Homosexuality

[Aisling]

I'm probably thinking it's something deeper when it's not, I tend to do that a lot without realizing it before I've really gotten into it. I do like that Jenga tower analogy. To expand on that you'd have to will yourself to remove those blocks, rather than just hear the arguments, of course... Like I said before, I used to shut out arguments against god until I had some sort of incentive to actually consider them. (Maybe incentive's the wrong word, but there was something in me that clicked that made me think about it instead of just dismiss it like I normally would. Not sure what it was.) I'd think it would be the same for anyone else, to varying degrees.

I think I might have been taking your "want to believe in god" thing the wrong way. In a sense I kind of wish there was a god who could fix everything that's wrong... But I don't try to force myself to believe in it just because I want it to be real, since I'm quite sure there isn't one to try to believe in. It's similar to how I really wish Pokemon were real but I don't fool myself. Is it something like that? Sorry if it was really obvious before I just now realized it, I derp sometimes

 

[voltianqueen]

^ That is how I feel.

Also, I don't get why people would even want to get into other peoples' business about their sexuality. Like...that's a weird thing to do first of all. Being gay doesn't make someone any less of a person either. And not everyone believes in the Christian God, so...
Well I'm pretty much just repeating what everyone else said. Also, I liked reading the theism threads :P

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Actually there is a passage in the Bible against gay sex: Leviticus 18:22.

"Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman, for that is an abomination in the sight of the LORD."

To quote myself;

[...]on the topic of this whole "abomination" thing, since we've brought it up, the word "abomination" carries a different meaning in the Bible than in other contexts. The Biblical understanding of "abomination" comes from the Hebrew toevah which means an act that if performed, must be undone with ritual purification between the time the act is performed and the next time the person who performs the acts worships in a temple. An abomination in this sense would therefore also apply to having an evening meal at a shellfish restaurant or playing a game of American football as eating shellfish and playing with the skin of a pig are also toevah.

Also, that states that feminizing a man is a sin, not that gay sexual activities are a sin, otherwise it wouldn't say "as you would with a woman", it would say something like "thou shalt not insert thy manly rod into another man's puckered rectum" or "he who takes another man's rod in his mouth is a bad man".

I love Bible-busting. It's so fun.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

Teh Ebil Snorlax, your posts are the best thing ever. Just saying.

 

[Pwnemon]

To quote myself;



Also, that states that feminizing a man is a sin, not that gay sexual activities are a sin, otherwise it wouldn't say "as you would with a woman", it would say something like "thou shalt not insert thy manly rod into another man's puckered rectum" or "he who takes another man's rod in his mouth is a bad man".

I love Bible-busting. It's so fun.

You could say that, but if you have to cleanse yourself of it before entering the temple, it would still be a sin.

 

[Saith]

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the villains were the priest and the Semite*, because they chose to follow the Torah, rather than help a dying man. A priest is not allowed to touch blood (I think, might be a dead man) or he'd have to be ritually cleansed.

The hero was the Samaritan, who broke the rules to follow the route that provides the most love/happiness.


*And the thieves, ofc.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

Sooo you've never touched a football or eaten shellfish?

 

[Minnow]

Um, also, I think a big part of believing something is that you can't prove it. When you find evidence that verifies your belief, then your idea changes from an 'I think' to an 'I know', or at least 'I am closer to knowing for sure'.

But for many things, evidence just isn't there either way, so it cannot be known to be true or not. But that's why it's a belief. It doesn't really matter whether it's true or not. Since it can't be proven, you could even say that it is outside the realm of 'truth'. But, in any case, focusing on evidence I think is missing the point. For any belief, the core piece is that you have to believe and have faith because you cannot and never will know.

Thus, I think it's perfectly possible for you to change your beliefs without bringing evidence into the picture. If you realize that you were thinking about life the wrong way, or you've turned over a new leaf or something. You don't need evidence for that, just personal reflection.

And that's a big part of it, I think. Belief is personal. Everyone has their beliefs, their faiths, their values, but they're all personal. They, by definition, cannot apply to anybody else, and it is self-centric to assume they would. But people change, and if one is so objective that simply having more empirical evidence pointing towards homosexuals being 'normal' or not, or towards God being real or not, is enough to sway one's beliefs, and possibly how they treat their fellow man, then I would say one would be beyond hope of compassion.

Uh, btw, everybody already knows about Judge Walker's ruling, right?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

You could say that, but if you have to cleanse yourself of it before entering the temple, it would still be a sin.

