NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, forgive my ignorance. Secondly, I do not mean this subject to offend. I am a wellwisher: in that I dont wish anyone any specific harm. However I have a question for the gay community in general. I may (am?) stereotyping here but was wondering why many gay couples have a male-female appearance. ie: many lesbian couples I see have a definite "feminine" and a definite "masculine" gender role and vice versa for the males. I also want to know where the "gay" voice in the males originates.
Just curious (and Bored)....

Do you mean the gay community in general
or the gay community IN general?

Firstly, forgive my ignorance. Secondly, I do not mean this subject to offend. I am a wellwisher: in that I dont wish anyone any specific harm. However I have a question for the gay community in general. I may (am?) stereotyping here but was wondering why many gay couples have a male-female appearance. ie: many lesbian couples I see have a definite "feminine" and a definite "masculine" gender role and vice versa for the males. I also want to know where the "gay" voice in the males originates.
Just curious (and Bored)....


Ah, the mystery of who pitches and who catches.


They both go to hell so I can't tell you.

Do you think Satan really is Saddams bitch in hell?
Or will be?

Do you think Satan really is Saddams bitch in hell?
Or will be?
Only until he casts him down into the pit when he realises that he doesn't need Saddam, and that Saddam is not nurturing enough for his soul.

Ah, the mystery of who pitches and who catches.


They both go to hell so I can't tell you.
Are you being serious? Because if you are, it tells me a lot about your ideology, which I've been arguing with, but perhaps I shouldn't if you're one of those types of people.

but remember that doesn't kill him. He comes back and kills satans new boyfriend. Chris. Then they all go to detriot or something.

perhaps I shouldn't if you're one of those types of people.

Yeah, we sure don't need to bother talking with those types of people... we should only bother having discussions with open-minded tolerant people!

for some reason, i've notices more clearly defined gender roles amoung the lesbians i know than amoung gay men. i'm not sure why, perhaps because lesbians tend more strongly toward monogomous pair bonding, and thus feel more of a need for such role playing than gay men. this doesn't really answer the question however since the gender roles seem no clearer amoung gay men in long term relationships. perhaps gender roles are actually more of a feminine construct than people might image, i really don't know.

Ah, the mystery of who pitches and who catches.


They both go to hell so I can't tell you.


Id like to make an interseting point no Christian ever considers.. and i find wholly distrubing as a christian myself..

People think gay's are goign to hell as a default.. while gay relationships are only considered a sin.. no worse then cursing or violence... no worse then you or I might commit

But how many of you commit adultery.. being married and have an affair..

that my friend is a capital sin.. there is your one way ticket to hell

there is no worse offense then defiling a bond made under god as they say

Firstly, forgive my ignorance. Secondly, I do not mean this subject to offend. I am a wellwisher: in that I dont wish anyone any specific harm. However I have a question for the gay community in general. I may (am?) stereotyping here but was wondering why many gay couples have a male-female appearance. ie: many lesbian couples I see have a definite "feminine" and a definite "masculine" gender role and vice versa for the males. I also want to know where the "gay" voice in the males originates.
Just curious (and Bored)....

Perhaps its because we are already breaking one major societal taboo, so we have no fear in breaking others and acting like who we feel we should be without worrying about what anyone thinks?

It coudl also be that straight people equate gayness with being the opposite of the gender role normally expected. Therefore, straight people notice the effiminate men and the butch women as being gay while you don't pick out the many, many gay people who DO fit the sterotypical gender role.

Id like to make an interseting point no Christian ever considers.

Not all Christians think homosexuality is a sin of any degree.

Firstly, forgive my ignorance. Secondly, I do not mean this subject to offend. I am a wellwisher: in that I dont wish anyone any specific harm. However I have a question for the gay community in general. I may (am?) stereotyping here but was wondering why many gay couples have a male-female appearance. ie: many lesbian couples I see have a definite "feminine" and a definite "masculine" gender role and vice versa for the males. I also want to know where the "gay" voice in the males originates.
Just curious (and Bored)....

