Support NeoGAF

[Minotauro]

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and "a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. " Matthew 10:34-39 NKJV

Man, Jesus is a prick. What kind of egomaniac does it take to capitalize "Me"?

Oh, yeah...STOP BOLDING ARBITRARY BLOCKS OF TEXT.

 

[WordofGod]

Any translation of scripture which includes "homosexual" is a bastardization.

How about a straight answer to my intial questions?

How do these passages, most of which concern themselves with pedarism and male prostitution, have to do with homosexuals?

It's akin to me going to Mardi Gras, and using the behavior on the streets to condem all heterosexuals.

God did not make you homosexual and did not design humans to have relations in that manner. If you want to take your chance with God and try to see if He will let you into heaven by living a life style that He condemns thats your freewill. But God broke the power of this sin by dying on the cross. He gives that gift freely to anyone by Faith. God is not just this way on Homosexuality but on many other sins:

"When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21

As you have read if people live a sinful life style and expect to get into heaven, they are living a false hope.

 

[levious]

So to clarify, when exactly was marriage sacred historically? Was it when people were forced into marriage for land acquisition, or maybe when it was used to cover up out of wedlock pregnancies?

As you have read if people live a sinful life style and expect to get into heaven, they are living a false hope.

is that a Christian's backhanded way of passing judgment on someone else? I believe that's a sin too, GOOD LUCK TAKING THAT RISK!

 

[Triumph]

God did not make you homosexual and did not design humans to have relations in that manner. If you want to take your chance with God and try to see if He will let you into heaven by living a life style that He condemns thats your freewill. But God broke the power of this sin by dying on the cross. He gives that gift freely to anyone by Faith. God is not just this way on Homosexuality but on many other sins:

"When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21

As you have read if people live a sinful life style and expect to get into heaven, they are living a false hope.

Yo! So what about us buddhists? Are we going to burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity because we try and meditate ourselves into Nirvana?

 

[FoneBone]

God did not make you homosexual and did not design humans to have relations in that manner. If you want to take your chance with God and try to see if He will let you into heaven by living a life style that He condemns thats your freewill. But God broke the power of this sin by dying on the cross. He gives that gift freely to anyone by Faith. God is not just this way on Homosexuality but on many other sins:

"When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21

As you have read if people live a sinful life style and expect to get into heaven, they are living a false hope.

...

All I can say is this: cry me a fucking river, bitch.

 

[jecclr2003]

Zaptruder, look back a little further, I wouldn't deny anyone the benefits to anyone willing to engage into a civil union. As a marriage (legally stated) is still a religious based ideal of man and woman. Just change the wording around a bit to make it an all-encompasing thing and still allow gay couples the same benefits that we get.

While I may not agree with it, I can't willingly deny them any of the said benefits for doing the same thing I do with my wife. That being working at maintaining a happy, and healty monogamous relationship. It's a lot of work.

I's all about controlling the language. Even change the word marriage in our nations Constitution, therefore making it a broader term and encompassing even those who would be in a happy, gay relationship. Once again, while I may not agree with it, it's not my life. Who am I to judge?

 

[Nerevar]

First of all everything that Paul was by the inspiration of GOD:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Right, I forgot, the unquestionable accuracy of the bible.

Seriously, I thought most Christians had (wisely) moved beyond that except for the radical fundamentalists. Did you forget about that whole council of Carthage thing, voted on by everyday men? Or did the Lord "guide them" during the selection process as well?

 

[DJ Demon J]

Nor do I find any type of "disdain or hatred" towards them because of them pursuing the lifestyle they choose to. Once again trying to formulate something that truly isn't there.

So now it's "disdain" and not "disgust?" Should I give you some more time to decide on which one you want it to be so that you can try to gloss over what you've previously posted? You said their sexual practice of performing fellatio on each other is "repulsive" to you. Sounds like disgust for homosexuals to me. If you said something like, "I don't mind what homosexual men do with each other, it doesn't bother me one bit, any of their activities, I don't find any of their activities repulsive and wish them the freedom to practice their beliefs as I practice mine", then I'd be formulating something that truly wasn't there. As it stands, you've incriminated yourself with your previous posts and I'm pointing it out because it's impeding your argument, which seems to be constantly changing.