Yeah, so feminizing a man is a sin according to your book. So what's your issue with gay marriage? There's not any inherent feminization in a gay relationship.

The passage you quoted says that the feminization of men is a sin, so it logically follows that your homophobia doesn't spring forth from your religion and therefore the prejudice is entirely your own, and without any rational basis.

Actually, just read this.

 

[Pwnemon]

I don't see how that means feminizing a man, when it says, "Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman," not, "Do not give a man womanly parts," or something in that way. Clearly, lying with a woman would imply sex, so lying with a man as with a woman would mean sex with another man. AKA gay sex.\

Also, I read that and the pit at 1 acceptance level should be about 20 times longer than from where 1950 begins.

Also, that was a very well thought-out speech, Minnow.

 

[Pwnemon]

Double post, my bad.

 

[Saith]

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the villains were the priest and the Semite*, because they chose to follow the Torah, rather than help a dying man. A priest is not allowed to touch blood (I think, might be a dead man) or he'd have to be ritually cleansed.

The hero was the Samaritan, who broke the rules to follow the route that provides the most love/happiness.


*And the thieves, ofc.

As I said, ritual cleansing =/= sin.

 

[opaltiger]

I don't see how that means feminizing a man, when it says, "Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman," not, "Do not give a man womanly parts," or something in that way. Clearly, lying with a woman would imply sex, so lying with a man as with a woman would mean sex with another man. AKA gay sex.\

Also, I read that and the pit at 1 acceptance level should be about 20 times longer than from where 1950 begins.

Also, that was a very well thought-out speech, Minnow.

I'd like you to read this, if you would. It very nicely refutes any argument against homosexuality based on the Bible.

 

[Saith]

Clearly, lying with a woman would imply sex, so lying with a man as with a woman would mean sex with another man. AKA gay sex.\

Butbutbut I spooooooooon.

 

[Flora]

I don't see how that means feminizing a man, when it says, "Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman," not, "Do not give a man womanly parts," or something in that way

I don't think he meant "feminizing" in that sense. Perhaps in this sense?

 

[Saith]

I'm pretty sure the feminising thing means buttsex.
You could have sex with your wife because you owned her. Having sex with a man implies that you own him. This is insulting to him stuff.
'Course, nowadays sex isn't just for reproduction/to show your domination, so the Leviticus quote (hell, the entire book) is obsolete.
Using that passage to demonise gays supports sexism.

 

[J.T.]

Clearly, lying with a woman would imply sex, so lying with a man as with a woman would mean sex with another man. AKA gay sex.

Let's have some fun with some of your past posts.

Actually there is a passage in the Bible against gay sex: Leviticus 18:22.

"Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman, for that is an abomination in the sight of the LORD."

this point has been covered several times in this thread but we'll ignore that for now

"I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken, the other left."

Therefore, exactly half of homosexuals are good enough in God's eyes to be raptured.

also you ignored everything else he said in that post but again I'll be nice and ignore that for a bit

How do you know the two men in bed are banging away? I sleep in a bed with my brother in the Holiday Inn; they only have two queen sized and my parents take one.

(later)

Clearly, lying with a woman would imply sex, so lying with a man as with a woman would mean sex with another man. AKA gay sex.

So, to recap: You said sleeping in the same bed with a man doesn't necessarily imply having sex with a man, then two pages later say that lying with a man implies having sex with a man. So either you have the memory of a goldfish, or you've decided "lying with a man" implies whatever happens to support your view, regardless of whether said implication fits with what you said earlier.

Also, I read that and the pit at 1 acceptance level should be about 20 times longer than from where 1950 begins.

Clearly you haven't paying attention to what's going on in the gay rights department, because they've made some serious progress. Unless we were legally executing gays back in the 50s (and I'm pretty sure we weren't!), then no, tolerance shouldn't be at 1 from that point on.

 

[Pwnemon]

Clearly you misinterpreted that last thing because what I was saying is that on the chart Christianity in the Western World was about 1/8 as long as 1950-2000.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Actually, if you'd bothered to read what was immediately under the chart, I point out that the gap between each point on the x-axis isn't the same.

And as others have pointed, feminizing is treating a man as if he was a woman, not turning a man into a woman.

And finally, of course, Levitical laws are holiness laws and breaking them is a sin only if you consciously promise to God not to break them.

 

[J.T.]

Actually, TES, I quoted your post on a different forum as part of a debate (I linked it back to you, don't worry). The only response I got from any of it was a guy who ignored more than half of it, asked for sources for almost every single sentence (and dropped it once I gave them), and started making up stuff towards the end. It was amusing, to say the least.