Homosexuality

[dsheinem]

So wait, what is your opinion on the subject dsh?

That being gay is just as normal and natural as being straight and that no law should discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

I also believe that there's mounds of evidence and sound reasoning to support that opinion. I've yet to see a good counter-argument that isn't wrapped in far-from-agreed-upon theology. Even if I did see a theologically sound one, I would have issues with those religious views shaping secular policy.

[Bikeage]

I am a bit surprised that none of the 3-4 people who chimed in yesterday have addressed any of the questions I posed so far today. I tried to set it up as a welcoming chance for honest dialogue, as I am genuinely interested in how one substantiates and/or exercises "disapproval".

Disapproval is officially exercised by one crossing arms and slowly shaking their head while making a pouty face. Ironically doing this in the presence of homosexual males may be misinterpreted as being checked out.

The fact is, everyone has at least thought about it, some have tried it, others accept it as who they are. The sooner mankind collectively stops debating the morality of what consenting people do with their ding-a-lings and whoo-has, the sooner we end war, cure cancer, and finally get off this ball of mud.

[Flake]

The problem I have with using religion as an argument against homosexuality is the cherry picking nature of such an approach. As Dsh pointed out, you cannot simply say 'the Bible says so' because there have been too many translations of translations of translations of the book - no one knows what the true text should be.

But let's pretend that's a non issue. The real cherry picking that bothers me is that religious people of all creeds routinely ignore parts of their sacred texts that don't flush with modern life. Living kosher, marrying your dead brothers wife, working on Sunday/Saturday/whenever-you-are-not-supposed to, etc. It's all good!

...but not being gay. And somehow the idea of a few gay people getting married worries people more than the reality of tens of thousands of straight people getting divorced.

I am agnostic but if I were to believe in the Christian version of God, I would see the fact that society can handle homosexuality as a testament to the perfection of mankind. We are free of the need to breed for the sake of survival. We can follow our hearts without it hurting the race as a whole. For more people than ever before, gay or straight, love is an option.

Shouldn't that be more awesome than people seem to think it is?

[brunoafh]

That being gay is just as normal and natural as being straight and that no law should discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

I... wouldn't call it quite "natural", but I agree that discrimination based on one's sexual preference is quite silly. There are far more important things to take into consideration when judging one's character than who they have sex with.

So this leads me to another question. mjmjr25, are homosexuals any worse for engaging in homosexual acts than you are for gambling, or random guy 27 is for murdering someone? If all sin is meant to be forgiven or whatever, then what's the problem in the first place? Sorry I know absolutely nothing about this bible stuff, or what Paul said to the Corinthians.

[Luke]

I... wouldn't call it quite "natural", but I agree that discrimination based on one's sexual preference is quite silly.

It is arguable that you see more homosexuality in nature than you do in human social structures. Ants have shown homosexual "relationships" and there are one million ants to each person on the planet. Lots of homo ants.

Plus Hank Hill got raped by a male dolphin.

Natural.

[Forlorn Drifter]

I only plan on posting this once, because I started this shitstorm and made a fool of myself already...

English Standard Version (©2001)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

...at least as far as it concerns men...are lesbians ok?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

...abusers = homosexuality? This seems vague...

On the point of lesbians being okay... a study, which I can not show you as I would not know where to find it, suggested that women partaking in homosexual acts is more natural and explainable than men. It suggested this on the basis of humans being smilar to lion prides, where women share duties and raise children together (in which case the female homosexuality would work to bond the group.) Men, would either be the alpha male of the pride, or part of a smaller group of males, who are only together until which point they find their own pride or die. Take that as you will.

I've grown up with the King James bible, and that's the way I've learned this subject. That is vague, true. It was explained to me that those who partake in homsoexuality are abusing themselves, thus, abusers of mankind.

[irixith]

Oh, I love a classic "Corinthians 6:9" reference! (and don't forget Timothy 1:10 while you're at it!)

One of a select handful of bible passages that sparks a bevy of hatred and ignorance that rests on an incorrect Greek translation of two words in particular: "arsenokoites" and "malakoi", incorrectly translated as "homosexual" and "effeminate", respectively. There was no word parallel to "homosexual" in ancient parlance the way it is used today. "Homosexual" the way we use it today has only been in use for approximately 100 years.

