nor have I ever had the desire. I kissed my first and only boy at 16 and felt nothing besides that of friendship and awkwardness, but I had no desire to pursue it further as it felt unnatural and forced. I feel that my homosexuality is as natural as your heterosexuality and I choose to pursue those desires at the age of 18.



What do you feel towards women, and what do you not like about men?

What I feel towards women is very strongly. I'd put it on par with what you feel towards women.
To reiterate a post I made 2 years ago on the forums I'd have to say this is the short list:

I'd have to say I love it that women are so willing to please as long as you treat them special.

I love it that they can be fiesty as hell one minute, and submissive; ready to fulfill your every desire the next.

I love it that women are passionate about certain things and feel so deeply.

I love it that women are sensitive, soft, warm, delicate, and I really love being able to make a woman like that curl her toes or shiver at my touch.

I love the way they taste, smell, and the way their body curves.

I love the sounds they make and their expressions when they have an orgasm.

I love it that sometimes I'm surprised by a woman's intelligence when she decides to speak up and voice her opinion.

There is nothing I don't like about men. I simply have never been attracted to them in the ways I have for women. I love, admire and respect many men in my life, but it is completely free and devoid of physical carnal desire.

[Latrinsorm]

I myself have no reason to believe Christ had a sexual preference.That question was actually addressed to Bartlett, because if Christ was gay certainly Christ wouldn't say being gay was a sin. I don't think there's enough information to interpolate a sexual preference (if any) for Christ, but it sure seems like he'd at least lean one way or the other on this axis, being human. If I were going to say that any particular sexual preference was a sin, that would give me pause.
Does God have to urinate?The incarnation of God sure did (unless he willed himself not to). That's the funny thing about omnipotence and necessity.
Well I for one, think I knew well before college age, unless I have been lying to myself this whole time.I think I did too, but I've thought a lot of things about myself that weren't verified when it came time for the doing. The point of this is that experimenting isn't necessarily an indication of waffling or mixed sexual preferences. It's human to want to know.
So is this saying you aren't born homo/hetero? You won't know what you like until puberty?It's not even a question of knowing, as I can conceive of someone being so repressive that they never figure it out for real. As I said early on, I don't have a full grasp of the research in this area, but from what I can tell it's definitely not correct to say that it's fixed at fertilization.

[Bartlett]

Christ's sexual preference:

In short, it really wouldn't matter. He was born to this world 100% and 100% God at the same time. Thus dealing with all the stress and temptation of a human, but being God, remaining sinless and blameless. Human beings do not carry the infallability of God, thus we will fall short. Being tempted to indulge in homosexual desires isn't the sin issue, acting it out is the issue. Just like with heterosexual sex. It is clearly laid out that we are not to have sex outside of marriage because this equates to sexual immorality. Christ could have been tempted in either direction. Paul talks about remaining unmarried and virginal as the best way to go, as illustrated by Christ.

and for DeV
What makes it so difficult to believe that I am a sinner like any other human being? A great misconception of Christians (though an accurate representation of some) is that they think they are blameless and the rest of the world is trash. Sometimes it seems like I cannot overcome temptations before me, and I will slip up. If I could not make an error, and live to God's expectation on my own, Christ would not have had to die for my sins. A feel good clip is that I am not sinless, but I do try to sin less. I harbor no negativity toward you because you are homosexual. I have a few friends that are, and we have had some decent conversations on the subject. In my understanding of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, and you, like everyone else - including myself - are a sinner who needs Christ.

As for casting stones, this is more in reference to being a hypocrite.If we were not able to teach what is right because we, ourselves, have sinned, then there would be no church service on Sunday. However, nobody has the right to condemn someone else - this is clearly God's job, and His call. We are left with the responsibility of condemning actions and behaviors that are out of line with Biblical truth. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. When discussing sin, the Word is the source. It is not my personal wisdom that defines it. Christians are responsible for delivering the message.