Those are just stereotypes that are noticed because people want to notice them. I, personally, am yet to come across a butch-femme type of lesbian couple, but I see them portrayed everywhere because it fits a certain idea people, especially heterosexuals, seem to have. For a lot of people the man-woman concept is so rock solid that they just apply it as a stencil for every relationship, looking for reasons to fit people into them, and they'll be darned if they won't make everyone fit!

About the "gay" voice; it's "gay" because it stands out, because it's different. If you use it to identify gay people, then all gay people are going to have that voice, no matter that you miss all the other gay people that don't have that voice, if you catch my drift. And, because it is noticeable, a lot of younger gay guys, especially those that have recently come out, use it as a sort of way of identifying to other people what they are and identifying to themselves what they are finally able to be out in the open. A sort of "Fuck it! I won't hide anymore" sort of attitude.

Perhaps gender roles are a non-existant social construct and you choose to identify homosexuals who "break the rules" because you see them as different and intriguing. Do you question heterosexuals who don't "fit their roles" as well?

Id like to make an interseting point no Christian ever considers.. and i find wholly distrubing as a christian myself..

People think gay's are goign to hell as a default.. while gay relationships are only considered a sin.. no worse then cursing or violence... no worse then you or I might commit

But how many of you commit adultery.. being married and have an affair..

that my friend is a capital sin.. there is your one way ticket to hell

there is no worse offense then defiling a bond made under god as they say

Pshaww, adultery is a venal sin.

The other is mortal, hence hell.

Perhaps gender roles are a non-existant social construct and you choose to identify homosexuals who "break the rules" because you see them as different and intriguing. Do you question heterosexuals who don't "fit their roles" as well?

Wow, you and Fass said it SOOOOO much better than I could.

Pshaww, adultery is a venal sin.

The other is mortal, hence hell.

Venal? That's a new one to me?

And adultery is in the big ten. Being gay, well actually if you read a correct translation, being gay isn't mentioned at all.

... Well if we are going to nit pick FINE.. MOST christians... i would vastly argue that a great majority of christians belive homosexuality is in some level or another wrong..

Besides if you are a christian who belives in the words of the bible.. there is little room for movement on the issue of homosexuality.. I think it is clearly understood to be a sin.. be it right or wrong

... Well if we are going to nit pick FINE.. MOST christians... i would vastly argue that a great majority of christians belive homosexuality is in some level or another wrong..

Besides if you are a christian who belives in the words of the bible.. there is little room for movement on the issue of homosexuality.. I think it is clearly understood to be a sin.. be it right or wrong

If you are a Christian and believe that the Bible was translated from its original language to English with absolutely no inaccuracies, biases, etc. then perhaps that's true.

venal ? I didn't realize disobeying one of the 10 commandments was so trivial.. so perhaps murder has been downgraded too ?

How is corrupting a sacrement of god less a sinl then a relationship outside the house of god ? it could only be 10 times worse...

your misinterpretations put u on some slippery slopes..

if you are a christian who belives in the words of the bible.. there is little room for movement on the issue of homosexuality.. I think it is clearly understood to be a sin.. be it right or wrong

No, it is not clearly understood as right or wrong. Homosexuality really is not addressed in the Bible, though it is often interpreted as such from a line in Leviticus — there is not one logical reason to pick out "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" (which is not a good translation, by the way, but a relevant example) as law and disregard "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" which is in the next chapter (19 — Various Laws), or "Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanliness of her monthly period," which is from the same chapter (18 — Unlawful Sexual Relations).

Because, boys and girls, if you have sex with a girl while she's menstrating or you will be "cut off from your people."

In conclusion, The Old Testament is a rediculous pile of hooey and it is bull shit to pick and choose which parts of it we are going to claim to be the word of God and which parts we are going to say are rediculous and do not apply to us.

Venal? That's a new one to me?

And adultery is in the big ten. Being gay, well actually if you read a correct translation, being gay isn't mentioned at all.

Well I don't make the rules. Nor do I enforce them. Enjoy the flames homosexual.