While I myself am not of a religious nature

I did say that the deviants were struck down for their deviant lifestyles. Thats they way it is, you may not be religious either, but that's what's written. As it is written homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle.

OK, so, you're NOT religious, but you believe that an all-powerful deity took the lives of "deviant" homosexuals because a religious text says so? Come on man, you're giving me too much material to work with here...tell you what I'll do you a favor and I'll let this thread continue in the more than capable hands of Raoul Duke, Minotauro and AfroLuffy. I gotta begin the commute home from work.

 

[Dice]

I haven't castrated myself recently out of worship of a hermaphrodite Goddess. So, please, tell me how this condemns my committed relationship or at all represents homosexuals?

Ummmmm... ??? The only way you could get such a view is purely speculation. And I guess all interpretations are when you get down to it, but that is quite a stretch given the text. There are arguments on the liberal side I find decently rational, but that just sounds ridiculous to me.

Oh well, I don't want to argue about it. You've clearly made up your mind as to what the different verses mean and I assume you have quite a tenacity about it. Speaking to ignorance is one thing but arguing on speculation is entirely different.

WordofGod: Try to be a little more rational, consider the alternate ways people might view the passages you put up. Since you obviously try to adhere to it, I'm sending you a PM on what scripture says about our speech and how to talk to people.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Now for the states rights for civil unions, I don't care, but don't call it a marriage when it can't be one. Be it a civil-union, or whatever you may want to call it. If they want the same rights as marriage fine, it all gets chalked up to semantics. You make everyone happy... same rights, just a different name for a small minority. Whatever yanks your chain.

I'm an atheist reverend.

 

[jecclr2003]

DJ Once again you are fabricating, I NEVER mentioned anything about any sort of sexual act of any kind. Sorry to disappoint you. You're trolling plain and simple and looking to fan the proverbial flames.

The only reason I find the though repulsive, is because I can't ever picture myself doing that. I'm not wired that way. Sorry to disappoint you DJ Demon if you are cruising the net for a piece of ass, I ain't your guy.

And no, I'm not of a religious nature. That is correct, sir. Here's your cookie.

But did I ever mention that I actually BELIEVED in the legend of Sodom and Gamorrah? Nope, sorry, not that either. I just stated the facts of how it's written.

As for me feeling that homosexuality is considered a deviant lifestyle, that is correct. BUT, I don't care if someone is. That's their life not mine. I may not like it, but like I said, their life not mine. I don't have to like it, just accept them for who they are, and if they are happy with how they are and who they are with, more power to them.

I'm glad they have found someone they can indentify with, even though it may not fit my standards of what I consider right or wrong. It's not my life, plain and simple.

So keep fishing DJ Demon, and send up a flair when you're close to a point.

 

[Goreomedy]

Ummmmm... ??? The only way you could get such a view is purely speculation.

I, and I believe Paul, speak of the Goddess religions. Pagan celebrations of a Hermaphrodite Goddess, in which straight participants often switched gender roles during worship. These people weren't homosexuals. They were wannabes.

It is recorded that the priests would go so far as to castrate themselves, and that the women would use strap-ons.

I've done a decent amount of research. And probably enjoyed it too much.

 

[Drinky Crow]

the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group

Christianity -- it's a sin!

 

[FoneBone]

Christianity -- it's a sin!

Now that's fucking priceless. I can't believe I missed it.
:lol

 

[Mermandala]

"Do You Sodom take this box-turtle as your awful webbed Wife?"

<--- "I DO"


"Do You Gamera take this truck-driving japanophile as your &#22827;?"

<--- "RAWWWRR!!!

Is this the future you want your children razed in? I think not.

 

[Dice]

I'm not trying to debate, but I'm just trying to make a little peace here and hopefully answer some questions better than WordofGod did.

Man, Jesus is a prick. What kind of egomaniac does it take to capitalize "Me"?

