NationStates Jolt Archive

Taking back to bible's arguing...

The famous passage about "homofilia" (a.k.a. homosexuality) is Levitic 20:13

"If a man sleeps with another man, as it is doing with a woman, both of them are doing an abomination, and must death, their blood lays over their bodies"

This means that the punishment for this action is terrenal death.

However, in new testament, there are many passages that defends some gays saying that a man can dominate himself, even with this strange modus vivendi. If a gay do not acts as a gay, he do not make any sin and are fair at god's eyes.

Now, without bible's argument, homosexuality is a criminal act against all human beings, because, if all of us were gays, there were no future. If be gay is right, then why it has this effect?
(1) Your grammer and spelling is terrible. :p
(2) That verse is not very clear on its point and definitely open to interpretation.
(3) Wrong. If we were all gay and lesbian, we would resort to artificial insemination and like practices.

Taking back to bible's arguing...

The famous passage about "homofilia" (a.k.a. homosexuality) is Levitic 20:13

"If a man sleeps with another man, as it is doing with a woman, both of them are doing an abomination, and must death, their blood lays over their bodies"

This means that the punishment for this action is terrenal death.

However, in new testament, there are many passages that defends some gays saying that a man can dominate himself, even with this strange modus vivendi. If a gay do not acts as a gay, he do not make any sin and are fair at god's eyes.

Now, without bible's argument, homosexuality is a criminal act against all human beings, because, if all of us were gays, there were no future. If be gay is right, then why it has this effect?
WTF?

By the way, you're using a horrific translation of Leviticus 20:13. Roughly translated from the original Hebrew, it says: "A man may not lie on a woman's bed, for it is an abomination."
To interpret this passage, you need to know about ancient Hebrew traditions. As a woman was held to be unclean during menstruation, she had to sleep on a separate bed when she menstruated. This was known as a woman's bed.

Well, interestingly enough:

42%....(clipped)

OMG that means if 42% of homeless identify as gay, lesbian bisexual, that means 58% of them are heterosexual which by those standards means being straight causes you to be homeless....clearly.

However, in new testament, there are many passages that defends some gays saying that a man can dominate himself, even with this strange modus vivendi.

name me one verse.

I haven't been paying attention to this string much, but here's my two cents. I accept any religion, but, anyone who uses the Bible to justify anything will always be wrong. They read one line and repeat it as truth. It it were true, women who menstrate would have to stay in a tent in their backyards. Do any bible thumpers do that? How about adultery? Did they forget that was wrong? How about evangelicals? Maybe the parishoners aren't worshiping them, but they sure do have a lot of money for priests... According to the Bible, selling and trading in the church is wrong, but every year, I love going to the Italian church for their bazaar. You can even gamble right inside the church.

In summation, the Bible is the easiest defense to knock down.

You obviously dont understand the Bible one bit

Yes the Bible condems homosexuality in the Old Testement, but its also condemed in the new testement as well. Even by Jesus himself. The phrase "sexuall imorality" covers homosexuality, amoungst other things such as bestiality and faunication (sex outside of marriage).

You obviously dont understand the Bible one bit

Yes the Bible condems homosexuality in the Old Testement, but its also condemed in the new testement as well. Even by Jesus himself. The phrase "sexuall imorality" covers homosexuality, amoungst other things such as bestiality and faunication (sex outside of marriage).

that's a matter of opinion - if it's not explicitly stated what "sexual immorality" covers, then you're just guessing

oh, and if no-one's linked to this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp) yet...

Now, without bible's argument, homosexuality is a criminal act against all human beings, because, if all of us were gays, there were no future. If be gay is right, then why it has this effect?

If all human beings were male, we would all die out. Why is being male not a criminal act against all human beings?

that's a matter of opinion - if it's not explicitly stated what "sexual immorality" covers, then you're just guessing

oh, and if no-one's linked to this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp) yet...
Yes, that was in one of the first pages. It's very funny. I need to show that to my RE teacher. I have a feeling she'd really like that.

that's a matter of opinion - if it's not explicitly stated what "sexual immorality" covers, then you're just guessing

Ok, read this (http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf)


oh, and if no-one's linked to this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp) yet...

Do the words "old covanent" mean anything to you?

I personally - not believing in a God of any kind - believe that homosexuality is a normal thing, and it should be accepted as such. People are actively trying to stamp out racism, and many other forms of discrimination, and so why should discrimination against homosexuals continue?

I read a few weeks ago a quote in a magazine (I can't remember who said it, but remembered it because I liked the sentiment):

"I'd rather be hated for what I am
Than beloved for what I'm not."

This summed up to me how many homosexuals must feel. If you were gay, would you want to conform to society, locking away your true feelings? In the end, it would make you desperately unhappy. Would you want to be living a lie?

I also agree with gay marriage. I can't understand what people are trying to protect heterosexual marriage from. It's not like love is a non-renewable resource. If Amy and Barbara or Mike and Steve love each other, it doesn't mean John and Mary can't. It's time discrimination against homosexuals stopped. Think about how you would feel, having a tirade of abuse hurled at you.

Whether homosexuality is a sin or not, unless you are a homosexual, it has nothing to do with you how these people live their lives - although this is a good topic to start a thread on - and they should be left to get on with it.

You may throw gay people a dirty look when they hold hands or kiss in the street, or even say some offensive comment, but do they do that with you?
If a homosexual saw a heterosexual couple kissing in he street, they don't make snide remarks or look at you as if you're doing something wrong.

It isn't a fair arguement to say homosexuality isn't natural: sexuality isn't something that is genetically engineered, and more importantly, I feel it is not something many people have a choice about: just because the majority of people are heterosexual doesn't mean homosexuals are weird or "wrong." It simply means that they are a minority culture. Nut even so, they deserve as much respect as any heterosexual.

And as I don't believe in God, it isn't possible to commit a sin against him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandovinia
I haven't been paying attention to this string much, but here's my two cents. I accept any religion, but, anyone who uses the Bible to justify anything will always be wrong. They read one line and repeat it as truth. It it were true, women who menstrate would have to stay in a tent in their backyards. Do any bible thumpers do that? How about adultery? Did they forget that was wrong? How about evangelicals? Maybe the parishoners aren't worshiping them, but they sure do have a lot of money for priests... According to the Bible, selling and trading in the church is wrong, but every year, I love going to the Italian church for their bazaar. You can even gamble right inside the church.

In summation, the Bible is the easiest defense to knock down.



You obviously dont understand the Bible one bit

Yes the Bible condems homosexuality in the Old Testement, but its also condemed in the new testement as well. Even by Jesus himself. The phrase "sexuall imorality" covers homosexuality, amoungst other things such as bestiality and faunication (sex outside of marriage).

I agree: the Bible is full of contradicitons (not that I could give you one off the top of my head: I'm not a Christian). Also, as with any religious texts, the true meanings of some phrases are often misinterpreted. As such, I feel that NO Christian - even His Holiness the Pope - fully understands Christanity, or the Bible.
I also feel that the Bible is open to much scrutiny, as it was not written at the time of Jesus, but three centuries after his death by Emperor Constantine. I would have thought that in 300 years of being passed by word of mouth, the stories would have become GROSSLY exaggerated?

However, this is my personal view aobut the Bible, NOT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY OR CHRISTIANS AS A WHOLE.

Homosexuality is not a sin. People are sometimes born that way and can't help it. If God creates these people, is God sinning for making these people? No, he knows that every person is unique, whatever that uniqueness might be, he will love that child no matter what. That is what we need to do, love eachother no matter what.

*Cheers*

I'm not a Christian, but I fully agree with this statement.
If "God" creates us all *cough* then surely, as homosexuals are SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE BORN AS HOMOSEXUALS, "God" is sinning? Either that or ruining his masterpiece: every great artist ruins his best painting. ;)

If all human beings were male, we would all die out. Why is being male not a criminal act against all human beings?

*Cheers*

Do the words "old covanent" mean anything to you?
So homosexuality isn't a sin. Because, as I've already said on this thread, homosexuality isn't condemned in the NT. The passage in Corinthians is mistranslated. Arsenkotai means "male temple prostitutes", not "homosexuals". Do a little research.

So homosexuality isn't a sin. Because, as I've already said on this thread, homosexuality isn't condemned in the NT. The passage in Corinthians is mistranslated. Arsenkotai means "male temple prostitutes", not "homosexuals". Do a little research.

Funny, not according to nearly every translation of the Bible that is in widescale circulation. Do you serioulsy think your interpretation is supiror to all those who actually study this for a living.

That's because all those Bibles in circulation were written/edited/translated by conservative Christians, who were following the lead of other conservative Christians who came before. Check out religioustolerance.org. Learn the facts.

If "God" creates us all *cough* then surely, as homosexuals are SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE BORN AS HOMOSEXUALS, "God" is sinning?

Erm, no they havn't been proven to be "Born" gay. There hasnt been any genetic link proved and if there was it would be flawed. If it was a gene to create Homosexuals, even if it only meant a person having less children than they otherwise would then it means that it would breed itself out withing a few dozen geneations.

That's because all those Bibles in circulation were written/edited/translated by conservative Christians, who were following the lead of other conservative Christians who came before. Check out religioustolerance.org. Learn the facts.

Even if (and I stress "if") the word can be proven to mean male prostitutes as oppesed to homosexuals, it doesnt explain away this point.

God's definion of marriage: One man and one woman (Genesis 2:24)

Sex outside of marriage (faunication): Sin of adultery according to the Bible

Thus if two men have sex then they are not married thus they are commiting adultury, sex outside of marriage.

It hasn't been genetically proven, but homosexual brains have been shown to be completely different from the average person's. Male homosexual brains look like female brains, and vice versa. Basic brain structure does not change except in extreme circumstances, so they were born that way.

Even if (and I stress "if") the word can be proven to mean male prostitutes as oppesed to homosexuals, it doesnt explain away this point.

God's definion of marriage: One man and one woman (Genesis 2:24)

Sex outside of marriage (faunication): Sin of adultery according to the Bible

Thus if two men have sex then they are not married thus they are commiting adultury, sex outside of marriage.


That isn't what that verse says at all. It doesn't even mention marriage, it just says men and women were designed to have sex with each other, and we all knew that.

6 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his woman, and the two of them become one body.

It hasn't been genetically proven, but homosexual brains have been shown to be completely different from the average person's. Male homosexual brains look like female brains, and vice versa. Basic brain structure does not change except in extreme circumstances, so they were born that way.

No, thats not accurate. Firstly the brain change hasn't been confirmed entirely. Secondly there hasnt been any study which tracks any child from birth with the brain oddities. Thirdly, even if the brain odities were confirmed, there is also indications of biological factors that increase someones likelyhood of being extremly criminal or vilonet and even adulterous (a "cheeting" gene study in New Scientist recently) that doesnt excuse it from being a sin.

The Bible doesn't say it's a sin anyway, so the point is moot.

And I'm going to go do something more enjoyable. I'll be playing Gunz.

That isn't what that verse says at all. It doesn't even mention marriage, it just says men and women were designed to have sex with each other, and we all knew that.


The NIV says "Wife" and "for this reason", basicly stating that the reason that marriage is the way it is, is because that it how it was meant to be, as it was in Eden.

Erm, no they havn't been proven to be "Born" gay. There hasnt been any genetic link proved and if there was it would be flawed. If it was a gene to create Homosexuals, even if it only meant a person having less children than they otherwise would then it means that it would breed itself out withing a few dozen geneations.

I love it when people who don't know anything about biology try to act like they do. It's so cute.

First, being born gay does not automatically equate to being completely genetic. That's your first problem.

Second, being genetic does not mean that there is a single "gay" gene. That's your second.

Third, human beings and many other animals in which homo- or bisexual behavior is evident are social animals. A non-breeding member can help his/her siblings and siblings' children to survive, thus ensuring that much of his/her lineage is passed on. There's a third problem.

Finally, you assume that there is a "male" genetic component and a "female" genetic component. On the contrary, any component that might contribute to homosexuality in a male could possibly be passed on to a woman - and might increase her fertility (thus making sure that she passed the gene on). The same could be true in reverse.


I'm sorry, my dear, but biology doesn't uphold your biases.

Not merely "God," but one very specific conception of what God might be.

I agree. But my thing is what does it matter if it’s a sin or not? Whoever/whatever created man created him with the desires we all have, be them homosexual or not. We're all humans after all, and I don't believe its right to say just become some loves someone of the same gender that its a terrible sin and they're going to hell or whatever.

You can't help the one you love.

homosexuality is fun.

And that's all i have to say about that.

Even if (and I stress "if") the word can be proven to mean male prostitutes as oppesed to homosexuals, it doesnt explain away this point.

God's definion of marriage: One man and one woman (Genesis 2:24)

Sex outside of marriage (faunication): Sin of adultery according to the Bible

Thus if two men have sex then they are not married thus they are commiting adultury, sex outside of marriage.
Out of curiousity, what translation of Genesis 2:24 do you have?
Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
For this cause will a man go away from his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they will be one flesh.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.
(Emphasis mine)

All of these have subtle differences. Which one are you using?

You can't help the one you love.

I used to know people who disagreed. They themselves had managed to change their orentation back to straight.

I used to know people who disagreed. They themselves had managed to change their orentation back to straight.
Or did they simple convince you, themselves and/or others that they managed to do so?

All of these have subtle differences. Which one are you using?

NIV. But basicly all they are saying is that they will be married first and then have sex. The "join with his wife", "shall cleave unto his wife" etc refers to marriage and "one flesh" refers to sex. Also, while you may be able to interpret the possiblity of homosexuality in some biblical figures (Some people try, and fail, to propose the idea that David and Jonothan were homsexual lovers), you wont find a Biblical example of God endorcing a homosexual relationship, as opposed to the many endorcements he gives hetrosexual ones.

Or did they simple convince you, themselves and/or others that they managed to do so?

One of them is married with children, your just insulting my friends charchter if you continue in this vein.

I used to know people who disagreed. They themselves had managed to change their orentation back to straight.

Thats sad...just very sad.

Thats sad...just very sad.

They did it through a great deal of prayer and support from their friends, they themselves are much happier now because of it.

They did it through a great deal of prayer and support from their friends, they themselves are much happier now because of it.


You really think "God" turned them back straight? You really don't ever wonder that they might have been happy being gay? If, maybe, they'd have support from friends and family, that maybe they'd be better off?

"To deny out own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human"

One of them is married with children, your just insulting my friends charchter if you continue in this vein.

How is it an insult to charachter? Is being gay so bad? Is it so evil that it would be an INSULT?

One of them is married with children, your just insulting my friends charchter if you continue in this vein.

Then I will insult their character, if suggesting they are still gay is an insult (which only the most heartless and prejudiced would think it would be).

Your friend wouldn't be the first homosexual to marry due to social pressure (and I bet your friends' "support" is easily the sort of social pressure that makes many homosexuals miserable).

Your friend wouldn't be the first one to realize that who they were was not tolerated by everything they were raised by. Trying to be a good person would easily lead someone who wanted enough to be accepted and normal to convince themselves to change, especially since that social support doesn't sound very supportive at all.

Let's say you were born with brown hair. Let's say your family and church taught you that having brown hair was evil, wrong, and an abomination to God. Most people would dye their hair, especially if they were in an area with few other brunnettes. Just because your friend convinced the rest of the world that they are now straight doesn't mean that they acutally are, it just means that A) they weren't gay to begin with or B) they aren't actually straight.

They have my pity.

Then I will insult their character, if suggesting they are still gay is an insult (which only the most heartless and prejudiced would think it would be).

I'm with you on that.

Let's say you were born with brown hair. Let's say your family and church taught you that having brown hair was evil, wrong, and an abomination to God. Most people would dye their hair, especially if they were in an area with few other brunnettes. Just because your friend convinced the rest of the world that they are now straight doesn't mean that they acutally are, it just means that A) they weren't gay to begin with or B) they aren't actually straight.

Being homosexual is a choice (at least to the majority of Christians it is), where brown hair is not. You can not really use that analogy...

I'm always amazed by how many Christians claim to know someone who's changed his 'sexual orientation' yet it's supposedly a choice therefore there is no orientation to change and shouldn't require any 'treatment' more aggressive than choosing to be heterosexual, In any case I think I smell one load of bull here. "Reparative" therapy is a load of bullshit.

Okay. Here's some facts.

The word 'homosexual' did NOT appear in any translation of the bible until 1952, which coincidentally happens to be the same time that 'united under god' was placed in the U.S. pledge of allegiance. In 1971 the translation was changed because there had been an ERROR on the part of the TRANSLATOR showing that it should have been sexual perverts.

Genesis, the creation story...
It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem. The creation story is not, after all, a paradigm about marriage, but rather about the establishment of human society.

About the words Malakoi and Arsenokoitai....
Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."

Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.

Point of interest:
The majority of arguments used against gay people are similar if not the same as the arguments Hitler used against the Jewish people. The only difference at the end of that was that the Jewish people were helped out of the concentration camps....the homosexuals were left to die.

Personal opinion....
As for Paul, and here's where I know I'm going to hear about this...
I know that it has been proven that there is a majority of gay bashers who bash because they have their own insecurities, and often are, homosexual. My thought on Paul? The guy was a queer who was so freaked out about his own sexuality he took it out on everyone that he wanted.

Being homosexual is a choice (at least to the majority of Christians it is), where brown hair is not. You can not really use that analogy...

But here's the flaw to your argument. They, christians, used to consider it a mark of the devil or that you would be a witch if you were left handed, born with an extra finger or toe, had certain types of birth marks. So, something that could not be changed, something that was not a choice, was still something that could get you hanged/burned at the stake/drowned etc.

Another reason for being considered a witch? How about red hair.

You really think "God" turned them back straight? You really don't ever wonder that they might have been happy being gay? If, maybe, they'd have support from friends and family, that maybe they'd be better off?or perhaps they never truly felt as comfortable being gay so returned to a lifestyle that is comfortable to them... either way, they made their choice.

"To deny out own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human"
so does giving in to those Impulses without thought or consideration.

Then I will insult their character, if suggesting they are still gay is an insult (which only the most heartless and prejudiced would think it would be).

Your friend wouldn't be the first homosexual to marry due to social pressure (and I bet your friends' "support" is easily the sort of social pressure that makes many homosexuals miserable).

Your friend wouldn't be the first one to realize that who they were was not tolerated by everything they were raised by. Trying to be a good person would easily lead someone who wanted enough to be accepted and normal to convince themselves to change, especially since that social support doesn't sound very supportive at all.

Let's say you were born with brown hair. Let's say your family and church taught you that having brown hair was evil, wrong, and an abomination to God. Most people would dye their hair, especially if they were in an area with few other brunnettes. Just because your friend convinced the rest of the world that they are now straight doesn't mean that they acutally are, it just means that A) they weren't gay to begin with or B) they aren't actually straight.

They have my pity.Why is it when someone "Chooses" the Homosexual Lifestyle it's considered being themselves but when they decide to go back to being Heterosexual, it's suddenly "they're bowing to the pressures of society?" could it be that Sanx's friends truly did not feel right being Homosexual? that they experimented and decieded that it wasn't for them and now would choose not to support such practice?

that's like calling a smoker who stuggled to quit a smoker, a drug addict who gave up drugs a junkie.
they gave up that part of their lives, if they wish to disassociate themselves from it, the decent "HUMAN" thing to do is to respect their wishes.