And if you are going to take that Leviticus reference, which is actually talking about prostitution (it was detestable for a male to be a prostitute, and hence to lie with a male prostitute as opposed to a female prostitute) there is no mention of hell or burning... it simply states that both men should be put to death.

Now this whole book, in case you are unfamiliar, is very specific about gender — there is no mention that it is wrong for women to lie together. However, if a woman has sexual relations with an animal it is recommended/commanded that you kill both the woman and the animal. The same with a man... but my point here is to clarify that the "lie with another man" thing is not about homosexuality... if it was there would be another verse that said it was detestable for a woman to lie with another woman as in the case of the bestiality versus.

No, it is not clearly understood as right or wrong. Homosexuality really is not addressed in the Bible, though it is often interpreted as such from a line in Leviticus — there is not one logical reason to pick out "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" (which is not a good translation, by the way, but a relevant example) as law and disregard "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" which is in the next chapter (19 — Various Laws), or "Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanliness of her monthly period," which is from the same chapter (18 — Unlawful Sexual Relations).

Because, boys and girls, if you have sex with a girl while she's menstrating or you will be "cut off from your people."

In conclusion, The Old Testament is a rediculous pile of hooey and it is bull shit to pick and choose which parts of it we are going to claim to be the word of God and which parts we are going to say are rediculous and do not apply to us.

An excellent argument against the kind of religious folk who prefer to pick and choose which passages they'd like to follow (often, those which suit them).

Actually as i understand it there are a great many passages which touch on the subject of homosexuality throughout the bible espeically in the New testimant.. not just the Old..

in Romans 1:26-27
1 CORINTHIANS & 1 TIMOTHY
and throughout MATTHEW, JOHN, & JUDE

.. however i do not claim myself any sort of expert on the bible and its many interpretations.. but there are more passages then just the one section int he old testimate your talking about

Well I don't make the rules. Nor do I enforce them. Enjoy the flames homosexual.
Oh I do so love trolls. They're quite yummy when seasoned properly. :rolleyes:

Oh I do so love trolls. They're quite yummy when seasoned properly. :rolleyes:

Laugh now homosexual. Your cries of pain later will be music to my ears.

Well I don't make the rules. Nor do I enforce them. Enjoy the flames homosexual.

You don't even read the rules correctly, so I'm glad that you don't make or enforce them.

You do a pretty good job of breaking. So I guess you'll be burning with me.

Judge not lest ye also be judged.

Laugh now homosexual. Your cries of pain later will be music to my ears.
Who said I was a homosexual? How do you know I'm not a strict Catholic with a dozen children?

I wo uldn't even bother with that other kid (Lacadaemon).. he is just saying inflamatory things to attain some attention.. obviously he is ignored far too much at home. Its clear he has no knowledge at all of religion

You don't even read the rules correctly, so I'm glad that you don't make or enforce them.

You do a pretty good job of breaking. So I guess you'll be burning with me.

Have it your way homosexual. In any event you will still burn in the hellfire.

Have it your way homosexual. In any event you will still burn in the hellfire.

I'm literally shaking in my stylish yet affordable boots. Or maybe I should be sweating perfusely, so I can be prepared for what my afterlife is sure to be like.

Who said I was a homosexual? How do you know I'm not a strict Catholic with a dozen children?

Even the godless dalai lama has condemed you foul practices homosexual.

Have it your way homosexual. In any event you will still burn in the hellfire.

ya know a steady regimen of clozapine will take care of your delusions.

I'm literally shaking in my stylish yet affordable boots. Or maybe I should be sweating perfusely, so I can be prepared for what my afterlife is sure to be like.

Oh it is funny now, homosexual. Wait until you have the torment of an eternity of hellfire to punish you. Will you laugh then?

Even the godless dalai lama has condemed you foul practices homosexual.

Quoting someone who doesn't believe in your belief system is really kind of a last ditch effort to take the battle out of your territory and a sure sign of vulnerability.

