....according to the Westboro Baptist Church in America.

Right Wing Christian Lunatics protested at funerals of servicemen killed in Iraq on the grounds that this is God's vengence for supporting a country that allows homosexuality.

Read more on this link... God Hates Gays (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050828/ap_on_re_us/soldier_funeral_protests)

As far as I see it there is little difference between these Christians and the muslim clerics so vilified in the press in this country. Both are anti-war, both use religion as their battering ram and both preach a doctrine of hate. I just wonder if there is any oil in Kansas.

Barmy, these people are clearly lunatics.

You can find radicals out on the end of any continuum, in any country and on any issue. They exist all over the globe.

I call them pseudo-Apostles. As far as I'm concerned Christianity is about love, overbearing and respect for your fellow human beings. These people showed no respect what-so-ever. Wether they hate gays or not is completely their issue, and they have the right to hate whomever they want to. But this? This is just not right, from a humanitarian point of view and a Christian I would say.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas... The church, which is not affiliated with a larger denomination, is made up mostly of Phelps' children, grandchildren and in-laws.LMAO! This family has their own church! How much more looney can it get? I mean there are so many denominations already out there; if you can't agree enough with one that you feel you need to have your own, there's something wrong IMO.

Unless they are right and all the rest of us are wrong!

I feel a great swell of pity for any children raised by or around these people. They just don't have a chance.

@BTA:
I can understand the need for your own faith (one should not compromise their beliefs simply to be a part of a group) but what's the point of building a church that noone else will join?

@HB:
:shame: I hope for your sake you're simply playing devil's advocate.

Phelps if a ****tard, all and all, and he is the only man I can ever say I hate. He is below rapists, he is below genociders, he is at the very bottom of humanity.

That is not a surprise to me, I see everyday something like that here in Spain, or even read this (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145276) kind of things. I don't know who's right or wrong, I just don't understand how they teach that God forgives us all no matter what but on the other hand they go around like this.

It makes you embarrassed to be a member of the human race. How can someone consider THEIR political statement more important than the burial of a son or daughter and the intense grief of the family at such an intimate moment. It's a level of insensitivity and hatred that's awesome to contemplate.

@RutKowski One should feel sorry for these and their petty hatreds and narrow life viewpoints but not hatred for Phelps that in itself has its own pitfalls. But be prepared to Kick the living S**t out of them if necessary.

This is one of the problems of a so-called free society as has been said by other people better than me, I don't agree with his views and I would fight his views but I will also fight for his right to say those views.

His views though are born out of fear and also narrow-mindedness from his teachers. He has probably been brought up in a small tight-knit community that doesn't welcome original thought, open-minds and tolerance which all religions try to teach but usually fail with. IMHO this is because of a fear that all leaders have that if you let people think open mindedly and clearly about things they won't want the leaders in charge; this is one of the reasons they are so afraid of the internet and the free exchange of ideas etc.

{sorry step off soap-box and let people think for themselves}

Its sad that people with so called "christian" beliefs can not see past their own hatred and hypocrisy.
Whatever they feel about an issue as a person its completely inappropriate to use somebodies funeral as a place to protest their views.
Iraq itself is a completely different issue to what their protesting I just dont understand their attitude, what were they thinking?

It shows complete and utter lack of caring, lack of respect for their fellow humans.

It's Phelps. People should take him about as seriously as Chick.

And he's not the lowest of the low - he's clearly insane, but occasionally very amusing.

And for anyone wanting to learn more about his lunacy, his site is at http://www.godhatesfags.com/ .

Aand... a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) about him. Clearly not a man to be taken seriously.

As far as I'm concerned Christianity is about love, overbearing and respect for your fellow human beings....Until you have to defend that love, overbearing, and respect with arms. Also, the subject, or even the defination, of these things changes from person to person, so Christianity is more like a hazard than anything. IMHO, that is.

But whatever; not the first time someone is missing a bolt from upstairs. Anyone remember that out-house WC peeping tom? :shake:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/ .Omg, how can people take such a load of :bs: seriously? :nuts:

I think it's great. The more Fred Phelpses running around, the more Pat Robertsons saying stupid things publicly, the more the sensible majority of the "religious right" will realize that it has to come down to earth and dissociate itself from it's extreme "Left Behinder" zealot wing...

Your all totally wrong, God loves gays!!
In Holland we have gay marriage and other random sodomy (like the gay parade, which should get banned), and how many Dutch soldiers did die in Iraq? 2: Dave Steensma and Jeroen Severs.
(Not suprisingly, since they shoved the Dutch (and Japanese) soldiers in some backend of Iraq, As-Samawah, but we're not complaining, nooooo sirree.

Oh dear. So many denominations and each one seems to know what Christianity is about and what or whom God loves or hates. Everyone should just return to Rome and things would be easier. :pope: :shake:

Christianity is about love but this doesn't mean everything is allowed. God hates perversion of the natural ways and homosexual acts qualify as such (attration is one thing, coveting or doing it is another). Apart from passages about homosexuality, God also says, "there will be no whore or whoremonger in Israel", there is also a commandment that says you won't covet another guy's wife or another woman's husband. Jesus says that enjoying sexual fantasies about someone is adultery in the heart. There's also something about divorce. Or premarital sex.

It's actually funny how a lot of thumping against homosexuality is done by churches that have no problem closing eyes to passages about fornication.

Just join up with Rome where everything is consistently wrong: adultery, premarital sex (so by definition threesomes are out), masturbation, fantasies, porn... This doesn't mean that sex in marriage is always sinless. You know, you could always be seeing a celeb's face instead of your spouse's or something. Or you could be regarding your spouse as a mere tool of sexual gratification.

As for godhatesfags.com, since when is Leviticus Gospel?

"JESUS CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE." -- errr, what?

"ONLY GOD'S ELECT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BELIEVE." -- errr again...

"THE SODOMITES' ONLY HOPE IS TO HAVE THE UNAMBIGUOUS TRUTH PREACHED TO THEM, AND PERHAPS GOD WILL SOFTEN THEIR HEARTS AND GRANT THEM REPENTANCE TO DEPART FROM THEIR SIN AND NAME THE NAME OF CHRIST. NOT VERY LIKELY, THOUGH, SINCE GOD HAS GIVEN THEM UP." -- giving them up to affections is different from giving up on them...

"SODOMITES ARE PROUD OF THEIR SIN ("GAY PRIDE"), AND IN THAT PRIDEFUL STATE THEY CANNOT REPENT - YOU CANNOT REPENT OF SOMETHING YOU'RE PROUD OF." --- sounds about right... though it's true for all kinds of sins

Just don't think I'm on the gay side now just because I don't particularly like that site. :p

Luckily for gays, God does not exist or is indifferent, so really it is only people like Chev and the authors of that website that they need to worry about.

Quite. Shame that the homophobic minority is so vocal about it.

Without checking the site for myself, I can still contradict most of it. First, God loves all of his children, but doesn't always agree with what they do. Secondly, if they confess and forsake their sins, and call upon the Lord for forgiveness, they can, and will be forgiven. Further, it is not the place of man to preach hatred of others, only the truth.

Way can't some christians just pray silently in their room, asking God to give gays strength with their struggles, iso shouting BS?
God doesn't hate gays, he just doesn't like it when 2 people of the same sex share a bed. That is something different. People can't help being gay.

Luckily for us christians Late-Night Thinker does not exist, so we don't have to worry about what he writes...

Seriously, guys from that site are not quite normal, I guess.

I always wonder how this god feels about having words put in his mouth. How will this god of love feel about being turned into a god of occasional love. If he is anything as I would imagine him, he feels a perversion is going on. Not unlike when people kill in his name. Pretty much like when people claim his will as the reason for their pettiness.

Would he feel saddened, lonely, even rejected? I guess so.

Would He also support abortion rights? ;) But yeah, some people go too far.

This is a question to any person whom supports their homophobia with religious dogma...

Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they are an abomination and a pervert? Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they will spend eternity weeping and gnashing their teeth?

I doubt that you have; rather, you cloak your conscious behind the written word.

Shame on you!

Stop using the degradation of the minority sexuality to supplement the meager confidence you place in your own personal sexuality.

Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they are an abomination and a pervert?First is untrue, second even if true, is not a nice way of calling people.

Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they will spend eternity weeping and gnashing their teeth?I suppose I should ask you if you have ever looked a Christian straight in the face and asked him if he believes that gay people will spend eternity weeping and gnashing their teeth. :rolleyes: You have some strange views, you know.

As for shame, I suppose you're bringing more on yourself, especially with the last paragraph, although the opening did a nice job, too. After reading the previous posts carefully, you might wish to resume polite discussion.

[ September 11, 2005, 23:37: Message edited by: chevalier ]

:whoa: And chevalier goes on the defensive why?!? He could hardly have thought that this was directed at him:
This is a question to any person whom supports their homophobia with religious dogma... I sincerely doubt that LNT was attacking anyone on this board, most especially not chev, seeing as he himself personally debunked these wackos' use of "religious dogma". It sounds a lot more like LNT was asking these things of the makers of that despicable website.

No, LNT has made it clear he's on some sort of crusade against my vileness at the moment and I also wanted to show some basic parallel between his style of speech and the "godhatesfags" style. You know, just switch the names around and you're there. That way, we aren't going anywhere and this is something I wanted to show in my previous post: in whatever way we think our moral ground is superior to other people's, we will still end up in the same flood of mud if we start throwing mud around. It works pretty well for the guys on the other side, too, because they also think their moral ground is superior to ours. So mud flies, the world keeps rolling and no problem ever gets solved.

No, LNT has made it clear he's on some sort of crusade against my vileness at the moment ... :confused: Where???