I know you are joking, but bear in mind it is hypocritical to desire respect and not give it, even if the other side has transgressed that desire already. Not that I assume you desire respect, but it is far more peaceable for us all.

is that a Christian's backhanded way of passing judgment on someone else? I believe that's a sin too, GOOD LUCK TAKING THAT RISK!

Assuming a persons intentions (especially assuming them to be negative) is never good. I know there are plenty of people who throw such things around to condemn others, but many also do it out of genuine concern and desire to let people know of a danger that is very real to them.

If a person is secretly judgmental it is punishment to themselves because it leads to not accepting your faults, pressures and other destructive mindsets and social stigmas. So in the meantime why don't we all try and just receive each other's words as they are given? In this instance his appear to be of informative intent.

Yo! So what about us buddhists? Are we going to burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity because we try and meditate ourselves into Nirvana?

Scripture teaches that since God is the creator and source of all good things, He is worthy of due acknowledgement and honor. He is not as a man that puffs himself up more than he should, but God genuinely is worthy of it. To transgress this by following your own ways is a damnable offense, it is as such because in rejecting the source of life and all good things all you are left with is death and all bad things anyway.

God gives you this life on earth, but when you die you are in the eternal plane where all is far more black and white and permanent. Since God is a just God, He doesn't just let things slide and so all sins are held to every man, but since He is also a gracious and loving God He came to earth as a man and paid the penalty/price for that sin for all who would receive it/Him. And now all He asks is acceptance of that grace as the only means of salvation forgiveness of those transgressions, and a heart that strives to honor Him as their Lord.

If you wish to know further details of the interworkings of it all I could link you to some very helpful sites.

Seriously, I thought most Christians had (wisely) moved beyond that except for the radical fundamentalists. Did you forget about that whole council of Carthage thing, voted on by everyday men? Or did the Lord "guide them" during the selection process as well?

Actually the large majority still holds to this teaching. Also the selection process was very rational and impartial, they didn't just vote for what they liked or against what they did not like.

And now for my own conversation....

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.

This is all good and well, but the problem lies in the inescapable fact that the majority tends to decide for themselves what "reasonable" is. This is where the minority need to speak and reason with the majority, but the majority will still decide.

As I said the idea of a country that makes everyone completely happy is a dream that will never come true, but what we have in the United States is about as close as you'll get so I'm not complaining. I guess I just don't understand why people outrage so much, it's not understanding of and/or productive given the system that we have.

Ok guys I have stuff to do for the rest of the night so I'm out, play nice.

 

[impirius]

"Do You Sodom take this box-turtle as your awful webbed Wife?"

<--- "I DO"


"Do You Gamera take this truck-driving japanophile as your &#22827;?"

<--- "RAWWWRR!!!

Is this the future you want your children razed in? I think not.

Ahhhhh, that made the whole thread worth it. :lol


Dice, I think the key to your last point about democracy is that we live in a republic. Republics are less likely to fall victim to the "tyranny of the majority" because we have representatives which serve as a kind of buffer for the whims of the majority. Yeah, they still have to think about how their constituents will feel about their decisions, but if we demanded that representatives make decisions based solely on the popular opinion instead of their personal sense of justice (or truth, or right and wrong, or however you want to say it), then we may as well just have a direct democracy. It's not foolproof, of course, but it's helpful.

 

[Crimson Dragon]

God did not make you homosexual and did not design humans to have relations in that manner. If you want to take your chance with God and try to see if He will let you into heaven by living a life style that He condemns thats your freewill. But God broke the power of this sin by dying on the cross. He gives that gift freely to anyone by Faith. God is not just this way on Homosexuality but on many other sins:

"When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group , envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21

As you have read if people live a sinful life style and expect to get into heaven, they are living a false hope.

Well geez, apparently, you don't have to follow a sinful nature to get some of those evil results.

And what is up with Jesus pitting you against your parents and telling you to pick them or him.

Sorry, that was a bit off topic. IMO, the bottom line is this - the Constitution is for equal rights for everyone. You start letting people take that away and where will it stop?