By posting a question like this, everyone who reads these forums is indirectly asked to participate. If someone were to read the 20+ pages that have been generated, it would probably seem more like a booby trap. I have probably received plenty of judgement and "hate" from this population based on my opinion. I admit that I have called something I disapproved of "gay" before. This is the extent of my "hate" and I have made an effort to discontinue the practice because it has been taken as offensive, and really doesn't need to be said, since it means nothing. If knowing that someone had committed a sin is what it takes to be a biggoted hater, based on that criteria I would hate everyone, including myself.

[Nieninque]

Religious people are funny.

[Gan]

Influence.
Influence is as only as strong as the weakness of the person afraid of said influence. Influence is a symtom of fear and or ignorance.



As to whether or not the law of the land can remove our own free will of choice, that is exactly the slippery slope I was talking about. What gives anyone the right to tell someone else what they are doing is wrong if the other party finds enjoyment from it?

Ideally, with free will, people should have the ability and right to live however they wish as long as it doesnt infringe upon the rights of others. The only footnote to this free will/natural rights (for Latrin) is where the rights of children and or those not of sound mind or body are implied. Its not a slippery slope if people learned to keep their eyes focused on whats in front of them.



Because society makes some really stupid calls sometimes (c.f. child prostitution, slavery). This is why legislature devoid of ethics is the worst governmental idea since the agrarian empire.



lol, natural rights. You can't hear some Roman dude saying he has a natural right (assuming they had the language for that) to the trade of his money for sex, even with a 10 year old? You and I would both judge that guy Taxi Driver style if we had to. The tough part would be finding a shoulder holster for a pilum.

I agree with legislation needing ethics. I just dont agree with legislation loaded with religious ethics that obviously and blatantly infringe on the free will of consenting adults, especially when not everyone espouses those religious views. So using the homosexual activity between an adult and a child example is moot because we have laws protecting children from any sort of adult sexual interaction, be it heterosexual or homosexual.

And my holster for a pilum would be the pericardial sac of the Roman dude practicing his misguided interpretation of free will upon said 10 year old.

Its a really simple litmus test if you think about it.

1. Person A has a desire (A) to do something.
2. Person A considers said desire to see if it infringes upon the rights of anyone.
2a. If desire A infringes upon anyone's rights, desire A is not pursued.
2b. If desire A does not infringe upon anyone's rights, desire A is pursued.

Its when people either fail 2 or 2a that we have the court system for. Or two fists if more appropriate ;).

[CrystalTears]

Religious crackheads like Latrin and Bartlett are the ones who make the rest of us look bad. You people make the baby Jesus cry.

[Nieninque]

I harbor no negativity toward you because you are homosexual. I have a few friends that are, and we have had some decent conversations on the subject.

I bet you go down a treat at parties.

[Drew2]

Bartlett makes humanity look bad, not just Christians.

I'm seriously considering using the ignore poster feature for the first time.

[DeV]

In my understanding of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, and you, like everyone else - including myself - are a sinner who needs Christ.
No offense, but shut the fuck up.

I'm done debating with you.

[CrystalTears]

In my understanding of the Bible...
...which is practically nothing.

[Latrinsorm]

2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.The line "All scripture is inspired by God" could also be translated as "All scripture inspired by God is useful for", though, and I'm sure you see the difference there. I'm no translator guy, so let's see if Jesus has anything to say on the matter (this is not really a truthful way to say it, as I know he does). Mark 7: 5-8:
"So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, . You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition."
He goes on from there, but you get the idea. Even if everything in the OT is [i]inspired by God, not everything in OT is the commandment of God, and further not everything in OT is something we (humans) are supposed to follow.

Turning back to our present discussion, I ask you again for a New Testament source that tells you homosexuality is a sin. Again, this question is sort of in bad faith because I know there isn't any, but it's important to establish.
The only footnote to this free will/natural rights (for Latrin) is where the rights of children Where do you think the idea of children's rights came from, historically?
You people make the baby Jesus cry.Like Stray before you, I'd ask that you read my posts before slagging me, considering I'm agreeing with you. :\ I'd also posit that Jesus is much more displeased with those who refuse to even try and help another. To paraphrase: "You are blessed, for I was making religiousy posts with no basis in religion and you gave me a long splinter post to prove I was wrong."