After reading a post of his in a different thread, I was upset by his intolerance of homosexuals. He said they had a "disorder" and "need help". I sent him a PM. It was short and to the point.

I wrote: "Sir, you are a bigot. Have you no shame for the feelings you have hurt?"

I suppose that is my "crusade against his vileness"...

This should all have been kept in PM's.


So back to the public discussion....

It greatly upsets me how people use religion to justify their own hatred of other human beings. It creates a fundamental flaw in the ability of a sepatate human being to show them the flaw in their arguement. In order to show those protestors that they were wrong, you would have to disprove the Bible. That is, of course, quite easy. Snakes do not talk, flaming bushes crackle, but do not speak, etc, etc... But to someone who has chosen to take this book as fact, you cannot show them they are wrong, because you must use reason to show them that. And reason is not adequate to such a person. How can you form an arguement without reason? A new Bible is the only solution, and that is not going to happen anytime soon...

It is quite sad that a significant number of human beings have to be continually on guard against emotional, financial, and even physical harm; while I am sure homosexuals will always face a little torment from those too immature to respect those different from themselves, when the torment comes from religious folks, homosexuals are incapable of argueing for their innate equivalency as human beings.

And that sucks for homosexuals.

You are seeking hatred where there's none instead of reading posts for what they are. Anyway, you're very quick to tell a major religion to rewrite its holy book. Perhaps you'd like to be the one asked to write the new version? You're also quite quick in assuming that reason is what you believe, while other people's beliefs are blind to reason. Have you ever though that, perhaps, it might look the same from the other side, when the guys on the other side of the fence are looking at you?

You seem to be quite an authority, morally, spiritually and scientifically. You know the Bible should be rewritten ("hey, it's all made up, so we can make it up again"). You also know seem to know what reason truly is. You have disproven the Bible. Wonder why you even bother with such things as debate with us lowly mortals.

Thing is, things don't look the same on the other side. "Hey, it's all made up, so we can make it up again" may look to you like a perfectly logical thought that any Christian cleric should have in his head. But it doesn't look the same from the perspective of the believer because he doesn't share your fundamental belief that it's all invented stuff. If he did, the whole of religion would be scam. You don't seem to have a high opinion of believers' abilities in the area of logical thinking, but believing in things they know they have made up themselves from the beginning to the end is not exactly what they do. Religion would make no sense that way. Next, what point having a religion and believing in an almighty deity if snakes or bushes don't talk? Shouldn't an almighty creator deity be more difficult to grasp than the idea of a talking bush? Not quite logical there.

Even if I do appreciate the notion to defend the unfortunate people who have to suffer the babble of guys like godhatefags authors (and such "flowers" are on both sides of the dispute; I assure your own writing isn't oh so very much easier on a "homophobe" than theirs is on a fag), I do think you see a couple of things from quite a peculiar perspective.

This should all have been kept in PM's. He did. After my "Where???" he PMed me to tell me that the two of you had been having a private discussion via PM, and even went so far as to refrain from mentioning anything specific. At first I thought it was just because it was a private discussion, but now I see it's likely because of the invective involved on your part.

While I agree that it's terrible that some homosexuals must bear much undeserved "torment" (a good word for it, IMO), it's rather hard to make the leap that someone who believes in the Bible is impervious to reason. Rather, I think that it's funny that someone would hold a religious text up as "proof" of an opinion about something that was not an issue in the time the text was written. Such an action, combined with the ... unique interpretation of unrelated passages, speaks of an already troubled mind. Add to that how vocal these people are to others who don't even regard their text as trust-worthy in the first place, and you've got a bag of :nuts: , my friend.

it's rather hard to make the leap that someone who believes in the Bible is impervious to reason. If their arguement is based upon a religious belief, what reasoning can penetrate that belief? If my statement came across as an absolute, that is not what I intended. I meant reasoning specifically related to the particular religious dogma.

I assure your own writing isn't oh so very much easier on a "homophobe" than theirs is on a fag) That is just ridiculous. While I can be quite abrasive, I never claim that the creator of everything has given me authority to torment others, whether it be emotional, financial or physical.

That is just ridiculous. While I can be quite abrasive, I never claim that the creator of everything has given me authority to torment others, whether it be emotional, financial or physical.*Sigh* Yet another subtle insult. Let me put it this way: you seem particularly oblivious to what negative load your own speech carries when you are debating someone or a group of people whom you accuse of hate, hate speech and the like. What I'm trying to show you is that it looks like an "I'm right, so everything goes" kind of reasoning and that's exactly how some religious extremes think. You *know* you are right, they *know* they are right, insults fly both ways and nothing is achieved.

You say the Bible or dogmatic beliefs make people impervious to reason (if not absolutely) and reasoning doesn't reach them, but yourself, you fall for the convenient excuse of hate. Once a view is classified as hate this way, there is no further need to consider anything, debate with the arguments, seek solutions... No, it's *hate*. Case solved. It looks a bit like a secular religion with all the attributes you'd like to ascribe to it.

Well, according to the Bible, homosexual relations are a sin. At least if they are between men - apparently lesbians are given a freer rein. Go figure. Perhaps God likes women more?
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus.
Then again, there are a lot of sins in the Bible, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum has not felt lust, avarice, wrath, etc. on quite a few occasions. However, unlike what Mr. Phelps says (abortion and sodomy should be punishable by death), the part about "put to the Death" might mean that they would be punished by God (as per all other sins). Anyway, my 2 cents on religion is that no one is perfect, yet we must keep track of which actions are wrong and right, and try to compensate the wrong ones as they come. God loves people as his children - and those of you who are parents hopefully love their children even when they are completely exasperated. Then again, maybe Mr. Phelps was not as lucky with his parents.

Anyway, here is an interesting threatise:

------------------------------------------------

Just what does the Bible say about gays?
November 1, 2004

We can cherry-pick biblical references to homosexuality, ignoring the message of love, writes Nicholas Kristof.

So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof? That seems implicit in US legislative efforts to oppose gay marriage.

Over the past few months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided.

I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.

Some scholars, such as Daniel Helminiak, author of What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don't really buy that.

It's true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters.

Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). A plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).

As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts ("do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth"). Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration.

Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.

The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.

A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in "unnatural" sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.

In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then bar gay marriages.)

Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasise the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone", and allow gay lovers to marry.

Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best "to remain unmarried as I am".

So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage?

Well, according to the Bible, homosexual relations are a sin. At least if they are between men - apparently lesbians are given a freer rein. Go figure. Perhaps God likes women more?Not any more so than married women are free to covet other women's husbands just because the 9th mentions only coveting wives. ;)

Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan."Could be read" is key. "Beloved disciple" could be read as "gay lover", travelling with 12 men as something suggestive too -- as the gay bishop from the US suggested. People who read the Bible in such a way as to find pro-gay-sex material, forget one thing: the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman and condemns pre-marital sex. How could and why would the Bible make an exception for gay sex and allow gay people to do what heterosexual people are forbidden to do (having sex with someone not your spouse)? That's quite far-fetched.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.Even if that were true (which isn't likely), why would Jesus not heal a gay person?

The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.The problem with male homosexual sex is not that it's between males but that it's between people of the same gender, whereas humans were created man and woman, in God's image (complementing and completing each other for a fuller image), to be fruitful and multiply. Of course, there are differences between male and female homosexual sex. Lesbian sex can't really be described as sex much. Foreplay, petting, whatever. Male homosexuals can go a bit further, but this doesn't mean it's OK for lesbians.

In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then bar gay marriages.)Those were sort of ceremonial rules and prudential commands, geared towards the social realia of that time. Dress may change, who you can sleep with or not can't really be made right by passing time or changing fashions any more than e.g. pre- or extramarital sex could be made right.

Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasise the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone", and allow gay lovers to marry.The same way, "carnally" could be added after "love thy neighbour". ;)

So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage?The message of love is not a message of do as you please and it'll be OK anyway. ;) Jesus said, "who loves me, obeys my commandments" and the OT isn't much different on this.

In essence, the current stance of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and other churches that think the same, doesn't need any cherry-picking. The pro-gay interpretation not only needs much cherry-picking but it also needs lots and lots of very special interpretation against the litteral meaning of the Biblical passages in question and against the meaning of other passages, as well.

It wasn't my opinion in the article, although at times it came close. Still, the current interpretation of the Bible is one of the possible ones, although dislike for homosexuality is deeply ingrained in religion today, the author makes a good point that it might not have been as strong in the original texts.

"Not any more so than married women are free to covet other women's husbands just because the 9th mentions only coveting wives. [Wink]"

Sure, but there is a lot mentioned about adulteresses throughout the Bible. Mostly in conjunction with stones, iirc. At any rate, homosexuality is not encouraged - but it is not the incredible abomination some present it as today.

" In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.

Even if that were true (which isn't likely), why would Jesus not heal a gay person?"

Well, I don't know for certain, but could be the same reason he scattered the merchants in the temple - as sinners against God's law. At any rate, if it were so and he knew, he would be quite more tolerant than many people today portray him as.

"Those were sort of ceremonial rules and prudential commands, geared towards the social realia of that time. Dress may change, who you can sleep with or not can't really be made right by passing time or changing fashions any more than e.g. pre- or extramarital sex could be made right."

If the mention "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" is indeed a prescription for religious purity, it would be no more valid than dress code. In dresses, there is the symbolic importance of not mixing different materials, in homosexual relations there is mixing of different gender roles. At least, that's how I understand the text. In this light, only lesbian sex involving any substite for a phallus could sinful. Just my interpretation, not opinion.

"The same way, "carnally" could be added after "love thy neighbour"."

