A topic for discussing what you see as the merits of, or lack thereof, or anything else related to religious prohibitions against homosexuality.

And from what I saw from the previous, I admonish everyone to keep their tempers under control.

[ October 02, 2006, 22:49: Message edited by: Beren ]

The common illustration of Jesus on the cross has him looking quite androgenous. Why not a burly Jesus?

I would really like for someone to explain to me the "sin" of homosexuality. Why would someone be condemend to eternal torment in the fiery pitts of hell by a all-loving God just because he loved a someone else of the same sex? (and don't give me that bull about it not being natural. If you're amish living in a shack with no electricity, I'll accept that argument. Otherwise, I won't).

The common illustration of Jesus on the cross has him looking quite androgenous. Why not a burly Jesus?Face paintings sometimes look as if the models had been female, but looks at late-mediaeval paintings of men in general. You will notice delicate, even female features. As for the cross, they make Jesus without much muscle, but that's not really androgynous. According to some verses in the NT (letters by apostles), Jesus might have been more of what you think. As He was a carpenter, I really doubt He wouldn't have had any muscle. Just think about someone who's been a carpenter all his life.

However, that's nothing to do with any perceived androgynous qualities or meaning or whatever. More like sculptors trying to give a perfect, noble look.

Why would someone be condemend to eternal torment in the fiery pitts of hell by a all-loving God just because he loved a someone else of the same sex?Because he felt something? No. Because he made the choice to have sex with that person? Possibly yes.

and don't give me that bull about it not being natural. If you're amish living in a shack with no electricity, I'll accept that argument. Otherwise, I won'tEh, you couldn't come up with some gay dolphins or whatever stuff people come up with, anyway. But there's always some difference between making your life easier by building up on what you've got, and going against the law of nature. I'll accept your argument if you have no problem with incest. BTW, incest should be natural because animals do that all the time.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. This debate starts and ends there, and anyone with sense and not living in the stone age will agree, so it's a non-starter this one ;) .

What sections of the bible claim that homosexuality is bad? (An honest inquirey by a curious mind - no evil intent)

Because he felt something? No. Because he made the choice to have sex with that person? Possibly yes. Well, sexuality is the extension and expression of love (or can be anyways). As long as they're consenting adults (so they have a rational choice to accept or refuse), why would God give a damn who you're sleeping with? And why would he punish you for loving another consenting same-sex adult?

Eh, you couldn't come up with some gay dolphins or whatever stuff people come up with, anyway. But there's always some difference between making your life easier by building up on what you've got, and going against the law of nature. Well, first of all, there is some unintentionnal homsexuality is animals. Who haven't seen two (male) dogs humping each other (now, is there penetration? I have no idea, but you get my point). But I agree they don't make the choice to have sex with the same gender. But that's just my point. They don't make choices. They act on instinct. We, as human beings, have an intellectual capacity greater than any animals. We have gained a self awareness. As such, we have used constructs to over come natural barriers (ex : Planes, guns (for protecion), pacemakers, etc.). Why would a construct to evade nature's barriers would be any different then having other uses for our bodies then nature intended. Some people can be attracted to others while excluding the gender. We can make that choice.

And for those who claim there will be world catastrophe because nobody will make babies, let me remind you of two things : Artificial insemination, or where a woman carries a gay couple's child. We would juste have to adapt society's concept to what it would then be.

I'll accept your argument if you have no problem with incest Well, I actually have no problem with incest. If they love each other (again, consenting adults), go ahead. The only thing is they can't have a child, because the purpose of banishing incest is for the sake of the babies. With each set of DNA, every child has , for example, the disease immunity of one family and the other. It makes strong children (health wise). With incest, it can result on hazardous health for the child...

Counterintuitive as it may be, there is some evidence that supports a genetic predisposition for homosexuality. It's a complex idea, one that goes beyond "survival of the fittest", but you can read Genome by Matt Ridley, or some other pop-science literature book, since Genome is rather old. Whatever the case, explaining it in my own words would be too length and unsatisfactory in content.


Also, regarding incest -- well, I can understand it, since we are instinctively repelled by it, it's not good for the general gene pool, and in a lot of cases incest is rape. Nonetheless, if you are going to put "natural-ness" into the argument, can we extend to non-sexual things? How about eating your feces? It's disgusting and unhealthy and no one is willing to do it -- but is the act, done willingly -- immoral? I am going to quote Betrand Russell here, and feel free to extend it to homosexuality or the like:

Suppose atomic bombs reduced the world population to one brother and one sister. Should they let the human race die out? I do not know the answer, but I do not think it can be in the affirmative merely on the ground that incest is wicked.

Rotku: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

I'd advise you to read the story of Sodom and Gommorah just to get some perspective on how much God hates homosexuality...

The passages (as requested by Rotku):

Leviticus 18:22 forbids same sex relations.

Deuteronomy 23:17 excludes those who commit such acts from the house of Israel and thus the promises of such covenents.

Isaiah 3:9 inferes that this was among the grave sins of Sodom and Gamorah.

Romans 1:27 condemned acting on the lust between two men.

In the Book of Corinthians, our bodies are likened unto the temple of God. 1 Cotinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 use words like abuse and defiling to describe the practice.

Jude 1:7 also condemns the practice.

I hope this helps.

A quote from the current pope that may help frame my current arguement:

When the Creator's divine plan is ignored, the truth of human nature is lost".

My religion teaches that we ought to seek to be like God, sharing in the joy of creation. We may have an eternity with one that we truly love and an endless posterity. To have that endless posterity, our chosen eternal companion must be of the opposite gender. We also need to be, to the best of our ability, obedient to the word of God.

Homosexual acts do not further this plan of hapiness, and can create misery...

Homosexual acts do not further this plan of hapiness, and can create misery...Is that misery being created before or after death?