Personal opinion....
As for Paul, and here's where I know I'm going to hear about this...
I know that it has been proven that there is a majority of gay bashers who bash because they have their own insecurities, and often are, homosexual. My thought on Paul? The guy was a queer who was so freaked out about his own sexuality he took it out on everyone that he wanted.

he had several mental problems, I'll give you that. He was delusional and fanatic to say the least. I've got no idea if he was queer or not, but that would explain a thing or two...

I'm always amazed by how many Christians claim to know someone who's changed his 'sexual orientation' yet it's supposedly a choice therefore there is no orientation to change and shouldn't require any 'treatment' more aggressive than choosing to be heterosexual, In any case I think I smell one load of bull here. "Reparative" therapy is a load of bullshit.

Just remember that even Christians have opposing viewpoints. I don't believe it's possible to change some 'orientation' myself.. but again I do believe it's a choice.

Now do I dislike homosexuals? Nope, it's their choice to do as they please, and I've got nothing wrong with that.

NIV. But basicly all they are saying is that they will be married first and then have sex. The "join with his wife", "shall cleave unto his wife" etc refers to marriage and "one flesh" refers to sex.
Interesting. Have you seen this page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm), Sanx? In case you'd rather not read through all of that:


Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)

1 Samuel 18:20-21

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

How about that?

so does giving in to those Impulses without thought or consideration.

So giving in to the natural impulse of loving someone of the same gender is rude and inconsiderate? That really makes no sense...

And YES, I said NATRUAL. For some people, it just is.

Why is it when someone "Chooses" the Homosexual Lifestyle it's considered being themselves but when they decide to go back to being Heterosexual, it's suddenly "they're bowing to the pressures of society?" could it be that Sanx's friends truly did not feel right being Homosexual? that they experimented and decieded that it wasn't for them and now would choose not to support such practice?

that's like calling a smoker who stuggled to quit a smoker, a drug addict who gave up drugs a junkie.
they gave up that part of their lives, if they wish to disassociate themselves from it, the decent "HUMAN" thing to do is to respect their wishes.

If they just experimented, they were not homosexual to begin with.

Nobody "chooses" to be homosexual or heterosexual. People simply are like that, most likely born that way. Me, I'm bisexual and I don't really choose who I feel attrackted to or fall in love with.
Imagine the situation was the other way round, just to explain it. Imagine you lived in a society where homosexuality would be the norm. Do you think you would find it even possible to change your orientation? Would you be attrackted, sexually attrackted to somebody of your own sex? What would you do if everybody expected that behaviour from you? Would you follow the norm or stand by your feelings?

One of them is married with children, your just insulting my friends charchter if you continue in this vein.
I most certainly am not. I am insulting your character by accusing you of being naive. :p

But here's the flaw to your argument. They, christians, used to consider it a mark of the devil or that you would be a witch if you were left handed, born with an extra finger or toe, had certain types of birth marks. So, something that could not be changed, something that was not a choice, was still something that could get you hanged/burned at the stake/drowned etc.

Another reason for being considered a witch? How about red hair.

Haha, you're arguing against me with the radical ideas of some of the more extreme Christians of back in the day. I'm quite sure we don't have many of those people around anymore. A few maybe.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not an extremist, thank you.

Aside from that, I'm merely making the point that your comment is not going to convince anybody of anything. You're arguing with a point that the opposing side does not believe is correct.

So giving in to the natural impulse of loving someone of the same gender is rude and inconsiderate? That really makes no sense...you have to consider all of the consiquences. you can push the bounderies that man imposes, however you have to realize that those boundaries will push back. and when it does, to cry "foul," "oppression" or even "discrimination" will harden those boundaries.

Look at the Dixie Chicks and Seaned O'Connor. they execised their freedom of speech and their careers suffered for it. You have people saying they have the right to say what they want, but again, realize that the public has a right to respond you what people say or do.

you wanna push the bounderies, tear down the walls, go ahead, but you are up against Society. so don't expect overnight success. expect the fight to take Decades.

To hide behind "Instinct", "Natural Impulses" is to dehumanize man and make them nothing more than animals. and you would be surprise how many societies take umbrage at that idea.

Haha, you're arguing against me with the radical ideas of some of the more extreme Christians of back in the day. I'm quite sure we don't have many of those people around anymore. A few maybe.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not an extremist, thank you.

Aside from that, I'm merely making the point that your comment is not going to convince anybody of anything. You're arguing with a point that the opposing side does not believe is correct.

I'm not saying that you are a extremist, my apologies if it came across as such. My point is simply this:

Things that people cannot change have historically been held against them, have historically been the reason for many deaths. People, in my opinion, can't truly change the color of their hair any more than someone that is REALLY queer can change. You can suppress those feelings, you can pretend that they do not exist, but the fact is, it is all still there.

My thought on the current issue with Queer rights is simply this...we're the new target. Instead of a 'Witch Hunt' it's a 'Homo Hunt'.

Just because something appears unpleasent doesn't make it wrong. that being the only reason behind the administration propagated line on the sinfulness of homosexuality, it can be declared null-and-void. :headbang:

I'm not saying that you are a extremist, my apologies if it came across as such. My point is simply this:

Things that people cannot change have historically been held against them, have historically been the reason for many deaths. People, in my opinion, can't truly change the color of their hair any more than someone that is REALLY queer can change. You can suppress those feelings, you can pretend that they do not exist, but the fact is, it is all still there.

My thought on the current issue with Queer rights is simply this...we're the new target. Instead of a 'Witch Hunt' it's a 'Homo Hunt'.
Oh, you actually are homosexual? Maybe I should've read your posts closer. Heh. My gaydar malfunctions while speaking to folks online. :)

you have to consider all of the consiquences. you can push the bounderies that man imposes, however you have to realize that those boundaries will push back. and when it does, to cry "foul," "oppression" or even "discrimination" will harden those boundaries.

Granted. But it’s to be expected in the world we live in today. If someone realizes they are different while growing up, they already know that the norm pushes back and hard. The majority of people don't like change and the majority of people don't like the radically different.

You wanna push the bounderies, tear down the walls, go ahead, but you are up against Society. so don't expect overnight success. expect the fight to take Decades.

Obviously. But thats why we fight the good fight, so that one day the walls will be down. So that ONE day it will be ok for all different types of people to exist without message boards like these popping up. The changes I would like to see might not even happen in my own lifetime, but Like I said, people dont like change, especialy the swift kind.


To hide behind "Instinct", "Natural Impulses" is to dehumanize man and make them nothing more than animals. and you would be surprise how many societies take umbrage at that idea.

LOL Humans ARE animals, but thats an argument for another thread

Oh, you actually are homosexual? Maybe I should've read your posts closer. Heh. My gaydar malfunctions while speaking to folks online. :)

Perhaps I should clarify...

I am a part of the GLBT community in that I am FTM, or transgendered for those not familiar with the terms.

I have done my spiritual searching in Catholocism, Islam, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, modern Druidism, Voodun, Wicca and several other pagan religions. I searched with my heart and mind to find a religion that felt, spiritually, right to me. My family was Catholic and I was raised as such until I was 16. LOL I find it amazing that the majority of christianity condemns astrology, yet one of the wise men an astrologer.

But I digress...in answer to the question put before me...YES, I AM....WOOT!!

I'm not saying that you are a extremist, my apologies if it came across as such. My point is simply this:

Things that people cannot change have historically been held against them, have historically been the reason for many deaths. People, in my opinion, can't truly change the color of their hair any more than someone that is REALLY queer can change. You can suppress those feelings, you can pretend that they do not exist, but the fact is, it is all still there.

My thought on the current issue with Queer rights is simply this...we're the new target. Instead of a 'Witch Hunt' it's a 'Homo Hunt'.I agree on the Hunting part... to a point. the Fight for ... (Queer Rights doesn't sound right...) Equal Rights has always been a long hard fight. The Blacks and Women had to fight for decades for their rights, but the attitude of the Homosexuals is "we want it now!" thus they are picking up the targets and holding against their own backs. to change the views of society is not direct confontation, but get small victories and slowly use those victories to get the ultimate prize... Equal Rights.

My personal stand against Homosexuality is that it is a sin. I can only try to pursuade people against it, but once their choice is made, I'll accept their choice. I do not judge people by their sins, for that is not my job. I hate the sin, not the sinner. a very thin line but a line nonetheless.

Things that people cannot change have historically been held against them, have historically been the reason for many deaths. People, in my opinion, can't truly change the color of their hair any more than someone that is REALLY queer can change. You can suppress those feelings, you can pretend that they do not exist, but the fact is, it is all still there.

Yes, very true.

The problem still remains that Christians hold firm to the belief that it is a choice. Now does that mean that they're prejudice? Some are, of course. But then again, people are always going to have their own thoughts on anything that is different from what is considered 'normal'.

Though I believe that the majority of Christians would not ever be homosexual, and they may in one way or another believe it to be a sin, I don't believe that a lot of them mind homosexuals. I for one do not, and know very few people who do. The people who do mind are more afraid then anything... not really hateful.

Comparing the witch hunt to the feelings towards homosexuals however... I would sooner stop my own comrades then allow anything like that to occur.

Perhaps I should clarify...

I am a part of the GLBT community in that I am FTM, or transgendered for those not familiar with the terms.

I have done my spiritual searching in Catholocism, Islam, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, modern Druidism, Voodun, Wicca and several other pagan religions. I searched with my heart and mind to find a religion that felt, spiritually, right to me. My family was Catholic and I was raised as such until I was 16. LOL I find it amazing that the majority of christianity condemns astrology, yet one of the wise men an astrologer.

But I digress...in answer to the question put before me...YES, I AM....WOOT!!
Cool.

My personal stand against Homosexuality is that it is a sin. I can only try to pursuade people against it, but once their choice is made, I'll accept their choice. I do not judge people by their sins, for that is not my job. I hate the sin, not the sinner. a very thin line but a line nonetheless.

Well said.

*snip*

This thread is 37 pages long, so I'm sure this has been noted already, but... Oh well.

(All quotes taken from New Living Translation)

Romans 1:16-25 is about people turning from God's intentions and desires, and refusing to acknowledge Him as the only true god.

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

God allowed people to use their free will and do as they pleased, but they also suffer the penalty of not knowing God, and Jesus Christ, and thus do not recieve salvation.

I can only try to pursuade people against it.

"Pursuade" is such an ugly word.

And on that note, didn't Adam try to pursuade Lilith to be subordinate? Look how well that turned out lol

But I do give you much credit for accepting rather than hating.

Yes, very true.

The problem still remains that Christians hold firm to the belief that it is a choice. Now does that mean that they're prejudice? Some are, of course. But then again, people are always going to have their own thoughts on anything that is different from what is considered 'normal'.

Though I believe that the majority of Christians would not ever be homosexual, and they may in one way or another believe it to be a sin, I don't believe that a lot of them mind homosexuals. I for one do not, and know very few people who do. The people who do mind are more afraid then anything... not really hateful.

Comparing the witch hunt to the feelings towards homosexuals however... I would sooner stop my own comrades then allow anything like that to occur.

The tricky thing about 'normal' is that it is a majority rules situation. If you set aside the religious part of it, and imagined a world where homosexuality was the majority, then in that world, homosexuality would be the norm.

I know a lot of christians, here in the U.S. it's the main religion. Some are great people. And for some, it was in their getting to know me that a small part of their perspective of homosexual culture changed. I am not what would be termed the sterotype homosexual. Then again, neither are any of my friends. Speaking for myself, I will admit, there are some scary people out there. But that goes for gay or straight.

My thought on the 'homo hunt' statement was the gay bashing that happens. Yes, it is limited, it is something that happens reportedly at a low rate. But the statistics are skewed. A lot of people just are tired of dealing with what they feel is a police department that doesn't really care. So, in a way, it is open season. Instead of hot pokers, bic lighters. Instead of being burned at the stake, people are tied to fence posts and beaten and then left to die.

The sad part about gay bashing is that not enough christian's stand up against it. It gives a misconception of where christians really stand on the issue. And, to some of us, it makes it very hard to believe in the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' mentality...unless the plan is to beat the sin out of someone.

"Pursuade" is such an ugly word.

And on that note, didn't Adam try to pursuade Lilith to be subordinate? Look how well that turned out lol

But I do give you much credit for accepting rather than hating.I agree... but couldn't find a better word.
Argue - well not really, not even discuss or debate would work.
Preach - (shudders) nope, not my style.
Witness - close but also can be mis-interpreted.
Minister - Not one, so I feel I shouldn't
Pursuade kinda fits... all of the above rolled up into a nice genral package.

of course... there's also brainwashing... but my washing machine is out of order... and the laudromats won't allow me to do that there... :D

or perhaps they never truly felt as comfortable being gay so returned to a lifestyle that is comfortable to them... either way, they made their choice.

Being homosexual is not a lifestyle.

And, at least last time I checked, we don't choose who we are attracted to. It just kind of happens.

Why is it when someone "Chooses" the Homosexual Lifestyle it's considered being themselves but when they decide to go back to being Heterosexual, it's suddenly "they're bowing to the pressures of society?" could it be that Sanx's friends truly did not feel right being Homosexual? that they experimented and decieded that it wasn't for them and now would choose not to support such practice?

How exactly do you experiment with being attracted to someone?

I don't know about you, but I don't walk into a room and say "I feel like being attracted to girls tonight. I'm going to experiment. Just for tonight, I won't be attracted to guys and I will be attracted to girls. Let's go!"

To hide behind "Instinct", "Natural Impulses" is to dehumanize man and make them nothing more than animals. and you would be surprise how many societies take umbrage at that idea.

I love it when people get insulted by truth.

Hate to break it to you my dear, but humans are animals. And humans don't choose who they are and are not attracted to.

I agree on the Hunting part... to a point. the Fight for ... (Queer Rights doesn't sound right...) Equal Rights has always been a long hard fight. The Blacks and Women had to fight for decades for their rights, but the attitude of the Homosexuals is "we want it now!" thus they are picking up the targets and holding against their own backs. to change the views of society is not direct confontation, but get small victories and slowly use those victories to get the ultimate prize... Equal Rights.

Yeah, slow victories. That's why there were never sit-ins in the civil rights movement. No one marched on Washington. No one felt the brunt of "society pushing back" as you call it. There were no beatings. Obviously, it was all polite and there were small movements and no one thought to themselves that it would be better to get the rights straight up.

I love it when people get insulted by truth.

Hate to break it to you my dear, but humans are animals. And humans don't choose who they are and are not attracted to.Careful on how you define 'Truth.'
Yes we are animals, but we are suppose to be more than animals.
so, you are saying that Homosexuals are a slave to their Genes and thus makes Homosexuality right?
Some Animals don't raise their kids past the first 5 years... should humans follow this?
Some animals don't raise their kids at all. should all child neglect cases be allowed this defense?
Animals fight to defend their territory... can this be a defenseable reason in court?
In Herd animals, only the prime male / female mate and have kids. so are you saying that only the Government leaders can have families?
In Group/society Animals, leaders are chosen by direct physical confrontations. should our leaders be chosen this way.... (well, it would make Debates more interesting...)
Never seen any animal Negotiate anything...
In Majority of Group/Social Animals, Deviants are chased out or killed... you want others to use that defense in hate crimes?
Yes, we humans are animals, but we are suppose to be more than animals. so can we hide or exscue behavior because "animals do it?"

Careful on how you define 'Truth.'
Yes we are animals,

I define truth the same way as you, apparently.

but we are suppose to be more than animals.

No, we expect ourselves to act in ways that other animals do not. Quite a bit of this comes from actually being different from other animals. Then, there is also the fact that we are clearly self-aware and sapient, while it is unclear that any other animals are - although many apes seem awfully close.

so, you are saying that Homosexuals are a slave to their Genes and thus makes Homosexuality right?

I am saying that human beings are attracted to other human beings. We don't choose who we are attracted to. It is a matter of hormones, pheremones, etc. We certainly decide what to do about that attraction, but that is another matter altogether.

Thus, it is idiotic to say that homosexuality is a sin. It is like saying that menstruation is a sin. Or sweating is a sin. Attraction comes from bodily processes that we have no control over. And sexuality is defined by that attraction.

Some Animals don't raise their kids past the first 5 years... should humans follow this?
Some animals don't raise their kids at all. should all child neglect cases be allowed this defense?

In what world does "Humans are animals" equate to "Humans should act like all other animals"?

It is like saying "Some gems are purple, therefore all gems are purple."

Animals fight to defend their territory... can this be a defenseable reason in court?

Actually, yes, it can. Ever see "No trespassing" signs?

In Herd animals, only the prime male / female mate and have kids. so are you saying that only the Government leaders can have families?

First off, this is not all herd animals. Just some. Second of all, see above.

In Group/society Animals, leaders are chosen by direct physical confrontations. should our leaders be chosen this way.... (well, it would make Debates more interesting...)

See above.

I see that you are incredibly fond of strawmen.

Never seen any animal Negotiate anything...

You haven't really watched apes then, have you?

In Majority of Group/Social Animals, Deviants are chased out or killed... you want others to use that defense in hate crimes?

(a) See above.

(b) What do you define as "deviants"?

Yes, we humans are animals, but we are suppose to be more than animals. so can we hide or exscue behavior because "animals do it?"

It is impossible to be more than what we are. And we are animals.

However, your idiotic assertions that being an animal means we must act like all other animals is just that - idiotic.

Being homosexual is not a lifestyle.

And, at least last time I checked, we don't choose who we are attracted to. It just kind of happens.



How exactly do you experiment with being attracted to someone?

I don't know about you, but I don't walk into a room and say "I feel like being attracted to girls tonight. I'm going to experiment. Just for tonight, I won't be attracted to guys and I will be attracted to girls. Let's go!"actually that quote you quoted me on was in reply to this...
Then I will insult their character, if suggesting they are still gay is an insult (which only the most heartless and prejudiced would think it would be).

Your friend wouldn't be the first homosexual to marry due to social pressure (and I bet your friends' "support" is easily the sort of social pressure that makes many homosexuals miserable).

Your friend wouldn't be the first one to realize that who they were was not tolerated by everything they were raised by. Trying to be a good person would easily lead someone who wanted enough to be accepted and normal to convince themselves to change, especially since that social support doesn't sound very supportive at all.

Let's say you were born with brown hair. Let's say your family and church taught you that having brown hair was evil, wrong, and an abomination to God. Most people would dye their hair, especially if they were in an area with few other brunnettes. Just because your friend convinced the rest of the world that they are now straight doesn't mean that they acutally are, it just means that A) they weren't gay to begin with or B) they aren't actually straight.

They have my pity.Now looking at the bolded areas, why couldn't he just say, "he made his choice and I support him on his choices and wish him and his wife and family many joyous years together." no, it's He's faking... "he wasn't truly gay"... and "They have my Pity"
Is that how you also feel?

actually that quote you quoted me on was in reply to this...
Now looking at the bolded areas, why couldn't he just say, "he made his choice and I support him on his choices and wish him and his wife and family many joyous years together." no, it's He's faking... "he wasn't truly gay"... and "They have my Pity"
Is that how you also feel?

Again, I point out that there is no choice here. We don't decide who we are attracted to.

If this guy was ever actually gay, then he is still gay, and is not attracted to his wife (thus, faking it).