[CrystalTears]

My need to say that had nothing to do with this thread. Just overzealous religious people in general.

[Bartlett]

Romans 1:

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, untrustworthy,unloving, unmerciful;

32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Romans part of the New Testament in my Bible, which happens to be the NASB if you are keeping track.

[Bartlett]

Its a really simple litmus test if you think about it.

1. Person A has a desire (A) to do something.
2. Person A considers said desire to see if it infringes upon the rights of anyone.
2a. If desire A infringes upon anyone's rights, desire A is not pursued.
2b. If desire A does not infringe upon anyone's rights, desire A is pursued.

Its when people either fail 2 or 2a that we have the court system for. Or two fists if more appropriate ;).

So where might you stand on something like bestiality? And you can all take it down a notch, I am not saying homosexuals commit beastiality or anything remotely close to that nature. Just putting the litmus test to the test.

[Latrinsorm]

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.Impurity and lustfulness is definitely a problem, no question. Nothing in the passage suggests that homosexuality is inherently impure or lustful, though.
men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Again, this only says that a particular "indecent act" (in this case, pagan fertility rites) is a problem. Paul does not state in this passage that homosexuality per se is a problem. It would have been really easy to say "all men who lieth with another man transgress against God" or for him to cite the Leviticus passages, but he didn't. Of course he's going to say that pagan behavior is not the natural way for Christians, what sense would it make if he said the opposite?

[Gan]

So where might you stand on something like bestiality? And you can all take it down a notch, I am not saying homosexuals commit beastiality or anything remotely close to that nature. Just putting the litmus test to the test.

1. Person A has a desire (A) to do something.
2. Person A considers said desire to see if it infringes upon the rights of anyone (or any other sentient being).
2a. If desire A infringes upon anyone's rights, desire A is not pursued.
2b. If desire A does not infringe upon anyone's rights, desire A is pursued.

[Nieninque]

So where might you stand on something like bestiality? And you can all take it down a notch, I am not saying homosexuals commit beastiality or anything remotely close to that nature. Just putting the litmus test to the test.

You're an idiot.

[AestheticDeath]

Nice response!

[Stanley Burrell]

So where might you stand on something like bestiality? And you can all take it down a notch, I am not saying homosexuals commit beastiality or anything remotely close to that nature. Just putting the litmus test to the test.

I've always found it quite the contradiction to wear a sheepskin while sheepfucking.

Just keeping tally, we have have homesexuality = pedophilia = murder = anti-Christ = barnyard orgies :thumbup:

[Stanley Burrell]

P.S.

Yes you is :)

[Skirmisher]

So where might you stand on something like bestiality? And you can all take it down a notch, I am not saying homosexuals commit beastiality or anything remotely close to that nature. Just putting the litmus test to the test.

Thanks to you and yours for being as predictable as death and taxes in bringing up bestiality and pedophilia while discussing gays and lesbians.

The third part of that special triumvirate has yet to be mentioned but seeing how you are going i'm sure it will be dropped soon and of course with the now obligatory disclaimer pointing out how it's not YOU thinking it might be similar but for some reason the words still come from your mouth.

Your closed mindedness and general ignorance have not failed to meet expectations.

[Latrinsorm]

It's such a baffling to say that sexual preferences are incomparable. How can heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality not all be in the category of "sexual preference"?

[Nieninque]

It's such a baffling to say that sexual preferences are incomparable. How can heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality not all be in the category of "sexual preference"?

Fuck off Latrine

If the argument was about sexual preferences, your point might be valid.

What this argument is about is a debate about whether one or two of those in your list are closer to the first in your list or the last two.

Your point here is disengenuous and you know it.

This debate is centred around closed minded fucks like your pal Bartlett and the rest of your religious nutcases who think that heterosexuality is the only acceptable lifestyle, and anything else is a perversion.

Heterosexual sex is generally between two consenting adults. Anything that isnt but is between two members of opposite sexes, can be categorised in some other way (such as incest, rape etc.)

Homosexual sex is generally consenting sex between two members of the same sex. The same catch-all as with heterosexual sex applies.

