Homosexuality

[sevin0seven]

Man wrote the Bible, and man is fallible, making everything in the two thousand+ year old book that has been edited thousands of times to suit the will of man. Would God edit his own "sacred word"? Nerp.

God inspired men to write the Bible...but He did wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone.

If God inspired men to write the bible, he must have been a big fan of Horus. He was also born of a virgin, on dec 25th, performed miracles, was crucified, was spotted by two women raising from the dead on the 3rd day.. about a thousand years before Jesus was born.

Also, are we still stoning people after they get divorced?

I'm sorry, but the Old Testament is as ridiculous as Scientology. And stolen. The Garden of Eden thing happened already in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

And yet people use this flawless book to hatemonger on those that disagree with them.

ah, Horus the "Falcon"... i don't think the God of Christians ever mentioned him to the men he inspired the Bible with, therefore He is not a fan . the mythologist did studied their similarities...and it's still what it is... myth.

those people who's stoning other people after they get divorced should stone themselves.

[flex wood]

If God inspired men to write the bible, he must have been a big fan of Horus. He was also born of a virgin, on dec 25th, performed miracles, was crucified, was spotted by two women raising from the dead on the 3rd day.. about a thousand years before Jesus was born.

Also, are we still stoning people after they get divorced?

I'm sorry, but the Old Testament is as ridiculous as Scientology. And stolen. The Garden of Eden thing happened already in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

And yet people use this flawless book to hatemonger on those that disagree with them.

Just watched zeitgeist eh? I actually learned all about that stuff in a history class, in high school.

Also leave it you to bring up people getting stoned

[mjmjr25]

Unfortunately, mjm seems to have scared himself away,

You had it right when you said you didn't read the whole thread. It is comical that you stated you were too tired to do that, yet not too tired to make the longest post in the thread? No need to respond, just an observation.

In addition to causing unintended offense, I felt only 3 people (on the opposite side of the debate) were understanding the view (and thus NOT OFFENDED by the debate). This is not to say they agree with the view, but rather an attempt was made to understand it. I am glad to have them as friends.

Unfortunately, even in a community that is largely intellectual, there are still a large number of reactionary and close minded thinkers, unable to accept that it is possible to hold a belief, opposite their own, and yet not have that idea be offensive.

For whatever reason, there are still a considerable some who think if you find something to be wrong, you must hate the whole of that person, or that community. The irony is that, that line of reasoning is so wholly more intolerant than the "offensive" view. That, ultimately, is why I left the debate, among other reasons. That is why MANY racket members, in good standing on this site, and well-liked on this site...have stayed out of the debate. Not that they don't have a same/similar understanding as I, but that perhaps there understanding is greater than mine, and ultimately the intolerant and hurtful comments on the other side of this debate, do nothing but cause ill will and misunderstanding of His purpose.

As i've said many times in this thread and something that is apparently anathema to logic (unless a practicing Christian?) is that the overused/misunderstood phrase of "hate the sin, not the sinner" is a belief system and is not only possible, but it is absolutely lived and understood by a large part of the Christian community.

I loathe that I lie. That I cheat. That I drink to intoxication. That I curse. These are all actions I believe are displeasing to God. For purposes of this debate, the issue is homosexuality, which is on a massive list of temptations, reactions and urges that I believe displease God. No one has to agree with that. However, it is my belief.

My wife does things displeaseing to God, as do my mother, father, children and friends. I do not hate my father for cursing at me. I do not hate my friend for stealing from his employer. I do not hate my friends who have had same-sex relations.

I do believe all of the above are displeasing to God. It really is quite simple - it just isn't more complicated than that. I still love my father and my friends and take every opportunity to enjoy their company. How that translates into hatred of people on any level, I can't comprehend.

[DinnerX]

If you guys want to define the law specifically as thou shall not murder, in order to distinguish it from killing thats fine. I'm pretty sure God didnt drown infants during the flood in self defence. Or explode them in Sodom and Gomorrah because of a home invasion. I'd bet a significant number of the children during the final curse of Egypt werent at war with him either. Where Aaron's sons deserving of death while they tried to glorify your God? Or the man that attempted to prevent the Ark from crashing to the ground? Or was it moral for God to ask men to dash babies against the rocks in order to end their lives?

I'll put it bluntly. The book says sin deserves death and damnation. Every sin gets the same ultimate punishment and everybody sins. If God wants to bring judgement to some earlier than other's that's his prerogative. He is God. Thankfully for us, most of the time people get to live and have a chance to repent.

The Christian's job is to warn people and encourage them down the right path.

why would we hold his ideas of morality at a standard any higher than our own?

He's God. He isn't a man, he's a being beyond our ability to understand completely. Frankly, if he is real, it doesn't matter what we think about his moral code, it is the correct one because God would define correctness.