If this guy used to think he was gay, because he was attracted to men, but is truly attracted to his wife as well, then he is bisexual. Thus, while he has chosen a heterosexual relationship, he is not heterosexual, but bisexual.

If this guy was never actually attracted to men, then he was never actually gay.

At some point along the line, this guy has lied to himself and those around him for some reason. The question is - at what point?

it's pretty clear in leviticus chapter 20 about sexual relations, verse 13 refers to homosexuality not as a sin but, an abomination. please, learn to read things in context.............

Again, I point out that there is no choice here. We don't decide who we are attracted to.


Actually they do choose as shown:

Some state that simply due to the genetic makeup of the human race it is very unlikely that homosexuality would be anything other than a choice. In An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr. Tahir I jaz, M.D., he states, "Of all animals, human beings are the most genetically indeterminate. In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.' Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined." It is Dr. Tahir's opinion that homosexuality is completely a choice as it is not possible for it to be genetically determined. He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies. Tahir does not believe that individuals could be helped if homosexuality were indeed genetic -- just as you would not be able to cure someone of his or her race or gender.

Socarides, who has been successful in reportedly curing gays of their homosexuality, also agreed with Tahir. In an excerpt taken from his article, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

Tahir also points out in his article that the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs supported the idea of homosexuality as a choice. In a report distributed by them in 1981 they stated, "There are some homosexuals who would like to and probably could change their sexual orientation. Because some homosexual groups maintain contrary to the bulk of scientific evidence that preferential or exclusive homosexuality can never be changed, these people may be discouraged from seeking adequate psychiatric consultation. What is more deplorable is that this myth may also be accepted by some physicians... The physician who is not alert to the orientation of the homosexual patient may not challenge the belief in sexual irreversibility and arrange for appropriate referral." Once again, Tahir supports the decision that homosexuality is a choice and that with proper medical attention there can be a cure.

source:http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html

I define truth the same way as you, apparently.

No, we expect ourselves to act in ways that other animals do not. Quite a bit of this comes from actually being different from other animals. Then, there is also the fact that we are clearly self-aware and sapient, while it is unclear that any other animals are - although many apes seem awfully close.Ok, you say no, we are not more than animals. but yet go and explain why we are more than just animals... sounds like you just proven this point.
I am saying that human beings are attracted to other human beings. We don't choose who we are attracted to. It is a matter of hormones, pheremones, etc. We certainly decide what to do about that attraction, but that is another matter altogether.in other words, you choose to take that attraction and follow that to the next step or you can choose to look for those same qualities in another partner.

Thus, it is idiotic to say that homosexuality is a sin. It is like saying that menstruation is a sin. Or sweating is a sin. Attraction comes from bodily processes that we have no control over. And sexuality is defined by that attraction.nope, not idiotic... for sin is a belief. not biology, to have one rule the other is idiotic. that is why, if you read back, when those who choose to follow their choices, I don't hate them nor do I condem them.


In what world does "Humans are animals" equate to "Humans should act like all other animals"?

It is like saying "Some gems are purple, therefore all gems are purple."

Actually, yes, it can. Ever see "No trespassing" signs?defending... meaning You trespass into my property, I can shoot you dead and the law can't touch me... even with "No Trespassing" Signs out. won't fly in court I can tell you that.

First off, this is not all herd animals. Just some. Second of all, see above.name a herd animal where all males and all females can mate freely. it's usually the Prime male or the prime Female.


I see that you are incredibly fond of strawmen. well the do float so nicely... :D and you gotta admit, the idea of GW Bush and John Kerry in a wrestling ring...

You haven't really watched apes then, have you?interact with other apes from other groups? usually I see a show of force, if one doesn't back down, then a fight ensues... what do you see.

(b) What do you define as "deviants"? in the animal world... it's usually defined as "different"

It is impossible to be more than what we are. And we are animals.

However, your idiotic assertions that being an animal means we must act like all other animals is just that - idiotic.well those others who say that "Since Homosexuality is also found in animals therefore..." and "we are just a slave to our Genes..." If you don't believe that... then I apologize, I misinterpreted your comment.
Of course, I'm not with the "Homosexuality is Not Natural" group either.

Again, I point out that there is no choice here. We don't decide who we are attracted to.

If this guy was ever actually gay, then he is still gay, and is not attracted to his wife (thus, faking it).

If this guy used to think he was gay, because he was attracted to men, but is truly attracted to his wife as well, then he is bisexual. Thus, while he has chosen a heterosexual relationship, he is not heterosexual, but bisexual.

If this guy was never actually attracted to men, then he was never actually gay.

At some point along the line, this guy has lied to himself and those around him for some reason. The question is - at what point?but what's the point? why not just say "good for him" no matter what his choice is? why critisise it or condemn it? Pity for making a choice? wiether it be Homo/Bi/Hetro, the reason shouldn't matter, but the fact that he made a choice and fought for that choice should be his victory. Now if he goes to washington to argue for or against same sex marriage and uses his "leaping" the fence, then ok, question it. but untill then. why pity?

my dear

Stop saying that, its just patronising.

it's pretty clear in leviticus chapter 20 about sexual relations, verse 13 refers to homosexuality not as a sin but, an abomination. please, learn to read things in context.............

talk about context...

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God."B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)

God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has.

What was the point of this? The god squad already know all this junk, for gods sake, everyone knows the "judge not lest ye be judged" line, and the god squad still think homosexual actions are sins. How is telling them stuff they already know going to do squat?
i'm a christian, so i guess i cld be part of that God Squad. I know that stuff about "judge not lest you be judged." and believe it or not, i tiry 2 follow that. Homosexuality is a tricky one for me, but i know that if its a sin, its no worse a sin then lying or being selfish. It's not my job 2 stop anyone from following God and i hate it when ppl do say that such and such a person has can't be a christian.The y have no right 2 and neither do i, so i try not to judge people.

or perhaps they never truly felt as comfortable being gay so returned to a lifestyle that is comfortable to them... either way, they made their choice.


so does giving in to those Impulses without thought or consideration.

Why is it when someone "Chooses" the Homosexual Lifestyle it's considered being themselves but when they decide to go back to being Heterosexual, it's suddenly "they're bowing to the pressures of society?" could it be that Sanx's friends truly did not feel right being Homosexual? that they experimented and decieded that it wasn't for them and now would choose not to support such practice?

that's like calling a smoker who stuggled to quit a smoker, a drug addict who gave up drugs a junkie.
they gave up that part of their lives, if they wish to disassociate themselves from it, the decent "HUMAN" thing to do is to respect their wishes.

Smoking and drugs are proven things that are bad. I find your capitalization of homosexual lifestyle to be amusing. When did you choose the heterosexual lifestyle? What does it mean to live the heterosexual lifestyle? See below comment:

If they just experimented, they were not homosexual to begin with.

Also, you need to read the post it's in response to. They suggested that the change was a complete 180 to what they were doing before.

you have to consider all of the consiquences. you can push the bounderies that man imposes, however you have to realize that those boundaries will push back. and when it does, to cry "foul," "oppression" or even "discrimination" will harden those boundaries.

Look at the Dixie Chicks and Seaned O'Connor. they execised their freedom of speech and their careers suffered for it. You have people saying they have the right to say what they want, but again, realize that the public has a right to respond you what people say or do.

you wanna push the bounderies, tear down the walls, go ahead, but you are up against Society. so don't expect overnight success. expect the fight to take Decades.

To hide behind "Instinct", "Natural Impulses" is to dehumanize man and make them nothing more than animals. and you would be surprise how many societies take umbrage at that idea.

Right, everyone has the right to do what they are comfortable with, but the initial poster's assertion that homosexuality can be changed due to this one sketchy story is lacking evidence. One person does NOT represent everyone, and for most people it isn't something that can be chosen or changed.

It drives me nuts to see that people consider this sort of thing a choice. I believe their are several reasons for it:

1. It justifies their disdain for something that is "icky" - "oh, they don't have to be that way"

2. People think they can talk them out of it

3. It can be prevented.

If you look at many people who are closed minded about it, they do feel it is a choice. Of course they would. Because, in their minds, if it's a choice they don't have to worry about their good loved ones ever becoming homosexual, they can exclude others, etc. It's a tool for discrimination.

actually that quote you quoted me on was in reply to this...
Now looking at the bolded areas, why couldn't he just say, "he made his choice and I support him on his choices and wish him and his wife and family many joyous years together." no, it's He's faking... "he wasn't truly gay"... and "They have my Pity"
Is that how you also feel?


Why wish well for something that will probably fail eventually if he actually was gay? People can't deny feelings for long. Otherwise, sure, live long and prosper, but that's a situation where many times over has proven will not. Most public and recently I think of is in NJ.

PS- Nice use of pronouns.

Ok, you say no, we are not more than animals. but yet go and explain why we are more than just animals... sounds like you just proven this point.
in other words, you choose to take that attraction and follow that to the next step or you can choose to look for those same qualities in another partner.

So you're asking someone, in the name of God, to love and care for something that they aren't attracted to and don't love and cherish. Riiiiight, that's going to work.

nope, not idiotic... for sin is a belief. not biology, to have one rule the other is idiotic. that is why, if you read back, when those who choose to follow their choices, I don't hate them nor do I condem them.

"I don't condemn them! I just tell them they are WRONG and 'persuade' them to go against what every instinct in their body tells them. Could you please love someone else, pretty please? My religious beliefs find you icky."


name a herd animal where all males and all females can mate freely. it's usually the Prime male or the prime Female.

Dolphins. According to a discovery channel documentary I saw, they are actually known for breaking out into orgies.

Some state that simply due to the genetic makeup of the human race it is very unlikely that homosexuality would be anything other than a choice. In An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr. Tahir I jaz, M.D., he states, "Of all animals, human beings are the most genetically indeterminate. In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.'

Why is "sexual behavior" considered a complex high-level behavior in human beings, but not in other animals? Or are we stating that sexuality in animals is also not genetic.

What you fail to realize is that, even if we say that sexuality is not completely controlled by genetics, that does not make it a choice.

Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined."

This is an out and out lie. Dr. Tahir needs to read up on a bit of research.

He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies.

Studies that have already been debunked. The vast majority of the "cured" eventually stated that they had not been "cured", that they had simply been convinced that they wanted to be. Most of them went back to homosexual relationships. The ones that didn't generally had no healthy romantic relationships.

"Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

I wonder how Socarides explains homosexual animals? Oh wait, your article has already lied about them.

Ok, you say no, we are not more than animals. but yet go and explain why we are more than just animals... sounds like you just proven this point.

I didn't explain why we are "more than animals". I explained how we are different from most other animals. The fact that human beings display traits that other animals generally do not does not make them "more than animals". It simply means that we display different traits, just as a woodpecker displays different traits from a canine.

in other words, you choose to take that attraction and follow that to the next step or you can choose to look for those same qualities in another partner.

Which doesn't mean that you choose your sexuality. You don't choose who you are attracted to - and it is that attraction which defines sexuality. The fact that you can look for someone who you are not attracted to but shares some of the same traits with the person you were attracted to is irrelevant.

nope, not idiotic... for sin is a belief. not biology, to have one rule the other is idiotic. that is why, if you read back, when those who choose to follow their choices, I don't hate them nor do I condem them.

How can something that you can't do anything about be a sin? I can't stop menstruating when the time comes any more than I can make myself attracted to someone, or not attracted to someone. The fact that one can choose whether or not to act on their attractions is irrelevant. Homosexuality is exclusive attraction to members of the same sex - something you have already admitted cannot be changed. Generally, sin is something you choose to do, not something innate.

defending... meaning You trespass into my property, I can shoot you dead and the law can't touch me... even with "No Trespassing" Signs out. won't fly in court I can tell you that.

Actually, it will. If you have signs like that, you can shoot a trespasser and claim it was done in self-defence.

name a herd animal where all males and all females can mate freely. it's usually the Prime male or the prime Female.

Cattle (and related species), goats, sheep, most apes, etc.

In fact, the only animals I can think of in which only the alphas mate are wolves, some big cats, and horses.

So I guess it boils down to something like half and half.

interact with other apes from other groups? usually I see a show of force, if one doesn't back down, then a fight ensues... what do you see.

Well, depends on the species. In Bonobos, for instance, some interactions come down to a "negotiation" of sorts that involves sexual contact (often between the females in the groups). Arguments within the group are often diffused in this way as well.

in the animal world... it's usually defined as "different"

Well, that's funny, because you said that animals that were different were kicked out. Never mind that homosexual animals are allowed in the group. Never mind the transsexual bighorn sheep - males that act in every way as a female and travel with the female herd with no problems.

Apparently, by your logic, animals don't find differing sexualities to be all that "deviant".

well those others who say that "Since Homosexuality is also found in animals therefore..." and "we are just a slave to our Genes..." If you don't believe that... then I apologize, I misinterpreted your comment.
Of course, I'm not with the "Homosexuality is Not Natural" group either.

I have never seen anyone argue that homosexuality is absolutely right because it occurs in animals. The argument usually goes like this:

Rabid fundie: "Homosexuality ain't right! It just ain't natural!"
Rational person: "Clearly it is natural, as it occurs in animals and in human beings."
Rabid fundie: "Well, that don't make it right! Animals do bad things and we don't say humans should do them!"
Rational person: "That doesn't change the fact that it certainly isn't unnatural. What makes you think that it is a bad thing?
Rabid fundie: "Um, er, God says so!"
Rational person: "Different people believe in different versions of God. Many religions do not see homosexuality as being a sin."
Rabid fundie: "But it just ain't natural!"
Rational person: *bangs head against wall*

but what's the point? why not just say "good for him" no matter what his choice is? why critisise it or condemn it? Pity for making a choice? wiether it be Homo/Bi/Hetro, the reason shouldn't matter, but the fact that he made a choice and fought for that choice should be his victory. Now if he goes to washington to argue for or against same sex marriage and uses his "leaping" the fence, then ok, question it. but untill then. why pity?

The pity is likely due to the fact that these types of families generally end in despair. Now, if he was never actually gay to begin with, or he is bisexual, he may have no problem. However, if he has done what many gay men have done in the past, and ended up in a heterosexual marriage just to be "normal", then he has entered an inherently unstable family. And, history has shown that it is very likely to end up being too much to bear. Eventually, he will have to come out and admit that he is gay, which will have adverse effects on him, his wife, and especially any children they may have in the meantime. Families break up this way - and everyone involved gets hurt.

The pity is likely due to the fact that these types of families generally end in despair. Now, if he was never actually gay to begin with, or he is bisexual, he may have no problem. However, if he has done what many gay men have done in the past, and ended up in a heterosexual marriage just to be "normal", then he has entered an inherently unstable family. And, history has shown that it is very likely to end up being too much to bear. Eventually, he will have to come out and admit that he is gay, which will have adverse effects on him, his wife, and especially any children they may have in the meantime. Families break up this way - and everyone involved gets hurt.

Yet apparently this unstable family structure is better than a stable one with both parents of the same sex. I'll never understand people.

Okay. I'm biased. I'll admit it. However, my point is still valid.

Raising a child is not something that anyone should take lightly. I am the oldest of 6 kids. To give perspective to this, I will also give the information that I am 32 and my youngest brother is 16.

With the exception of my sister who is 3 years younger than myself, I helped raise all of my brothers and sisters.

As a member of the GLBT community, yes, I want kids. Will I raise them with the purpose of indoctrinating them with the idea that homosexuality is better than being hetero? No. Will I be honest about who I am? Yes.

Think about this for a second people!!! Did your parents ever say anything at all about when one of them got home from work and giving the other a kiss hello? Or a kiss good bye? No. It's not some big sexual orgy in front of the kids.

The real hang up most people have is how will it affect the kids? Well, it will teach them to be open minded. It will teach them that there are different things in this world other than just the quote Normal un-quote family on TV.

My family is extremely racist and prejudiced. My siblings, I like to think, have escaped that fate in part becuase of my influence. My brothers and sisters have come to me as they would a father, and I have listened and given what I thought to be good and honest advice.

I do not think I am the exception to the rule that gay people make bad parents. I think the rule is just bigoted propoganda.

Yet apparently this unstable family structure is better than a stable one with both parents of the same sex. I'll never understand people.

I think its because its easier to harrass these kids and families then a dysfunctional heterosexual one.

I didn't explain why we are "more than animals". I explained how we are different from most other animals. The fact that human beings display traits that other animals generally do not does not make them "more than animals". It simply means that we display different traits, just as a woodpecker displays different traits from a canine.



Which doesn't mean that you choose your sexuality. You don't choose who you are attracted to - and it is that attraction which defines sexuality. The fact that you can look for someone who you are not attracted to but shares some of the same traits with the person you were attracted to is irrelevant.



How can something that you can't do anything about be a sin? I can't stop menstruating when the time comes any more than I can make myself attracted to someone, or not attracted to someone. The fact that one can choose whether or not to act on their attractions is irrelevant. Homosexuality is exclusive attraction to members of the same sex - something you have already admitted cannot be changed. Generally, sin is something you choose to do, not something innate.



Actually, it will. If you have signs like that, you can shoot a trespasser and claim it was done in self-defence.



Cattle (and related species), goats, sheep, most apes, etc.

In fact, the only animals I can think of in which only the alphas mate are wolves, some big cats, and horses.

So I guess it boils down to something like half and half.



Well, depends on the species. In Bonobos, for instance, some interactions come down to a "negotiation" of sorts that involves sexual contact (often between the females in the groups). Arguments within the group are often diffused in this way as well.



Well, that's funny, because you said that animals that were different were kicked out. Never mind that homosexual animals are allowed in the group. Never mind the transsexual bighorn sheep - males that act in every way as a female and travel with the female herd with no problems.

Apparently, by your logic, animals don't find differing sexualities to be all that "deviant".



I have never seen anyone argue that homosexuality is absolutely right because it occurs in animals. The argument usually goes like this:

Rabid fundie: "Homosexuality ain't right! It just ain't natural!"
Rational person: "Clearly it is natural, as it occurs in animals and in human beings."
Rabid fundie: "Well, that don't make it right! Animals do bad things and we don't say humans should do them!"
Rational person: "That doesn't change the fact that it certainly isn't unnatural. What makes you think that it is a bad thing?
Rabid fundie: "Um, er, God says so!"
Rational person: "Different people believe in different versions of God. Many religions do not see homosexuality as being a sin."
Rabid fundie: "But it just ain't natural!"
Rational person: *bangs head against wall*




Too bad the "rational" person rejects half of the text from the holy book of the religion she claims to adhere to :p

Too bad the "rational" person rejects half of the text from the holy book of the religion she claims to adhere to :p
You're the one who rejects it. It's been pointed out to you dozens of times that the passages you quote are mistranslations, and that the Bible actually takes a favorable view towards homosexuality, as noted by the love between David and Jonathan.

Too bad the "rational" person rejects half of the text from the holy book of the religion she claims to adhere to :p

I'm sorry Neo. Where did I claim to adhere to your personal interpretation of your personal religion?

You're the one who rejects it. It's been pointed out to you dozens of times that the passages you quote are mistranslations, and that the Bible actually takes a favorable view towards homosexuality, as noted by the love between David and Jonathan.

Uhh... I wouldn't challenge Neo Rogolia on this stuff... you'll lose.

You see, back in the day, love between men didn't always mean homosexuality...