Depends on the neighbor, I'd say ;) Besides, it was said "go forth, and populate the Earth." Again, this is a possible understanding.

"The pro-gay interpretation not only needs much cherry-picking but it also needs lots and lots of very special interpretation against the litteral meaning of the Biblical passages in question and against the meaning of other passages, as well."

Well, not exactly literal. As the whole article tries to point, there are other interpretations of this phrase from Leviticus, so every side does its own "cherry-picking".

At any point: Homosexuality is condemned a few times, and very often obliquely. Greed, inhospitality, and wrath are condemned many more times. So when people proselytize we should be more concerned with how they treat those topics than what they talk of about gay people. This is what has always irked me about the so-called "religious right" in the US - politicians have no problem to embezzle, discredit their opponents, to weaken the social solidarity system, but it's all well and good - because they are against abortion and gay marriage, so they are good Christians! I am not very religious, but for me they corrupt the best parts of Christianity and have the nerve to say they are doing it for purity and their opponents are apostates!

[ September 12, 2005, 16:56: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

...and I hate Fred Phelps

At any point: Homosexuality is condemned a few times, and very often obliquely. Greed, inhospitality, and wrath are condemned many more times. So when people proselytize we should be more concerned with how they treat those topics than what they talk of about gay people. This is what has always irked me about the so-called "religious right" in the US - politicians have no problem to embezzle, discredit their opponents, to weaken the social solidarity system, but it's all well and good - because they are against abortion and gay marriage, so they are good Christians! I am not very religious, but for me they corrupt the best parts of Christianity and have the nerve to say they are doing it for purity and their opponents are apostates!On one hand sins of the flesh are portrayed as some of the heaviest ones. On the other hand, corrupt clerics and officials pose much more problem in the Gospel than harlots do. Personally, I'm inclined to make difference between misguided love and a mere pursuit of sexual gratification. Next, as I pointed out, some Christian churches are doing a great job holding to the hetero tenets but somehow they don't mind turning a blind eye to the passages about fornication, telling their members it's okay if it feels good.

Sure, but there is a lot mentioned about adulteresses throughout the Bible. Mostly in conjunction with stones, iirc. At any rate, homosexuality is not encouraged - but it is not the incredible abomination some present it as today.Wasn't it actually called abomination in Leviticus?

Well, I don't know for certain, but could be the same reason he scattered the merchants in the temple - as sinners against God's law. At any rate, if it were so and he knew, he would be quite more tolerant than many people today portray him as.He scattered them but He didn't harm them in any way save what they lost by the merchandise being scattered.

If the mention "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" is indeed a prescription for religious purity, it would be no more valid than dress code. In dresses, there is the symbolic importance of not mixing different materials, in homosexual relations there is mixing of different gender roles. At least, that's how I understand the text. In this light, only lesbian sex involving any substite for a phallus could sinful. Just my interpretation, not opinion.There's a difference between such matters as what you wear and such matters as who you sleep with. Plus, there's no other sex allowed in the Bible save in marriage, so it can't be okay anyway. ;)

A point of correction to the initial post:

Rev. Phelps is a Democrat.

This is a question to any person whom supports their homophobia with religious dogma...

Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they are an abomination and a pervert? Have you ever looked a homosexual in the eye and told them you believe they will spend eternity weeping and gnashing their teeth?

I doubt that you have; rather, you cloak your conscious behind the written word.

Shame on you!

Stop using the degradation of the minority sexuality to supplement the meager confidence you place in your own personal sexuality. First off, homosexuals are not abominations, but what they do is. God loves all his children, but doesn't always approve of everything we do. He loves the homosexuals, but loathes their sins.

Secondly, their sins are none of my business. It is not my responsibility to know what guys are sleeping with what other guys, and frankly, I don't want that knowledge. Their sins are between themselves, their partners and God (and maybe whatever priesthood authority they go to when they choose to confess and forsake those sins).

I seek not to degrade this minority, but I choose not to promote their choice either.

Have you no shame for the feelings you have hurt?I know that was directed at Chev, but I'll answer to that myself. None at all. The lord has spoken, and will not withdraw what he has spoken. We can choose to obey and try to live accordingly, or we can reject and do as we please, but know that we are to be held accountable for our sins.

It greatly upsets me how people use religion to justify their own hatred of other human beings.I don't hate gays, but I am constantly frustrated by their insistance on forcing their chosen way of life in our face, and their desire to re-align social mores so that their sins are accepted by the majority. The Bible forbids hatred as well, but that is harder to obey than the forbidance on homosexuality. If some Christians consider themselves superior to homosexuals, and hate them, it's because they are struggling with a more challenging commandment...

A new Bible is the only solution, and that is not going to happen anytime soon...WEll, I remember something in Isaiah that said that there would be more scriptures coming forth in the Latter Days, but again they'd be from the same God, and it would not change the parts that you object to, so I guess I had to burst your bubble there...

Well, according to the Bible, homosexual relations are a sin. At least if they are between men - apparently lesbians are given a freer rein. Go figure. Perhaps God likes women more?
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus.Actually, I understand that to mean man in a gender-neutral way, and that same sex relations are condemned equally for women as they are for men.

So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof? That seems implicit in US legislative efforts to oppose gay marriage.No, that's Satan trying to lure them to sin. Same sex attraction is a temptation, and all temptation comes from Satan.

Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasise the sentiment in Genesis that "it is not good for the human to be alone", and allow gay lovers to marry.That's why God created Women. Man is NOT meant to be alone (this directly from God trumps any interpretation of Paul that praioses celebacy). As a result God Created woman to be a companion and helpmate for him. He didn't create a second man for that...

Homosexuality is condemned a few times, and very often obliquely. Greed, inhospitality, and wrath are condemned many more times. So when people proselytize we should be more concerned with how they treat those topics than what they talk of about gay people. This is what has always irked me about the so-called "religious right" in the US - politicians have no problem to embezzle, discredit their opponents, to weaken the social solidarity system, but it's all well and good - because they are against abortion and gay marriage, so they are good Christians! I am not very religious, but for me they corrupt the best parts of Christianity and have the nerve to say they are doing it for purity and their opponents are apostates!Same Sex Rights and abortion are emotional minefields. It is very easy to forget the wisdom and guidance offered in the bible when defending these points. However, as Chev pointed out, Jesus told his diciples that if they loved him they were to obey his commandments, and such blatant contempt for one of our loved ones is a strong provokation, thus wrath difficult to resist.

On one hand sins of the flesh are portrayed as some of the heaviest ones. On the other hand, corrupt clerics and officials pose much more problem in the Gospel than harlots do.Is this stance, that all sexual sins are abominations more palatable to those that oppose our stance on Homosexuality (meaning less hypocritical)? Further, Chev has hit the biggest threat to religion as a whole--those that abuse religion to gain wealth and power. But that last bit is way off topic...

This issue is very simple to resolve if you understand the actual position of the Bible. The Bible clearly states in both the new and old testaments that homosexuality is a sin. Sin is wrong and God hates sin. Sins are not the people who commit them. God loves these people in spite of their sins. Also, and a very important point that many people miss, homosexuality is no better or worse than any other sin. Homosexuals are not diseased or contageous. Homosexuality, just like all love and oh so many other things, is a choice. You are not born homosexual, you choose it. I don't site any research for this, just the fact that love of any kind is a choice, not just an emotion. You can choose to love or not love anyone in any way, some may be harder than others, but it is still a choice. The church in general needs to open its doors to homosexuals, just like they do to drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, and any other sinner, including you, whoever you are.
Christians, remember, you are sinners, too. The only part of you that is better than them is the forgiven part, and you didn't do squat to get that, so offer it to them the same way it was offered to you.
P.S. People need to read the Bible in context. Jews in Jesus's time had no problem expressing brotherly love to others of the same gender. The disciple Jesus loved and a beloved servant just mean they were loved as brothers. In fact, if you look at the original Greek it was written in, the verb translated "loved" or "beloved" only refers to brotherly love. People need to pay attention to details like this.

So nice of someone else to bring up translations, I’ve brought them up twice in the past and so far I’ve been ignored by the oppsing team.

Maybe this time…

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 19

The Tale of Sodom

Loosley translated as Two Angels being sent to Lot, a male mob wanting to rape them, and Lot offering his two virgin daughters up instead (which was declined)

Two items:

1.) Translation of the Hebrew word “anshei” as men, to indicate it was men intent on rape, in Hebrew, the word is usually meant to represent “people” meaning that the “mob” was likely to be Men and Women.
2.) Translation of the Hebrew word “Ya’da”. This appears 943 times in the Old Testament and though in can mean to “know” in a sexual sense (as is used in most translations of Genesis 19) it is mostly used as knowing facts.

Sodom had just been at war and it’s not too much of a leap of intelligence to see that the people of the city might have been suspicious and wanting to know who these strangers were. I would argue it is inconclusive to state it was an attack on homosexuality. And as the Shaman notes, is no generally regarded as such by modern scholars, or indeed by ancient Ezekiel. This is born out by other references to Sodom in the bible which make no reference to homosexuality – Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 16, Mathew 10 and a few others.


Leviticus 18 and 20.

The great Leviticus, the laughing stock of the bible. Far too easy to dismiss for it’s prohibitions on harvesting the corners of fields, eating fruit from a young tree, shaving or getting a hair cut, and collecting firewood on a Saturday to prevent your family from freezing. On the other hand it does allow Slavery, and requires the burning to death of prostitutes, and the ritual slaying of animals (Cattle Sheep and Goats). None-the-less, it is a very clear reference for men to not sleep with other men.

Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24

Only the King James version here, which refers to Sodomite. This is a mistranslation of the word “Qadesh” which in actual fact should be translated as cult or temple prostitute and probably refers to the practice in Pagan temples. Other versions have translated it as such.

Judges 19 and 1 Kings 14
Very similar story to that in Genesis, with similar misconstruing of the word “Ya’da” The supposedly homosexual mob are given the Levites concubine and rape her instead. (Which apparently was not a bad thing to do and neither he nor they are punished by God for it.)

NEW TESTAMENT

1 Corinthains 6:9, Romans 1:28, 1 Timothy 1 9:10

This time we have translations from the Greek.
Malkoi Arsenokoitai. Despite the obvious connotations of the latter (snigger snigger, school boy humour) neither of these actually translates directly as Homosexual. The standard Ancient Greek word for homosexual was in fact Paiderasste. (From where we get Pederast surprisingly enough). Malkoi is generally translated as “Soft”, but the meaning of Arsenokoitai has been lost in the annals of time, but in chronological order has been translated as: morals (Early Church – Soft Morals = unethical), temple prostitutes (again early church, presumably meaning a Church of the Pagan variety, see Qadesh above), Masturbators (Martin Luthur era) In fact, it wasn’t translated to Homosexuality until around the 19th/20th century.

One can be certain that "aresenokoitai" has nothing to do with same-sex activity; much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived from the early centuries CE; none of it contains the word. Further Reading

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm


Interestingly NOG, the word used for the Centurions young male servant, in Mathew is “Pais” and is actually more likely to refer to homosexual love (i.e. from Paiderasste) than from brotherly love. In Luke, the word used is “doulos” which is a generic term for a servant.

Interestingly NOG, the word used for the Centurions young male servant, in Mathew is “Pais” and is actually more likely to refer to homosexual love (i.e. from Paiderasste)Even if that were so, there would still be a problem of it being a lover, not a spouse. The Bible condemns any sex out of marriage.

As for Sodom, why would Lot have offered his daughters to the mob for raping if the mob had only wanted to know his guests in a non-sexual way? What connection would there be? I can't see any.

What about Benjaminites getting slaughtered for homosexual rape? Don't remember which book it was, though.

Sin is wrong and God hates sin.Idle curiosity, but does God, according to scripture, actually hate anything?

Thank you Carcaroth for the enlightenmnet. I don't personally speak or read either Greek or Hebrew, but both my father and older brother do. My brother is currently working on his doctorate in divinity, so much of my information comes from discusions with the two of them. This also provides an inderesting array of perspectives and prompts me to do some research on my own.
Chev: Even if that were so, there would still be a problem of it being a lover, not a spouse. The Bible condemns any sex out of marriage. Jesus also refused to stone an adulteress and instead told her "Go and sin no more." He also asked for water from another adulteress at a well and, while telling her all her sins, did not condemn her. Jesus offers forgiveness and mercy, not wrath and condemnation.
AMaster:
Yes, God repeatedly states that He hates sin, both in general and in specific, most comonly dealing with Israel's turning to other gods and the practice of human sacrifices. God also gets angry, jelous, and at one point, even says He regrets making man. God is neither the emotionless overseer or the wholely benevolent and eternally forgiving feeling He is so often portrayed as today. The God of the old testament, who destroyed Sodom and Gomorah completely, is also the God of the new testament, who gave His own son as payment for our sins. He is not by any means simple.

Jesus also refused to stone an adulteress and instead told her "Go and sin no more." He also asked for water from another adulteress at a well and, while telling her all her sins, did not condemn her. Jesus offers forgiveness and mercy, not wrath and condemnation.That's my favourite part. "Go and sin no more". :)

He didn't tell her "go and try to behave" but "go and sin no more". His forgiveness can't be used to justify the sin or make it lesser in any way.

He didn't tell her "go and try to behave" but "go and sin no more". His forgiveness can't be used to justify the sin or make it lesser in any way. Exactly, Repentance is not only confessing the sin, but forsaking it also. Only after forsaking the sin can you truly be forgiven.

Even if that were so, there would still be a problem of it being a lover, not a spouse. The Bible condemns any sex out of marriage. Chev,
I accept that is the general concensus. (To be honest, I've never seen the exact quote that says this though), although the old testament has examples of polygamy and concubines which don't appear to be criticised. Regardless, you just don't get the extreme views attacking heterosexual sex outside of marriage as you do with the homosexual attacks by religious nutters such as the "God Hates Gays". Maybe it's the media coverage, but the Catholic church always seems more vociferous about homosexuality than other out-of-marriage sex. I'd be reasonably confident that the majority of times the Bible is raised on this site is to do with attacks on homosexuality and not on consenting heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Why? because it probably applies to the majority of people in the world now and therefore such views would be largely ignored.

Now I'm not saying that the Church should change it's views on sex outside of marriage. But the falsified text in the Bible that is responsible for the attacks on Homosexuality should be translated correctly.

Of course the "Sex outside of Marriage" raises another question, which is currently the discussion of another topic. My question is simply, given the fact that (other than Leviticus) there doesn't appear to be any complete and obviously direct references to homosexuality. Does the Bible at any point state that marriage can ONLY be between a man and woman? The word "Only" being the important one.

As for Sodom, why would Lot have offered his daughters to the mob for raping if the mob had only wanted to know his guests in a non-sexual way? What connection would there be? I can't see any. And if the mob was intent on rape, why did they decline? If it was a "homosexual" mob, why did he offer his daughters in the first place? Why on earth was it deemed acceptable by the Angels and God for him to offer his daughters for rape? As I've said, the text is totally inconclusive from a homosexual point of view, but has been translated to reflect the predjudicies of the translator.

Edit

I believe the Benjaminites are those from the quote from Judges.


NOG

What a superb resource. Unsurprisingly, I don't read Greek or Hebrew either so my sources are mostly online. Although I try and stay clear of any obviously prejudiced sites (either way), I don't really have any means of authenticating them so I'd be really interested to hear what your family think.

Here's another useful link, from the Canadian Lutheran Church, haven't had time to read it all though.

http://www.elcic.ca/docs/2005/freytag.pdf

Another interesting point though, from Jude when refering to Sodom. This uses the text "sarkos heteras" which has been translated as sexual immorality and pursuing unnatural lust, i.e. homosexuality. It actually translates directly as strange/alien flesh - Well they were Angels after all!

A strange aside: "Heteras" could be where the English Hetero (as in sexual) comes from.

[ September 14, 2005, 15:45: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

Chev, you are forgetting about betrothal. A betrothed couple could have sex and not be punished. This is why Joseph had the option of having Mary stoned -- her being pregnant while betrothed was not a big deal -- that Joseph was not the father made the issue punishable by stoning.

@T2Bruno: Ah, you are raising an important point. I could go on a bit about the evolution of the legal construct of marriage, but I don't want to bore you to death. ;) Let's just say a betrothed couple wasn't punished for sex but having sex consumed their betrothal and they they were married. That's how you had marriage in the ancient Israel -- but in mediaeval German culture, as well. It survives in the contemporary Catholic Church where validly contracted but not consumated marriage can be dissolved by the Pope. After it's consumated, if it was validly contracted, nothing can cut it. In ancient Israel you also had the divorce option, however.

@Carcaroth:

And if the mob was intent on rape, why did they decline? If it was a "homosexual" mob, why did he offer his daughters in the first place?Maybe they weren't exclusively homosexual? A number of people with homosexual attraction is able to satisfy its biological drive with members of the opposite sex.

Why on earth was it deemed acceptable by the Angels and God for him to offer his daughters for rape?It wasn't. That's what Lot did. Doesn't mean it was deemed acceptable. It wouldn't even be acceptable for the daughters to give themselves up if they had so wanted.

As I've said, the text is totally inconclusive from a homosexual point of view, but has been translated to reflect the predjudicies of the translator.It already needs a proper perspective and much explaining as it is, but it totally lacks any sense in the gay-friendly version.

I accept that is the general concensus. (To be honest, I've never seen the exact quote that says this though), although the old testament has examples of polygamy and concubines which don't appear to be criticised.Polygamy was a concession, as was divorce. As for concubines... I guess where polygamy is already allowed, concubinage is better than one night stands. Still, I doubt concubinage is presented as something positive anywhere in the Bible.

Regardless, you just don't get the extreme views attacking heterosexual sex outside of marriage as you do with the homosexual attacks by religious nutters such as the "God Hates Gays".Some Christian churches get along with it surprisingly well, yeah.

Maybe it's the media coverage, but the Catholic church always seems more vociferous about homosexuality than other out-of-marriage sex.Perhaps because heterosexual sex out of marriage is less unnatural than homosexual sex? Perhaps important figures regard pre-marital sex as falling short and homosexual sex as attacking the very principle? Nowadays the mainstream position is that homosexual sex gets it as wrong as heterosexual sex out of marriage, unless if we are talking about those gay people who aren't into the promiscuous style but believe they love their partners. More and more theologians say homosexual sex is as wrong as premarital heterosexual sex. Sin comes from inside and apart from the material act, the person's level of knowledge and consent is important.

Let me play a prophet for a while:

John is a Catholic. He never misses an opportunity to remind Jack and Tom that gay sex is an abomination and that they are sinners en route to fiery fire etc etc. Jack and Tom go home and at least try to live like a normal couple, whereas John goes to a wild party and bangs three strangers on one night. Female, of course. Who gets it more wrong? :rolleyes:

However, if someone simply goes out to get laid, I believe the homo option is more sinful on the material level than the hetero option, although I don't want to get into judging judging people's knowledge and consent. I'm not God. Besides, I have been tempted too, I have failed, who am I to judge? We just can't call right wrong or wrong right, or support the wrong as it goes on.