@ Gnarff,

As I've contested in the past - some of the passages you mention aren't all that specific and thus are open to interpretation. Please post them verbatim - and not what you think they mean - or not at all.

Some of them are very clear and specific - denying that the Bible isn't against homosexuality isn't going to get you very far.

Let's take this from Leviticus 20:13:

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.Not much room for interpretation there...

[edit: Hmm - that isn't actually one that Gnarff posted ... oh well, serves the same purpose...]

Ok - Leviticus 11:9-12 states:
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.So if you or Gnarff have ever eaten a shrimp cocktail, you're going to hell. Catholics all over the world condemn their souls to hell on the fridays of every lent.

Not much room for interpretation there...right?

Either follow all of it, or none of it means anything. Part of the hypocracy of the faithful is that they pick and choose which condemnations to follow, and which to ignore. If you're going to selectively follow certain passages to justify your prejudice, then you better damn well camp outside of Red Lobster and try to convert all the sinners going in for the Sunday crab special.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexual acts do not further this plan of hapiness, and can create misery...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that misery being created before or after death?Both actually. Wickedness is not the path to happiness. A moment's pleasure can lead to a lifetime of pain. If the sins are not washed away by repentance, then the misery carries forth until you do.

@ Gnarff,

As I've contested in the past - some of the passages you mention aren't all that specific and thus are open to interpretation. Please post them verbatim - and not what you think they mean - or not at all.This was done merely to summarize the point. The actual references were provided for those that care to look them up. In past I've been criticized for making my posts too long. Now you want me to make one even longer?

So if you or Gnarff have ever eaten a shrimp cocktail, you're going to hell. Catholics all over the world condemn their souls to hell on the fridays of every lent.

Not much room for interpretation there...right?In parts of the Old Testament, the Scribes and Pharisees went overboard in their interpretation of the law. When Jesus Christ came, he set these laws straight. You don't hear forbiddance of shellfish in the New testament, but laws regarding sexual purity still stand.

haha i was going to quote roughly the same part as death rabbit except i was looking for the part where the Pig especially is mentioned, mainly because christians throughout europe and usa have eaten pigs all the time.

And honestly anyone who qoutes just part of the old testemony and say he believe anything written there is the truth got some sick ideas about women.

Laviticus chapter 15:

20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

LAviticus 11: And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.

So anyone having eaten a pig is Unclean and will thereby go to hell.

In parts of the Old Testament, the Scribes and Pharisees went overboard in their interpretation of the law. When Jesus Christ came, he set these laws straight. You don't hear forbiddance of shellfish in the New testament, but laws regarding sexual purity still stand.If this is the case, then...

A) Why did you even mention them above if the New Testament invalidates them?

B) Jesus himself never specifically condemns homosexuality, even though Paul attributes some remarks to him. How can you say this is "the word of God" when last time I checked, Paul isn't God?

Why did you even mention them above if the New Testament invalidates them?Those ones weren't invalidated. Laws regarding sexual purity still stand today.

Jesus himself never specifically condemns homosexuality, even though Paul attributes some remarks to him. How can you say this is "the word of God" when last time I checked, Paul isn't God?Paul was a prophet of God. His words carry the same weight as if from God himself.

Paul was a prophet of God. His words carry the same weight as if from God himself.I'm sorry, but no. He may be a prophet, but he's not God. He was a human being and as such, is capable of mistakes - including his own interpretation of God's wishes.

One thing all Christians can agree on is that there are two - and ONLY two - perfect beings: God and his son Jesus Christ. If it doesn't come from either of them, it's not the end-all be-all. Paul is condemning impure acts as he sees it. As he is a fallable human being, this part is open to interpretation. His personal prejudices and the standards of the time (healthy homosexual relationships were an utterly foreign concept to early Jews and Christians, as were inter-racial marriage, antiseptics, and a bunch of other things we take for granted today) should be taken into account in interpreting Paul's account.

I think I understand what Gnaff is trying to say. It works like passing new laws. If something is said in the old testament and Jesus has said the opposite then the most recent account is divine law...

However I wonder if Jesus invalidated the whole pig and non-finned aquatic food taboos...

@ Abom,
I think I understand what Gnaff is trying to say. It works like passing new laws. If something is said in the old testament and Jesus has said the opposite then the most recent account is divine law...That's fine. But nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus specifically mention Homosexuality, let alone condemn it. Not once. If this were such a terrible, grievous sin, don't you think he would have at least...ya know, brought it up?

Why bring it up if previous laws are satisfactory? The argument you can establish against homosexuality is if there is something said in the Old Testament that Jesus doesn't refute yet the Christian organised religions still don't follow the Old Testament version then why do the do the same for homosexuality?

Homosexual acts do not further this plan of hapiness, and can create misery... Let's say you're a man married to a woman. You have three beautiful children. You decide not to have anymore children (for monetary reasons or time reasons or just because you don't feel like it). You further the plan of God.

Now Let's say you're man married (or not, if same-sex marriage is illegal in your country) to a man. Your female friend agree to carry your child and give it birth. You have three beutiful children. You decide not to have anymore children (for monetary reasons or time reasons or just because you don't feel like it). You don't further the plan of God?

Both actually. Wickedness is not the path to happiness. A moment's pleasure can lead to a lifetime of pain. If the sins are not washed away by repentance, then the misery carries forth until you do. You seem to deny that homosexuals actually love each other. Homosexuality follows the same rules as heterosexuality in the sence that while there may be lustful relationships, gang bang, etc, there are loving relationships between two individuals. How can a homosexual relationship lead to a lifetime of pain whereas a heterosexuality relationship would not?

Well I'd say in that case the fact that the children will have two fathers and one mother yet the mother and father are not exactly in a proper relationship could be a problem.

However I imagine that they could work around it and nobody says mommy and daddy have to love each other in order to raise good kids.

Gnarff:

But Jesus himself says that nothing shall be removed from the Law - not even the smallest thing...

Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. I sense some inconsistancy in your thinking...

On the other hand, I sense inconsistancy in the Bible's thinking - but I'll do as (many) Christians do and only quote those parts which support my points for the given arguement :p You can bring up the contradictions of these statements if you like - but that doesn't really help you...

I would really like for someone to explain to me the "sin" of homosexuality. My hunch is that many religions are a man-made expression of our deepest animal instincts. Humans, like all other animals, are ultimately about reproduction. Deep, deep down in our DNA there is a compelling voice telling us "have sex!!!!" as this leads to procreation. If we didn't have it, we'd be extinct by now, what with all the things in this universe just waiting to wipe us out in the blink of an eye.

This instinct shows up in things like "Be fruitful and multiply" and in the condemnation of anything that goes against procreation, i.e. homosexuality and birth-control (and abortion). It is not surprising to see some folks react violently to such things in their zeal to stamp them out.

Just to drift from the traditional “the catholic church condemns homosexuality discussion”, how do others religions feel about the topic. I’d like to know how Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion, besides Judaism, Christianity and Islamism, feel about this question.

Out of curiosity: If all of the prophets were the harbingers of God's word and infallibe, how come what some of them said contradicted what others said? Does that create a paradox?

Clixby:

There is a special mechanism for dealing with such paradoxes - it's called 'doublethink'...

My hunch is that many religions are a man-made expression of our deepest animal instincts. Not even just the deepest instincts, either. I figure that whole shellfish thing was really just an "Ew! That looks gross!" reaction. Then, after people had tried it and discovered it was good, they repealed that law. Perhaps someday they'll repeal the law about homosexuality too...but I wouldn't hold my breath for it happening in my lifetime.

Hey Fel...in that case, is there a biblical passage condemning Rocky Mountain Oysters? Or any other foods clearly based on a dare? :p

Eh, you couldn't come up with some gay dolphins or whatever stuff people come up with, anyway.Not dolphins, I'm afraid, but a quick search got me
this. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)

Just before we get started on homosexual animals, what about incest among animals? Or rape? Also good because it actually happens? Or are things natural just because some animals do it?

natural != good. But, it does stamp down the claim that 'homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural'. Because it's not. (Either, IMO, but the second is less subjective.)

Homosexuality is "natural" not because animals do it, but because same sex interest most often emerges during early childhood for gays, just as opposite sex interest (schoolyard crushes and the like) emerges during early childhood for straights. Thus it's not a chosen perversion but a natural predeliction. I don't think that "because animals do it" should be the standard by which we judge any human activity. Animals also eat their own sh!t, devour their young, abandon the weak and a host of other traits commonly referred to as nature's cruelty.

I prefer not to bring what animals do into this discussion for 3 reasons. 1) Where animals have instinct alone, we have reason and free will to interpret our instincts. 2) It invites idiotic comparisons to beastiality and necrophelia. 3) It clouds the issue more than it already is.

So I humbly request we leave animals out of this, if nobody minds. Thanks in advance.

Homosexuality and religion will never mix.

Many organized religions consider it a sin and an abomination under God. Therefore people who practice homosexuality are lost children and their sins will condemn them to an afterlife in hell.

Homosexuals on the other hand are deeply offended by this attitude. For all of there wailing about tolerance and understanding they will give the religious people no peace. The homosexuals believe that what they are is genetic (or even God-given) and they must be accepted. They believe that the religious should change their beliefs to coincide with theirs.

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the homosexuals would just live there lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the homosexuals would just live there lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe. The problem here is that, they can't live their lives the way they want. After all, they are still struggling to achieve some basic rights, like the recognition of homosexual civil union.

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the homosexuals would just live there lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.Life would be a whole lot simpler if the religeous conservatives would just live their lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.

That's got to be one of the more small-minded statements I've ever seen from you, Snook.

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the homosexuals would just live there lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe. Well...I'm sure once they stop having to worry about being physically assaulted, exiled by their families and reviled by those whom claim authority (polititians, religious leaders and the elderly), they'll get right on with the enjoying of their lives...

...but until that time...there is a large amount of hostility in society which they must try to defeat or at the very least mitigate.

It's a great underdog story...how can you not be on the side of the homos?

I've said it once, and I'm sure I'll say it again: I'd be gay, but I haven't yet met a man who reminded me of my mother.

Regarding the divine outrage at homosexuality, I'm not sure its as simple as that.

This doesn't take in all homosexuals, but I know childhood abuse sometimes leads to homosexuality in adult life. My half brother was sexually abused by his father, and I suspect this is one of the reasons he became gay. That kind of thing can really scar somebody for life. But we're still brothers, and when I get mad at him, its for reasons other than his homosexuality. I have a hard time believing that God is gonna send such a person to fire and brimstone for eternity when something like that is in the background. Surely understanding and compassion must be qualities possessed by God? ;)

Now as for those who aren't homosexual for such reasons ... I'm inclined to think of monogamy between a man and a woman as the ideal, and that homosexuality represents a departure. I am monotheistic in my worldview, and the thought of getting with another man is absolutely revolting for myself personally. But when you get down to it, people could do far more harmful things than for two men to get together in privacy while nobody else is looking. And not having talked to God myself ;) I'm not going to get self-righteous about it and say "you're all damned". So I'm actually neutral or even undecided on how I think God would view such a thing. I guess I could take the easy way out and say "I just don't know". I do make a point of being and staying friends with people that I know are homosexual. I might personally disagree with how they're living, but hey, its their lives. I have no right to compel otherwise.

If down the road I had a child who turned out homosexual, I might feel disappointment initially. But that person would still be my child, and I think I would still do everything as a father to see that child happy and making it in the world.