Besides that, why should I care if he has? I don't care that you haven't. I just enjoy making you A. Uncomfortable and B. Look like the homophobic bigot you are.

ya know a steady regimen of clozapine will take care of your delusions.

It might even give you a sense of humor.

Oh it is funny now, homosexual. Wait until you have the torment of an eternity of hellfire to punish you. Will you laugh then?

Will you be judging and threatening others when you are there too?

It might even give you a sense of humor.

Who says I was joking?

Quoting someone who doesn't believe in your belief system is really kind of a last ditch effort to take the battle out of your territory and a sure sign of vulnerability.

Besides that, why should I care if he has? I don't care that you haven't. I just enjoy making you A. Uncomfortable and B. Look like the homophobic bigot you are.

Yes, grasp at straws. They will not help.

Who says I was joking?

You expect Lactationadamon to know the difference?

I think the best thing we can do, is just shoot this guy down by placing him on ignore. :sniper:

Attention whores only thrive when you give them the attention they so desperately crave.

Yes, grasp at straws. They will not help.

You are the one grasping at straws here. <points to the fact that you can't even use your own belief system to support your (lack of) arguements>

I think the best thing we can do, is just shoot this guy down by placing him on ignore. :sniper:

Attention whores only thrive when you give them the attention they so desperately crave.

I agree with in principle on this. But I'm just finding it so amusing tonight.

I think the best thing we can do, is just shoot this guy down by placing him on ignore. :sniper:

Attention whores only thrive when you give them the attention they so desperately crave.


Agreed. The 'you're gonna burn in hell' drone is pretty tiresome... and weird.

Thanks for the civil answers from some...I merely asked 1 simple question that had sprung into my simple head whilst in the grip of boredom. Why do some have to judge my ethics. I marvel at the wonders of the universe and wonder why Mcdonalds sell salads? Due to circumstance of life at the moment I do not know of any gay people that I can ask. Does this make me homophobic? Oh, and when did I invite the god botherers into my question. I didnt ask for your opinions. Your fundamentalist laws are all based on guilt. I will be glad to go to hell if I had to put up with the likes of you weekend warrior evangelists. So there.. :D

You are all foul homosexuals. You have no place in a productive society. I speak here not of religion, but of socialism. And socialism has condemned you to death.

It is out of my hands at this point.

Do you even know the definition of socialism? Because its a system of government and has nothing to do with homosexuality. Indeed, some very socialistic nations are the most forward thinking when it comes to gay rights.

Oh I do indeed, homosexual. And you have no part of a productive society. Indeed, your foul practices are detrimental to the creation of a sustainable utopia. If I were you I would learn to like women.

Sadly it cannot be learned. I've tried.

Since you do know the definition of socialism, why don't you give it to me?

Oh, and utopia doesn't exist. Just like the tooth-fairy.

Oh I do indeed, homosexual. And you have no part of a productive society. Indeed, your foul practices are detrimental to the creation of a sustainable utopia. If I were you I would learn to like women.

Stop feeding the troll, people. Lacadeamon knows not of what he speaks, so let him fester.

Stop feeding the troll, people. Lacadeamon knows not of what he speaks, so let him fester.

Le sigh. You rob me of my entertainment for tonight! I'm surpsingly easy to amuse :)

Oh I do indeed, homosexual. And you have no part of a productive society. Indeed, your foul practices are detrimental to the creation of a sustainable utopia. If I were you I would learn to like women.

One of these days I'm gonna scour these boards for every stupid comment like ^^ and replace pertinent adjectives to see which various pots I can stir.

One of these days I'm gonna scour these boards for every stupid comment like ^^ and replace pertinent adjectives to see which various pots I can stir.

Why not start tonight?

One of these days I'm gonna scour these boards for every stupid comment like ^^ and replace pertinent adjectives to see which various pots I can stir.

You already have.

Le sigh. You rob me of my entertainment for tonight! I'm surpsingly easy to amuse :)

I see you are french as well. Satan must be proud.

You already have.

Actually, my ignorant little amigo, I didn't change one word of your post, yet.