Bestiality is sex between one or more people and animals. Animals clearly have no way of consenting or objecting and would not in any way be classified as any way similar to heterosexual or nomosexual sex.

Pedophilia is abusive sex between an adult and a child. I think it goes without saying that there is no comparison between consenting sex and sex betwen adults and children.

Anyone who cannot see the difference really should do themselves and everyone else a favour and speak no further on this matter.

Yourself included.

Dumbarse.

[DeV]

It's such a baffling to say that sexual preferences are incomparable. How can heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality not all be in the category of "sexual preference"?How then do you compare your sexuality(whatever the fuck it is) to beastiality unless of course you are attracted to animals and no comparison is necessary? Pray tell.

[Latrinsorm]

What this argument is about is a debate about whether one or two of those in your list are closer to the first in your list or the last two.Not really, no. This argument is about whether there's any religious basis for homosexuality in general to be decried. If someone raises the point that homosexuality (a sexual preference) predates Christianity, how is it not appropriate to point out that all sexual preferences (for instance, pedophilia) predate Christianity?
I think it goes without saying that there is no comparison between consenting sex and sex betwen adults and children.We're not talking about the sex, we're talking about the preference itself (as Tayre repeatedly pointed out).
How then do you compare your sexuality(whatever the fuck it is) to beastiality unless of course you are attracted to animals and no comparison is necessary? Pray tell.I'd compare it by noting that they're both sexual preferences. I'd contrast it in that animals aren't people (even the cute ones). Any argument I tried to advance on the basis of beastiality being a historical sexual preference would have to apply also to heterosexuality, homosexuality, or any other historical sexual preference. Like any other example of members and classes, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case for any two members to be identical to be in the same class.

I think it's a natural reaction to want to say that nothing about us has anything in common with repulsive individuals (for instance, pedophiles). It's just not born out by the facts of the matter. We're all family.

[Nieninque]

Not really, no. This argument is about whether there's any religious basis for homosexuality in general to be decried. If someone raises the point that homosexuality (a sexual preference) predates Christianity, how is it not appropriate to point out that all sexual preferences (for instance, pedophilia) predate Christianity?

I dont think that is what was happening. Correct me in one of your splinter posts if I am.


We're not talking about the sex, we're talking about the preference itself (as Tayre repeatedly pointed out).

OK, let me reframe it for you. It goes without saying that having some kind of sexual orientation that makes sexual contact between consenting adults a past-time you may on some level wish to partake in, does not compare to having some kind of sexual orientation that is abusive and involves children animals or inanimate objects that would be harmed in the fulfillment of your sexual desires.

Happy now?

[ElanthianSiren]

If someone raises the point that homosexuality (a sexual preference) predates Christianity, how is it not appropriate to point out that all sexual preferences (for instance, pedophilia) predate Christianity?

It's not appropriate, (and this is a general comment on things larger than Latrin's question), because the entire ancient world homosexuality discussion and pedophilia is being judged by 21st century standards then used to support something that it wasn't. We have to see it in its context.

For instance, Athenian women married at around 14 to men often at least 32. Spartan women, by contrast, married around ages 16-18 to men only a few years older than they were under a system of what we would consider kidnapping and ritualized rape. Which one do we consider better? Can we really drag either society into a debate talking about sexual preference without noting support for pedophilia or kidnapping women and raping them then living married in secret for years in fear that the helots might butcher our new family? (You know how I love the Greeks, Eric!) We can argue the same things about the ancient Jewish society that surrounded the OT (The Torah if we want to be mostly historically correct).

What is pedophilia in the US? Be careful with your definition. Now, define homosexuality between adults. What is it at the core? For the love of god, nobody say evil/perverted/immoral etc, or I'm coming to your house with a switch, blindfold, and ten rolls of duct tape. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about using historical sources or opinions thereof without regard to the context, which has been done often in this thread.