Just before we get started on homosexual animals, what about incest among animals? Or rape? Also good because it actually happens? Or are things natural just because some animals do it? I agree with Death Rabbit that animals are not relevent, since we, the human beigns, have a greater intellect than any other. We have a right to choose. We have freedom. And that is precisly my point. Wether it's natural or not, it's a moot point. We have the intellectual power to overcome nature's barriers. What was intended by nature is no longer relevant in this day and age. And BTW, chev, what has rape got to do with anything? With homosexuality, we're talking about two consenting adults...

This doesn't take in all homosexuals, but I know childhood abuse sometimes leads to homosexuality in adult life. I know you said that not all homosexuals were abused as kids, but I don't see the correlation between abuse and homosexuality. Did you have a proof of some kind, or is it a supposition? (And there is no malice here, I'm not trying to argue with you. I really want to know if there is proof)

people could do far more harmful things than for two men to get together in privacy while nobody else is looking. While I appalaud you for your open-mindness, why would they have to be hidden? (Unless you're talking about sex... ;) ) To follow the same logic, wouldn't every couple (homo and hetero) would have to be in privacy while nobody else was looking to "get together", like kiss or makeout?

But when you get down to it, people could do far more harmful things than for two men to get together in privacy while nobody else is looking. Exactly. I don't think there's much more to say on the matter, really.

I'd advise you to read the story of Sodom and Gommorah just to get some perspective on how much God hates homosexuality... Tangentially -- I thought that the "real" reason of the destruction of Sodom was because of its denizens' inhospitality toward God's people? I don't really think that homosexuality -- just like in most religions -- is given that much emphasis (probably because it just wasn't an issue then).

Exactly. I don't think there's much more to say on the matter, really. I think there is. Why should homosexuality be hidden in a basement, locked behind a cellar door? Why do you care if you see two guys kissing in the street? Why is it different than seeing a girl you're absolutly not interested in kissing another guy?

And BTW, for those who think homosexuality is recent, it's not. Unless of course you consider greek and roman times recent of course, where homosexuality was widely reckonized.

I know you said that not all homosexuals were abused as kids, but I don't see the correlation between abuse and homosexuality. Did you have a proof of some kind, or is it a supposition? (And there is no malice here, I'm not trying to argue with you. I really want to know if there is proof) I won't be able to offer any scientific proof that you're asking for. I'm not a psychologist and I'm not qualified to assert that sort of thing clinically speaking. But I grew in the Native American community. Our communities are often touched by pervasive sexual abuse, often involving a young boy being manhandled by an older man. Sad but true. And the kids often end up getting screwed up really bad, and exhibits itself in behaviours that are not even remotely sexual (e.g. violence, suicide, substance abuse). Sometimes they've gone homosexual, and sometimes they go both sides of the fence.

I myself carry some scars going back to my heritage. For example, chances are I'll still go after somebody with closed fists if I'm addressed repeatedly with a racial ephithet. Lucky for me, sexual abuse was not one of those scars. But I know first hand that certain experiences are of such a magnitude that they can cause/encourage people to do things that seem 'immoral' by the standards of others. And sexual abuse I reckon is a sexual experience, and a scarring one, between two males and before one of them is ready for it. Maybe it won't be convincing for you. But I won't be dissuaded from the fact that I see cause and effect, and a pattern here.

While I appalaud you for your open-mindness, why would they have to be hidden? (Unless you're talking about sex... ;) ) To follow the same logic, wouldn't every couple (homo and hetero) would have to be in privacy while nobody else was looking to "get together", like kiss or makeout? I wasn't trying to make a distinction here. If you read my full post, I make a point of being friendly and courteous towards anybody who I know to be homosexual. At no point did I say that public kissing or holding hands qualifies that. ;)

Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the issue, and I think I've done that more or less. So ends my participation here, unless I need to flex my moderator muscles. :p

This doesn't take in all homosexuals, but I know childhood abuse sometimes leads to homosexuality in adult life. Abuse can lead to anything. I have a friend who was abused as a child and now he's a heterosexual doctor, I have another who was abused and she's a heterosexual archetect... So abuse can lead to becoming a doctor or archetect?

I'd say homosexuality stems from a combination of multiple events/experiences in a person's life rather than just "Bob had <this> happen to him so now he's gay."

To be quite honest nobody understands fully how homosexuality comes about. There is evidence of it being genetic but then there are those who have become homosexual in the later stages of their lives disproving that genetics is the only cause of homosexuality.

Sorry Beren, I misread your post. You said that people could do more harmful thing than for two men to get together in privacy while nobody else is looking. I thought you meant that two men together SHOULD be in private while nobody else is looking. Sorry, so much work, so little sleep... :coffee:

Tangentially -- I thought that the "real" reason of the destruction of Sodom was because of its denizens' inhospitality toward God's people? I don't really think that homosexuality -- just like in most religions -- is given that much emphasis (probably because it just wasn't an issue then).Hmm, I didn't get that impression - but I might read it again just to be sure...

*goes to read*

Hmm, still not getting that impression:

19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.Well if God sent them to destroy it they must have already had that intention in mind when they rocked up - before the people stated their intent to rape the angels...

Aha - just found this in the bit preceeding that:

18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.So yeah - God went down to see what the unrighteous (i.e. gay) people were up to, and when he found that they were - in fact - all raging homosexuals, blew the place up.

man, God's a self-righteous S.O.B, ain't he?

The problem here is that, they can't live their lives the way they want. After all, they are still struggling to achieve some basic rights, like the recognition of homosexual civil union. I totally disagree with this. Here in the states they have the exact same basic rights as everyone else. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. As to civil unions, they are not a basic right. But, even if they are, here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts we can do one better as we have homosexual marriage. For those desperate for the title of "civil union" I recommend Vermont as I believe they were the first in the union to have such a thing.

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the religeous conservatives would just live their lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.If I had to pick the crowd that causes the most trouble trying to inform/instruct it would without a doubt be the homosexuals. Have you ever heard of a "religious conservative pride" march/parade? I didn't think so.