Mjm mentioned that homosexuality is inherently a sin because it is a "temporal" pursuit. That is to say -- following, for the sake of discussion, the common Christian belief that the physical body is a vessel for the soul -- that a "sin" constitutes utilizing the God-given body to serve that which is irrelevant to spiritual well-being. There is a quote which goes, "Classicism is the subordination of the parts to the whole; Decadence is the subordination of the whole to the parts," which, while it is not a saying of Christian origin, seems to be an eloquent summary of what is at the crux of the assertion which reasons that temporal pursuits are sins.

I don't think all pursuits of this life are sins. Playing video games isn't going to hurt me spiritually.

The difference being that I see the things which my existence immediately effects as being various degrees of temporal. I think that there is in some manner a degree of force which is not temporal (after all, the creation of our universe from any ideological background must be explained as the product of a 0:1 ratio at some point down the line), however all facets of my perception are temporal -- so I do my best, in mortal half-blindness, to serve the highest order that manifests itself. It is for this reason that I am an Environmentalist.

I think we agree here. I don't think I can understand the whole of truth and morality, but I do my best.

In serving your Lord, however, what is not temporal? The media that faith is transcribed in is temporal -- the apostles, the book, the language, the words. Your very cognitive perception of it is temporal -- might I remind you that you are a scholar of your faith; you discovered your faith by learning about it, just as secluded island-folk do not abide by its laws (unless by total coincidence) by way of unavoidable ignorance.

I think we agree here, there are problems in trying to understand something we can't completely understand.

Love between a man and woman is often as temporal as love between two men or two women, yet do they not feel the same sensations of elevation as though they have been freed of their mortal constraints for the duration of their deepest expressions of romance? Do they not feel the same welling of the tear-ducts when they gaze upon their lovers, feeling that even their sacrament of self is too low of a response to the majesty that they feel in eachothers' presence? From whence does the warmth of love arise? And when is that same warmth better called lust?

I don't deny the feelings homosexuals have, if that is what your getting at. I just don't think emotions are a judge of something's morality.

At what point does a behavior constitute a homosexual one? Many men (obviously women are part of this discussion too, but I hope everyone will be understanding if I shorthand for my own convenience here) with no sexual interest in other men whatsoever engage in anal stimulation within the confines of a heterosexual relationship. They enjoy the presence of objects which must be to some extent phallic to enter their bodies -- at which point does it become homosexual? If you'll excuse the vulgarity made necessary by the content of our discussion, how phallic must the phallus be?

It's not being done by another man, so I don't think that constitutes homosexual behavior.

Male. Female. Like the words used to communicate your doctrines of faith, in every passage, these are symbolic meanings placed on a very complex sexual biology which cannot be accurately represented in its entirety through such binaries. I may regret even posing the question, but what is God's Answer for hermaphrodites? Symbols are temporal. We give them meaning. Why would a God which is repulsed by the temporal provide the most widespread manifestation of His Will be known through the temporal?

Again, I don't think God is repulsed by everything in this world. I do think you have a point about what precisely determines gender. I believe it is defined by what sort of reproductive organs a person is born with. Other people probably don't. If a person has both, I suppose I would consider them both.

[brunoafh]

I doubt it'd change anyone's position on the issue, but this is a damn fine post.

Agreed with this. No matter what you say there's absolutely no changing certain people's mind on this subject. Which is fine, to each his own. So long as one isn't overly malicious to someone that practices things they believe to be "wrong" in whatever way, I see no harm done.

Although I do think Original_Name made a great post there, it kind of trailed off with the whole "mutilating your penis = you're now a woman" thing.

Unfortunately, even in a community that is largely intellectual, there are still a large number of reactionary and close minded thinkers, unable to accept that it is possible to hold a belief, opposite their own, and yet not have that idea be offensive.

I only recall one person being openly offended. Other than that the conversation has been mind-blowingly tame and open given the subject.

[J T]

If I may take a moment to dumb down the conversation here and strip it down to it's most basic, crude form.

1.) Poop is gross. Poop comes from a butt. Some gay man sex involves putting a penis into a butt. Therefore, it logically follows in many peoples' minds that gay man sex is gross.

2.) Men act like manly stereotypes. Women act like womanly stereotypes. All men that don't act manly and all women that don't act womanly are confusing and hard to classify and understand. It's a challenge to like what you can't understand.

3a.) If you're a straight man, lesbians are hot, but they won't sleep with you. This creates confusion and anger.
3b.) Or, if you're a straight woman, gay men are stylish, fun, and intelligent, but they won't sleep with you. This creates confusion and anger.

I think most anti-gay sentiment boils down to one of these three crude sentiments. Everything else is just a rationalization to explain away the fact that you're uncomfortable with anal sex, you like an orderly world where people fulfill their gender roles, and/or you just simply dislike the people that you don't have a shot of getting in bed with. All that other crap about religion, "what I believe", and the natural order of male/female relationships is just a bunch of shit people say to sound more adult and sophisticated about something that's really a simple matter of disliking something and wanting to discriminate against a group of people because of that dislike. I think homophobes should just drop the pretense and be clear about where their biases come from.