Well I don't make the rules. Nor do I enforce them. Enjoy the flames homosexual.

Actually, if you don't believe that God contradicts himself (whether out of forgetfullness or spite) then there's pretty good evidence to support the idea that he himself didn't write all the rules that people say he did.

There's a surprisingly wide array of places in the bible that tell you to kill people for all kinds of differant reasons. Which, at least technically, include being a rape victem.

Now, if you believe those rules are his laws, and are meant as exceptions to the "thou shalt not kill" rule, then you are sinning every time you fail to carry them out, for not obeying his rules. In theory, were I a christian, I could be sent to hell for failing to stone one of my best friends to death after she was raped...

EDIT - fixed a cut & paste error i made

Actually, my ignorant little amigo, I didn't change one word of your post, yet.


Why would you change my post?

Why would you change my post?

Boy you miss a lot don't you.

Thanks for the civil answers from some...I merely asked 1 simple question that had sprung into my simple head whilst in the grip of boredom. Why do some have to judge my ethics. I marvel at the wonders of the universe and wonder why Mcdonalds sell salads? Due to circumstance of life at the moment I do not know of any gay people that I can ask. Does this make me homophobic? Oh, and when did I invite the god botherers into my question. I didnt ask for your opinions. Your fundamentalist laws are all based on guilt. I will be glad to go to hell if I had to put up with the likes of you weekend warrior evangelists. So there.. :D

Actually, you may very well know some gay people. You just may not know that they are. Most homosexuals do not display any of the stereotypical traits. The ones who do just stick out more. Statistically, you'd almost have to know some gay people. From my own experience, in most cases the only way you'll ever know is if it comes up in conversation, or they start making out with somebody of the same sex in front of you. And even that isn't fool-proof...

Laugh now homosexual. Your cries of pain later will be music to my ears.

I find it amusing that you imagine you'll be going to heaven with that attitude. Any god that would allow you in is a god I wouldn't spit on, let alone worship.

Have it your way homosexual. In any event you will still burn in the hellfire.

How cute! You believe in hell! :rolleyes:

Oh it is funny now, homosexual. Wait until you have the torment of an eternity of hellfire to punish you. Will you laugh then?

Let me get this straight.

There's an invisible man, who lives up in the sky. And he watches you, every minute of every day. And he's got a list of ten things you should never, never do. And if you do just one of those things, when you die, you are going to be thrown into a place of fire and burning and pain and suffering forever and ever and ever.

But he loves you.

And he needs money! Somehow, after creating the earth and the universe, just can't handle a checkbook.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, yeah, so I cribbed it from George Carlin.

I see you are french as well. Satan must be proud.

Satan is French? :rolleyes:

5 pages is alot to read so forgive me if I'm restating anything.


'God' does not have a list of rules that are an automatic ticket to hell. The examples of adultry from the 1st page, while against the commandments, are still reoncilible. At least, in the Roman Catholic Church (don't know about other demoninations). Further, on the subject of gays, the Church acknowledges that human thought can not be prevented, but the action can. Broken down, its not a sin unles you act on your gayness. But, if you repent and say your sorry and straight now yadda yadda yadda, then you can still go to heaven.

The one sin that is unforgivable is the denial of God.

interesting that Peter the Rock of the Church denied it 3 times... :headbang:

First: What he said ^

Second;
Have it your way homosexual. In any event you will still burn in the hellfire..

I give you Lev 19:18
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
It doesn't discriminate on sexuality; you have to apply this to everyone that can be construed as a "neighbour", and the term can be stretched far and wide.
Lacadaemon, it is a pity you cannot follow the holy teachings of your God. Seems like you'll be joining us in the Big Hot Place, o Prideful One, unless you hate yourself a great deal...

Also no socialist system mentions homosexuality at all; and some of the most productive people I know are gay.
I'd like to add Comrade Lenin, Comrade Mao and Comrade Marx do not mention homosexuality as deviences; Adolf Hitler, on the other hand...