That's got to be one of the more small-minded statements I've ever seen from you, Snook. Well you know what they say about opinions and *******s. Mrs. Snook always uses the same argument with me. Somehow, when my opinion doesn't agree with hers, I am wrong and a jerk.

Well...I'm sure once they stop having to worry about being physically assaulted, exiled by their families and reviled by those whom claim authority (polititians, religious leaders and the elderly), they'll get right on with the enjoying of their lives... Last time I checked being physically assaulted was a crime and it didn't seem to matter if you were gay or not.

There are just as many people who praise as revile homosexuals. We have many homosexual politicians here in Massachusetts. Religious leaders will never get along with homosexuals due to their conflicting standpoints. I was also never aware that the elderly were anti-homosexual. I always figured they had no idea what it meant.

The problem is that a lot of gays want more than equal rights, they want special rights. I find the Gay Pride parade to be as lame as the Orange March. Your gay? Who cares.

The Catholic Church and various Protestant sects used to give gays a hard time, but those days are long gone, so get over it!

Have you ever heard of a "religious conservative pride" march/parade? I didn't think so. Marches/parades are for oppressed minority groups, and 'religious conservatives' certainly don't qualify for that. But they do hold demonstrations just like everyone else.
There are just as many people who praise as revile homosexuals. We have many homosexual politicians here in Massachusetts. I'd hardly call the only state in the US to legalize gay marriage a good cross-section, but rather one end of the spectrum. I daresay your experiences are far from the norm.

The problem is that a lot of gays want more than equal rights, they want special rights. I find the Gay Pride parade to be as lame as the Orange March. Your gay? Who cares.

The Catholic Church and various Protestant sects used to give gays a hard time, but those days are long gone, so get over it! They still have no good democratic reason for preventing homosexuals from having civil-unions. They simply wish the ability to "marry" the person they love and be allowed to adopt children. Till they are granted the same rights as a regular heterosexual couple then I can't see them demanding more than equal rights.

As for the gay marches, almost every religious group is allowed to have marches whenever they want it and it's not limited to religion, religious groups are also allowed to go knocking from door to door trying to convert people to their ideals and that's far more 'in your face' than any gay activity to date.

They're proud of who they are, they're still being oppressed of not physically but by people denying them to be able to do things that are honestly none of the people who are denying's business - such as civil unions or adopting children. You might as well ban a particular sexual position...

Aikanaro --

Try this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish_views

(In the verses you quote I'm not seeing any direct reference to homosexuality anyway.)

Here in the states they have the exact same basic rights as everyone else. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. As to civil unions, they are not a basic right.Part of why the states and our laws are so great is because we as citizens have the power to lobby for the modification of those laws. If enough people agree with that arguement, the laws change. That's all gay couples are trying to do. Inter-racial marriages were illegal in most of the country half a century ago, but people take them for granted how. So will it (hopefully) be for gay civil unions. But, even if they are, here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts we can do one better as we have homosexual marriage. For those desperate for the title of "civil union" I recommend Vermont as I believe they were the first in the union to have such a thing.I will grant that your views are probably shaped very greatly by the fact that you are a conservative living in argueably the most liberal state in the union, and as such I know how obnoxious liberal activists can get. But part of the "small mindedness" of your earlier statement is attributed to the fact that the rest of us don't live in Massachusettes, and how you didn't seem to take that into account when saying gays are the most pain-in-the-ass group. In Texas, for example, you're about ten times more likely to see some idiot with a homemade "GOD HATES FAGS" poster than you are an idiot with a "WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER!" poster. Or that you seem to think ALL gays are like the jerk activists who are clearly annoying you, when they actually represent a small (if annoyingly vocal) minority.

The vast majority of gays simply want to get on with their lives and not be discriminated against. If they are in a permenant, committed relationship, they want the right to have that union legally recognised and enjoy similar spousal benefits under the law as straight married couples do. I wouldn't call that special treatment, I'd call that fair and equal treatment. You might too if you'd put yourself in their shoes for five minutes. Have you ever heard of a "religious conservative pride" march/parade? I didn't think so.
HA! Clearly, you don't spend much time in the south or in Utah.

You want conservative pride parades? How about 17 bible channels on cable? How about Pat Robertson and James Dobson and their (literally) millions of devotees? How about lawmakers like Rick Santorum trying to write biblical passages into the constitution and do away with separation of church and state, making us essentially a Christian theocracy? Dobson just had a "Focus on the Family" conference that was covered on C-SPAN, for god's sake.

EDIT - I realize that you're Jewish, Snook, and that those I listed above are Christians. But the point still stands that religious conservatives have NO trouble whatsoever getting their viewpoints heard by an enormous audience. That's hardly the case with gays.

There are conservative pride parades - figuratively and literally - all around in this country on a regular basis. Such expressions of religious conservative pride may not be common in Boston, but I assure you they're just hunky dory in most of the rest of the US. Start swinging a dead cat, you'll locate a few. Well you know what they say about opinions and *******s. Mrs. Snook always uses the same argument with me. Somehow, when my opinion doesn't agree with hers, I am wrong and a jerk.Awe, dry your eyes. I never said you were wrong and a jerk, and certainly not because I disagreed with you. I don't know your relationship (you brought it up), but maybe she gets mad at you not for your disagreement, but for you lack of empathy with those of opposite opinion. Has that occured to you?

If you honestly think that religious conservatives in the United States don't believe they're intitled to rewrite laws as they see fit so that everyone has to live according to their moral code - personal and religous values of others be damned - or that they aren't the ones most often shoving their own beliefs in everyone's face, then I urge you to spend a little more time among them, listen to them speak, and take a good hard look at the candidates Bush's "base" are supporting all over the country, not just in Massachusettes. Your apparant failure to look beyond your own borders is what made the above statement small-minded, not because it isn't true.