Of course the "Sex outside of Marriage" raises another question, which is currently the discussion of another topic. My question is simply, given the fact that (other than Leviticus) there doesn't appear to be any complete and obviously direct references to homosexuality. Does the Bible at any point state that marriage can ONLY be between a man and woman? The word "Only" being the important one.Hmm... In Genesis, they are created a man and a woman in God's image, suggesting the image is more complete when the two are in union. Jesus talks about a man and a woman joining up and becoming one body, so do the Apostles. There are instances of very, very close male friendships that look almost romantic (theoretically, it doesn't have to be wrong -- surely not any more than referring to your opposite gender friends as "darling", for instance), but there is no instance of homosexual marriage, no unreprobated homosexual act. Marriage is always strictly defined as something only a man and a woman can have, by very nature of their design.

[ September 14, 2005, 19:03: Message edited by: chevalier ]

although the old testament has examples of polygamy and concubines which don't appear to be criticised.There's a chapter in either one of the books of Kings or Chronicles that talks about Solomon having 700 wives and 350 concubines. That chapter was about his downfall, after the rise, reputation for wisdom and the construction of the Temple. Not much to go on, but it's something...

you just don't get the extreme views attacking heterosexual sex outside of marriage as you do with the homosexual attacks by religious nutters such as the "God Hates Gays". Maybe it's the media coverageExactly, it's easier to justify your own sins when you think that "at least I'm not like those perverts over there..." Regardless, all sex outside the bonds of legal and lawful matrimony is an abomination before the Lord.

T2Bruno, Was Bethrothal included under the Law of Moses in the Old Testament? If so, could that have been where the Scribes and Pharisees got to the law and played around with it to dumb it down, losing the spirit of the Law.

It wasn't. That's what Lot did. Doesn't mean it was deemed acceptable. It wouldn't even be acceptable for the daughters to give themselves up if they had so wanted.Good point, Chev. Just because men like David and Solomon had manyt wives and Concubines doesn't mean that it was right. Apostasy can affect anyone. David had a man killed so he could marry the man's widow after committing adultery with her. Nowhere in the Bible is that action condoned...

As for the definition of Marriage, I go with the stance adopted ten years ago by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Period. Since the Prophet is God's representative on Earth, and it says in the New Testament that God doesn't change his mind to reflect social pressures, this has always been the law.

@Gnarff: T2Bruno, Was Bethrothal included under the Law of Moses in the Old Testament? If so, could that have been where the Scribes and Pharisees got to the law and played around with it to dumb it down, losing the spirit of the Law.Legally, it was consent + consummation and the consent part was achieved in the betrothal, so a consumated betrothal was marriage. It worked for the Germanic tribes and mediaeval Germans too. In Italy, they believed that consent did the whole job and consumation was irrelevant. Pope Innocent don't-remember-the-number sort of combined the two until you had what resembles the Catholic and generally Christian marriage we known today. Secular laws went for consent alone.

I can resist no longer.

Marriage in the Catholic Faiths (please note plural) is a sacrament performed by the two people involved.It is, afaik, the only sacrament not performed by a third party. The priest does not marry the couple but is there as a witness for God and the Church. In fact it is possible for two people to form a valid marriage contract even if there is no other person present. It is expected that they report this to a church official and have the contract validated.

This brings a question to my mind. Is a civil union ever a marriage in the religious sense.? I guess it depends on the intention of the parties but???

In fact it is possible for two people to form a valid marriage contract even if there is no other person present.It used to be like that in the RCC, but no longer is. :/ The current Canon Law says nothing about such a possibility and the least form you can observe is two witnesses, without a priest or deacon indeed. In my book, it's ridiculous to ban people from living together, should they be single and find themselves alone somewhere without much hope of reaching a civilised location. Or when no one would like to be a witness. And similar situations. Not like any such situation is likely and yes, it would be a great danger to allow clandestine marriages (people will basically lie about never being married before if no witness is to be found), but still...

This brings a question to my mind. Is a civil union ever a marriage in the religious sense.? I guess it depends on the intention of the parties but???If you're Roman Catholic and you have a valid reason, you can request your bishop to issue dispensation from canonical form and so you'll be allowed to contract a sacramental marriage the moment you are contracting the civil union.

Also, the RCC regards civil unions of baptised non-Catholics as valid marriages, so long as formal requirements go. Basically the marriage can still be invalid because of a defect of consent or an impediment or a different cause, but the form requirement is met. It's basically the same as if they had requested and been granted all applicable dispensations from the form.

As you see, there's a number of loopholes in the marriage laws, but it's up to the Church to set the requirements, so it's basically just mess but without bad sacramental implications (God is not a lawyer and I'm sure He wouldn't be happy with lawyering around sacraments... in fact, the thought makes me scared).

Thank you for the clarification, Chev. I can understand why the RCC changed the rules due to abuse but I can think of a few, very rare instances where it should be valid.

The abuse really, really sucked. We have some of it today, too. I won't lie, there's a lot of things I don't like in the way marriage looks in the Canon Law or church courts. I'm not sure I could handle it better, though.

Religious zealots, hate 'em, I simply can't stand these red-necks ! These peoples are part of many reasons, as why I dislike the USA so much.

[ September 21, 2005, 23:42: Message edited by: DarthOne ]

DarthOne:

Wow - so many broken rules in a single two line post. Very impressive.

There's general bashing of a country (based, apparently, on a nebulous and ill-defined sub-set of people living there).

There's generalization of an amorphous group of people (red-necks and/or religious zealots, which, by the way, are certainly not the same thing).

There's bad spelling and grammar (it's spelled zealots, I presume that you meant that you "can't" stand the red-necks to which you referred, and there is no reason to have a comma after "reasons" nor an "as" after the comma).

You may want to re-read the rules a bit or, who knows, there could be a special plaque in the future for you.

DarthOne: While it might be an interesting thread to get opinions on why there is such a perception of hatred against our southern neighbours, this is not such a thread.

Further, it would not only be the zealots that oppose homosexuality, but the rank and file of the faithful. It is specifically pointed out in the doctrine of Christianity that it is to be opposed.

And as for rednecks, I don't think it's just the rednecks but all christians. Rednecks are a more recently defined subculture (not officially, but according to pop culture). If you want the truth about rednecks, listen to Jeff Foxworthy, and you'll see that there is a little redneck in all of us.

@Darth One: You hate people because they are from the country (rednecks) and you are from the town. You also hate people because they are zealously religious while you are not. How is that different from hating gay people when you are straight? What makes you better than the zealots are?

This site www.godhatesfags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com) seems pretty kooky to me, especially after I read this whopper (http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050831_thank-god-for-katrina.html). Thank God for Katrina
(...)
New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter.
(...)
America is irreversibly doomed. It is a sin to pray for the good of this evil fag nation.
(...)
It is a sin NOT to rejoice when God executes His wrath and vengeance upon America.

"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth." Psalm 58:10,11.

Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans.
(...)
blablabla ...:nuts: They also have (http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/2005/20050907_washington-cathedral-of-st-matthew3.jpg) some nice activist photos (http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/2005/20050907_washington-cathedral-of-st-matthew.jpg) on their site :nuts: Someone get them a straightjacket, and for good measure some heavy medication.

EDIT: Now these creeps are so crazy, can it possibly be real?

No Ragusa, they are for real. This is America: Land of the Televised Extremes!

Surely the life expectancy of these people is pretty short now. God help them if they ever run into Spellbound. She'd string them up for sure.

@Darth One: You hate people because they are from the country (rednecks) and you are from the town. Could you just please just TRY explain me how I said these things in the first place ? I NEVER said that ! Rednecks are a bit everywhere ya know. They can be either from town or from outside of towns.

And btw I never said I was BETTER then them, just said I din't approve of their beliefs and/or of their ways of seeing life in general.

Harbourboy --

No words could describe the interaction that would ensue. ;)

To all - I already posted a warning to DarthOne. Therefore, you do not need to do anything nor do you need to respond to his post. Let it lie.

Actually, Ragusa, I wonder if other religions have made this groups naughty list for sending aid to those that got screwed over by Katrina?

If these guys really do have some clue about what they are talking about, then the stories about Mardi Gras must be false. Any city where women are encouraged to flash their breasts can't be all gay...

No words could describe the interaction that would ensue.Spelly, I'd take a stab at "righteous retribution"... I'm guessing it would make "Dawn Of The Dead" look like "My Little Pony", huh?

@ Gnarff: Damn right. Anyone who can look at what's happened in New Orleans and say that sort of stuff is evidently not paying attention to reality. New Orleans during a festival is/was hardly a modest city, but I'm guessing that nothing short of absolutely piety would satisfy some of these folks.

It's sad how they've taken a tragedy and used it to advance a hateful, perverted agenda, and they'll probably take the response to their bile as proof of Earthly corruption. I've seen it all before, only in the ultra-Lefty groups at university. Secular or religious, self-righteous dickheads are still self-righteous dickheads.

Those crazy virgins running the show from the Vatican have gone and done it again! Apparently, homosexuals, even celibate ones, will no longer be able to be don the fabulous frock.

I'm going to have to do a little research to learn how they are going to enforce this policy. If a man does not have sex with anyone, how can he be gay? Will they watch his eyes to see what bums he peeps? Will they quiz him on his knowledge of similar yet differently named hues? If the standard is effeminate behavior, they are going to lose half of their clergy!

This should be interesting...well, not really actually...

Just Old Mother Church becoming more and more distant from Her children...

Erm. I've never had sex with anyone. Am I not straight because of this?

I think he was querrying how they would be able to tell if he was Gay or not if he was leading a celibate life.