Uhh... I wouldn't challenge Neo Rogolia on this stuff... you'll lose.

You mean because Neo is completely incapable of admitting the slightest possibility that her personal interpretation of anything might be wrong?

You see, back in the day, love between men didn't always mean homosexuality...

No, but platonic love doesn't generally lead to hard-ons. Depending on how that passage is translated, things seem to be a bit steamy.

You mean because Neo is completely incapable of admitting the slightest possibility that her personal interpretation of anything might be wrong?

We may have our differences, but from what I've seen, I believe she has very good insight. Aside from that, I should hope as a Christian that she does not have any reason to believe she is wrong about her faith. And actually I must say I admire her very strong stance on it.


No, but platonic love doesn't generally lead to hard-ons. Depending on how that passage is translated, things seem to be a bit steamy.

Sorry, but I do not believe that the bible was intended to be... steamy. I am going to have to take the more conservative approach.

You're the one who rejects it. It's been pointed out to you dozens of times that the passages you quote are mistranslations, and that the Bible actually takes a favorable view towards homosexuality, as noted by the love between David and Jonathan.



Funny you would mention David and Jonathan, as their love for each other was clearly agape.

Funny you would mention David and Jonathan, as their love for each other was clearly agape.
Yeah but david clearly wanted more :p

We may have our differences, but from what I've seen, I believe she has very good insight. Aside from that, I should hope as a Christian that she does not have any reason to believe she is wrong about her faith. And actually I must say I admire her very strong stance on it.

You have fallen into the same trap she has. "Not believing you are wrong" is different from believing that there is absolutely no chance that you could be. I am not suggesting that she should denounce Christianity, just that she should admit the very real possibility that some of her interpretation may be wrong. Otherwise, she is claiming personal infallibility.

Sorry, but I do not believe that the bible was intended to be... steamy. I am going to have to take the more conservative approach.

You haven't read much of Psalms or Song of Solomon, have you? There are places that can't be described as anything but.

Funny you would mention David and Jonathan, as their love for each other was clearly agape.
In antiquity homosexual activities were quite common, and not just in Greece. It's unlikely that you'll be able to remove these two characters from their environment - as far as ancient times are concerned, males loving males is generally not platonic.
They'd have been srewing like jackrabbits...

Sorry, but I do not believe that the bible was intended to be... steamy. I am going to have to take the more conservative approach.
I was told that the bible was supposed to be the story of humanity... which last I knew, included lots and lots of sex (at least, if the six billion people here are any indicator) ;)

First of all, you can't expect me to read through 40 pages of people arguing so if I have repeated something someone said then so be it. First of all it says right in the bible in leviticus: "Man shall not lay with man, Woman shall not lay with woman." How more obvious can you get?! There are also passages in First Corenthians as well as other parts of the new and old testament that says that homosexuality is one of the worst sins ever and that it is one of the most frowned upon things in the bible. Before someone even brings this up I am going to stop it right now: God did not create gays or lesbians, he simply gave people freedom of choice, believe it or not every last one of you is being tested, whatever you do, say or think from the day you were born to the day you die. It's one in the morning and I have no patience to search up the passages. Another thing: Because you are against gays and lesbians does not mean you are afraid of them. This being said; the word Homophobe and Homophobic relates to someone that fears those type of people, not someone who can't stand them. Homosexuality is not a race, therefore if you are against them you are not a racist. I am a christian and therefore I follow God's words to the best of my abilities, I do sin, everyone does. It would be the biggest lie someone would speak if they say they never have. But I repent for my sins and try not to repeat them. If you are gay or lesbian then you can't say you are a christian. It's a simple fact! If you read between the lines it says that anyone that is homosexual is going to hell whether they like it or not. I don't care if I make a thousand enemies from saying all this, I am saying the truth, I am saying what is right and I am saying what I believe in. I have freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. Any comments? Either put them up on here and I will try to get to them or e-mail me and we can discuss it: Child_ofthe_milennia@hotmail.com

Funny you would mention David and Jonathan, as their love for each other was clearly agape.
Yeah, because naked men embracing is obviously a form of platonic love. :rolleyes:


And as Dem mentioned, have you ever read the Song of Solomon? It's practically hard-core pornography.

First of all, you can't expect me to read through 40 pages of people arguing so if I have repeated something someone said then so be it. First of all it says right in the bible in leviticus: "Man shall not lay with man, Woman shall not lay with woman." How more obvious can you get?!
Bullshit ... might want to re read and get that qote again because you got it wrong

Mind proving that I am wrong?

You have fallen into the same trap she has. "Not believing you are wrong" is different from believing that there is absolutely no chance that you could be. I am not suggesting that she should denounce Christianity, just that she should admit the very real possibility that some of her interpretation may be wrong. Otherwise, she is claiming personal infallibility.

...our faith is supposed to be strong for a reason... but nevermind... I suppose you wouldn't understand being on the outside looking in (no offence).


You haven't read much of Psalms or Song of Solomon, have you? There are places that can't be described as anything but.

You're making the bible sound more immoral... sorry but I guess we have different interpretations of most everything in the bible.

I wouldn't use the word 'steamy' with a holy book that teaches of morals and faith. If it seems a bit inappropriate, then there is a good reason for it, there a lessons to be learned.

Mind proving that I am wrong?


1. Leviticus 18:22-23 ";You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion."

2. Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."


No mention of a woman laying with a woman at all

I'm sure homosexuality is a sin in some religions. But since it's not a sin to a lot of us, nor evil in any way, it should hardly be a crime.
Fine if some people want to go on believing it's a sin. As long as they aren't allowed to make it a crime.

I was told that the bible was supposed to be the story of humanity... which last I knew, included lots and lots of sex (at least, if the six billion people here are any indicator) ;)

Yeah.. but the bible is not a porno.

In antiquity homosexual activities were quite common, and not just in Greece. It's unlikely that you'll be able to remove these two characters from their environment - as far as ancient times are concerned, males loving males is generally not platonic.
They'd have been srewing like jackrabbits...



Yes, but Greek and Hebrew cultures were about as similar as ice and fire. You see, if you take the seventh grader's interpretation of love (you know, every single sign of affection is somehow sexual) of course you could make anything out to be whatever your twisted mind could contrive. This, of course, was not the case in Israel. They were pretty strict on their treatment of degenerates who would practice the homosexual act, and even the king was not above God's law: Remember how the prophet Nathan came to rebuke David for adultery and murder? A prophet of God sent to admonish the king! Would you not expect the same for David if he showed....less-than-platonic affections for Jonathan? Those who believe David and Jonathan's relationship was sexual are a very small minority, and for good reason.

First of all, you can't expect me to read through 40 pages of people arguing so if I have repeated something someone said then so be it. First of all it says right in the bible in leviticus: "Man shall not lay with man, Woman shall not lay with woman." How more obvious can you get?! There are also passages in First Corenthians as well as other parts of the new and old testament that says that homosexuality is one of the worst sins ever and that it is one of the most frowned upon things in the bible. Before someone even brings this up I am going to stop it right now: God did not create gays or lesbians, he simply gave people freedom of choice, believe it or not every last one of you is being tested, whatever you do, say or think from the day you were born to the day you die. It's one in the morning and I have no patience to search up the passages. Another thing: Because you are against gays and lesbians does not mean you are afraid of them. This being said; the word Homophobe and Homophobic relates to someone that fears those type of people, not someone who can't stand them. Homosexuality is not a race, therefore if you are against them you are not a racist. I am a christian and therefore I follow God's words to the best of my abilities, I do sin, everyone does. It would be the biggest lie someone would speak if they say they never have. But I repent for my sins and try not to repeat them. If you are gay or lesbian then you can't say you are a christian. It's a simple fact! If you read between the lines it says that anyone that is homosexual is going to hell whether they like it or not. I don't care if I make a thousand enemies from saying all this, I am saying the truth, I am saying what is right and I am saying what I believe in. I have freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. Any comments? Either put them up on here and I will try to get to them or e-mail me and we can discuss it: Child_ofthe_milennia@hotmail.com
As has been noted numerous times in this thread, the passage in Leviticus has been horribly mistranslated. If you actually read the thread, you'd know that. But no, you had to spout out your ignorance.

No mention of a woman laying with a woman at all



To me (and apparently to the Jewish people), it was implied. Regardless, Romans 1 erases all doubt :D

It says homosexuality in other parts of the bible which anyone would translate as all homosexuality. I said before I wasn't going to get the exact passages

Yeah.. but the bible is not a porno.
May want to re read that song of solomon

Is it wrong to get a hardon when reading the bible lol

What you call ignorance I call truth, I have as much right to post here as you do.

It says homosexuality in other parts of the bible which anyone would translate as all homosexuality. I said before I wasn't going to get the exact passages
As I've already noted, arsenkotai translates as "male temple prostitutes", not "homosexuals". You lose.

The problem with this whole argument about this is that nudity and love were not nearly as racy and 'disgusting' in the bible as we consider them today. The bible wasn't made a few years ago... it's ancient.

It says homosexuality in other parts of the bible which anyone would translate as all homosexuality. I said before I wasn't going to get the exact passages
All I said was your quote was wrong ...
If you are using the bible as a refference you might want to make sure you quote correctly

Yeah.. but the bible is not a porno.
Describing blowjobs seems remniscent of a porno to me.

That does not relate to all quotes within the bible, it would be foolishness to think so. Lose? What do you mean?

May want to re read that song of solomon

Is it wrong to get a hardon when reading the bible lol

...no comment... oh wait, I do have a comment:

wow.. you have problems :p

What you call ignorance I call truth, I have as much right to post here as you do.
Yup every right to post here ... does not mean what you post is correct

Yeah, because naked men embracing is obviously a form of platonic love. :rolleyes:


And as Dem mentioned, have you ever read the Song of Solomon? It's practically hard-core pornography.




1. In today's society, it would be considered sexual. However, in their society, such was not always the case. Also, mind showing me where it portrays them nude?


2. I'm not the one who objected to the Song of Solomon.

...no comment... oh wait, I do have a comment:

wow.. you have problems :p
Oh why is that?

Describing blowjobs seems remniscent of a porno to me.

ok, here's the line

horny_________________castrated

you're so far left you must have fallen off.

jk lol.

Oh why is that?

that last comment goes for you too :p

That does not relate to all quotes within the bible, it would be foolishness to think so. Lose? What do you mean?
The word homosexual is only mentioned in certain translations of the New Testament, as a translation of the Greek word arsenkotai. Since arsenkotai does not mean homosexual, homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible by name, like you claimed. You lose.

(Also, the Leviticus passage is horribly mistranslated. It actually deals with not lying on the bed of a menstruating woman. Nothing to do with homosexuality there.)

Describing blowjobs seems remniscent of a porno to me.



Such is never described...sure, certain aspects of books like the Song of Solomon can get a little....graphic.....but oral sex? Never occurs.

First of all, you can't expect me to read through 40 pages of people arguing so if I have repeated something someone said then so be it. First of all it says right in the bible in leviticus: "Man shall not lay with man, Woman shall not lay with woman." How more obvious can you get?!

Here's the info on Corinthians...just to kind of catch you up...

I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:
9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.

New International Version
9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.

May want to re read that song of solomon

Is it wrong to get a hardon when reading the bible lol

ROFL

If they made the bible into a movie, it would surely get an X rating. I sure as hell wouldn't let my kid see it.

Actually it is mentioned if you have actually read the bible. Unless you have had actually read the bible in it's original language which I doubt you have no proof of mistranslation. I don't lose because I am not doing anything, The only thing I am losing is sleep because you refuse to realize the truth

that last comment goes for you too :p
And what exactly did I say to give an indication of “horniness” rather then reading interpretation
The connection is not redly apparent to me

The rest is a joke ...

You know ... jokes

The word homosexual is only mentioned in certain translations of the New Testament, as a translation of the Greek word arsenkotai. Since arsenkotai does not mean homosexual, homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible by name, like you claimed. You lose.

(Also, the Leviticus passage is horribly mistranslated. It actually deals with not lying on the bed of a menstruating woman. Nothing to do with homosexuality there.)



1. Romans 1....not 1 Corinithians.....Romans 1! Sheesh.

2. You're taking a theory advanced by more liberal biblical scholars and establishing it as fact. That is wrong. Is it possible? Yes, but do not say it is a fact. We do not seek what we want to be the truth, but the actual truth.

And what exactly did I say to give an indication of “horniness” rather then reading interpretation
The connection is not redly apparent to me

relax, it was a joke.

Such is never described...sure, certain aspects of books like the Song of Solomon can get a little....graphic.....but oral sex? Never occurs.
Paraphrasing here, because my Bible is upstairs and I'm too lazy to get it.

"I sat in his shadow and his fruits were sweet to me."

You don't have a very good grasp on metaphorical language, do you.

Actually it is mentioned if you have actually read the bible. Unless you have had actually read the bible in it's original language which I doubt you have no proof of mistranslation. I don't lose because I am not doing anything, The only thing I am losing is sleep because you refuse to realize the truth
And yet you have apparently not even read it in English ... or have not taken the time to actually make sure your quotes are right

ROFL

If they made the bible into a movie, it would surely get an X rating. I sure as hell wouldn't let my kid see it.

It would get an x rating only because the liberal-biased people in the movie industry would try to make it that way. Too bad the entire bible couldn't be made into a movie.. since few people give an effort to read...

In any case, if it goes anyhting like The Passion, it would do very well regardless of its rating.

Paraphrasing here, because my Bible is upstairs and I'm too lazy to get it.

"I sat in his shadow and his fruits were sweet to me."

You don't have a very good grasp on metaphorical language, do you.




:rolleyes: I'll let you figure this one out on your own

2. You're taking a theory advanced by more liberal biblical scholars and establishing it as fact. That is wrong. Is it possible? Yes, but do not say it is a fact. We do not seek what we want to be the truth, but the actual truth.
No, I'm taking the word of people who can actually read Hebrew, like, say, rabbis.

It would get an x rating only because the liberal-biased people in the movie industry would try to make it that way. Too bad the entire bible couldn't be made into a movie.. since few people give an effort to read...

In any case, if it goes anyhting like The Passion, it would do very well regardless of its rating.
I don't know in general “family values” tends to be the republican platform (in no way saying that this is universally reality or not) All the death and sex and such would generally be more against republican standard platform

It would get an x rating only because the liberal-biased people in the movie industry would try to make it that way. Too bad the entire bible couldn't be made into a movie.. since few people give an effort to read...

In any case, if it goes anyhting like The Passion, it would do very well regardless of its rating.Yeah, I think it's liberal bias too. We're funny that way. I'd rather my kids see two people fucking and enjoying each other than a bunch of men, women and children slaughtered because they believe a diferent way.

No, I'm taking the word of people who can actually read Hebrew, like, say, rabbis.

funny when rabbis have their own religion to tend to, so naturally they're going to put a twist on things too. There's a reason that Christians arn't Jewish...

funny when rabbis have their own religion to tend to, so naturally they're going to put a twist on things too. There's a reason that Christians arn't Jewish...
And Christians don't put a slant on translation themselves?

Seems to me they too have a vested interest in translating the bible a certain way

Yeah, I think it's liberal bias too. We're funny that way. I'd rather my kids see two people fucking and enjoying each other than a bunch of men, women and children slaughtered because they believe a diferent way.

Funny how some people like to throw morals right out the window...

That isn't even something that should apply to Christians... morals are something that I would like to hope everyone would want to keep and hold to.

funny when rabbis have their own religion to tend to, so naturally they're going to put a twist on things too. There's a reason that Christians arn't Jewish...Yeah, probably something wrong with the Jews. Mainstream Judaism has grown oddly tolerant in the last century.



Anybody else getting some hellacious lag time?

funny when rabbis have their own religion to tend to, so naturally they're going to put a twist on things too. There's a reason that Christians arn't Jewish...
And yet your translation is more accurate than that of the people who would actually know? Sheesh, that's bloody arrogant.

Funny how some people like to throw morals right out the window...

That isn't even something that should apply to Christians... morals are something that I would like to hope everyone would want to keep and hold to.
Yup and I hold to my morals that homosexuality are alright

It seems to be the Christian god that at least to me is immoral in a lot of ways

1. Romans 1....not 1 Corinithians.....Romans 1! Sheesh.

2. You're taking a theory advanced by more liberal biblical scholars and establishing it as fact. That is wrong. Is it possible? Yes, but do not say it is a fact. We do not seek what we want to be the truth, but the actual truth.

Here's Romans 1

Romans 1:21, 26, 27

Revised Standard Version

21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him...

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men...

The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.

Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible."

And Christians don't put a slant on translation themselves?

Seems to me they too have a vested interest in translating the bible a certain way

You call it a slant... there is a reason I am a Christian. It's because I believe in this particular 'slant' as you like to call it. Sorry if I believe in the Christian way.

Yeah, probably something wrong with the Jews. Mainstream Judaism has grown oddly tolerant in the last century.
Not too surprising. Oppresion has a tendency to do that.



Anybody else getting some hellacious lag time?
I was. Seems to have gotten better.

Anybody else getting some hellacious lag time?

yeah.. I almost quit posting cause it wouldn't load.

your problem is this. when acutally using text from the bible you have to not take it out of contex. That is how the KKK works that is how Black Panther works. Nazi's even used parts of the Bible you can not take verses out of contex or you will get the wrong meaning which you have clearly done with this gay marriage thing. Homosexuality is agianst the the Word of God and in the Romans

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them; because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling a mortal human being and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.

1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 1:32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.


not taking it out of contex you see what God is talking about here. consider that he is talking about a nation 2 thousand years ago. were still struggling with this. GOd is clearly against it. Not for it.

peace my brothers and sisters

You call it a slant... there is a reason I am a Christian. It's because I believe in this particular 'slant' as you like to call it. Sorry if I believe in the Christian way.
Thats fine ... and they believe in their jewish slant ... how is their slant in translation any more wrong then yours?

Yup and I hold to my morals that homosexuality are alright

It seems to be the Christian god that at least to me is immoral in a lot of ways

Wrong subject, I was talking abou someone letting kids watch prono...

I personally believe homosexuality is immoral... but thats just my belief. I do respect you for holding to your personal morals.

You call it a slant... there is a reason I am a Christian. It's because I believe in this particular 'slant' as you like to call it. Sorry if I believe in the Christian way.

Good arguement. I think I'll use it. Anytime someone says something is biased, I'll just say "I happen to believe in the ________ way. That's why I'm a _______."

Wrong subject, I was talking abou someone letting kids watch prono...

I personally believe homosexuality is immoral... but thats just my belief. I do respect you for holding to your personal morals.
Which is exactly why I would have issues with my kids watching a direct bible depiction completely through

I don't think they should be exposed to all that violence and sex and sometimes frankly depressing scenes (Not saying it is all like that but some of it is)

Thats fine ... and they believe in their jewish slant ... how is their slant in translation any more wrong then yours?

The point is you're making arguments based on something that your 'opposition' doesn't even believe in to begin with.

My apologies if there are any Jewish people here lol.

The point is you're making arguments based on something that your 'opposition' doesn't even believe in to begin with.

My apologies if there are any Jewish people here lol.
And your making arguments on the bible when I don't believe in it is any better how?