[ October 04, 2006, 00:17: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

The problem is that a lot of gays want more than equal rights, they want special rights. I find the Gay Pride parade to be as lame as the Orange March. Your gay? Who cares. Sure, there are annoying homosexuals just like there are annoying heterosexuals. But that in itself does not make homosexuality evil. Don't tar the quiet majority with the same brush as the vocal minority.

Actually, this means I agree with what Death Rabbit just said.

Man did this one ever take off when I missed a day…

I'm sorry, but no. He may be a prophet, but he's not God. He was a human being and as such, is capable of mistakesBut seeing as he was a prophet, and thus a servant of God, his letters to the ancient churches in Rome and Corinth DO count as the word of God.

But nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus specifically mention Homosexuality, let alone condemn it. Not once. If this were such a terrible, grievous sin, don't you think he would have at least...ya know, brought it up?To Jesus, Sin was personal, as is repentance. There were cases where he interjected on behalf of publicans and harlots, offering forgiveness if they would forsake their sins. To extend this, homosexuals can be forgiven is they will likewise forsake their sins.

Now Let's say you're man married (or not, if same-sex marriage is illegal in your country) to a man. Your female friend agree to carry your child and give it birth. You have three beutiful children. You decide not to have anymore children (for monetary reasons or time reasons or just because you don't feel like it). You don't further the plan of God?You don’t further the plan of God because your chosen companion must be of the opposite gender.

You seem to deny that homosexuals actually love each other.That is not the issue. The issue is that it is a sin. Sin does not provide lasting happiness.

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and the covenants made when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

If all of the prophets were the harbingers of God's word and infallibe, how come what some of them said contradicted what others said?Are these things truly contradictions? Are the differing things said really mutually exclusive? Until you can PROVE that these are mutually exclusive, then I’ll ignore that comment in the future. Besides, the Old and New Testament do not contradict on the topic of Homosexuality.

So I humbly request we leave animals out of this, if nobody minds. Thanks in advance.I actually agree with you on this one DR. I think that this discussion applies more to humans.

Many organized religions consider it a sin and an abomination under God. Therefore people who practice homosexuality are lost children and their sins will condemn them to an afterlife in hell.Forgiveness can be attained through repentance, but repentance required that the sin involved is forsaken.

Homosexuals on the other hand are deeply offended by this attitude. For all of there wailing about tolerance and understanding they will give the religious people no peace. The homosexuals believe that what they are is genetic (or even God-given) and they must be accepted. They believe that the religious should change their beliefs to coincide with theirs.But if Homosexuality is not genetic or God-given as they suggest, then their argument falls down. I think that Christian doctrine on the subject teaches that it is a temptation, which is the province of Satan.

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the homosexuals would just live there lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.Agreed, but I can’t get off that easily. For years, we, the Christians were satisfied with the status quo, and thus could mind our own business. Then, when some groups came forward to challenge society, advocating changes that we could not support, we had to speak in defense of our faith.

The problem here is that, they can't live their lives the way they want. After all, they are still struggling to achieve some basic rights, like the recognition of homosexual civil union.But what if the majority find such modifications offensive?

Life would be a whole lot simpler if the religeous conservatives would just live their lives the way they want to without having the need to inform/instruct the rest of us in what to believe.I agree, but not the way you want me to. It would be simpler if we all believed the same thing. But since that is not the case, we speak up to defend what we believe.

It's a great underdog story...how can you not be on the side of the homos?When the “homos” see fit to parade their sinful lives in our face and demand that we change our laws to accommodate their desires, it’s hard to be sympathetic. I don’t think it is just to hunt and kill them, but I don’t feel obliged to agree with their cause.

If down the road I had a child who turned out homosexual, I might feel disappointment initially. But that person would still be my child, and I think I would still do everything as a father to see that child happy and making it in the world.I understand that too. But in the case of my religion, we believe that people are happier when they get with God’s program.

I thought that the "real" reason of the destruction of Sodom was because of its denizens' inhospitality toward God's people? I don't really think that homosexuality -- just like in most religions -- is given that much emphasisJude 1:7 claims that among the sins of Sodom and Gamorrah was the Lustful pursuit of “Strange Flesh”, or in today’s language, gay sex.

I totally disagree with this. Here in the states they have the exact same basic rights as everyone else. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. As to civil unions, they are not a basic right.Thank you. I can go one further and say that there is a legal precedent supporting the traditional definition of marriage—polygamy. Polygamy remains a crime under US law, and every prosecution for polygamy is an affirmation of the traditional definition of marriage, specifically one man and one woman.

If I had to pick the crowd that causes the most trouble trying to inform/instruct it would without a doubt be the homosexuals. Have you ever heard of a "religious conservative pride" march/parade? I didn't think so.As a Mormon, I have attended such an event, but not specifically a “Mormon Pride” parade. Every year in Palmyra New York, the site of the Hill Cummorah the Church puts on a pageant depicting the events of the Book of Mormon. It’s actually a big production, attended by thousands every year. It’s not ridiculous like the Gay Pride festivities however…

Last time I checked being physically assaulted was a crime and it didn't seem to matter if you were gay or not.And as a Hate crime, it carries a lengthier sentence.

They still have no good democratic reason for preventing homosexuals from having civil-unions.In the US, approximately 51% of the people voted for a party that did not support this cause, some of the politicians in that party actually opposing that position. The people have spoken. Try again in 2008.

religious groups are also allowed to go knocking from door to door trying to convert people to their ideals and that's far more 'in your face' than any gay activity to date.But they aren’t trying to tell you that you don’t have the right to refuse their teachings. The Gay rights lobby wants not only these rights, but the power to stifle the opposition.

If I had to pick the crowd that causes the most trouble trying to inform/instruct it would without a doubt be the homosexuals. Have you ever heard of a "religious conservative pride" march/parade? I didn't think so.How about this: I've never seen homosexuals going around blowing up things which they don't agree with (say - maybe those conservative churches that are trying to marginalise them?) - but how about the conservative Christians who go around blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors?