 

[Goreomedy]

You start letting people take that away and where will it stop?

My guess is, with an "Amen."

 

[levious]

Assuming a persons intentions (especially assuming them to be negative) is never good. I know there are plenty of people who throw such things around to condemn others, but many also do it out of genuine concern and desire to let people know of a danger that is very real to them.

If a person is secretly judgmental it is punishment to themselves ...

There's nothing secretively judgmental about it. Saying something "to let people know of a danger that is very real to them" would require that they have judged their actions and deemed them to be sinful. Not that hard to see through.

 

[Goreomedy]

Play nice? Does Dice have mod status to go with that pompous sign off?

 

[Diablos]

You know, if we want to go by church's logic here, fine. Even straight marriage today is not exactly the right thing because MORE THAN HALF OF THEM END UP IN DIVORCE. And what's the reason for divorce? Money. Marrying someone for money over how good of a person you think someone is would be something I doubt your respective God had intended for you.

 

[videogamer]

is that a Christian's backhanded way of passing judgment on someone else? I believe that's a sin too, GOOD LUCK TAKING THAT RISK!

Well, that's his opinion, according to his interpretation of his religion. Of course, there are alternative religions and alternative interpretation of those religions that would contradict wordofgod's opinions. Perhaps it was more of a criticism of other Christian posters that espoused other views, rather than the posters that did not take a religous viewpoint.

 

[DJ Demon J]

The only reason I find the though repulsive, is because I can't ever picture myself doing that.

says the man with a near naked wrestler as his avatar... just a joke...chill

I'm not wired that way.Sorry to disappoint you DJ Demon if you are cruising the net for a piece of ass, I ain't your guy.

:lol Well, first off, I'm not gay. But I do support equal rights and freedom for any human being, regardless of race, age, gender, physical handicap or sexual preference.

So keep fishing DJ Demon, and send up a flair when you're close to a point.

You've changed your tune so much; as I said before I'll let your posts and mine tell their own story. As far as this thread is concerned, I sincerely hope this amendment does not pass.

 

[OmniGamer]

My thoughts exactly.

I'm really annoyed at the fact that everytime these type of discussions come up, and a bible-thumper says this and that, and is completely owned by simple rational counterpoints, they never try to counter back...a month goes by, maybe two, another topic comes up, and they resort to the same arguments that have already been dismissed. I guess that's what happens when instead of trying to do something dynamic like, oh, i don't know, THINKING, you spout the same crap because you're bound to something static and outmoded(and very contradictory).

The past couple of pages have not made a liar out of me.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

We should also make single parenting, sex/reproduction out of wedlock, and divorce illegal. All of these, much like gay marriage, threaten the very foundation of heterosexual, Christian families!

 

[demon]

God did not make you homosexual and did not design humans to have relations in that manner.

So what are you saying? Sexual orientation is a conscious decision? Does that mean all these animals that do in fact exhibit homosexuality actually choose their sexual orientation? Does it? Are you really going to exhibit retardation and actually choose to say yes? Will you?

Christ on a cross.....I've jizzed out sperm with a collective IQ higher than yours.

 

[xsarien]

God did not make you homosexual and did not design humans to have relations in that manner. If you want to take your chance with God and try to see if He will let you into heaven by living a life style that He condemns thats your freewill. But God broke the power of this sin by dying on the cross. He gives that gift freely to anyone by Faith. God is not just this way on Homosexuality but on many other sins:

"When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, your lives will produce these evil results: sexual immorality, impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other kinds of sin. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21

As you have read if people live a sinful life style and expect to get into heaven, they are living a false hope.

Word of advice:
Less Bible, more REAL LIFE.

Who the hell are you to pass judgement on anyone? I have several gay friends, all much more deserving to get into heaven than those who preach what the Bible says is right rather than what they [should] know is right.

You've quoted Bible passages a few times now. Wonderful. It's just a book, arguably translated quite poorly from Latin to English, and was never meant to be taken literally. Pick it up a little less often and go commune with your fellow human beings if you'd like to know what the spirit behind the book's teachings is truly about.