Which is exactly why I would have issues with my kids watching a direct bible depiction completely through

I don't think they should be exposed to all that violence and sex and sometimes frankly depressing scenes (Not saying it is all like that but some of it is)

The way I was raised is that kids are taught basic morals and parts of the bible that wouldn't be offencive/over their heads. The more depressing/sexual parts are slowly inserted as the years go on. By that time they will have the comprehension to understand it. And hopefully they will be mature enough to take it seriously.

Yeah I'm Catholic if you haven't noticed lol.

Wrong subject, I was talking abou someone letting kids watch prono...

I personally believe homosexuality is immoral... but thats just my belief. I do respect you for holding to your personal morals.I was talking about the obscenity in the bible. I figured I'd rather them see that part than people slaughtered because they believe differently.
As for porn, define it. Obsenity, that's the part I object to.

The way I was raised is that kids are taught basic morals and parts of the bible that wouldn't be offencive/over their heads. The more depressing/sexual parts are slowly inserted as the years go on. By that time they will have the comprehension to understand it. And hopefully they will be mature enough to take it seriously.

Yeah I'm Catholic if you haven't noticed lol.
Possibly ... but it still deserves the "worse" raiting of at least R as an overall raiting ... deffinatly not for child consumption

I was ... now Im not. Life is funny that way lol

And your making arguments on the bible when I don't believe in it is any better how?

Sorry, but if you haven't noticed, this thread is about homosexuality being sin or not. The religion in question would be Christianity.

Technically if you don't even believe in God, your opinions here are irrelevant.

Possibly ... but it still deserves the "worse" raiting of at least R as an overall raiting ... deffinatly not for child consumption

I was ... now Im not. Life is funny that way lol

Catholicism... I don’t entirely blame you for leaving. I myself will probably not remain a Catholic, but rather switch to a protestant form of Christianity.

Sorry, but if you haven't noticed, this thread is about homosexuality being sin or not. The religion in question would be Christianity.

Technically if you don't even believe in God, your opinions here are irrelevant.
as relevant or irrelevant as yours ...

Sorry, but if you haven't noticed, this thread is about homosexuality being sin or not. The religion in question would be Christianity.

Technically if you don't even believe in God, your opinions here are irrelevant.
Untrue. First off, "Sin" is not just a religious term. Second, no one's opinions are irrelevant. Third, despite the title of the thread, the actual subject of it is whatever ends up being debated, because honestly, I don't mind people going slightly off-topic in my thread with related arguements.

Untrue. First off, "Sin" is not just a religious term. Second, no one's opinions are irrelevant. Third, despite the title of the thread, the actual subject of it is whatever ends up being debated, because honestly, I don't mind people going slightly off-topic in my thread with related arguements.

That's fine.. and I admit I felt stupid after posting that.

Catholicism... I don’t entirely blame you for leaving. I myself will probably not remain a Catholic, but rather switch to a protestant form of Christianity.
Yeah I had issues that dissuaded me from organized religion at all and then some more problems with the idea of Christianity as a whole then even some more stuff with anyone being able to prove a deity of any sort
Which leads me to agnosticism lol

Funny how some people like to throw morals right out the window...

That isn't even something that should apply to Christians... morals are something that I would like to hope everyone would want to keep and hold to.


Morals are relative.


Sorry, but if you haven't noticed, this thread is about homosexuality being sin or not. The religion in question would be Christianity.

Technically if you don't even believe in God, your opinions here are irrelevant.

Right, because in the entire scope of humanity, GodLovers (hereafter GLs) are the only ones who have ever embraced the notion of sin. ...Right.

Open your eyes to the rest of the world. You're not the only one there, and neither are your people.

Right, because in the entire scope of humanity, GodLovers (hereafter GLs) are the only ones who have ever embraced the notion of sin. ...Right.

Open your eyes to the rest of the world. You're not the only one there, and neither are your people.

I believe I already corrected myself. Good job catching on.

That's fine.. and I admit I felt stupid after posting that.
Happens to us all. At least, all human beings. ;)

If two people love each other, what's so wrong with that? Personally, I'd rather see two people in love than two people hate each other. I'm straight, but I have two lesbian friends. They're really really happy with each other. They're amazing friends, and I totally think they're perfect for each other. I'm happy that in this crazy mixed up world, they were able to find someone to love.

It's not like gay people shoot magical GAY BEAMS at you to make you gay or anything. They're normal people just like the rest of us. It's been scientifically proven that people are wired this way before birth. They did a study with several focus groups of people with varied sexual orientations, and monitored their brainwaves when exposed to male and female pheremones. Homosexual people's brains responded to their same gender, while heterosexual people responded to their opposite gender. (Bisexual responded to both.)

Homosexuality is not a choice. (Tell this to half of the clergy of the Catholic church, btw. :rolleyes: ) Condemning someone for being gay is passing judgement. The only one who can pass judgement is God, so quit blaspheming. And you can quote the Bible all you want, (and blatantly take things out of context to suit your current argument), but that doesn't make you right. If God hated you so much, why did He create you? Were we not all created in God's image?

(Also: don't throw New Testament quotes at me in rebuttal. I'm Jewish.)

Quoted from Wikipedia:
This list includes animals for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting.

* Acanthocephalan Worms
* Acorn Woodpecker
* Adelie Penguin
* African Buffalo
* African Elephant
* Agile Wallaby
* Alfalfa Weevil
* Amazon Molly
* Amazon River Dolphin
* American Bison
* Anna's Humminbird
* Anole sp.
* Aoudad
* Aperea
* Appalachian Woodland Salamander
* Asiatic Elephant
* Asiatic Mouflon
* Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.
* Australian Sea Lion
* Australian Shelduck
* Aztec Parakeet
* Bank Swallow
* Barasingha
* Barbary Sheep
* Barn Owl
* Bean Weevil sp.
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.
* Beluga
* Bangalese Finch (Domestic)
* Bezoar
* Bharal
* Bicolored Antbird
* Bighorn Sheep
* Black Bear
* Black-billed Magpie
* Blackbuck
* Black-crowned Night Heron
* Black-footed Rock Wallaby
* Black-headed Gull
* Black-rumped Flameback
* Black-spotted Frog
* Black Stilt
* Blackstripe Topminnow
* Black Swan
* Black-tailed Deer
* Black-winged Stilt
* Blister Beetle spp.
* Blowfly
* Blue-backed Manakin
* Blue-bellied Roller
* Bluegill Sunfish
* Blue Sheep
* Blue Tit
* Blue-winged Teal
* Bonnet Macaque
* Bonobo
* Boto
* Bottlenose Dolphin
* Bowhead Whale
* Box Crab
* Bridled Dolphin
* Broad-headed Skink
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.
* Brown Bear
* Brown Capuchin
* Brown-headed Cowbird
* Brown Long-eared Bat
* Brown Rat
* Budgeriger (Domestic)
* Buff-breasted Sandpiper
* Rush Dog
* Cabbage (Small) White
* Calfbird
* California Gull
* Canada Goose
* Canary-winged Parakeet
* Caribou
* Caspian Tern
* Cat (Domestic)
* Cattle (Domestic)
* Cattle Egret
* Chaffinch
* Char
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard
* Checkerspot Butterfly
* Cheetah
* Chicken (Domestic)
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard
* Chiloe Wigeon
* Cliff Swallow
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.
* Cockroach spp.
* Collared Peccary
* Cammerson's Dolphin
* Common Ameiva
* Common Brushtail Possum
* Common Chimpanzee
* Common Dolphin
* Common Garter Snake
* Common Gull
* Common Marmoset
* Common Murre
* Common Pipistrelle
* Common Racoon
* Common Shelduck
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.
* Common Tree Shrew
* Cotton-top Tamarin
* Crab-eating Macaque
* Crane spp.
* Creeping Water Bug sp.
* Crested Black Macaque
* Cuban Green Anole
* Cui
* Dall's Sheep
* Daubenton's Bat
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard
* Desert Tortoise
* Digger Bee
* Dog (Domestic)
* Doria's Tree Kangaroo
* Dragonfly spp.
* Dugong
* Dusky Moorhen
* Dwarf Cavy
* Dwarf Mongoose
* Eastern Bluebird
* Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon
* Eastern Gray Kangaroo
* Egyptian Goose
* Elegant Parrot
* Elk
* Emu
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer
* Euro
* European Bison
* European Bitterling
* European Jay
* European Shag
* Fallow Deer
* False Killer Whale
* Fat-tailed Dunnart
* Fence Lizard
* Field Cricket sp.
* Fin Whale
* Five-lined Skink
* Flamingo
* Fruit Fly spp.
* Galah
* Gelada Baboon
* Gentoo Penguin
* Giraffe
* Glasswing Butterfly
* Goat (Domestic)
* Golden Bishop Bird
* Golden Monkey
* Golden Plover
* Gopher (Pine) Snake
* Gorilla
* Grant's Gazelle
* Grape Berry Moth
* Grape Borer
* Gray-breasted Jay
* Gray-capped Social Weaver
* Gray-headed Flying Fox
* Gray Heron
* Grayling
* Gray Seal
* Gray Squirrel
* Gray Whale
* Great Cormorant
* Greater Bird of Paradise
* Greater Rhea
* Green Anole
* Green Lacewing
* Green Sandpiper
* Greenshank
* Green Swordtail
* Greylag Goose
* Griffon Vulture
* Grizzly Bear
* Guiana Leaffish
* Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock
* Guillemot
* Guinea Pig (Domestic)
* Hamadryas Baboon
* Hammerhead
* Hamster (Domestic)
* Hanuman Lanur
* Harbor Porpoise
* Harbor Seal
* Harvest Spider sp.
* Hawaiin Orb-Weaver
* Hen Flea
* Herring Gull
* Himalayan Tahr
* Hoary-headed Grebe
* Hoary Marmot
* Hooded Warbler
* Horse (Domestic)
* House Fly
* House Sparrow
* Houting Whitefish
* Human
* Humboldt Penguin
* Ichneumon Wasp sp.
* Incirrate Octopus spp.
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard
* Indian Fruit Bat
* Indian Mantjac
* Indian Rhinoceros
* Ivory Gull
* Jackdaw
* Jamaican Giant Anole
* Japanese Scarab Beetle
* Japanese Macaque
* Javelina
* Jewel Fish
* Jumping Spider sp.
* Kangaroo Rat
* Kestrel
* Killer Whale
* King Penquin
* Kittiwake
* Koala
* Kob
* Larch Bud Moth
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Larga Seal
* Largehead Anole
* Large Milkweed Bug
* Large White
* Laughing Gull
* Laysan Albatross
* Least Chipmunk
* Least Darter
* Lechwe
* Lesser Bushbaby
* Lesser Flamingo
* Lesser Scaup Duck
* Lion
* Lion-tailed Macaque
* Lion Tamarin
* Little Blue Heron
* Little Brown Bat
* Little Egret
* Livingstone's Fruit Bat
* Long-eared Hedgehog
* Long-footed Tree Shrew
* Long-legged Fly spp.
* Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird
* Mallard Duck
* Markhor
* Marten
* Masked Lovebird
* Matschie's Tree Kangaroo
* Mazarine Blue
* Mealy Amazon Parrot
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly
* Mew Gull
* Mexican Jay
* Mexican White
* Midge sp.
* Migratory Locust
* Mite sp.
* Moco
* Mohol Galago
* Monarch Butterfly
* Moor Macaque
* Moose
* Mountain Dusky Salamander
* Mountain Goat
* Mountain Tree Shrew
* Mountain Zebra
* Mourning Gecko
* Mouse (Domestic)
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.
* Mule Deer
* Mustached Tamarin
* Musk Duck
* Musk-ox
* Mute Swan
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.
* Natterer's Bat
* New Zealand Sea Lion
* Nilgiri Langur
* Noctule
* North American Porcupine
* Northern Elephant Seal
* Northern Fur Seal
* Northern Quoll
* Ocellated Antbird
* Ocher-bellied Flycatcher
* Olympic Marmot
* Orange Bishop Bird
* Orange-footed Parakeet
* Orangutan
* Orca
* Ornate Lorikeet
* Ostrich
* Oystercatcher
* Pacific Striped Dolphin
* Parsnip Leaf Miner
* Patas Monkey
* Peach-faced Lovebird
* Pere David's Deer
* Pied Flycatcher
* Pied Kingfisher
* Pig (Domestic)
* Pigeon (Domestic)
* Pig-tailed Macaque
* Plains Zebra
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Polar Bear
* Pomace Fly
* Powerful Owl
* Prea
* Pretty-faced Wallaby
* Proboscis Monkey
* Pronghorn
* Przewalski's Horse
* Pukeko
* Puku
* Purple Swamphen
* Pygmy Chimpanzee
* Queen Butterfly
* Quokka
* Rabbit (Domestic)
* Raccoon Dog
* Raggiana's Bird of Paradise
* Rat (Domestic)
* Raven
* Razorbill
* Red Ant sp.
* Red-backed Shrike
* Red Bishop Bird
* Red Deer
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake
* Red-faced Lovebird
* Red Flour Beetle
* Red Fox
* Red Kangaroo
* Red-necked Wallaby
* Redshank
* Red-shouldered Widowbird
* Red Squirrel
* Red-tailed Skink
* Reeve's Muntjac
* Regent Bowerbird
* Reindeer
* Reindeer Warble Fly
* Rhesus Macaque
* Right Whale
* Ring-billed Gull
* Ring Dove
* Rock Cavy
* Rock Dove
* Rodrigues Fruit Bat
* Roe Deer
* Roseate Cockatoo
* Roseate Tern
* Rosechafer
* Rose-ringed Parakeet
* Rove Beetle spp.
* Ruff
* Ruffed Grouse
* Rufous Bettong
* Rufous-naped Tamarin
* Rufous Rat Kangaroo
* Saddle-back Tamarin
* Sage Grouse
* Salmon spp.
* San Blas Jay
* Sand Martin
* Satin Bowerbird
* Savanna Baboon
* Scarab Beetle, Melolonthine
* Scarlet Ibis
* Scottish Crossbill
* Screwworm Fly
* Sea Otter
* Senegal Parrot
* Serotine Bat
* Sharp-tailed Sparrow
* Sheep (Domestic)
* Siamang
* Side-blotched Lizard
* Sika Deer
* Silkworm Moth
* Silver Gull
* Silvery Grebe
* Slender Tree Shrew
* Snow Goose
* Sociable Weaver
* Sooty Mangabey
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee
* Southern Green Stink Bug
* Southern Masked Chafer
* Southern One-Year Canegrub
* Southern Platyfish
* Speckled Rattlesnake
* Sperm Whale
* Spinifex Hopping Mouse
* Spinner Dolphin
* Spotted Hyena
* Spotted Seal
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.
* Spruce Budworm Moth
* Squirrel Monkey
* Stable Fly sp.
* Stag Beetle spp.
* Steller's Sea Eagle
* Striped Dolphin
* Stuart's Marsupial Mouse
* Stumptail Macaque
* Superb Lyrebird
* Swallow-tailed Manakin
* Swamp Deer
* Swamp Wallaby
* Takhi
* Talapoin
* Tammar Wallaby
* Tasmanian Devil
* Tasmanian Native Hen
* Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo
* Tengger Desert Toad
* Ten-spined Stickleback
* Thinhorn Sheep
* Thomson's Gazelle
* Three-spined Stickleback
* Tonkean Macaque
* Tree Swallow
* Trumpeter Swan
* Tsetse Fly
* Tucuxi
* Turkey (Domestic)
* Urial
* Vampire Bat
* Verreaux's Sifaka
* Vervet
* Victoria's Riflebird
* Vicuna
* Walrus
* Wapiti
* Warthog
* Water Boatman Bug
* Waterbuck
* Water Buffalo
* Water Moccasin
* Water Strider spp.
* Wattled Starling
* Weeper Capuchin
* Western Gray Kangaroo
* Western Gull
* Western Rattlesnake
* West Indian Manatee
* Western Banded Gecko
* Whiptail Lizard spp.
* Whiptail Wallaby
* White-faced Capuchin
* White-fronted Amazon Parrot
* White-fronted Capuchin
* White-handed Gibbon
* White-lipped Peccary
* White Stork
* White-tailed Deer
* Wild Cavy
* Wild Goat
* Wisent
* Wolf
* Wood Duck
* Wood Turtle
* Yellow-backed (Chattering) Lorikeet
* Yello-footed Rock Wallaby
* Yellow-rumped Cacique
* Yellow-toothed Cavy
* Zebra Finch (Domestic)

[snip]
A full list! Do you have a direct link to that list? (So I can bookmark it for future reference)

It's been scientifically proven that people are wired this way before birth. They did a study with several focus groups of people with varied sexual orientations, and monitored their brainwaves when exposed to male and female pheremones. Homosexual people's brains responded to their same gender, while heterosexual people responded to their opposite gender. (Bisexual responded to both.)

Not true. Nothing has been proven in that field as of the moment. Check your sources.

(Tell this to half of the clergy of the Catholic church, btw. :rolleyes: )

Sorry, I do not approve of them either.

I did not judge anyone in any of my comments. Just stated my position on homosexuality.

Also, I'm sorry that I don't compare myself (being a human) to other animals. We are sentient, they are not.

I'm out for the night.

You know what I find funny about this subject? Just how redicilous and narrow a view of the bible it draws. One of the most important lessons of the bible is to have compassion for your fellow human beings. Yet how many of these people that scream how homosexuality is wrong have screamed the same about how people in the US can't afford health care or prescription drugs? Especially the elderly. How many of them have stood up and demanded that something be done about the AIDS panademic? How about people not being able to afford to eat or buy a house? I could go on an on.

People should stop focusing so much on on tiny part of the bible, and start focusing on the real meaning of it.

I am not a 'christian'. That does not mean that my knowledge or understanding of things is of any less value than someone else's. :headbang:

I can only hope that everyone walks away from this debate with having learned something new. It doesn't matter, in all reality, if anyone's opinions have changed as long as people are given something to think about. An open mind, even partially open, may see something knew to understand, something that makes a light bulb go off.

I've been happy to see that this list has not resorted to the name calling that a lot of similar threads have done. For that I say kudos to all...christian and non-christian alike.

Not true. Nothing has been proven in that field as of the moment. Check your sources.



Sorry, I do not approve of them either.

I did not judge anyone in any of my comments. Just stated my position on homosexuality.

Also, I'm sorry that I don't compare myself (being a human) to other animals. We are sentient, they are not.But if homosexuality is so sinful, why did god make them that way? If it's not biological ,but a choice, what made these animals choose it?

You know what I find funny about this subject? Just how redicilous and narrow a view of the bible it draws. One of the most important lessons of the bible is to have compassion for your fellow human beings. Yet how many of these people that scream how homosexuality is wrong have screamed the same about how people in the US can't afford health care or prescription drugs? Especially the elderly. How many of them have stood up and demanded that something be done about the AIDS panademic? How about people not being able to afford to eat or buy a house? I could go on an on.

People should stop focusing so much on on tiny part of the bible, and start focusing on the real meaning of it.


Yet how many of these people that scream how homosexuality is wrong have screamed the same about how people in the US can't afford health care or prescription drugs?

I wonder about that too. People would rather scream about how gay marraige will destroy the country, yet hundreds of thousands of kids being denied medical coverage is no big deal.

Yet how many of these people that scream how homosexuality is wrong have screamed the same about how people in the US can't afford health care or prescription drugs?