My opinion? I don't like penises and I especially don't want them in my butt. I don't like when girls have hairy armpits. I wish I could sleep with super hot lesbians. But this just means I'm heterosexual, not that I'm gay. HOWEVER, I think LGBT people are great! I've not only been to Pride parades, but I've marched in them. Queer people add all sorts of color, style, artistry, and intellect to our culture. That doesn't mean I like every gay person, but I don't like every straight person either. I just don't see anything wrong with queer people as a collective group other than a few disagreements we have over our instictive sexual desires and our degree of gender identification. Other than that, they are... what's that word? Oh yes, FABULOUS!

[Jrecee]

If I may take a moment to dumb down the conversation here and strip it down to it's most basic, crude form.

1.) Poop is gross. Poop comes from a butt. Some gay man sex involves putting a penis into a butt. Therefore, it logically follows in many peoples' minds that gay man sex is gross.

2.) Men act like manly stereotypes. Women act like womanly stereotypes. All men that don't act manly and all women that don't act womanly are confusing and hard to classify and understand. It's a challenge to like what you can't understand.

3a.) If you're a straight man, lesbians are hot, but they won't sleep with you. This creates confusion and anger.
3b.) Or, if you're a straight woman, gay men are stylish, fun, and intelligent, but they won't sleep with you. This creates confusion and anger.

I think most anti-gay sentiment boils down to one of these three crude sentiments. Everything else is just a rationalization to explain away the fact that you're uncomfortable with anal sex, you like an orderly world where people fulfill their gender roles, and/or you just simply dislike the people that you don't have a shot of getting in bed with. All that other crap about religion, "what I believe", and the natural order of male/female relationships is just a bunch of shit people say to sound more adult and sophisticated about something that's really a simple matter of disliking something and wanting to discriminate against a group of people because of that dislike. I think homophobes should just drop the pretense and be clear about where their biases come from.


My opinion? I don't like penises and I especially don't want them in my butt. I don't like when girls have hairy armpits. I wish I could sleep with super hot lesbians. But this just means I'm heterosexual, not that I'm gay. HOWEVER, I think LGBT people are great! I've not only been to Pride parades, but I've marched in them. Queer people add all sorts of color, style, artistry, and intellect to our culture. That doesn't mean I like every gay person, but I don't like every straight person either. I just don't see anything wrong with queer people as a collective group other than a few disagreements we have over our instictive sexual preferences and degree of gender identification. Other than that, they are... what's that word? Oh yes, FABULOUS!

I don't agree. Not Entirely. Those reasons could have been the initial reasoning behind what is written in holy books, and may be one of many reasons that people dislike gays (or the sin of being gay)' but to me it boils down to simple beliefs, handed down from one generation to another. We're getting more to the religious side here again, but imagine how long you held onto the belief of santa or the easter bunny. Now imagine that instead of once a year, you are taken by your parents To praise santa once a week. And when you are 11 years old there is no conversation about. . . Well son, it is time you knew, there is no santa. In fact your parents believe in him. And they give money to him. And everyone around you creates buildings and statues to worship him. All your friends believe in him. Before every meal you pray to him. And now you factor in these anti-gay sentiments. They're taught and handed down the same as the other beliefs that all your family and friends believe. To suggest that someone could just drop these beliefs isn't realistic. They are beliefs that are part of someone, and I don't think They could be dropped even if the person was gay. There are gay people who grapple with this problem every day. They want something that they have been told they aren't supposed to want. I would wager that there is a sizable group of christian gays who have voted against gay marriage.

[Original_Name]

@mjm: You're absolutely right, that was kind of a massive contradiction. Really, it's just that I type something like 90 wpm, but am an extremely slow and meticulous reader. I read around 20 pages of this thread, which unfortunately meant that what I got of your reasons for leaving was under-informed. Thank you for summarizing it for me, though I had definitely intended to go back and read through the rest of this fascinating thread.

Apologies if I came across as confrontational to you -- I am actually a fairly avid defender of your type of Christianity (that is, REAL Christianity, if I may be so bold). It's just that, from the world-view that I was raised in, I was seeing too many shades of gray to play a decent game on your chessboard, y'know? Anything I did which came across as deconstructive was done to help rebuild my interpretation of your views as knowledgeable people came in to fill in those blanks for me -- not to construe you and your faith as being hateful.

I should have said this to start off my post, but I appreciate how mature (or at least tastefully humorous!) you Racket folk have been in this thread. Not least of which you, mjm -- although I don't yet understand your view in its complexity (even when stated to be as simple as you say), you speak with the conviction of a man who understands both the love and the intensity of your deity. Blessed be.

[Stark]

I wish I could sleep with super hot lesbians.

So this thread just came up in my daily search I run for certain keywords and I'm terribly disappointed.

[J T]

I wish I could sleep with super hot lesbians.

So this thread just came up in my daily search I run for certain keywords and I'm terribly disappointed.

Me too buddy. Me too.