 

[maharg]

same rights, just a different name for a small minority.

Isn't seperate but equal just so COOL?

 

[firex]

I'm against gay marriage, too. I don't want to have to be really over the top happy if I ever get married to a woman.

 

[FoneBone]

Word of advice:
Less Bible, more REAL LIFE.

Who the hell are you to pass judgement on anyone? I have several gay friends, all much more deserving to get into heaven than those who preach what the Bible says is right rather than what they [should] know is right.

You've quoted Bible passages a few times now. Wonderful. It's just a book, arguably translated quite poorly from Latin to English, and was never meant to be taken literally. Pick it up a little less often and go commune with your fellow human beings if you'd like to know what the spirit behind the book's teachings is truly about.

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that you're wasting your time on him. Like I said, incapable of independent thought.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I'm against gay marriage, too. I don't want to have to be really over the top happy if I ever get married to a woman.

 

[Hitokage]

The religious beliefs of the founding fathers of this country or lack thereof has nothing to do with this. What, if the country were founded on Christianity people wouldn't complain? Yeah right. People want to do what they want, and our country having some sort of religious affinity wouldn't change that.

The personal beliefs of the framers IS a red herring, but only because what one's work is supposed to express and one's own beliefs are not one and the same. They could hypothetically be devout catholics but have wanted government to be utterly secular.

Case in point--Our country may not be based on religion but it IS based on democracy and yet people are still shocked and complain about the decisions made.

I really wonder if people realize the nature of our government. The way it works is the people decide who they want to represent them and those people make decisions, and sometimes we vote to decide. Either way, the laws will be reflective of the desires of the majority. If you think religion shouldn't be an influence, too bad if the majority does. If you don't like what is going on there then stay away from Ohio and move to some state that gives more rights to homosexuals, that's the beauty of the United States.

If you can find a country that has something better going on then feel free to move there, but please give up on this dream of a country lets anyone do anything they want. Countries are either biased by the leadership directly or biased by the mass opinion; there will never be a country that makes everyone happy all the time, but if you know what you want from life you are free to move to some place that will give you what you want. The US has these sorts of opportunities more than anywhere else so I'm not going to complain.

I really don't see what is so shocking about people who disagree. There has always been differing views on everything and there always will be, that is WHY we live in a democracy. They aren't stealing your country from you--It is their country too! If you think they shouldn't even have a voice in political decisions because they disagree with you on what moral base our laws should be built on, who is the fascist then? You are just as free to rally and plead your case if it is so important to you, and I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one state that will be in your favor if you do.

*ok, go back to the top of this quote to overlap this reply*

BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSHIT. Until the 20th century, "democracy" was considered mob rule. The checks and balances put into our structure of government don't only apply to government itself, our implementation of representative democracy was also meant to be a check ON THE PEOPLE to prevent "the tryanny of the majority". Civil rights were not meant to be exclusive to the factions in power, otherwise the very freedoms that America is meant to embody would be nothing more than a cheap sham.

 

[maharg]

I'd just like to point out that saying "if you don't like it, move" about a democratic country indicates a failure of democracy.

 

[Phoenix]

To be honest I'm glad this is happening because this will only serve to show that the states are not capable of handling this issue in a non-discriminatory mannor. In turn this will get appealed to the US Supreme Court where some sanity will be brought to this whole thing. The more extreme these morons get, the faster this will make its way to the SC as state endorsed discrimination which is unconstitutional.

 

[Greenpanda]

To be honest I'm glad this is happening because this will only serve to show that the states are not capable of handling this issue in a non-discriminatory mannor. In turn this will get appealed to the US Supreme Court where some sanity will be brought to this whole thing. The more extreme these morons get, the faster this will make its way to the SC as state endorsed discrimination which is unconstitutional.

Well, someone's setting himself up for disappointment.

 

[Phoenix]

Well, someone's setting himself up for disappointment.

Don't think so. Its not within the rights of the states to discriminate against its citizens. Never has been, never well be. All these laws do is give a written legan basis that can be challenged in the courts.

 

[krypt0nian]

The scripture says this...