I doubt in reality it will mean the slightest bit of difference. There has been enough examples of homo- and heterosexual paedophilia in the past then either a.) that priests don't always tell their superiors the truth or b.) If they do, then their superiors don't do anything about it. It's hardly as if they need to be told that this is wrong and perpetrators should be imprisoned... surely?

Agreed, Carcaroth. I also don't understand why the Catholic Church puts forth rules like this. Priests are supposed to be celibate. That means regardless of what your sexual affiliation is, you shouldn't be acting on it anyway.

Also, I believe Chev pointed out in previous posts (or was it Gnarff maybe?) that the Church is primarily opposed to acting on homosexual impulses. That homosexuals have this "cross to bear". The thinking being that it is one thing to have the urges to engage in homosexual conduct (which may or may not be of one's own choosing), but the actual act of engaging in homosexual conduct is definitely of one's own choosing.

My personal opinion is that straight priests probably do have heterosexual urges towards women, but aren't supposed to act upon them, and I see no reason why homosexual priests should be any different. Plus, if someone does not engage in any homosexual behavior, how could you prove that someone is a homosexual? (Which I believe is what was being pointed out.)

I also think that saying a lot of priests are gay is somewhat a streotypical response for the very reason that they aren't supposed to have sexual relations with women - or anyone else for that matter. It's that line of thinking - he doesn't have sex with women, so he must not be interested in women, so he must be gay. Which is obviously false in most cases. As chev correctly points out, if not having any sexual relations with women is sufficient criteria to be considered homosexual, then he would be a homosexual, which he clearly is not.

Just Old Mother Church becoming more and more distant from Her children... Perhaps. But is the Mother so much different now, or is society luring the kids away from home?

Aldeth,
you overlook that the Almighty has it all written in his golden book, and that St. Peter will read it to them sinners before he kicks them down that golden ladder to a very hot place, where they can spend out all eternity honoring the Lord and Maker in a literal lake of fire, Amen ... :rolleyes:

There is no need for proof when there is absolute certainty. That must be one of the nicer aspects of being a raving lunatic.

@ Ragusa - amen brother :thumb:

However, unless the pope/cardinals are going to go around and ask individually each priest if they are gay or straight, and then assume each priest will be truthful in their response, how would they know? Will they all be divinely inspired with a perfect sense of "gay-dar" that they will intuitively know?

An interesting excerpt from the NY Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/international/europe/22vatican.html?hp&ex=1127448000&en=4b5ee9218e6daead&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

"People would do what they used to do, which is not be honest," said a gay American priest and professor at a Catholic college who did not want to be identified because he fears he could lose his church position if his sexual orientation was known.

"The irony is, if you look at the exact ages and seminary graduating classes of those priests who were convicted of sexual abuse in the past few years, they were not on the whole people who entered seminaries in the 1980's, when there began to be more openness about homosexuality," he said. "These were people from the old closeted days.

"So what the church is doing is repeating, in a weird way, the conditions they had before that gave rise to the abuse crisis."

Required chastity has never been a good idea in the first place, and I'm talking for any kind of priest. The Bible clearly states that church officials (speaking of the early church here), not only shouldn't be celebate, but had to be, or have been, married, "...husband of but one wife,".

On the up side, at least they're finally starting to live by what they preach. A religious institution should strive to fill itself with people who obey its laws and, while no one is perfect, do not deliberately break them.

Sorry, all you catholics, but you've got problems. :toofar:

@Aldeth:

I think he was querrying how they would be able to tell if he was Gay or not if he was leading a celibate life.I too lead a celibate life. :p Oh well, there is a difference because the priest has already chosen and he has to stay away from women on the romantic level. Well, you can tell gay from straight by what you're attracted to.

The thinking being that it is one thing to have the urges to engage in homosexual conduct (which may or may not be of one's own choosing), but the actual act of engaging in homosexual conduct is definitely of one's own choosing.Urges of attraction at the most basic level can't be chosen... it's just people's conscious choices may affect in some way what they become attracted to at the more basic level, I think, at least to some extent. Well, anyway, a consensual sexual act is always a choice. It's the choice where the problem starts. If you're a man, being attracted to a man is no more sinful than being attracted to a woman. Acting on it is a different thing, yeah.

My personal opinion is that straight priests probably do have heterosexual urges towards women, but aren't supposed to act upon them, and I see no reason why homosexual priests should be any different. Plus, if someone does not engage in any homosexual behavior, how could you prove that someone is a homosexual? (Which I believe is what was being pointed out.)He may have engaged in the past or been inclined that way. Or attracted to men. Or have dated men. Or... well, you need witnesses or photos for that kind of stuff and he surely isn't going to give you any.

I also think that saying a lot of priests are gay is somewhat a streotypical response for the very reason that they aren't supposed to have sexual relations with women - or anyone else for that matter. It's that line of thinking - he doesn't have sex with women, so he must not be interested in women, so he must be gay. Which is obviously false in most cases.Perhaps convents and monasteries can have the prison thing. You know, prisoners of just one gender starting to fill the gap etc. But they aren't supposed to be sexual at all, so they don't just lack the other gender. If they go the active gay route, it means they would otherwise go the active straight route and sleep with the other gender regardless of the chastity vow, and that would be bad for them, too.

@LNT:

Required chastity has never been a good idea in the first place, and I'm talking for any kind of priest. The Bible clearly states that church officials (speaking of the early church here), not only shouldn't be celebate, but had to be, or have been, married, "...husband of but one wife,".Nawww... notice the "of but one wife" part? It says guys who can't stick to one woman shouldn't perform responsible functions in the church.

We used to have married priests and we may have them again. It's a matter of discipline more than doctrine, although it is supported by biblical passages, which are mostly Pauline prudential rules. Personally, I have no moral problem with allowing married men to be ordained (there's more of a problem with letting ordained men get married but it still can be done -- they do it even now, except they dismiss them from active service).

And chastity is required of all Catholics, not just priests. :p Everyone is required to be chaste within his state. I am not married, so I don't sleep with people. Someone else is married, so he sticks to one person and acts on love rather than lust. Finally the priest or monk or nun has chosen a celibate life, so, again, no sex. Except those celibate folks are out of the mating pool, so they don't get romantic, either. After all, they won't be marrying anyone. But generally speaking, everyone is supposed to be chaste.

[ September 22, 2005, 23:36: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Non Sequitor: It's important that these people are recognized for their lack of understanding.

LNT: They can't tell. I understood Celebacy to mean utter resistance to all Sexual temptation and a decision not to marry.

Aldeth: That is exactly my opinion. We all have out temptations to do things we are not supposed to do. For some, Homosexuality is a stronger temptation than for others.

NOG: I agree. Forcing someone to choose not to marry is asking for trouble. Mankind is still under the commandment to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, to replenish the earth and have joy in their posterity. As such, the desire to have sex with people of the opposite gender is natural. The Law of Chastity is in place to help us try to be better than the natural human.

Further, It seems even that the Bible opposes the practice of Celebacy. As for the part about people that live what they preach, again you hit it on the head. Hypocrites will send conflicting messages. From the pulpit, they will preach morality, but their example will tell another tale...

Well, you can tell gay from straight by what you're attracted to. I guess I wasn't clear in my meaning. I have no doubt that the priest will know whether or not he is gay or straight. As you said, he will know what he is attracted to. I was more or less going from the standpoint of an outside observer. If the priest truly leads a celibate life, than regardless of whether he is gay or straight, there's no way any one else can determine which he is unless he chooses to divulge that information. Presumably, if a priest is celibate, then he probably would feel no compunction to make such a pronouncement unless he was directly asked, and even then, he may justify not telling anyone as he isn't acting on it, and no one is going to know otherwise anyway.

Here's another question. If we are allowing that having heterosexual sex is a natural act, then why aren't priests allowed to marry? Aren't we asking them to do something counter to human nature by remaining celibate?

@AFI: Sexuality is a gift from God, celibacy is the gift of oneself back to God. Or so says the Catholic teaching - you won't find that in the Talmud. ;)

Agreed Rally. I too, was raised Catholic. (Although I realize the similarity in our two positions ends there, as I'm simply non-practicing, whereas you converted to a new religion.) But despite that fact, it would still appear that priests are acting against what is "human nature".

Without checking the site for myself, I can still contradict most of it. First, God loves all of his children, but doesn't always agree with what they do. Secondly, if they confess and forsake their sins, and call upon the Lord for forgiveness, they can, and will be forgiven. Further, it is not the place of man to preach hatred of others, only the truth. So what is the truth, Gnarfflinger? In your own words, please.

Just a heads up: this is the posting of a somewhat intoxicated agnostic/athiest...

I want to explore the issue of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God's abhorrent view of homosexuality.

The first issue that must be addressed is whether same sex attraction is an innate primal drive or something self-created through immoral fantasy followed by lack of divine grace.

It seems to be the prevailing wisdom that same sex attraction is natural to some extent. By "natural" I mean that all people have, at least at one time or another, looked upon the aspect of a person of the same sex and have had -- an albeit slight -- sexual response.

Has anyone ever not experienced this?

Based upon my own heterosexual male experience, this usually is a feeling of awkward consignment to the right of the more masculine individual's social-animal right to lead in the pursuit of females. In other situations, such as the passing-by of an obviously good-looking male, it is a feeling of inferiority coupled by a feeling of shame for the desire to seek security in the protection that an athletic animal of the same species offers.

I think the two evolutionary benefits of homosexual attraction are evident: The first is the sexual intercourse, with females, made more likely by the proximity to a sexually attractive male; the second is the animal security offered by proximity to a male whom is gifted with athleticism/intelligence.