I think that's causing a lot more trouble than the homosexuals offending your sensibilities while trying to get their point across...


Oaz: Hmm, the Bible says a few things on what the cause was actually (though I think that the Jewish view that you linked is being a bit revisionist - ignoring the bits that it doesn't like.

Just found this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/sodom.html

So - maybe a combination of things? Homosexuality certainly seems to be in there though as one of the factors leading to God wanting to blow everything up...

Aikanaro:

Maybe, but the general point I am trying to stress is that homosexuality probably didn't have a huge place in the Old Testament (or as I would guess, the New Testament, the Qu'ran...). No doubt the authors of the OT books were more concerned with their history (as it were), their religion vs. other religions (apostasy wasn't uncommon throughout Jewsish history), the authority and power of their God, etc., etc.

So I would guess that from at least the Jewish perspective, it is maybe more of an idea of God punishing the enemies of His people rather than just smiting guys who like ass.

(Interestingly enough, someone in class today mentioned that a term for homosexuality, at least in Western History, didn't really emerge until the dawn of the Renaissance. I think this is discounting stuff like the pederasty of the Greeks and Romans.)

Also -- regarding homosexuals being violent: well, keep in mind that the population of GLBT's is drastically less than conservative Christians. Also, you seem to be comparing people who make a lifestyle choice vs. people who are following certain tenets and beliefs. These two aren't the same things (although they are inextricably linked).

If you had a gay analgoue of Malcolm X, for example, you might see more forceful forms of protesting treatment of GLBT's -- but of course blacks in the US have had a much worse history of being marginalized. And you can't conclude that the actions of several conservative Christians set the bar for conservative Christians in general; I know plenty of such people who wouldn't physically/verbally abuse GLBT's (but it would probably be an issue for them when they vote). If you choose to think about abortionist killings and the like when you think about Christians -- well, how broad/applicable is that view?

[ October 04, 2006, 08:45: Message edited by: Oaz ]

Until you can PROVE that these are mutually exclusive, then I’ll ignore that comment in the future. "Go prove a negative" is becoming almost a refrain with you. :rolleyes:
But what if the majority find such modifications offensive? Then the majority are discriminating within their rights. Doing a wrong the right way, I suppose.
It would be simpler if we all believed the same thing. Before someone jumps on this, it's true. Of course, it would also be simpler if we were all one collective mind instead of individuals, or if there were no such thing as race, or short and tall, or anything else that distinguished us from another. Simpler doesn't always mean better...
Polygamy remains a crime under US law, and every prosecution for polygamy is an affirmation of the traditional definition of marriage, specifically one man and one woman. Not quite. Polygamy affirms only that marriage belongs to exactly two people...not that they have to be opposite genders. It doesn't have to be that narrow.
Every year in Palmyra New York, the site of the Hill Cummorah the Church puts on a pageant depicting the events of the Book of Mormon. It’s actually a big production, attended by thousands every year. It’s not ridiculous like the Gay Pride festivities however… :lol: Well, I can't say for myself, since I don't know the Book of Mormon, but depending on the events, some might say that your pageant is just as ridiculous (if not moreso) than a Gay Pride Parade. ;)
And as a Hate crime, it carries a lengthier sentence. Just to clarify, since you omitted it, you have to prove that they did it BECAUSE the victim was gay in order for it to be a hate crime.

Ok, let's see...

You don’t further the plan of God because your chosen companion must be of the opposite gender.You said : "To have that endless posterity, our chosen eternal companion must be of the opposite gender.". I explained to you why endless posterity and gay couples are not contracdictory. So now, explain to me why, then, the chosen companion must be of opposite gender to further the plan of God?

That is not the issue. The issue is that it is a sin. Sin does not provide lasting happiness. I beg to differ, but that is precisly the issue. You talked about how "a moment's pleasure can lead to a lifetime of pain. If the sins are not washed away by repentance, then the misery carries forth until you do.". But it's NOT a moment's pleasure. It's not lust. It's love. Yes, not all homosexuals love each other, but then not all heterosexuals love each other. The point is they love each other as much as anybody. Why would it not produce hapiness?

But if Homosexuality is not genetic or God-given as they suggest, then their argument falls down. I think that Christian doctrine on the subject teaches that it is a temptation, which is the province of Satan.Again, is true love and commitment to another person a temptation? At least science is trying to find out what exactly produces the inclination towards a gender against the other. What your saying is Christian doctrine decided (because it's different) that it's temptation.

For years, we, the Christians were satisfied with the status quo, and thus could mind our own business. Yes, you can mind your own business while intruding upon the business of others... :rolleyes: Really, why can't you truly mind your business and let others do as they please. They're not asking that you agree with what they do, but simply let them exerce they're life as any other citizen. (homosexuals couples, again, are two consenting adults)

But what if the majority find such modifications offensive?A little while ago (not that long ago actually), the vast majority found it offensive for black people to sit upfront in the bus. A little while ago, the vast majority found it offensive for women to vote. Where would we be if no ideological minority fought to be heard?

It would be simpler if we all believed the same thing.Again, it's not a question of belief, it's a question of respect and acceptance.

When the “homos” see fit to parade their sinful lives in our face and demand that we change our laws to accommodate their desires, it’s hard to be sympathetic.As I think it have been said several times, the gay parade is in no way a representation of teh gay community. I have many gay friends who have a deep contempt for that event. But in any case, seriously, if you are so offended by their actions, just turn around and look somewhere else, for pete's sake!

I can go one further and say that there is a legal precedent supporting the traditional definition of marriage—polygamy. Like Fel said, it is different with homosexuality, because like traditionnal marriages, only two constenting adults are implicated.