The bible says that...


There are more and more who either don't care or choose other religions.
You may as well quote the Toys R Us Catalog.

And that is no more disrespectful than others who are trying to raise their chosen voodoo above my chosen voodoo.

Live your life and I'll live mine. The difference is I won't be judging you.

WordofGod, I wish for you nothing more than a gay child or two. Maybe then you will learn the true nature of being a christian.

Here's another quick thought: History will prove me right. This will be just another sticky point gradeschoolers are taught to ignore.

 

[videogamer]

To be honest I'm glad this is happening because this will only serve to show that the states are not capable of handling this issue in a non-discriminatory mannor. In turn this will get appealed to the US Supreme Court where some sanity will be brought to this whole thing. The more extreme these morons get, the faster this will make its way to the SC as state endorsed discrimination which is unconstitutional.

Kind of depends on who is on the Supreme Court, esp since they are all getting pretty old.

 

[SalientOne]

jecc: I can understand your feelings, and respect them as you own. What I can't understand or agree with (at least not based on the background and explanation you've provided so far) is your choice of words in describing your perspective on gay relations.

You state that you are not comfortable with the idea of two men loving one another or engaging in sex or otherwise intimate relations. Perhaps you have the same feelings about two women (if so, you're in limited heterosexual male company, but I digress...).

I can understand your discomfort. I feel a little queasy when watching two men openly make out. It's not my cup of tea.

But to describe gay relationships as "immoral" and "wrong"? This makes no sense at all based on your professed outlook.

Gayness may be "wrong" for you, and may not feel right for you... but what does this have to do with being "immoral"? How can it be immoral to love someone, regardless of their sex? The world would be a better place if more people showed love and respect to one another, rather than hatred and bigotry. What is gay couple #42739 doing to damage the fabric of society, in your opinion? I mean, other than making you uncomfortable when they kiss?

So while you don't have to tune into Queer as Folk or rent Cherry Twinks on a Friday night, maybe you could find it in your heart to refrain from condemning gay people and their loving relationships as "immoral" and "wrong".

Remember, when in doubt, refer to Seinfeld.

 

[videogamer]

Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America - as when a Texas governor, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us."

I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html

more in the article on different religious interpretations

and another article on gay rights in Ohio
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/18/gayohio/

 

[Banjo Tango]

That article reminded me of this open letter to Dr. Laura, written in response to her "Homosexuality is bad because Leviticus says so" comment...

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to best follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

[Hitokage]

Banjo: Haha, that's awesome.

 

[Dice]

*sigh* Hermeneutics would be useful when trying to make clever objections to someones beliefs about God's law. It's fun and games to poke at Dr. Laura but asking those questions in a local seminary would only end up in ones own embarassment.

 

[White Man]

Alternate viewpoint: Michel Foucault in The History of Sexuality vol 1 argues that homosexuality (as a lifestyle) did not exist until either the 18th or 19th century, since that appears to be the time when the word 'homosexuality' entered the vernacular. If a word representing a lifestyle of same-sex relationships had needed a word to signify its existence previously (and not just kid's gloves words like 'effeminate;' i.e. metaphors), an exclusive word for homosexuality would have previously come around.

He goes on to argue that while societies in the past may have done homosexual acts, it's unlikely that there were very many exclusively homosexual couples. I believe at this point, his argument leans towards the industrial revolution and the urban lifestyles becoming prevalent in 18th century europe, along with the budding discipline of pure psychology, managing to make homosexuality a viable lifestyle choice (EDIT: There's also something abot the lifestyle and role of women in a relationship changing but I don't want to say or quote anything without having the book in front of me). I'd check, but my copy of The History of Sexuality is in europe right now.

Anyway, this in mind, purely homosexual relationships were probably EXTREMELY rare in biblical times, to the point where most people wouldn't even know about amorous relationships between two people of the same gender. They, however, would know of sex acts used in rituals to other gods. Or possibly the biblical slant against it is a sort of dig on the opressors of the jews/christians, who may've engaged in same sex relationships for either bonding or religious rites. Also remember that the bible gives fornication a blanket no-no.