Furthermore Lacadaemon, you don't have the authority to send anyone here to hell. Only a priest can excommunicate someone.

Consider this last random thought from my keyboard:
"I wish to go to Hell and not Heaven. In the latter there are only paupers and monks, but in the former I shall enjoy the company of Great Thinkers, Philosophers, Generals, Kings, Popes and Princes."
- Niccolo Machiavelli.

I'm a raging heterosexual and i want some pu$$y and i want it NOW!! :D

First: What he said ^

Second;


I give you Lev 19:18
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
It doesn't discriminate on sexuality; you have to apply this to everyone that can be construed as a "neighbour", and the term can be stretched far and wide.
Lacadaemon, it is a pity you cannot follow the holy teachings of your God. Seems like you'll be joining us in the Big Hot Place, o Prideful One, unless you hate yourself a great deal...

Also no socialist system mentions homosexuality at all; and some of the most productive people I know are gay.
I'd like to add Comrade Lenin, Comrade Mao and Comrade Marx do not mention homosexuality as deviences; Adolf Hitler, on the other hand...

Furthermore Lacadaemon, you don't have the authority to send anyone here to hell. Only a priest can excommunicate someone.

Consider this last random thought from my keyboard:
"I wish to go to Hell and not Heaven. In the latter there are only paupers and monks, but in the former I shall enjoy the company of Great Thinkers, Philosophers, Generals, Kings, Popes and Princes."
- Niccolo Machiavelli.

Nope, homosexuals are clearly not part of the socialist system. It's funny you mention Stalin, he was quite clear on that issue.

I give you Lev 19:18
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
It doesn't discriminate on sexuality; you have to apply this to everyone that can be construed as a "neighbour", and the term can be stretched far and wide.


Love in this verse was not meant to be interchanged with sex.
Most especially not homosexual sex.

It can (and should ;) ) be construed as 'treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.

Nope, homosexuals are clearly not part of the socialist system. It's funny you mention Stalin, he was quite clear on that issue.

You know, you still haven't given us your definition for socialism chief. Might wanna get up on that, bucko.

First; I mentioned Lenin, Mao and Marx. Not Stalin (who I'd hesitate to classify as a socialist). Get your facts straight.

Secondly; YOU are trying to make your case to ME: It is YOUR job to convince ME why you are right.

So far, you are doing a really poor job of it. Dude, take Uncle Mac's advice; Never become an advocate.

----

And Avalanche21; that is what I am saying.

You know, you still haven't given us your definition for socialism chief. Might wanna get up on that, bucko.

Hmm, I recall something about no homosexuals, and working for the good of all.

I am sure however you are going to cite the treaty of tripoli to prove me wrong.

First; I mentioned Lenin, Mao and Marx. Not Stalin (who I'd hesitate to classify as a socialist). Get your facts straight.

Secondly; YOU are trying to make your case to ME: It is YOUR job to convince Me why you are right.

So far, you are doing a really poor job of it. Dude, take Uncle Mac's advice; Never become and advocate.

----

And Avalanche21; that is what I am saying.

Listen, when socialism comes, no one will have to explain it. We'll all just live it. Unless you are homosexual of course.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to hold it.
But you're still wrong.

And I'm still waiting for you to make your case; this could take a while, so instead of wasting my precious time waiting, I'm going to go and party with my friends.

Make of that what you will; I have a big enough ego not to care.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to hold it.
But you're still wrong.

And I'm still waiting for you to make your case; this could take a while, so instead of wasting my precious time waiting, I'm going to go and party with my friends.

Make of that what you will; I have a big enough ego not to care.


That's it. Keep the old chin up.

Hmm, I recall something about no homosexuals, and working for the good of all.

I am sure however you are going to cite the treaty of tripoli to prove me wrong.

Quote where the no homosexuals come from. I want to know what socialists have spoken out against homosexuality. Cite your sources, if you can.

Oh, and Stalin was not a socialist.


Secondly, while not a homosexual, I will personally enjoy the hellfire if that's where you won't be.