I wonder about that too. People would rather scream about how gay marraige will destroy the country, yet hundreds of thousands of kids being denied medical coverage is no big deal.

It's true. There are much worse things in the world than 2 people that love eachother and care about eachother being in a legally recognized union. I guess to some it isn't immoral or a sin to let children and the elderly starve.

You know what I find funny about this subject? Just how redicilous and narrow a view of the bible it draws. One of the most important lessons of the bible is to have compassion for your fellow human beings. Yet how many of these people that scream how homosexuality is wrong have screamed the same about how people in the US can't afford health care or prescription drugs? Especially the elderly. How many of them have stood up and demanded that something be done about the AIDS panademic? How about people not being able to afford to eat or buy a house? I could go on an on.

People should stop focusing so much on on tiny part of the bible, and start focusing on the real meaning of it.
I agree. Have you seen this page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm)? It's got both liberal and conservative interpretations of the bible relating to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It's one of my personal favorite resources.

EDIT: Did I accidently use the QUOTE button instead of the URL one? AHH! :D

Not true. Nothing has been proven in that field as of the moment. Check your sources.



Sorry, I do not approve of them either.

I did not judge anyone in any of my comments. Just stated my position on homosexuality.

Also, I'm sorry that I don't compare myself (being a human) to other animals. We are sentient, they are not.

I'm out for the night.
Check yours! The news of this was pretty damn mainstream. here's a link to an article on that study (http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html) , in case you managed to evade it.

Ezralia']I think I've said this one on another post about homosexuality (wow we really like to beat this one to death here don't we?), I do not see the sense in G-d giving us free will and then condemning us to eternal torment for making the "wrong" choice...and that's assuming that homosexuality is in fact a choice. It's not. Which leads us back to...if you believe that G-d creates everyone, why would G-d create homosexuals just to have them burn for HIS decision later? Not that I believe that there's a hell in the first place...

God doesn't create homosexuals. they create themselves. i believe that all types of sexuality are just a mindset. but don't get me wrong. although i'm super religious and am not homosexual, i totally support it. it's just as right as being straight. i have a lot of friends who are gay or bisexual and hey, whatever floats your boat. but i know there is a lot of negative public from churches and people but those people are just uninformed...don't blame God, please. he's not sending anyone to hell for being homosexual because there's nothing wrong with it! but i just wanted you to know that nothing is HIS decision...because he gives you free will...he doesnt decide what you're going to do...you do! and if you truly believe, no matter what, you'll go to heaven. he doesnt make any believer burn for loving someone of the same sex. :fluffle:

God doesn't create homosexuals. they create themselves. i believe that all types of sexuality are just a mindset. but don't get me wrong. although i'm super religious and am not homosexual, i totally support it. it's just as right as being straight. i have a lot of friends who are gay or bisexual and hey, whatever floats your boat. but i know there is a lot of negative public from churches and people but those people are just uninformed...don't blame God, please. he's not sending anyone to hell for being homosexual because there's nothing wrong with it! but i just wanted you to know that nothing is HIS decision...because he gives you free will...he doesnt decide what you're going to do...you do! and if you truly believe, no matter what, you'll go to heaven. he doesnt make any believer burn for loving someone of the same sex. :fluffle:
Yeah like all them gay animals ... they just have to learn moral valuses

God doesn't create homosexuals. they create themselves. i believe that all types of sexuality are just a mindset. but don't get me wrong. although i'm super religious and am not homosexual, i totally support it. it's just as right as being straight. i have a lot of friends who are gay or bisexual and hey, whatever floats your boat. but i know there is a lot of negative public from churches and people but those people are just uninformed...don't blame God, please. he's not sending anyone to hell for being homosexual because there's nothing wrong with it! but i just wanted you to know that nothing is HIS decision...because he gives you free will...he doesnt decide what you're going to do...you do! and if you truly believe, no matter what, you'll go to heaven. he doesnt make any believer burn for loving someone of the same sex. :fluffle:
Wait. You describe yourself as super-religious and yet you don't believe that yor god has created us all?

But if homosexuality is so sinful, why did god make them that way?

He didn't


If it's not biological ,but a choice, what made these animals choose it?

The word "Choice" implies consious level decision. More oftern it means, in this context, learned behaviour. Behaviour that is picked up somehow from a social/physical/biological enviroment.

The word "Choice" implies consious level decision. More oftern it means, in this context, learned behaviour. Behaviour that is picked up somehow from a social/physical/biological enviroment.


Are you implying that homosexual orientation is learned from society and nature?

Funny, I never considered our society to be prerelevantly homosexual. And what instances in nature would cause homosexuality?

Just to someones point on Genesis 2:24 and Ruth relationship being the same word. The word in question "Clave" means to be faithful, so I think people can apricate the diffrence in context to Ruth being faithful to Naomi and Adam and Eve being faithful to one another.

Are you implying that homosexual orientation is learned from society and nature?

Funny, I never considered our society to be prerelevantly homosexual. And what instances in nature would cause homosexuality?

Society isn't predominantely a lot of things, yet many things still come out of flawed socialization. As for what instances in nature would cause homosexuality, many factors have been hypothesized, and some have even been researched.

For instance, it has been shown that sheep pregnant with female sheep, if appropriately frightened or otherwise made to produce large amounts of certain hormones, will give birth to "lesbian" sheep (more accurately, "transexual sheep") who are ostensibly female but yet who act as male in sexual circumstances, including choosing other female sheep to "breed".

Oh, and "clave" is the past tense of "cleave", which does technically mean to be faithful, but moreover (and as used throughout The Bible) means to penetrate, i.e., to engage in sexual intercourse.

It is tempting for those who wish to admonish homosexuality from The Bible to think of "cleave" as "faith", but there are a number of problems with this. The first is that one, in regards to faith, "cleaves" to principles, not to people. The second is that in every other use of the word within The Bible, it expressly concerns sexual intercourse. "Cleave" being a word synonymous with faithfulness is a rather recent colloquialism, certainly not one The translators of these books would have been privvy to.

Just to someones point on Genesis 2:24 and Ruth relationship being the same word. The word in question "Clave" means to be faithful, so I think people can apricate the diffrence in context to Ruth being faithful to Naomi and Adam and Eve being faithful to one another.

CLEAVE
• verb (cleave to) literary 1 stick fast to. 2 become strongly involved with or emotionally attached to. (OED (http://www.askoxford.com/) )

It doesn't explicitly refer to sexual relationship, however the fact that it has been used to allude to sexual context at another point in the same book makes this interprestation somewhat justified.

For instance, it has been shown that sheep pregnant with female sheep, if appropriately frightened or otherwise made to produce large amounts of certain hormones, will give birth to "lesbian" sheep (more accurately, "transexual sheep") who are ostensibly female but yet who act as male in sexual circumstances, including choosing other female sheep to "breed".




In that case, it would be hypocritical to say the least to assume that the femal sheep that has been born affected by the hormonal imbalance of her mother had any choice in that matter, wouldn't it?

The best thing about the word "cleave" is that it not only means all the things mentioned recently in this thread, it also means to cut apart. Gotta love the english language...

In that case, it would be hypocritical to say the least to assume that the femal sheep that has been born affected by the hormonal imbalance of her mother had any choice in that matter, wouldn't it?

That is precisely my point. As a heterosexual male, I know that there is nothing a man could say that could make me willingly, nay gleefully, wrap my mouth around a man's penis and suck on it until he climaxed, spilling cum into my throat which I would gladly and eladedly swallow. On the same note, I am just as sure that there is nothing I could do to convince myself that I am attracted to men, or that I would enjoy a proboscis poking at my prostrate.

It is strange that your OED gives those definitions as the first and second. It is no matter though, as the two different ideas stem from different roots. The "cleave" as adherence meaning comes from the Old English "clifian", while the one in your Bible comes from the Old English "cleofan", which is the one pertaining to penetration.

Nikosia, while that definition may seem paradoxical (and perhaps it is) it does make sense insofar as the sort of seperation assumed by this usage comes from penetration, such as an axe penetrating a block of wood and thereby splitting it in two.

Just remember that even Christians have opposing viewpoints. I don't believe it's possible to change some 'orientation' myself.. but again I do believe it's a choice.

Now do I dislike homosexuals? Nope, it's their choice to do as they please, and I've got nothing wrong with that.

Just remember nearly everyone has opposing 'viewpoints' on homosexuality. AFAIK I don't believe lasting, complete reorientation is possible but again I know it isn't choice. :)

He didn't

The word "Choice" implies consious level decision. More oftern it means, in this context, learned behaviour. Behaviour that is picked up somehow from a social/physical/biological enviroment.

Okay, if God didn't make homosexuals would there be any? Wait...doesn't it say in the bible that god made man in his image? Are you saying that there is a flaw with the design?

Okay...How do you explain someone being a homosexual who has never been around homosexuals? I'm curious on this one because there were not any people that were homosexual that I can recall growing up. No one ever told me it was wrong, but it wasn't something that was talked about either. So, if it isn't talked about, and all you hear about is growing up to be a good girl and wife, all the good old fashioned hetero brain washing and conditioning, where did I come from?

Okay, if God didn't make homosexuals would there be any? Wait...doesn't it say in the bible that god made man in his image? Are you saying that there is a flaw with the design?

God did not create robots, he created beings with free will. This means your not forced to sin/not sin in any way. Also lets be reminded at this point that the sin as far as the Bible is concerned is the action of homosexual sex. Not the attraction (which can be said to be the temptation)


Okay...How do you explain someone being a homosexual who has never been around homosexuals? I'm curious on this one because there were not any people that were homosexual that I can recall growing up. No one ever told me it was wrong, but it wasn't something that was talked about either. So, if it isn't talked about, and all you hear about is growing up to be a good girl and wife, all the good old fashioned hetero brain washing and conditioning, where did I come from?

I didnt say you had to be around other homosexuals. I said social/physical/biological factors. I dont know enough on the subject to know what those factors are.

a)You see, if you take the seventh grader's interpretation of love (you know, every single sign of affection is somehow sexual) of course you could make anything out to be whatever your twisted mind could contrive.
b) This, of course, was not the case in Israel. They were pretty strict on their treatment of degenerates who would practice the homosexual act, and even the king was not above God's law: Remember how the prophet Nathan came to rebuke David for adultery and murder?
a) I hope you're not suggesting anything about me here.
b) We know next to nothing about ancient Israel. The only sources we have is the Bible (which has been rewritten and modified again and again over thousands of years) and Egyptian (Babylonian, Hethite, Assyrian etc) records, all not very accurate and all not very impartial.

I never read the Bible. It is a useless source of historical information, as it was changed constantly to serve different views of society by a class of priests who held the monopoly on its' content for centuries.
I do know though that they found all kinds of little figurines of gods (with cow heads) in ancient Israeli villages - from the same time as David allegedly lived.

I didnt say you had to be around other homosexuals. I said social/physical/biological factors. I dont know enough on the subject to know what those factors are.

Social factors are the people you are surrounded by. Friends, family, society.
Biological factors are genetics and maybe bakteria.
Physical factors I can't think of any... an anvil falling on your head maybe?

None of these point to any desicion or choice of the individual but are rather determining factors in our development that we ourselves cannot influence in any way.

Social factors are the people you are surrounded by. Friends, family, society.
Biological factors are genetics and maybe bakteria.
Physical factors I can't think of any... an anvil falling on your head maybe?

None of these point to any desicion or choice of the individual but are rather determining factors in our development that we ourselves cannot influence in any way.
Yes but the point that was being made was, if you want to say it is down to God that you are how you are, you still have free will. So there is a choice made to act on an imuplse or attraction. The question is not what makes a person what they are but is it a sin to act out their true self? That is not the same question as 'Is it wrong?'.
Sin is a religious concept and from what I have read of the bible homosexual union is a sin. I'm not saying I think it wrong, just that from what is written can't see how there can be any other interpritation.
For me, people can do pretty much what they want.

God did not create robots, he created beings with free will. This means your not forced to sin/not sin in any way. Also lets be reminded at this point that the sin as far as the Bible is concerned is the action of homosexual sex. Not the attraction (which can be said to be the temptation)



I didnt say you had to be around other homosexuals. I said social/physical/biological factors. I dont know enough on the subject to know what those factors are.


Well if thats the case, as a A level psychology student, I do. This includes learning about brain chemicals and the effects of stress and, most importantly, how your upbringing affects yourself in the future.

The factors actually are; Enviroment, upbringing, genetics, chemical and social as basics. These cover things such as how you were raised, what gender you are [females more likely to be homosexual then guys] your lifestyle, if you have a gay parent or gay member of the family etc.
There are douzons of different areas, its why its been so hard to catagorise anything because we are learning more and more about the human brain and how difficult it is to label something that varies from person to person.

To put Bowlby into play here his research into the connection between mothers and their offspring, along with that of another study which I cannot remember currently on ducks [chicks were born, saw a man as the first thing they saw, thought it was their mother, followed him everywhere and eventually had trouble breeding as they learned to breed with human males yet instinctivly they were attracted to other ducks] shows that Homosexual behaviour CAN be learned in some cases. HOWEVER studies have also shown that this is usually only in a long term condition if the subject [person] has only been around Homosexuals from birth and never seen any other kind of relationship. When intergrated into a mix or singular society of Hetrosexuals/and Homosexuals about 80% either admit attraction to a female or come out as being Bi or Gay completly. In otherwords, the statistics dont change that much from those who are in our mixed society.
Also chemicals from the mother during time in the womb can and will effect the over all sexual orientation of their child. The male and female brain are different distinctivly when it comes to orientation. I wont go into all of it but basicly the females look for a triangular shape in the man and the men look for a curved 8 shape in the woman. In Homosexuals this part of the brain has developed slightly differently and they look for the triangle if a man and the 8 is a woman. In Bisexuals this can varie.

Also to put an asnwer to an earlier question ro statement, the only reaosn they havent observed a child form birth to see if tis society or biology that makes them gay or not is because its impossible to tell from birth untill they die. The only way to tell is to extract the brain, disect it and study the part of the brain that determinds sexual orientation itself. So, yes, it HAS been shown to be chemical or genetic but there are times when its learned behaviour though things is extreamly, extreamly rare. Its extreamly likely on the toher hand that a Homosexual has learned to be Hetrosexual and will remain this way for a number of years untill either 1) admiting it to themselves and comming out or 2) Pushing the feelings down though they know they are there, causing vast amounts of psychological damage in the long term or 3) Suicide as they cannot deal with the emotional and psychical pressure.

And if he created free will I pose this unto you, because if you do it, and I mean SERIOUSLY do it I will believe in God 100%.

if God created free-will then its a two way street. Why dont you go off and just find some guy and make yourself gay for a week. Go on, its a choice right? And its only a week. You dont need to have sex with a guy as that would be a "Sin". If you feel repulsed, disgusted or simply dont feel you can do it, then you have no right to claim that its by choice.

If you cna do this, I will leave my current boyfriend, become a Christian and find myself a ncie girlfriend to settle down with. I swear it.

I personally did not wake up one day and decide to be different, to be ridiculed, an outcast, beaten up and no things that go against my normal instinct for the rest of my life. HOW STUPID WOULD THAT BE EXSACTLY?
No one wants to be an outcast so why would anyone choose this willingly?
People dont choose their hair colour, people dont choose their race, so how is this any different exsactly?

Yes but the point that was being made was, if you want to say it is down to God that you are how you are, you still have free will. So there is a choice made to act on an imuplse or attraction. The question is not what makes a person what they are but is it a sin to act out their true self? That is not the same question as 'Is it wrong?'.
Sin is a religious concept and from what I have read of the bible homosexual union is a sin. I'm not saying I think it wrong, just that from what is written can't see how there can be any other interpritation.
For me, people can do pretty much what they want.

[Disclaimer: I dont hate religion, Iv had bad experiances but Iv got some good friends who are Christian. I just happen to follow a lot of history]

Yes, Sin is a religious concept and to be fair, so is morality. But thats not my point.

My point here is that in order for you to thus know that the Bible speaks truth when after hundreds of years of history in which it has been not only firstly writed at least 100 years AFTER Jesus died but by people who thusly didnt follow him [did you know Jesus is his Greek name, his real name should be Joshua?], did you also know that the first Bible had MANY Gods in it, but they were substiquently writen out by a King to have only one God as he prefered the idea and thought it would bring more order to his society?
Also it has been re-writen over history from a book of fact to something which now needs to be interprited and comes down mainly to what we make of it. I am SURE that the word of God would not be vauge but decisive and clear on the rules. Its arguable that thus man has changed the book and thus its mans doing, not Gods but that doesnt stop God from making it known that the Book needs to be writen in this format or other. Thus we can assume that the book is of MANS interpritation, not Gods.
If this is so, then it WAS mans assumption that Homosexuality was wrong, not Gods. It has been shown through out history that Homosexuality has been open and accepted. Much of this comes from Greek historical finds.

Thus your quiestion means that the answer would be; It is wrong in the eyes of some men, but maybe not Gods.

The only way your going to get an asnwer really is if god actually gives us one. That is, if you really believe God exists to give you one. I suppose the main problem is IF God exists or not.......but thats a different matter entirely.

Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultry, lying, cheating, etc. In the end there is only one answer to sin, regardless of the sin, and that is the saving blood of Christ. Good loves and does forgive homosexuals, just like liar's, cheats, adulters, etc...but gays, like anyone else, must first see their actions as sinful and want to repent and change. That seems to be the real issue. Lack of acceptance of the sin and the desire to be redeemed and saved.

I'm happy to see that someone is actually knowledgeable about Christian views on this forum. Anyhow I propose a much greater topic than this religious BS that people love to toss around. "Have humans surpassed the limitations of evolution?" Check my new post for details.

I personally did not wake up one day and decide to be different, to be ridiculed, an outcast, beaten up and no things that go against my normal instinct for the rest of my life. HOW STUPID WOULD THAT BE EXACTLY?
No one wants to be an outcast so why would anyone choose this willingly?
People dont choose their hair colour, people dont choose their race, so how is this any different exactly?

I agree completely.

Nobody WANTS to be different. They just are. And people shouldn't make it any harder for them - there's already enough of them who commit suicide because they cant take it.

...our faith is supposed to be strong for a reason... but nevermind... I suppose you wouldn't understand being on the outside looking in (no offence).

Actually, I do take offence, because I am not "on the outside looking in." I am on the inside looking around at people who claim infallibility as if Christ has given them that power.

Again, there is a difference between strong faith (which should be in God, not in humanity, and not in your own power) and an inability to admit fallibility.

You're making the bible sound more immoral... sorry but I guess we have different interpretations of most everything in the bible.

I wouldn't use the word 'steamy' with a holy book that teaches of morals and faith. If it seems a bit inappropriate, then there is a good reason for it, there a lessons to be learned.

Why do you assume that sex must be immoral? Do you think that a married couple enjoying sex are being immoral?

2. You're taking a theory advanced by more liberal biblical scholars and establishing it as fact. That is wrong. [/b]Is it possible? Yes,[/b]

Ah, finally she admits even the possibility of another's interpretation.

Congratulations Neo, you really have grown in the past week.

but do not say it is a fact. We do not seek what we want to be the truth, but the actual truth.

LOL! Pot, meet kettle.