"arsenokoites" The word was being used to reference "temple prostitution", a sin that affected Corinth in that time period, so much so that first century readers of Paul's words did not even need the word defined to them. In the 56 recorded usages of the word after Paul used it, not once was it ever used to describe something to parallel our usage of "homosexual". Recent bible scholars agree on the mistranslation of this particular word.

"malakoi" The same applies here, except this word is widely mistranslated as "effeminate". It is translated as "soft", "weakling" or "vulnerable", as evidenced in Luke 7:25 & Matthew 11:8, and "illness" in Matthew 4:23 & 9:35. It's amazing to dig back through the history of this particular word and see how culturally it has taken on an entirely different context and meaning than what was written.

Corinth was rife with sexual sin at the time. Imagine a city filled with brothels and temples of equal measure, where fornication was running wild in a Jewish community that had rejected the Gospel. (Right?!?! )

I'm ready for Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27 and Genesis 19:5 when you get bored of Corinthians 6:9.

[Luke]

I'm ready for Leviticus...

Leviticus basically says "You can't do shit".

Eating shellfish is worth dying for (sends you to hell apparently), and I don't know a woman who doesn't try to look nice when attending a service (also sends you to hell).

[mjmjr25]

@Bruno,

are homosexuals any worse for engaging in homosexual acts than you are for gambling,

No, as said, sin is not weighted. A best hypothetical would be that if Adolph Hitler for all he has done, sat in the bunker, and truly asked Christ for forgiveness, then he may be in Eternal glory right now.

@Flake, I can't pretend something isn't, that is. That's a tough way to reach life choices.: What color is the grass, pretend green isn't an option.

@Flake, don't confuse the vast majority of Christians, with the quacks who hold up signs like, "God hates fags!" - that is not my belief, nor the belief of the many Christians who would oppose something like gay marriage. Example, (2) members have pm'd me in the past hour to thank me for my comments, as well as one other person on YM. These are not hateful, meanspirited people who take days off of work to protest. That is a small small part of populace, and should not be lumped into the populace of practicing Christians. Think fanatical muslims (5% or less?) vs. peaceful open muslims (95%+).

@Flake, I wouldn't take a second out of any day to protest or actively oppose gay marriage. But if I get called by a pollster and asked if I think it should be legalized, I would say no. Again, repeating myself - it would be analagous to asking me if anything else I believe to be sinful, should be legalized. So i'm not losing sleep.

@Flake, most of the things you mentioned were before the prophet (and the new covenant).

@Flake, my belief is that the Nicaean Council was divine, an instrument of God. That Aramaic first bible has of course been translated into numerous languages, and then translated from a translation, however the direct Aramaic > English bible is believed my most theologians to be extremely accurate, if not wholly accurate to what came from that Council.

@Flake and Dsh, anyone can produce and publish a bible. I read an english translation of the original Aramaic, and if i'm sleepy, i'll read the Good News Bible. With that, I thought most of those translations were pretty darn similar if we're picking hairs.

And...c'mon. The word "man" obviously is taking all of "mankind" as a whole to mean man and woman. If we go through ANY texts, including the newspaper of today, we will see the word "man" as referring to all humans. "Is this the best thing for mankind? Err, is this the best thing for mankind....and womankind? "

[dsheinem]

@Flake and Dsh, anyone can produce and publish a bible. I read an english translation of the original Aramaic, and if i'm sleepy, i'll read the Good News Bible. With that, I thought most of those translations were pretty darn similar if we're picking hairs.

And...c'mon. The word "man" obviously is taking all of "mankind" as a whole to mean man and woman. If we go through ANY texts, including the newspaper of today, we will see the word "man" as referring to all humans. "Is this the best thing for mankind? Err, is this the best thing for mankind....and womankind? "

the Bible makes lots of differentiation between men and women and the rules that apply to each throughout, so I don't think you can in full faith read any of those passages to be necessarily incorporating women - especially since some are very specifically using the term "male."

I guess for me it comes down to the fact that, in light of lots of variable interpretations, why would you choose the one that forces you to discriminate (through a vote, for example) against people who aren't doing any harm to anyone else by pursuing their own love life with a consenting partner?

And Flake's argument is not just about the obvious fringe like Westboro - hell, at least they are upfront and honest about the link between their politics and their beliefs. The 95% silent majority will simply deny equal rights through legislation and voting instead of picketing about it (all the while professing love). And his point is well made that this silent majority pick on this issue in particular (instead of the ones that they feel are not relevant in contemporary society)--- why?