Oh, and thirdly, what religion are you anyways? I've seen you claim to be both christian AND muslim, so I'm a bit confused.

Wow, what an interesting turn this thread has made... No I don't think the original question inferred you were anti-homosexual, but just as you said ignorant. I agree that you probably do know homosexuals... not everyone who is gay throws their gay pride into everyone's faces. It is impossible to determine sexuality based on appearance or mannarisms or anything else. The only thing you can really be sure of is yourself and it's hardly your duty to be worried about anyone else as far as sexuality goes.

And I do agree that fundamentalist doctrines are based on guilt, which is rediculous. Why embrace something that uses scare tactics to keep you a believer? It is possible to be a Christian without being insane and rediculous, I swear it is. Far too many Christians don't even know what Christianity is about, primarily Christ. Not hell-burning, but forgiveness.

Quote where the no homosexuals come from. I want to know what socialists have spoken out against homosexuality. Cite your sources, if you can.

Oh, and Stalin was not a socialist.


Secondly, while not a homosexual, I will personally enjoy the hellfire if that's where you won't be.




Oh, and thirdly, what religion are you anyways? I've seen you claim to be both christian AND muslim, so I'm a bit confused.

You can be both.

The term "homosexual" does not appear in the King James Version at all. The New Living Transation swaps "homosexuality" in the Leveticus passage (which changes the meaning of the verse by the way)... a few versions use "homosexuality" in Corinthians 6:9, but King James, New American Standard, and others use "effeminate" here. The New King James Version uses catamites... which I find particularly interesting. Young's adds the term "whoremongers" to the list, which is nice. Darby and others further translate "effeminate" to say "those who make women of themselves." Some translations lead me to believe they are referring to transvestites (Holman: "men who act like women" is in addition to those who commit sex sins with those of the same sex) which makes me think it is even more rediculous than I already did.

But still an interesting thing, in every most every English translation it is clear that they are talking of males. Not because it is a sexist text and "man" actually applies to everyone — this is not the case, if it is sexist it is because there are different commandments for males and females. However, this makes it clear that it is not talking about sexuality, it is talking about something only regarding males.

Sodomy is mentioned several times in several texts, but in many instances could be referring to bestiality, which is clearly mentioned several times in ye ol' Bible.

Point being, who the hell can tell which translation is correct when each can be interpreted so differently. In the story of Sodom, for example, the NIV uses the word "sex" where as KJ uses "to know." I don't know Hebrew, so I can't tell you which is most accurate. But in speaking with those who have been to seminary and do speak the language, people have thrown in homosexuality where the text would more accurately read "male prostitution." This explains why the maleness was retained in nearly every translation.

I whole heartedly agree. It's simply because gay woman are tolerable, because that way guys can have threesomes. -.-;
However, what I personally think is that the bible is open to interpritation. Anyone can think anything they want, and the symbols that say "Homos Suck" can more accurately be determined as something else. Plus, in our world, wouldn't God flock to the outcasts: IE; the homos?

HOWEVER, I will answer the thread starters question, for kicks:
When I was with Zan [not her real name, just a kid name for her], we both seemed to have our own little...qualities that made neither of us the masculine or feminine figure in the relationship. We'd share on top, and whatever duties it was that we had to do.

And as for the Gay Voice, it comes back from a movie. I forget the name, but in it, the main charactor ends up gay, and he derastactly needs speech therapy. From there...it just sorted exploded.

Point being, who the hell can tell which translation is correct when each can be interpreted so differently. In the story of Sodom, for example, the NIV uses the word "sex" where as KJ uses "to know." I don't know Hebrew, so I can't tell you which is most accurate. But in speaking with those who have been to seminary and do speak the language, people have thrown in homosexuality where the text would more accurately read "male prostitution." This explains why the maleness was retained in nearly every translation.

Interestingly the word used for "to know" in that passage literally means to know someone or something, like knowledge. It has nothign to do with sex and is used many other times in the Bible--none of them dealing with sex.

Further, the word sodomite, in Biblical language means "one from Sodom". Its only the last few hundred years that culture has changed its meaning.