You call it a slant... there is a reason I am a Christian. It's because I believe in this particular 'slant' as you like to call it. Sorry if I believe in the Christian way.

You are not Christ, are you?

If you are not, you are not an infallible spokesperson for the "Christian way". You believe your interpretation of these things. This is fine, but (as Neo just said to someone else), do not present it as fact.

You know...

Wait, nevermind. I've done the "history and interpretation of The Leviticus passage" so many times on this site. Do you people think me a pull-string doll? Here simply for your amusement?

Well, thanks, in a way. I'm glad I can at least provide amusement.

Morals are relative.



Right, because in the entire scope of humanity, GodLovers (hereafter GLs) are the only ones who have ever embraced the notion of sin. ...Right.

Open your eyes to the rest of the world. You're not the only one there, and neither are your people.




1. No they aren't :p


2. Sin is an entirely religious concept.

Sin

n 1: estrangement from god [syn: sinfulness, wickedness] 2: an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will [syn: sinning




3. Homosexuality is a sin in the Judeo-Christian (let's not forget Islam too!) sense....in fact, I know of few other religions at all that have issues with it. Therefore, this topic is mainly an issue of the Big Three as I like to call them: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

If two people love each other, what's so wrong with that? Personally, I'd rather see two people in love than two people hate each other. I'm straight, but I have two lesbian friends. They're really really happy with each other. They're amazing friends, and I totally think they're perfect for each other. I'm happy that in this crazy mixed up world, they were able to find someone to love.

It's not like gay people shoot magical GAY BEAMS at you to make you gay or anything. They're normal people just like the rest of us. It's been scientifically proven that people are wired this way before birth. They did a study with several focus groups of people with varied sexual orientations, and monitored their brainwaves when exposed to male and female pheremones. Homosexual people's brains responded to their same gender, while heterosexual people responded to their opposite gender. (Bisexual responded to both.)

Homosexuality is not a choice. (Tell this to half of the clergy of the Catholic church, btw. :rolleyes: ) Condemning someone for being gay is passing judgement. The only one who can pass judgement is God, so quit blaspheming. And you can quote the Bible all you want, (and blatantly take things out of context to suit your current argument), but that doesn't make you right. If God hated you so much, why did He create you? Were we not all created in God's image?

(Also: don't throw New Testament quotes at me in rebuttal. I'm Jewish.)

Quoted from Wikipedia:
This list includes animals for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting.

* Acanthocephalan Worms
* Acorn Woodpecker
* Adelie Penguin
* African Buffalo
* African Elephant
* Agile Wallaby
* Alfalfa Weevil
* Amazon Molly
* Amazon River Dolphin
* American Bison
* Anna's Humminbird
* Anole sp.
* Aoudad
* Aperea
* Appalachian Woodland Salamander
* Asiatic Elephant
* Asiatic Mouflon
* Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.
* Australian Sea Lion
* Australian Shelduck
* Aztec Parakeet
* Bank Swallow
* Barasingha
* Barbary Sheep
* Barn Owl
* Bean Weevil sp.
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.
* Beluga
* Bangalese Finch (Domestic)
* Bezoar
* Bharal
* Bicolored Antbird
* Bighorn Sheep
* Black Bear
* Black-billed Magpie
* Blackbuck
* Black-crowned Night Heron
* Black-footed Rock Wallaby
* Black-headed Gull
* Black-rumped Flameback
* Black-spotted Frog
* Black Stilt
* Blackstripe Topminnow
* Black Swan
* Black-tailed Deer
* Black-winged Stilt
* Blister Beetle spp.
* Blowfly
* Blue-backed Manakin
* Blue-bellied Roller
* Bluegill Sunfish
* Blue Sheep
* Blue Tit
* Blue-winged Teal
* Bonnet Macaque
* Bonobo
* Boto
* Bottlenose Dolphin
* Bowhead Whale
* Box Crab
* Bridled Dolphin
* Broad-headed Skink
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.
* Brown Bear
* Brown Capuchin
* Brown-headed Cowbird
* Brown Long-eared Bat
* Brown Rat
* Budgeriger (Domestic)
* Buff-breasted Sandpiper
* Rush Dog
* Cabbage (Small) White
* Calfbird
* California Gull
* Canada Goose
* Canary-winged Parakeet
* Caribou
* Caspian Tern
* Cat (Domestic)
* Cattle (Domestic)
* Cattle Egret
* Chaffinch
* Char
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard
* Checkerspot Butterfly
* Cheetah
* Chicken (Domestic)
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard
* Chiloe Wigeon
* Cliff Swallow
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.
* Cockroach spp.
* Collared Peccary
* Cammerson's Dolphin
* Common Ameiva
* Common Brushtail Possum
* Common Chimpanzee
* Common Dolphin
* Common Garter Snake
* Common Gull
* Common Marmoset
* Common Murre
* Common Pipistrelle
* Common Racoon
* Common Shelduck
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.
* Common Tree Shrew
* Cotton-top Tamarin
* Crab-eating Macaque
* Crane spp.
* Creeping Water Bug sp.
* Crested Black Macaque
* Cuban Green Anole
* Cui
* Dall's Sheep
* Daubenton's Bat
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard
* Desert Tortoise
* Digger Bee
* Dog (Domestic)
* Doria's Tree Kangaroo
* Dragonfly spp.
* Dugong
* Dusky Moorhen
* Dwarf Cavy
* Dwarf Mongoose
* Eastern Bluebird
* Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon
* Eastern Gray Kangaroo
* Egyptian Goose
* Elegant Parrot
* Elk
* Emu
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer
* Euro
* European Bison
* European Bitterling
* European Jay
* European Shag
* Fallow Deer
* False Killer Whale
* Fat-tailed Dunnart
* Fence Lizard
* Field Cricket sp.
* Fin Whale
* Five-lined Skink
* Flamingo
* Fruit Fly spp.
* Galah
* Gelada Baboon
* Gentoo Penguin
* Giraffe
* Glasswing Butterfly
* Goat (Domestic)
* Golden Bishop Bird
* Golden Monkey
* Golden Plover
* Gopher (Pine) Snake
* Gorilla
* Grant's Gazelle
* Grape Berry Moth
* Grape Borer
* Gray-breasted Jay
* Gray-capped Social Weaver
* Gray-headed Flying Fox
* Gray Heron
* Grayling
* Gray Seal
* Gray Squirrel
* Gray Whale
* Great Cormorant
* Greater Bird of Paradise
* Greater Rhea
* Green Anole
* Green Lacewing
* Green Sandpiper
* Greenshank
* Green Swordtail
* Greylag Goose
* Griffon Vulture
* Grizzly Bear
* Guiana Leaffish
* Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock
* Guillemot
* Guinea Pig (Domestic)
* Hamadryas Baboon
* Hammerhead
* Hamster (Domestic)
* Hanuman Lanur
* Harbor Porpoise
* Harbor Seal
* Harvest Spider sp.
* Hawaiin Orb-Weaver
* Hen Flea
* Herring Gull
* Himalayan Tahr
* Hoary-headed Grebe
* Hoary Marmot
* Hooded Warbler
* Horse (Domestic)
* House Fly
* House Sparrow
* Houting Whitefish
* Human
* Humboldt Penguin
* Ichneumon Wasp sp.
* Incirrate Octopus spp.
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard
* Indian Fruit Bat
* Indian Mantjac
* Indian Rhinoceros
* Ivory Gull
* Jackdaw
* Jamaican Giant Anole
* Japanese Scarab Beetle
* Japanese Macaque
* Javelina
* Jewel Fish
* Jumping Spider sp.
* Kangaroo Rat
* Kestrel
* Killer Whale
* King Penquin
* Kittiwake
* Koala
* Kob
* Larch Bud Moth
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Larga Seal
* Largehead Anole
* Large Milkweed Bug
* Large White
* Laughing Gull
* Laysan Albatross
* Least Chipmunk
* Least Darter
* Lechwe
* Lesser Bushbaby
* Lesser Flamingo
* Lesser Scaup Duck
* Lion
* Lion-tailed Macaque
* Lion Tamarin
* Little Blue Heron
* Little Brown Bat
* Little Egret
* Livingstone's Fruit Bat
* Long-eared Hedgehog
* Long-footed Tree Shrew
* Long-legged Fly spp.
* Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird
* Mallard Duck
* Markhor
* Marten
* Masked Lovebird
* Matschie's Tree Kangaroo
* Mazarine Blue
* Mealy Amazon Parrot
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly
* Mew Gull
* Mexican Jay
* Mexican White
* Midge sp.
* Migratory Locust
* Mite sp.
* Moco
* Mohol Galago
* Monarch Butterfly
* Moor Macaque
* Moose
* Mountain Dusky Salamander
* Mountain Goat
* Mountain Tree Shrew
* Mountain Zebra
* Mourning Gecko
* Mouse (Domestic)
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.
* Mule Deer
* Mustached Tamarin
* Musk Duck
* Musk-ox
* Mute Swan
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.
* Natterer's Bat
* New Zealand Sea Lion
* Nilgiri Langur
* Noctule
* North American Porcupine
* Northern Elephant Seal
* Northern Fur Seal
* Northern Quoll
* Ocellated Antbird
* Ocher-bellied Flycatcher
* Olympic Marmot
* Orange Bishop Bird
* Orange-footed Parakeet
* Orangutan
* Orca
* Ornate Lorikeet
* Ostrich
* Oystercatcher
* Pacific Striped Dolphin
* Parsnip Leaf Miner
* Patas Monkey
* Peach-faced Lovebird
* Pere David's Deer
* Pied Flycatcher
* Pied Kingfisher
* Pig (Domestic)
* Pigeon (Domestic)
* Pig-tailed Macaque
* Plains Zebra
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Polar Bear
* Pomace Fly
* Powerful Owl
* Prea
* Pretty-faced Wallaby
* Proboscis Monkey
* Pronghorn
* Przewalski's Horse
* Pukeko
* Puku
* Purple Swamphen
* Pygmy Chimpanzee
* Queen Butterfly
* Quokka
* Rabbit (Domestic)
* Raccoon Dog
* Raggiana's Bird of Paradise
* Rat (Domestic)
* Raven
* Razorbill
* Red Ant sp.
* Red-backed Shrike
* Red Bishop Bird
* Red Deer
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake
* Red-faced Lovebird
* Red Flour Beetle
* Red Fox
* Red Kangaroo
* Red-necked Wallaby
* Redshank
* Red-shouldered Widowbird
* Red Squirrel
* Red-tailed Skink
* Reeve's Muntjac
* Regent Bowerbird
* Reindeer
* Reindeer Warble Fly
* Rhesus Macaque
* Right Whale
* Ring-billed Gull
* Ring Dove
* Rock Cavy
* Rock Dove
* Rodrigues Fruit Bat
* Roe Deer
* Roseate Cockatoo
* Roseate Tern
* Rosechafer
* Rose-ringed Parakeet
* Rove Beetle spp.
* Ruff
* Ruffed Grouse
* Rufous Bettong
* Rufous-naped Tamarin
* Rufous Rat Kangaroo
* Saddle-back Tamarin
* Sage Grouse
* Salmon spp.
* San Blas Jay
* Sand Martin
* Satin Bowerbird
* Savanna Baboon
* Scarab Beetle, Melolonthine
* Scarlet Ibis
* Scottish Crossbill
* Screwworm Fly
* Sea Otter
* Senegal Parrot
* Serotine Bat
* Sharp-tailed Sparrow
* Sheep (Domestic)
* Siamang
* Side-blotched Lizard
* Sika Deer
* Silkworm Moth
* Silver Gull
* Silvery Grebe
* Slender Tree Shrew
* Snow Goose
* Sociable Weaver
* Sooty Mangabey
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee
* Southern Green Stink Bug
* Southern Masked Chafer
* Southern One-Year Canegrub
* Southern Platyfish
* Speckled Rattlesnake
* Sperm Whale
* Spinifex Hopping Mouse
* Spinner Dolphin
* Spotted Hyena
* Spotted Seal
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.
* Spruce Budworm Moth
* Squirrel Monkey
* Stable Fly sp.
* Stag Beetle spp.
* Steller's Sea Eagle
* Striped Dolphin
* Stuart's Marsupial Mouse
* Stumptail Macaque
* Superb Lyrebird
* Swallow-tailed Manakin
* Swamp Deer
* Swamp Wallaby
* Takhi
* Talapoin
* Tammar Wallaby
* Tasmanian Devil
* Tasmanian Native Hen
* Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo
* Tengger Desert Toad
* Ten-spined Stickleback
* Thinhorn Sheep
* Thomson's Gazelle
* Three-spined Stickleback
* Tonkean Macaque
* Tree Swallow
* Trumpeter Swan
* Tsetse Fly
* Tucuxi
* Turkey (Domestic)
* Urial
* Vampire Bat
* Verreaux's Sifaka
* Vervet
* Victoria's Riflebird
* Vicuna
* Walrus
* Wapiti
* Warthog
* Water Boatman Bug
* Waterbuck
* Water Buffalo
* Water Moccasin
* Water Strider spp.
* Wattled Starling
* Weeper Capuchin
* Western Gray Kangaroo
* Western Gull
* Western Rattlesnake
* West Indian Manatee
* Western Banded Gecko
* Whiptail Lizard spp.
* Whiptail Wallaby
* White-faced Capuchin
* White-fronted Amazon Parrot
* White-fronted Capuchin
* White-handed Gibbon
* White-lipped Peccary
* White Stork
* White-tailed Deer
* Wild Cavy
* Wild Goat
* Wisent
* Wolf
* Wood Duck
* Wood Turtle
* Yellow-backed (Chattering) Lorikeet
* Yello-footed Rock Wallaby
* Yellow-rumped Cacique
* Yellow-toothed Cavy
* Zebra Finch (Domestic)





Ja, when did we say that homosexuality does not occur in nature? Helllooo, it's the act itself that's a sin, not the attraction!

You know what I find funny about this subject? Just how redicilous and narrow a view of the bible it draws. One of the most important lessons of the bible is to have compassion for your fellow human beings. Yet how many of these people that scream how homosexuality is wrong have screamed the same about how people in the US can't afford health care or prescription drugs? Especially the elderly. How many of them have stood up and demanded that something be done about the AIDS panademic? How about people not being able to afford to eat or buy a house? I could go on an on.

People should stop focusing so much on on tiny part of the bible, and start focusing on the real meaning of it.



I'm sorry the Bible doesn't conform to your "perfect" ideals of how the world should be. After all, your opinion naturally contains more wisdom than that of the Creator and Sustainer of All Things. :rolleyes:

God did not create robots, he created beings with free will. This means your not forced to sin/not sin in any way. Also lets be reminded at this point that the sin as far as the Bible is concerned is the action of homosexual sex. Not the attraction (which can be said to be the temptation)

So you admit that the attraction is not controlled by the person?

Therefore the orientation which causes such attractions must come from God?

Homosexuality is defined by the attraction, not what actions are taken in response. Thus, you admit that God makes homosexual.

I didnt say you had to be around other homosexuals. I said social/physical/biological factors. I dont know enough on the subject to know what those factors are.

Well, from studies, it would appear that those factors are genetic, hormones in the womb, and a few possible but unknown factors in the first 3 years of life. According to psychological studies, sexuality seems to be determined by about age 3.

personally, I liked what my pastor said.

God gave us freedom

but with the freedom comes responsibility

yes, we make our own choices, but if it offends another than that is the only way it is a true Sin. So in otherwords, it's okay to be gay, but it wouldn't be right to go around bragging about it to those who see it as wrong.

3. Homosexuality is a sin in the Judeo-Christian (let's not forget Islam too!) sense....in fact, I know of few other religions at all that have issues with it. Therefore, this topic is mainly an issue of the Big Three as I like to call them: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.


Helllooo, it's the act itself that's a sin, not the attraction!

Make up your mind!

But if homosexuality is so sinful, why did god make them that way? If it's not biological ,but a choice, what made these animals choose it?



I'll answer your second question first: Sin only applies to humans. Therefore, any act of a beast is inconsequential to this discussion. As for your first question, God created us each with unique desires and lusts. For some, it is paedophilia. For others, drinking, gambling, gluttony and so on....and for some, it is a homosexual alignment. We are to resist these urges, we are to deny ourselves, our very nature!


Matthew 19:12 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."


Now, none of us can possibly succeed in abstaining from sin entirely. However, we are to try our hardest.

Make up your mind!



Meh, they don't contradict each other :(


Any condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible refers to the act itself and not the attraction.

personally, I liked what my pastor said.

God gave us freedom

but with the freedom comes responsibility

yes, we make our own choices, but if it offends another than that is the only way it is a true Sin. So in otherwords, it's okay to be gay, but it wouldn't be right to go around bragging about it to those who see it as wrong.




Actually, I think he was referring to the meat passage:



1 Corinthians 8 1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

9But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.




Remember, to make one's brother stumble is not the only offense. It is just one of many.

Meh, they don't contradict each other :(

Any condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible refers to the act itself and not the attraction.

If it is referring to an action, rather than an attraction, then it is not referring to homosexuality.

Sexuality is defined by who one is sexually attracted to.

It's true. There are much worse things in the world than 2 people that love eachother and care about eachother being in a legally recognized union. I guess to some it isn't immoral or a sin to let children and the elderly starve.



Oh hush, you act as if Christians endorse such a practice. Do you not see the many Christian charities providing the basics to many of the young and elderly? Think before you speak!

Ja, when did we say that homosexuality does not occur in nature? Helllooo, it's the act itself that's a sin, not the attraction!

First of all- I am straight (heterosexual) but know homosexuals... So it is okay for homosexuals to have feelings that they cannot control, yet it is a sin to act upon these impulses? Remember, it has been scientifically proven that a person does not control her/her sexual orientation- specifically there is a gene, along with the fact that a brain scan can be given, and there is a distinct shape in a region that identifies a person's sexual orientation. To say that these people are allowed to be attracted to people of the same sex, yet that it is a sin to have homosexual relations, is absurd. To say this is a sin is entirely an opinion... it is a Bible interpretation, and only that, and one has to remember that God (if you believe in this entity) created these people the way they are... yet they still commit sins beyond their control? Don't tell me that homosexuals should be denied a relationship because of the sex they prefer... homosexuals are who they are from birth, and Christian conservatives who believe otherwise will just have to deal with the scientific proof

I'm sorry the Bible doesn't conform to your "perfect" ideals of how the world should be. After all, your opinion naturally contains more wisdom than that of the Creator and Sustainer of All Things. :rolleyes:
Sometimes it seems so

a) I hope you're not suggesting anything about me here.
b) We know next to nothing about ancient Israel. The only sources we have is the Bible (which has been rewritten and modified again and again over thousands of years) and Egyptian (Babylonian, Hethite, Assyrian etc) records, all not very accurate and all not very impartial.

I never read the Bible. It is a useless source of historical information, as it was changed constantly to serve different views of society by a class of priests who held the monopoly on its' content for centuries.
I do know though that they found all kinds of little figurines of gods (with cow heads) in ancient Israeli villages - from the same time as David allegedly lived.



It's ironic, then, how many scholars and historians rely upon the Bible entirely for their research and archaelogists used it to find the locations where they would excavate.