So let us try to graft a divine abhorrence upon our natural inclinations towards same sex attraction.

It would seem, at least according to Judeo/Christian/Islamic dogma, that God abhors our natural predilections.

Why would He do such a thing?

Perhaps he does not agree with our desire for by-proxy sexual activity; this seems unfair considering his ordering of the universe in such a way as to insure the continuation of the most sexually active individual's hereditary lineage. Does He not want humans to advance towards a "moral" majority?

Perhaps he does not agree with our desire to seek protection from predators, or perhaps he does not agree with our need to flock toward intelligent leaders. This again seems unfair considering the manner in which He has ordered the universe.

The conclusion from this line of reasoning is that God does not seek morality from all men, but rather select repression of their natural sexual desires from a few individuals.

Or perhaps he desires select sexual repression from all individuals? But then why the ordering of the universe in the manner He has done? Is He sadistic? Could He not have done it differently? Does He desire to see a minority condemned based upon their overly expressed natural desires?

The repression of homosexuality -- by religions -- I see as a competely personal phenomenom, expressed religiously, that is quite different from my own personal view of divinity.

All people recognize sexual urges as ever present. I find my girlfriend sexually provacative in ways only my dreams can sometimes fully describe: She has dark hair, dark eyes; sometimes she has a womanly lust demanding equal contribution, and at other times, she is demure and girlish, requiring me to be the proprietor of initiative and domain; and yet, despite her femininity, I cannot help but be attracted to other women. I also cannot help but acknowledge the masculine qualities other men possess.

Am I a sinner? No. I say I am human.

I think the persecution of homosexuals is not something divine, but rather a projection, made by religious individuals, of their own ever present desires to fault upon their responsibilities which all humans possess. Where I acknowledge my attraction towards individuals whom I do not love, the religious persecutionist sees the homosexual as the embodiment of infidelity, by way of sexual indulgence. Where I see my own desire to submit to non-sexual laziness, such as not showing up to class or work, the religious persecutionist sees the homosexual as someone who has submitted to moral laziness by not combating their natural predilections on a daily basis. They project their own natural faults upon the homosexual.

The homosexual is the embodiment of their potential failure to meet their own daily ever present responsibilities, both moral and otherwise, represented by the ever present quality of sexual attraction.

Luckily for me, I have no such divine whip cracker demanding I behave outside of which I have been made for. Luckily for me, I feel free to elucidate my homosexuality, because I know, tomorrow night, if I decide to take my girlfriend from behind, and if I am ferocious, she will bite my thumb, and if I am paced and gentle, she will suck on it.

LNT, LNT, again you're seeking it where it isn't. Look, it's not about repressing the homosexual urge any more than the whole morality in sexual matters is about repressing sexual urges. What sometimes eludes those who attack the judeochristian stance on homosexuality is that sex is never something healthy and natural to enjoy for people who are not in marriage. As for marriage, it was set up and decided by Genesis, with countless references ever after. One man, one woman, uniting into one. You could even argue that the image of God is made more accurate by it being a male and a female. Whatever marriage is about, homosexual union doesn't meet it. The sexual activity itself is against nature, as shown above, which also contributes. And here you have it.

God has nothing against you seeking protection of mighty leaders (didn't He set up judges and kings for Israel?) or improving your chances of finding a good woman to marry, or whatever else it is. It's just that not every means of achieving that goal you come up with is equally good as the rest, and the goal doesn't justify the means. The way you conduct that argument, you could say that the fifth prevents you from being happy because you can't get rid of someone you don't like (instead of e.g. arbitration) or the seventh because it forbids you from taking something that isn't yours (although you could go to greater lengths and buy it or make a similar object).

Hmm...I certainly am wordy when I drink...

Back on Terra Firma...

I just want to warn you Chev, and this is just my own personal opinion of course, but marriage may not be what you think it is going to be.

Become one...?

What does that mean?

Such romanticism seems to place quite a burden upon a mate; expecting the impossible from someone is going to lead to personal disappointment and a sense of failure in the other.

But I have never been married...

And hey, aiming high generally leads to landing on higher ground than the person whom never glances up...

[ September 24, 2005, 20:24: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

Yulaw, I'll start with the position that homosexuality is a temptation, just as the temptation to engage in heterosexual sex with an inappropriate partner. This means that they aren't freaks or sub-humans, but they are people like us. The difference is in which temptation they face.

Remember that from a Christian standpoint, all sex outside of legal and lawful marriage is a greivous sin. Therefore one should not look more favourably on those that fornicate or commit adultery as those that have homosexual relations. Rapists, pedophiles are different because they often harm their partner, but a homosexual is the same as an adulterer or fornicator.

Sin is sin, and cannot be condoned. This does not mean that God hates sinners, but simply that he doesn't condone what they do. I remember in the New Testament, Jesus commanded the Scribes and Pharisees that the one among them who was without sin should cast the first stone at an adulteress. I understand this to mean that we have enough to worry about with our own sins and need not condemn another for their sins.

So basically:

1: They are no different from us.

2: It is not them, but their sins that are offensive to God.

3: Our sins are no more palatable to God.

Therefore: we have more things to be concerned about than bashing one particulat group of sinners...

LNT:
I think the basic fact (belief) you are missing is that we do not live in a world solely of God's design. We are fallen people living in a fallen world. This means that what God designed to work perfectly doesn't anymore. It also means that human nature is not neccesarily good. Just because it is natural does not mean God approves of it.
Also, yes, you are a sinner. We all are. That's part of being human.
Gnarf:
You got it.

From Chev:

What sometimes eludes those who attack the judeochristian stance on homosexuality is that sex is never something healthy and natural to enjoy for people who are not in marriage. And then from Gnarff:

Remember that from a Christian standpoint, all sex outside of legal and lawful marriage is a greivous sin. I can understand that at a base level, especially when talking Christian beliefs, that sin is sin, and that no sin is "better" or "worse" than any other sin. In practice however, society views them as very different things and I see many Christians prioritizing some sins as being worse than others.

First an obvious example: Both lying and murder are sins, but almost everyone would agree that murder is the far more grevious sin (whether or not that is true of Christian dogma).

I think a similar line is drawn from society's standpoint in sexual relations outside of marriage taken generally, and even within Christian concepts taken specifically. Most Christians would agree that all of the following are bad: premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual sex. Now on one level, they may all be sins, but to say they are all equally bad, seems to me to be ignoring some very real fact-of-life issues.

Many Christians get up in arms about homosexual sex, but I don't see them giving the same lectures about people committing adultery. I certainly don't see them campaigning against the star high school quarterback banging the hottest cheerleader in the back of his car. The point being is that both of you may be sincere in what you are saying, but I do not think that you are speaking for society at large, or even of most Christians in particular.

What you preach is all sex outside of marriage is bad. What we on the outside see in practice (and I'm not just talking about Gnarff and chev specifically here, but Christians in general) is that there is definitely a heirarchical categorization of sins. From what you see, it certainly appears that the order is homosexual sex is the worst, followed by adultery, followed by premarital sex. While none of them are viewed as good, it certianly seems that the quarterback-cheerleader pairing is most certainly "less bad" than the other two.

Basically, there definitely seems to me that there exists in society a rather large anti-gay group, and that most of these people would also categorize themselves as Christians. I don't see similarly sized "anti-adultery" groups, or "Parents Against Teenagers Having Sex" groups, so that's why I say the letter of the Christian law seems to be used differently in practice than in concept.

Actually, most sects that I know of tend to discourage heterosexual sex outside of marriage -- I know for a fact mine does, and my understanding of Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran and Greek orthodox theology is that they too believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. There is certainly no pastor or preacher I've ever seen who advocates the football star "banging the cheerleader".

People admit it happens, but acknowledging the existence of a behaviour is much different from encouraging or condoning it.

I can understand that at a base level, especially when talking Christian beliefs, that sin is sin, and that no sin is "better" or "worse" than any other sin. In practice however, society views them as very different things and I see many Christians prioritizing some sins as being worse than others.Sins are equal in the sense that they are all sins and all to be avoided. Doesn't mean they are all of equal gravity. However, the gravity of a sin is decided not only by the material act but also by the level of consent and knowledge of the sinner.

Many Christians get up in arms about homosexual sex, but I don't see them giving the same lectures about people committing adultery.Right. And I don't like that, either.

What you preach is all sex outside of marriage is bad.Correct.

From what you see, it certainly appears that the order is homosexual sex is the worst, followed by adultery, followed by premarital sex.There is some true in that, but you must remember that homosexual intercourse always includes premarital sex. It's premarital sex with same gender sex added on top of it. Between adultery and homosexual intercourse, I think there would be much controversy between theologians. I would probably rate adultery as worse, provided none of the participants in homosexual intercourse is married. Many theologians seem to be oblivious to it, but in my oh so humble opinion, there is a lot of difference between a person suffering from SSA and trying to build a relationship based on love and a person who seeks new thrills after casual sex has stopped bringing much fun (as a prelude to children and animals, perhaps), the same way as there must be a difference between a relationship that goes astray and one night stands. Even if I think some theologians would argue that one night stands are better than concubinage. :rolleyes: Once upon a time, a girl asked if there was no difference if she slept with her boyfriend or banged the whole football team and that's a question theologians had better answer.

Basically, there definitely seems to me that there exists in society a rather large anti-gay group, and that most of these people would also categorize themselves as Christians. I don't see similarly sized "anti-adultery" groups, or "Parents Against Teenagers Having Sex" groups, so that's why I say the letter of the Christian law seems to be used differently in practice than in concept.There is much truth in what you say and I believe we would do a good job ranting together in a Catholic forum every now and then. ;) Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that homosexual sex is only as bad as premarital heterosexual sex. On the material level (the act alone), it seems to be worse. However, I don't want to go too far into the level of consent and knowledge, since I'm no judge of that and I don't know what is in the hearts of men. At least not fully and not certainly.