[Latrinsorm]

I dont think that is what was happening. Correct me in one of your splinter posts if I am.From the very first post: "Christ died for the sins laid out in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is an Old Testament sin." Note that no mention is made of pedophilia, and nowhere does anyone in the thread say "homosexuality is wrong because it's like pedophilia". For Pete's sake, even Bartlett said "That is not to say that a homosexual is equivalent to a pedophile".
It goes without saying that having some kind of sexual orientation that makes sexual contact between consenting adults a past-time you may on some level wish to partake in, does not compare to having some kind of sexual orientation that is abusive and involves children animals or inanimate objects that would be harmed in the fulfillment of your sexual desires.You make my point for me by using "sexual orientation" in both horns of your conjunction. I'm not sure what you intend by the word "compare", but to me any two things that share a same characteristic (in this case, participating in the class of sexual orientations) are comparable. I humbly submit that this is the definition of compare you yourself use most of the itme.

[Sean of the Thread]

How come there aren't more openly gay animals? I see the occasional nut lick between dogs.. but not many seem to be "born" gay.

[TheEschaton]

There's documented, open homosexuality recorded in both chimps and dolphins. It seems to arise mainly in more intelligent species.

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Many, many species actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

Two links that summarize it.

[Sean of the Thread]

A female ape wraps her legs around another female, "rubbing her own clitoris against her partner's while emitting screams of enjoyment." The researcher explains: It's a form of greeting behavior. Or reconciliation. Possibly food-exchange behavior. It's certainly not sex. Not lesbian sex. Not hot lesbian sex.

Awesome

[DeV]

I'd compare it by noting that they're both sexual preferences.Bartlett, I hope you learned something new today. They are both sexual preferences, mmkay?

I think it's a natural reaction to want to say that nothing about us has anything in common with repulsive individuals (for instance, pedophiles). It's just not born out by the facts of the matter. We're all family.Wait, let me guess. We are all human for one!

Secondly, no one ever said that you had nothing in common with pedophiles. However, there is help for that if your common ground is that of a sexual nature. In case you hadn't noticed, pedophilia was not up for discussion so there was nothing to compare or contrast in the first place.

[Back]

Many, many species actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

Two links that summarize it.

I would not be surprised if homosexuality played an important role in the survival of species that we just don’t understand yet.

[Stanley Burrell]

It's not appropriate, (and this is a general comment on things larger than Latrin's question), because the entire ancient world homosexuality discussion and pedophilia is being judged by 21st century standards then used to support something that it wasn't. We have to see it in its context.

For instance, Athenian women married at around 14 to men often at least 32. Spartan women, by contrast, married around ages 16-18 to men only a few years older than they were under a system of what we would consider kidnapping and ritualized rape. Which one do we consider better? Can we really drag either society into a debate talking about sexual preference without noting support for pedophilia or kidnapping women and raping them then living married in secret for years in fear that the helots might butcher our new family? (You know how I love the Greeks, Eric!) We can argue the same things about the ancient Jewish society that surrounded the OT (The Torah if we want to be mostly historically correct).

What is pedophilia in the US? Be careful with your definition. Now, define homosexuality between adults. What is it at the core? For the love of god, nobody say evil/perverted/immoral etc, or I'm coming to your house with a switch, blindfold, and ten rolls of duct tape. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about using historical sources or opinions thereof without regard to the context, which has been done often in this thread.

Getting tangent-y, but I want to add onto what Mel posted in that I truly believe that many of the relationships between, for example, much older men and very young girls in a historical context from roughly the turn of the century before last (and still have in contemporary 18th century regions) had to deal with:

A) Pedophilia.

B) Twelve year old girls not expected to live much longer than thrice their age.

C) A combination of A feeding off of B.

Whereas now we have, for the most part:

A) Pedophilia.

One must closely scrutinize what I bolded (that a word?) in ES's response to understand that modern day society can not function healthily if the adaptations of ancient behavior are given the oppurtunity to present themselves in every day life in ways that have clearly been shown to cause harm when excercised in the present day.

That is why I feel that just as it is important for the masses have religious worship, understanding of philosophies, and a mindstate in their lives, today, there needs to be (and I am not implying that there isn't. At all) a true underlying rationalization of being just as in-tune with what people's behavior was and is regarding timeframing of instances of pedophilia, with the same exact unacceptability rule regarding "this is now, that was then" when imploring, say, religious virtues.

Again, this is all just opinion.