It seems like a lot of people are posting a ton of quotes as if the Bible is a cohesive work. It's an anthology of different works....ableit with some similiar themes. Trying to find a common stance on an issue in the Bible is like trying to do so with a generalist literary anthology given in an English class. Also, like an English textbook, it's been edited again and again (over thousands of years) so who knows if we are reading the original message. Even if it is...it is God's word interpreted by us flawed beings and it would be naive to think our prejudice and fear would not colour the message. So what came first? Our intolerance and fear or the word of God which supposedly tells us what to abhor? :confused:

It's ironic, then, how many scholars and historians rely upon the Bible entirely for their research and archaelogists used it to find the locations where they would excavate.
When you dont have much to start with you take what you can get ... how does using it as at least a starting point proove anything ?

Actually, I think he was referring to the meat passage:



1 Corinthians 8 1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

9But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.




Remember, to make one's brother stumble is not the only offense. It is just one of many.

When was the last time the entire Bible was interpreted and applied literally?

If it is referring to an action, rather than an attraction, then it is not referring to homosexuality.

Sexuality is defined by who one is sexually attracted to.



I know. I never said the homosexual attraction is wrong (well, lust is wrong but we can control that aspect of it). It was the act itself.

It's ironic, then, how many scholars and historians rely upon the Bible entirely for their research and archaelogists used it to find the locations where they would excavate.

Anyone who relies entirely upon the Bible for their research cannot be said to be a scholar (even theologians don't rely up on it completely) or a historian (one source is not enough to claim to be a historian). An archaelogist may use the Bible as a historical document in order to try and find things, but are unlikely to use it as the only source for anything.

When you dont have much to start with you take what you can get ... how does using it as at least a starting point proove anything ?



It reinforces the accuracy of the Bible and, thus, its credibility.

I know. I never said the homosexual attraction is wrong (well, lust is wrong but we can control that aspect of it). It was the act itself.

Then you should stop saying things like "homosexuality is a sin." If it is the act of having homosexual intercourse that you believe to be a sin, then you should state that.

Saying that homosexuality itself is a sin clearly makes a statement that the attractions are wrong.

You could all go on for days about these pro and contra gayness. But come on! Where are we getting? no-where! Why that is? Well very simple. You shall never convince each other because the way you think about it is way to different!

the question is "is it a sin" the answer is "Religious people think it is so it's like that and that's the way it" and well if you want to lay yer head with that answer... good. It's no use even trying to fight it. It's like that in quite a lot of topics! There will ALWAYS be people for and people against it! There is NO WAY to change that!

Some people are gay, that's good for them. I hope they find partners and live happily ever after in a world where they will not be killed because of it.

Then you should stop saying things like "homosexuality is a sin." If it is the act of having homosexual intercourse that you believe to be a sin, then you should state that.

Saying that homosexuality itself is a sin clearly makes a statement that the attractions are wrong.




Hmm, the definition of homosexuality I use is a practicing homosexual, not a celibate. I guess this clears up a lot of things lol :D

What is the attraction to butt-sex with another dude? All hairy and sweaty and...

[pukes on seat]

What is the attraction to butt-sex with another dude? All hairy and sweaty and...

[pukes on seat]

Beats me.

Of course, I don't see the attraction to anal sex at all. That doesn't mean it isn't there for some people, both heterosexual and homosexual.

Edit: Something that might surprise many of the homophobes out there - I've known more than one gay man who was completely repulsed by the idea of anal sex. It isn't a prerequisite for homosexuality, you know.

Beats me.

Of course, I don't see the attraction to anal sex at all. That doesn't mean it isn't there for some people, both heterosexual and homosexual.



As I said before, the anus was not designed to facilitate the penetration of a foreign object >.<

As I said before, the anus was not designed to facilitate the penetration of a foreign object >.<

Well, that is debateable. After all, in men, there is a "G-spot" about an inch into the anus. Stimulation of this area can bring men to orgasm rather quickly. Thus, it is not unusual, even in heterosexual couples, for a man's partner to massage it in some way.

Well, that is debateable. After all, in men, there is a "G-spot" about an inch into the anus. Stimulation of this area can bring men to orgasm rather quickly. Thus, it is not unusual, even in heterosexual couples, for a man's partner to massage it in some way.



True, however the rectum is far more susceptible to fissures than the vagina.

A full list! Do you have a direct link to that list? (So I can bookmark it for future reference)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior

Not true. Nothing has been proven in that field as of the moment. Check your sources.
Thanks for the suggestion! I did! :D Read up, spanky!

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Gender/news_2005/brain.htm

I thought they had did a test with Bisexuals too, but I was wrong. I'll admit to that fault. :D

Just telling me: WELL YOU'RE WRONG OK. Isn't inscrutiable evidence of me being incorrect.

Also, I'm sorry that I don't compare myself (being a human) to other animals. We are sentient, they are not.

Let's take dogs for example, since they're so common and we have a lot more exposure to them.

Various studies have attempted to confirm the intelligence of dogs in a rigourous manner. A recent example is animal psychologist Juliane Kaminski's paper in Science that demonstrated that Rico, a Border Collie, could learn over 200 words. Rico could remember items' names for four weeks after last exposure (Kaminski eliminated the Clever Hans effect using strict protocols).

Rico was also able to interpret phrases such as "fetch the sock" in terms of its component words (rather than considering the utterance to be a single word): he could give the sock to a specified person.

Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

When my elderly Bichon Frise, Brandon, died our other Bichon puppy Sammy mourned. For weeks, he rarely ate or drank, rarely played, and moped around the house. We took him to the vet and they prescribed Sammy PROZAC (I'm not kidding you, we even scoffed) and finally he started to eat again and regain some of his personality. My dog was depressed over the loss of his friend. He only truly got over it when we introduced Meggie, our Maltese Yorkie Mix. And now we have a third, named Mr. B., also a Bichon.

My dogs cry when they're seperated from each other. When one has to go to the vet, the others howl until the patient comes back. They love each other, and if they weren't capable of love they wouldn't be sentinent.

Sammy is very mischevious. He'll look at you from the corner of his eye and just stare at you playfully, trying to get you to stare back. When you stare back, you get close to his face and he licks you like no tomorrow. He plays his own games with his toys, flipping them into the air and catching them himself when no one wants to play catch with him. He knows a lot of commands, and he even picked up on phrases we haven't even really taught him. Once we started spelling out the word "treat" so we wouldn't excite him or the others after feeding time and he eventually picked up on the meaning of "T R E A T."

These are just my dogs, and they're not everyone else's, but that's pretty damn good evidence of a sentinent animal.

So if you can give me proof of your claim, other than quoting Bible verses made from hundreds of years ago by monks who weren't even THERE in the time of Christ, I will submit to you. I think it's scary that people follow the Bible word-for-word. The Bible (and Torah) are there to teach. You LEARN from the words within their pages. These days, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw something in the news about ritualistically slaughtering animals or first-borns as a sacrifice, just because the Bible said it was okay to do it.

You know, the first step to true knowledge is admitting you know nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior


Thanks for the suggestion! I did! :D Read up, spanky!

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Gender/news_2005/brain.htm

I thought they had did a test with Bisexuals too, but I was wrong. I'll admit to that fault. :D

Just telling me: WELL YOU'RE WRONG OK. Isn't inscrutiable evidence of me being incorrect.



Let's take dogs for example, since they're so common and we have a lot more exposure to them.

Various studies have attempted to confirm the intelligence of dogs in a rigourous manner. A recent example is animal psychologist Juliane Kaminski's paper in Science that demonstrated that Rico, a Border Collie, could learn over 200 words. Rico could remember items' names for four weeks after last exposure (Kaminski eliminated the Clever Hans effect using strict protocols).

Rico was also able to interpret phrases such as "fetch the sock" in terms of its component words (rather than considering the utterance to be a single word): he could give the sock to a specified person.

Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

When my elderly Bichon Frise, Brandon, died our other Bichon puppy Sammy mourned. For weeks, he rarely ate or drank, rarely played, and moped around the house. We took him to the vet and they prescribed Sammy PROZAC (I'm not kidding you, we even scoffed) and finally he started to eat again and regain some of his personality. My dog was depressed over the loss of his friend. He only truly got over it when we introduced Meggie, our Maltese Yorkie Mix. And now we have a third, named Mr. B., also a Bichon.

My dogs cry when they're seperated from each other. When one has to go to the vet, the others howl until the patient comes back. They love each other, and if they weren't capable of love they wouldn't be sentinent.

Sammy is very mischevious. He'll look at you from the corner of his eye and just stare at you playfully, trying to get you to stare back. When you stare back, you get close to his face and he licks you like no tomorrow. He plays his own games with his toys, flipping them into the air and catching them himself when no one wants to play catch with him. He knows a lot of commands, and he even picked up on phrases we haven't even really taught him. Once we started spelling out the word "treat" so we wouldn't excite him or the others after feeding time and he eventually picked up on the meaning of "T R E A T."

These are just my dogs, and they're not everyone else's, but that's pretty damn good evidence of a sentinent animal.

So if you can give me proof of your claim, other than quoting Bible verses made from hundreds of years ago by monks who weren't even THERE in the time of Christ, I will submit to you. I think it's scary that people follow the Bible word-for-word. The Bible (and Torah) are there to teach. You LEARN from the words within their pages. These days, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw something in the news about ritualistically slaughtering animals or first-borns as a sacrifice, just because the Bible said it was okay to do it.

You know, the first step to true knowledge is admitting you know nothing.



Hey, I have a Bichon Frise too!

Hey, I have a Bichon Frise too!

Yea they are great dogs. Of course mine never shuts up the moment someone else gets within earshot of it.

I'm no bible knower, but I do know that there's is a passage that explicitly states that homosexual actions are sinful. All your original post proves is that it's wrong for one man to hate gays or judge them. Unless the judgers repent.
Actually what it is saying is that it is wrong for one man to hate another man or judge them. and the term Man in all of these biblical quotes is refering to mankind in a whole not just men but also women.

I know this is out of the blue but I read all through the thread and it bothered me that noone cleared it up. If they did I'm sorry for the throw off

I'm sorry the Bible doesn't conform to your "perfect" ideals of how the world should be. After all, your opinion naturally contains more wisdom than that of the Creator and Sustainer of All Things. :rolleyes:

Yes, because we all know that "the Creator and Sustainer of All Things" decided the only way that he would be able to communicate with humans was to have someone else write a book for him. Or did he actually sit down and write it himself? :rolleyes:

These are just my dogs, and they're not everyone else's, but that's pretty damn good evidence of a sentinent animal.


No, that proves dog's can recognise words. Sentince is far more than that

No, that proves dog's can recognise words. Sentince is far more than that

Apparently not:

Main Entry: sen·tience
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&n(t)s, 'sen-tE-&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : a sentient quality or state
2 : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought

Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&nt, 'sen-tE-&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
- sen·tient·ly adverb

You would be hard-pressed to find a higher-order mammal (or even a lower order one) that isn't aware and responsive to/conscious of sense impressions. "Finely sensitive in perception or feeling" is a bit subjective - how fine is actually fine?

Oh hush, you act as if Christians endorse such a practice. Do you not see the many Christian charities providing the basics to many of the young and elderly? Think before you speak!

Hush? I don't think so. Think before I speak? Perhaps you should practice what you preach...

Christian Charities? Okay. Let's talk about this. When was the last time you saw a tele-evangelist not wearing a really nice expensive suit? Did ya get a good look at the watch? The shoes? It is amazing to me how much money a person 'of faith' can make while working on those 'charities'. The corruption of christian churches is one of the main reasons I left christianity. That was second to the fact that I CAN'T stand the idea that women are to be 2nd class citizens according to most interpretations of the bible. Seriousely though, how much of that money do you really thing actually gets through after everyone gets paid their share?

In the words of Jimmy Buffet....Would Jesus wear a rolex?

Christian Charities? Okay. Let's talk about this. When was the last time you saw a tele-evangelist not wearing a really nice expensive suit? Did ya get a good look at the watch? The shoes? It is amazing to me how much money a person 'of faith' can make while working on those 'charities'. The corruption of christian churches is one of the main reasons I left christianity. Seriousely though, how much of that money do you really thing actually gets through after everyone gets paid their share?

Not all Christian-affliliated charities utilize televangelism or end up paying for anything they don't have to. We get these images of televangelists with Rolexes because they are out there. However, like most charity work, the true Christian-affiliated charities never get air time or even get noticed by most people.

One doesn't have to give money to be a part of charity. Volunteering is a big part as well. If you do give money, there are many charities out there that make their books public, so you can see how much any employees are getting paid - and how much money actually gets used on what you sent it in for in the first place.

Is there corruption? Of course there is, churches in general are human institutions. The corruption I saw within my own church when I was younger nearly turned me away from religion altoghether - and certainly turned me completely away from that particular congregation. However, there is good out there, and you simply have to find it.

No, that proves dog's can recognise words. Sentince is far more than that


Apparently you only read what you wanted to read. Did you see the part about the emotions? In order to be human you have to show emotion. What if dogs show it too? What about dogs that save people from dangers or give their lives to protect humans? What about all the K9 cops out there who listen to their master's every word and uphold justice? Are they all just dumb stupid animals?

If anything, the people who are that close-minded are the dumb stupid animals. More like sheep, lead to the slaughter. That's a very dangerous way of thinking.

For a faith that believes in an afterlife, I think it's pretty pompous to say that no other beings will be allowed in as well. If my poochies aren't there in Heaven or whatever awaits for me on the other side, I don't wanna go.

Hush? I don't think so. Think before I speak? Perhaps you should practice what you preach...

Christian Charities? Okay. Let's talk about this. When was the last time you saw a tele-evangelist not wearing a really nice expensive suit? Did ya get a good look at the watch? The shoes? It is amazing to me how much money a person 'of faith' can make while working on those 'charities'. The corruption of christian churches is one of the main reasons I left christianity. That was second to the fact that I CAN'T stand the idea that women are to be 2nd class citizens according to most interpretations of the bible. Seriousely though, how much of that money do you really thing actually gets through after everyone gets paid their share?

In the words of Jimmy Buffet....Would Jesus wear a rolex?



Now, why are you lumping true Christianity in the same category as those hypocrites? A bit unfair, wouldn't you think? After all, if you associated the message from every ideology and religion with every person who espouses it, then you would not be able to have ANY beliefs! As for your deeming women "second-class citizens", have you not read the Bible in its entirety, or are you just picking the part that places restrictions on women during church? Are men also not subject to submission? Try to give something an honest assessment, it sounds to me like you were looking for an excuse to renounce your faith.

Yes, because we all know that "the Creator and Sustainer of All Things" decided the only way that he would be able to communicate with humans was to have someone else write a book for him. Or did he actually sit down and write it himself? :rolleyes:



Yes, and we all know your human wisdom is capable of deeming an omniscient Being's method of conveying His message inferior :rolleyes:

Apparently you only read what you wanted to read. Did you see the part about the emotions? In order to be human you have to show emotion. What if dogs show it too? What about dogs that save people from dangers or give their lives to protect humans? What about all the K9 cops out there who listen to their master's every word and uphold justice? Are they all just dumb stupid animals?

If anything, the people who are that close-minded are the dumb stupid animals. More like sheep, lead to the slaughter. That's a very dangerous way of thinking.

For a faith that believes in an afterlife, I think it's pretty pompous to say that no other beings will be allowed in as well. If my poochies aren't there in Heaven or whatever awaits for me on the other side, I don't wanna go.



Must...not...reply....

Yes, and we all know your human wisdom is capable of deeming an omniscient Being's method of conveying His message inferior :rolleyes:
If the shoe fits... You would figure an all powerfull being would be able to do a bit better then the bible

Yes, and we all know your human wisdom is capable of deeming an omniscient Being's method of conveying His message inferior :rolleyes:

God probably should have made it a TV movie, it would reach more people that way.

God probably should have made it a TV movie, it would reach more people that way.
Or better yet conveyed his wishes in a nice clear concise way depending on our individual needs

Some of us that would be visual some auditory some writen ... and do it in a clear way rather then people trying to determine what the fuck god was trying to say exactly and then spouting their version as the truth.

Or better yet conveyed his wishes in a nice clear concise way depending on our individual needs

Some of us that would be visual some auditory some writen ... and do it in a clear way rather then people trying to determine what the fuck god was trying to say exactly and then spouting their version as the truth.

So a DVD then?

If the shoe fits... You would figure an all powerfull being would be able to do a bit better then the bible



Yes, but once again you are using human wisdom to judge the medium through which God speaks and that is a dangerous thing.

Yes, and we all know your human wisdom is capable of deeming an omniscient Being's method of conveying His message inferior :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't it be? Or did God not provide His creations with the ability to discern Truth from BS? Why would an omniscient being, our creator, nonetheless, not provide us with the gift of discernment?

Are you implying that the ability to identify and indicate BS is somehow unGodly? Satanic, even? Why would Satan provide us with the ability to see through hoodwinkery while God apparently is quite happy to keep us as ignorant, unthinking cattle?

Are you saying that in the whole of Creation, there exists no greater work of God than some old mouldering book? There is more of God to be found in...just about anything (rocks, flowers, trees, clouds, etc) than you'll ever glean from some old book written and re-written by some bunch of dead, old men with a vested interest in placing limits on the human spirit - and maintaining a rigid, stratified, hierarchical orthodoxy.

Yes, but once again you are using human wisdom to judge the medium through which God speaks and that is a dangerous thing.
Yup but we got to filter out the crap some how
Or do you propose that we accept religious documents from every religion as truth because not believing they came from god would be using human wisdom to filter it out

why do you not believe in the quran? Because you used your views based on your faith in combination with human wisdom in order to determine that the quran is not a document inspired by god

We do the same thing of the bible as you do of the quran

Why wouldn't it be? Or did God not provide His creations with the ability to discern Truth from BS? Why would an omniscient being, our creator, nonetheless, not provide us with the gift of discernment?

Are you implying that the ability to identify and indicate BS is somehow unGodly? Satanic, even? Why would Satan provide us with the ability to see through hoodwinkery while God apparently is quite happy to keep us as ignorant, unthinking cattle?

Are you saying that in the whole of Creation, there exists no greater work of God than some old mouldering book? There is more of God to be found in...just about anything (rocks, flowers, trees, clouds, etc) than you'll ever glean from some old book written and re-written by some bunch of dead, old men with a vested interest in placing limits on the human spirit - and maintaining a rigid, stratified, hierarchical orthodoxy.



Our knowledge is limited, to trust in our own knowledge above that of God's is foolish. He gave us wisdom, but our wisdom, in comparison to His, is infinitessimal.

1. No they aren't :p


2. Sin is an entirely religious concept.

Sin

n 1: estrangement from god [syn: sinfulness, wickedness] 2: an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will [syn: sinning

I'd be interested to know what dictionary you're using. Because mine says this:

sin1 Audio pronunciation of "sin" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn)
n.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology.
1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.


The last one sounds pretty secular to me....


3. Homosexuality is a sin in the Judeo-Christian (let's not forget Islam too!) sense....in fact, I know of few other religions at all that have issues with it. Therefore, this topic is mainly an issue of the Big Three as I like to call them: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Not if the word sin means a transgression in general.
You may hate us heathens but you can't ignore us. And even if you don't "hate" us, you certainly don't like us.


I know. I never said the homosexual attraction is wrong (well, lust is wrong but we can control that aspect of it). It was the act itself.

You're not human, are you?