Actually, most sects that I know of tend to discourage heterosexual sex outside of marriage -- I know for a fact mine does, and my understanding of Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran and Greek orthodox theology is that they too believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. And I'm not denying that. My point was if all premarital sex is bad, why is homosexual sex treated as if it is worse?

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that homosexual sex is only as bad as premarital heterosexual sex. On the material level (the act alone), it seems to be worse. Chev, that's the sticking point for me. The fact that it seems worse. On the actual material level, despite what Christian dogma dictates, it seems like the homosexual act is treated with far more gravity than the pre-marital heterosexual sex. So it only stands to reason then that homosexual sex is frowned up for more than just being sex outside of marriage. It seems to me, that even if homosexual marriage were to become legal, it sill wouldn't remove the "sin" associated with homosexual actions from the Christian point of view, and not just because the Christian Church wouldn't recognize the marriage.

Plus, like you said it's compounding multiple sins. Pre-marital sex is one sin, and homosexual sex is another sin. Just based on that alone, it certainly suggests that there is something beyond pre-marital sex that is viewed as inherently bad. (Of course, we could take it a step further in that we could have homosexual sex when one of the partners is lawfully married, and go for the sinful sex triumverate.)

We can quote Leviticus all we'd like, but the fact remains that most of Catholic (and most Christian denominations as far as I'm aware) teachings are based on Christ's teachings - i.e., the New Testament. In fact, that's the basis of the entire religion. As the name implies the penultimate definition of being "Christian" is to believe in the divinity of Christ. It seems like some backwater Old Testament Leviticus reference is not reason enough to frown upon homosexual sex. There are many equally obscure Old Testament references that don't get nearly as much screen time for the very reason they are obscure and generally found to be of less importance (not to say they are unimportant).

Which brings us back to the same point: That the primary reason homosexual sex is bad is because it is by definition pre-marital sex. And yet the fact that it seems worse suggests there is more to it than that.

It seems to me, that even if homosexual marriage were to become legal, it sill wouldn't remove the "sin" associated with homosexual actions from the Christian point of view, and not just because the Christian Church wouldn't recognize the marriage.If they make it legal, people will probably eventually get used to it, although such a process will take a lot of time.

Plus, like you said it's compounding multiple sins. Pre-marital sex is one sin, and homosexual sex is another sin. Just based on that alone, it certainly suggests that there is something outside of sex outside of marriage that is viewed as inherently bad.Yes, of course. First, the fact that there can never be marriage between the partners. You can even be allowed to marry your own aunt or niece. You can be allowed to marry despite being ordained (think about the chance, but yes, you can), but you can't marry a person of the same gender. Not any more than you could marry your own parent or child. Next, there is the problem of unnatural sexual practice and yes, strange sexual preferences are frowned upon up to the point of potentially making marriage invalid from beginning if one of the partners (heterosexual) prefers to have his or her sex in some strange way.

It seems like some backwater Old Testament Leviticus reference is not reason enough to frown upon homosexual sex.It's not any more backwater than the ban on pre- or extramarital sex.

That the primary reason homosexual sex is bad is because it is by definition pre-marital sex. And yet the fact that it seems worse suggests there is more to it than that.Well, you could say the same about incest. Or necrophilia. Or whatever. There are sexual preferences that won't find fruition within the boundaries of Christian marriage. The fact they won't makes it something more than just premarital sex with someone you could theoretically marry. It's already a problem if you are in a relationship with someone you can't marry because it's building a vain relationship that is banned from fruition from the very beginning. NOTE: Some Catholics will supply this argument when you talk to them about homosexual unions. Nonetheless, they will eagerly dismiss this very same argument when you start talking to them about non-exclusive dating and romantic relationships, as I have. :rolleyes:

First, the fact that there can never be marriage between the partners. You can even be allowed to marry your own aunt or niece. You can be allowed to marry despite being ordained (think about the chance, but yes, you can), but you can't marry a person of the same gender. Not any more than you could marry your own parent or child. At least that makes sense. Granted, it's not a reason that is going to convince anyone who is not Catholic, but at least it is a sensible reason beyond saying, "Homosexual sex is bad because pre-marital sex is bad." You can say that while you don't approve of the football star banging the cheerleader, at least the possibility of them getting married and setting things right exists.

Well, you could say the same about incest. Or necrophilia. Or whatever. There are sexual preferences that won't find fruition within the boundaries of Christian marriage.I don't have any problem understanding why these examples are viewed upon far more unfavorably than pre-marital sex - it's because they are all also illegal. I mean hell, we may as well throw in child molestation and rape in that list as well. All are illegal, and no matter how religious or un-religious someone is, most also hold the belief that things that are against the law are bad.

I don't have any problem understanding why these examples are viewed upon far more unfavorably than pre-marital sex - it's because they are all also illegal. I mean hell, we may as well throw in child molestation and rape in that list as well. All are illegal, and no matter how religious or un-religious someone is, most also hold the belief that things that are against the law are bad.Remember that they are worse also in the religious laws and it's not like a secular statute can define what's a worse sin. From a religious point of view, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not in the country you're in -- notwithstanding the general command to obey the law and be a good citizen.

Actually, I think the best evidence in the Old Testament against homosexual unioins is in Genesis. I mean who is this Leviticus guy anyway? Is he considered a prophet? I've never anything about his life other than something of what he wrote got into the Old Testament.

But Genesis on the other hand shows at least the intention of God that man and woman be together. Of course this brings forth another interesting question: How many people did God create directly, as opposed to people being born from two parents. As I remember, Adam and Eve had Kane and Abel. God then provided wives for them. Of course, with incest having always been viewed as bad, it seems like God would have had to continue to provide more people of a given sex for quite some time before a large enough population was established to avoid incest taboos.

At least you seem to have come around to admitting that homosexual sex is worse than pre-marital or extra-marital sex according to Christian dogma. It is yet to be seen if Gnarff will come around too.

I don't remember the exact passage about Kane and Abel and their wives, but I remember Saint Augustine said God's allowance for incest ended when it wasn't necessary for survival, i.e. when there were other options than the closest relatives.

At least you seem to have come around to admitting that homosexual sex is worse than pre-marital or extra-marital sex according to Christian dogma.It does seem so to me, although you will find clergy and theologians claiming otherwise. But having sex with someone you can't marry must be worse than having sex with someone you can. Of course, we could reduce homosexual sex to sex with someone you can't marry (like with an impediment), but it won't deal away with the act not being natural. It's possible that in certain cases of heterosexual and homosexual unmarried couples the sin is equally grave, but here we would have to delve into consent and knowledge and we can never be sure of those. Today's "affirmation" and "rights" make much room for ignorance and consent may also be affected. Still, I believe making homosexual and heterosexual sex without marriage equal is going too far. So you've got me there.

Or, to state it another way, non-marital heterosexual sex is one sin. Homosexual sex is the same sin but with the added sin that it is perverting the sex act.

Well said, Chevalier. Are you sure your native language is not English?

AFI: I believe that the reason that some Christian groups place Homosexuality among the worst of the sins would be because it's easier to draw a line between the good christians and the bad sinners. It is less likely for a married man to rally against Adultery when he's banging his secretary...

Once upon a time, a girl asked if there was no difference if she slept with her boyfriend or banged the whole football team and that's a question theologians had better answer.Actually it would be worse to do the whole team because there is a repetition of the offense.

Actually, I think the best evidence in the Old Testament against homosexual unioins is in Genesis. I mean who is this Leviticus guy anyway? Is he considered a prophet? I've never anything about his life other than something of what he wrote got into the Old Testament.The Book of Leviticus was the record of the Levites, who are decended from Aaron, brother of Moses. They were the ones who held the Priesthood, and ministered unto the people of Israel. Among their duties would be preaching of the laws and the prophecies of the Coming of the Messiah. The also officiated the ordinances of the Temple in those days.

Also, the point in Genesis does make Homosexual relations worse of a sin than pre or extra marital sexual relations. The difference is like the difference between decapitation and being drawn and quartered. Your dead after either one, but one hurts more...

It is less likely for a married man to rally against Adultery when he's banging his secretary... This might be the best explanation I've heard yet. No one likes to be wrong, or told that they have done wrong. However, homosexuality is something that you can bash without ever having the finger pointed at you (provided you aren't gay). I don't think anyone "becomes" gay. You either are or you aren't. So if you know you aren't gay, then you know you aren't ever going to commit a homosexual act, then you can bash this sin to your heart's content because you know you never will commit it yourself.

While adultery on the other hand, you never can be sure. Heck, you may even commit adultery unwittingly. (For example, say the boss wasn't married but his secretary was, but for whatever reason, he didn't know she was married. He would think he was having pre-marital sex, but he wouldn't know it was adultery.)

I also stand by my statement that the least grevious sin is premarital sex. Of course, I also think that might be because of what Gnarff just brought up - it's the only one I've ever committed (of pre-marital, adulterous and homosexual sex) so I try to justify it.

EDIT: I just got to thinking on this heirarchical order that seems to have been established, and I wonder if using the above example the boss would really have even committed adultery if he didn't know his secretary was married. I mean, he surely had the intent to do it, but he didn't have full knowledge. To me again, it seems like the worst is if you are already married and have sex with someone else. It is bad, but not as bad to the person who isn't married but knows the other person is married, and it is even less of an offense if the person doesn't know the