Id like to make an interseting point no Christian ever considers.. and i find wholly distrubing as a christian myself..

People think gay's are goign to hell as a default.. while gay relationships are only considered a sin.. no worse then cursing or violence... no worse then you or I might commit

But how many of you commit adultery.. being married and have an affair..

that my friend is a capital sin.. there is your one way ticket to hell

there is no worse offense then defiling a bond made under god as they say

Do you really think that no Christian considers adultery a sin? What kind of a Christian are you?

And as for the Gay Voice, it comes back from a movie. I forget the name, but in it, the main charactor ends up gay, and he derastactly needs speech therapy. From there...it just sorted exploded.

There is absolutely no way on earth that the gay voice comes from a movie. I guarantee that if you look, you will find evidence that the effeminate voice that can be thought to mark out certain gay men was heard in the 17th century.

Firstly, forgive my ignorance. Secondly, I do not mean this subject to offend. I am a wellwisher: in that I dont wish anyone any specific harm. However I have a question for the gay community in general. I may (am?) stereotyping here but was wondering why many gay couples have a male-female appearance. ie: many lesbian couples I see have a definite "feminine" and a definite "masculine" gender role and vice versa for the males. I also want to know where the "gay" voice in the males originates.
Just curious (and Bored)....
It just seems to be that this is one of many reasons why we should give up the idea of traditional gender roles.

Oh, and thirdly, what religion are you anyways? I've seen you claim to be both christian AND muslim, so I'm a bit confused.

You can be both.


Since christians believe that jesus is both truly man and truly god, and muslims believe that jesus is just a regular man, you can't.

Firstly, forgive my ignorance. Secondly, I do not mean this subject to offend. I am a wellwisher: in that I dont wish anyone any specific harm. However I have a question for the gay community in general. I may (am?) stereotyping here but was wondering why many gay couples have a male-female appearance. ie: many lesbian couples I see have a definite "feminine" and a definite "masculine" gender role and vice versa for the males. I also want to know where the "gay" voice in the males originates.
Just curious (and Bored)....

It doesn't always work that way. I've seen some lesbian couples (including some with children) who have the "two moms" thing going. And many male couples where they both are very masculine - and not playing two different gender roles at all.

And where do I fit in, having been with both sexes? In all cases, I've always played a masculine role - none of the men ever were being feminine in the sterotypical sense, and my wife is being feminine because she's a female hetero (well, largely).

I've almost come to believe that like another poster mentioned on another thread, that there's a third gender role. Maybe even a fourth.

I've almost come to believe that like another poster mentioned on another thread, that there's a third gender role. Maybe even a fourth.

That's an interesting theory. Would you care to elaborate on it? I've always personally felt that gender roles are completely artificial, societal constructs that are, in today's world, archaic and badly in need of revision or out right discarding.

However, I'm always interested in alternative theories and really would love to hear more about this.

That's an interesting theory. Would you care to elaborate on it? I've always personally felt that gender roles are completely artificial, societal constructs that are, in today's world, archaic and badly in need of revision or out right discarding.

However, I'm always interested in alternative theories and really would love to hear more about this.

I think that some gender roles are innate, and can't be discarded. Some, like motherhood, can be suppressed by a woman, or emulated by a man, but it's built-in as a survival mechanism for the species.

That being said, the first time I noticed the possibility of additional roles was in finding out in my youth how men pick up men. It's definitely NOT the same as the way men pick up women. So I can't do what some people do and assign a current gender role to the activity.

I think that some gender roles are innate, and can't be discarded. Some, like motherhood, can be suppressed by a woman, or emulated by a man, but it's built-in as a survival mechanism for the species.

That being said, the first time I noticed the possibility of additional roles was in finding out in my youth how men pick up men. It's definitely NOT the same as the way men pick up women. So I can't do what some people do and assign a current gender role to the activity.

So can you give me an example of some of these innate gender roles that cannot be discarded?

You can be both.

No you can't, and answer my other questions