Either way. . .the homosexual lifestyle is a relatively new thing.

Also note: There's no chance of changing the mind of people that hold up religion as a reason to condemn homosexuality. Some of their minds cannot be changed, and others might change their minds when they realize homosexuality is probably familially rather close to them.

Anyway, I have to head to work. I just wanted to toss some sal. . .er, semiotic linguistics into this.

+5 intellectually superior points to me for bringing up Foucault

 

[ShadowRed]

Alternate viewpoint: Michel Foucault in The History of Sexuality vol 1 argues that homosexuality (as a lifestyle) did not exist until either the 18th or 19th century, since that appears to be the time when the word 'homosexuality' entered the vernacular. If a word representing a lifestyle of same-sex relationships had needed a word to signify its existence previously (and not just kid's gloves words like 'effeminate;' i.e. metaphors), an exclusive word for homosexuality would have previously come around.

He goes on to argue that while societies in the past may have done homosexual acts, it's unlikely that there were very many exclusively homosexual couples. I believe at this point, his argument leans towards the industrial evolution and the urban lifestyles becoming prevalent in 18th century europe, along with the budding discipline of pure psychology, managing to make homosexuality a viable lifestyle choice. I'd check, but my copy of The History of Sexuality is in europe right now.

Anyway, this in mind, purely homosexual relationships were probably EXTREMELY rare in biblical times, to the point where most people wouldn't even know about amorous relationships between two people of the same gender. They, however, would know of sex acts used in rituals to other gods. Or possibly the biblical slant against it is a sort of dig on the opressors of the jews/christians, who may've engaged in same sex relationships for either bonding or religious rites. Also remember that the bible gives fornication a blanket no-no.

Either way. . .the homosexual lifestyle is a relatively new thing.

Also note: There's no chance of changing the mind of people that hold up religion as a reason to condemn homosexuality. Some of their minds cannot be changed, and others might change their minds when they realize homosexuality is probably familially rather close to them.

Anyway, I have to head to work. I just wanted to toss some sal. . .er, semiotic linguistics into this.

With all due respects White Man the Greeks were notourious for allowing homosexuality. I'm not sure if they actually had mean marring but it ws common back in that time. In some indiginous American tribes homosexual sex was recognized. Some tribes for bid it and bannished the perpetrators others thought it was natural. I recall hearing of a pacific island tribe that practices male homosexual relationships until the boy gets married to a female. They don't have a word for homosexualaity because they don't see a distinction between man and female relationships. I'm not really sure what your post was getting at in regaurds to their not being a homosexual lifestyle before 18th-19th century.

 

[Catalyst]

To the lighter side of the news, with a pinch of humor:

 

[White Man]

With all due respects White Man the Greeks were notourious for allowing homosexuality.

But wasn't it primarily a male bonding type of thing to them? And when it wasn't about male-bonding, wasn't it a sort of paedophilic thing, i.e. rite of passage?

I can't really talk about native american tribes and their view of things. I haven't really studied it. Well. . .maybe a little. In Will Roscoe's The Zuni Man-Woman, the story of the Zuni berdache is told. Along with a few religious details, this is basically a third homosexual gender. This was in the Pacific southwest, btw, and clearly different tribes viewed things differently. Foucaultian thought only mainly applies to the history of Europe and western Asia.

The reason I brought up the industrial rev angle is because folks invariably would've asked 'Why did homosexuality get big in the 18th-19th centuries.'

Alright, I really need to get to work. People get pissed if there's noone to stock their khakies. Hmmm, did I spell khakies right, or is the word just that ugly?

EDIT: Did the forum just get oppressively slow for anyone else?

 

[krypt0nian]

To the lighter side of the news, with a pinch of humor:

And now you should be banned for equating homosexuality with incest.

You really are a sick fuck.

 

[Catalyst]

And now you should be banned for equating homosexuality with incest.

You really are a sick fuck.

The hell? I was just browsing Opa-Ages and found that hilarious picture. I'm not equating anything, you judgemental fuck.