In the US, approximately 51% of the people voted for a party that did not support this cause, some of the politicians in that party actually opposing that position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said 51 % of the poeple voted for the republican party at the last elections. That's what you said? If so, well, it's what I call twisting numbers. A group voting for a particular party don't have the same opinions on all issues. Over in Canada, we have the Conservative party, which in a whole lot like the republican party. While the overhead policy is against homosexual marriages, the candidate in my town is not against homosexuality. In all parties, there's shades. I won't even start about contempt votes (someone who is voting for a party because the other party did something they didn't like) or ignorant votes (voting for something you don't know about). Instead, give me the pourcentage of people in the US who are against the homosexual marriage. Until then, refrain from using statistics.

But they aren’t trying to tell you that you don’t have the right to refuse their teachings. The Gay rights lobby wants not only these rights, but the power to stifle the opposition. Rights for homosexuals is not a teaching. They're fighting for same rights as heterosexuals. They're not trying to convert you. They want to be able to live their lives like any memebr of society.

In Plato's dialogue "Euthyphro", there is a discussion concerning whether "right" can be defined as "that which the gods command." Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?

Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.

If we take option (a), the God's commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless.

If we take option (b), then we will have to acknowledge a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will. We will have, in effect, given up the theological conception of right and wrong.

Therefore, we must either regarg God's commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong independent of his will, and give up the theological concept of right and wrong.

From a religious point of view, it is unacceptable to regard God's commands as arbitrary or to give up the goodness of God.

Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.

(to be continued...)

@Nataraja

LOL, that's a hell of a way to start posting on SP! :D

(oh, and I agree with you... :) )

We may conclude by returning to the dispute about homosexuality. If we consider the relevant reasons, what do we find? The most pertinent fact is that homosexuals are pursuing the only way of life that affords them a chance of happiness. Sex is a particularly strong urge - it isn't hard to understand why - and few people are able to fashion a happy life without satisfying their sexual needs. We should not, however, focus simply on sex. More than one gay writer has said that homosexuality is not about who you have sex with; it's about who you fall in love with. A good life, for gays and lesbians as well as for everyone else, may mean uniting with someone you love, with all that this involves. Moreover, individuals do not choose their sexual orientations; both homosexuals and heterosexuals find themselves to be what they are without having exercised any option in the matter. Thus to say that people should not express their homosexuality is, more often than not, to condemn them to unhappy lives.

If it could be shown that gays and lesbians pose some sort of threat to the rest of society, that would be a powerful argument for the other side. And in fact, people who share this view often have claimed as much. But when examined dispassionately, those claims have always turned out to have no factual basis. Apart from the nature of their sexual relationships, there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their moral characters or in their contributions to society. The idea that homosexuals are somehow sinister characters proves to be a myth similar to the myth that black people are lazy or that Jews are avaricious.

The case against homosexuality thus reduces to the familiar claim that it is "unnatural," or to the claim often made by religious conservatives that it is a threat to "family values." As for the first argument, it is hard to know what to make of it because the notion of "unnaturalness" is so vague. What exactly does it mean? There are at least three possible meanings.

First, "unnatural" might be taken as a statistical notion. In this sense, a human quality is unnatural if it is not shared by most people. Homosexuality would be unnatural in this sense, but so would left-handedness. Clearly, this is no reason to judge it bad. On the contrary, rare qualities are often good.

Second, the meaning of "unnatural" might be connected with the idea of a thing's 'purpose'. The parts of our bodies seem to serve particular purposes. The purpose of the eyes is to see, and the purpose of the heart is to pump blood. Simmilarly, the purpose of our genitals is procreation: Sex is for making babies. It may be argued, then, that gay sex is unnatural because it is a sexual activity that is divorced from its natural purpose.

This seems to express what many people have in mind when they object to homosexuality as being unnatural. However, if gay sex were condemned for this reason, a host of other sexual practices would also have to be condemned: masturbation, oral sex, and even sex by women after menopause. They would be just as "unnatural" (and, presumably, just as bad) as gay sex. But there is no reason to accept these conclusions, because this whole line of reasoning is faulty. It rests on the assumption that 'it is wrong to use parts of one's body for anything other than their natural purposes', and this is surely false. The "purpose" of of the eyes is to see; is it therefore wrong to use one's eyes for flirting or for giving a signal? Again, the "purpose" of the fingers may be grasping and poking; is it therefore wrong to snap one's fingers to keep time with music? Other examples come easily to mind. The idea that it is wrong to use things for any purpose other than their "natural" ones cannot be reasonably maintained, and so this version of the argument fails.

Third, because the word 'unnatural' has a sinister sound, it might be understood simply as a term of evaluation. Perhaps it means something like "contrary to what a person ought to be." But if that is what "unnatural" means, then to say that something is wrong because it is unnatural would be vacuous. It would be like saying thus-and-so is wrong because it is wrong. This sort of empty remark, of course, provides no reason for condemning anything.

The idea that homosexuality is unnatural, and that there is something wrong with this, has great intuitive appeal for many people. Nevertheless, it appears that this is an unsound argument. If no better understanding of "unnatural" can be found, this whole way of thinking will have to be rejected.

But what of the claim, often heard from religious fundamentalists, that homosexuality is contrary to "family values"? People like that often say that their condemnation of homosexuality is part of their general support of "the family," as is their condemnation of divorce, abortion, pornography, and adultery. But how, exactly, is homosexuality opposed to family values? The campaign for gay rights involves a whole host of proposals designed to make it easier for gays and lesbians to form families - there are demands for social recognition of same-sex marriages, for the right to adopt children, and so on. Gay and lesbian activists find it ironic that the proponents of family values wish to deny them precisely thse rights.

There is one other, specifically religious argument that must be mentioned, namely that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says "You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Some commentators have said that, contrary to appearances, the Bible is really not so harsh about homosexuality; and they explain how each relevant passage (there seem to be nine of them) should be understood. But suppose we concede that the Bible really does teach that homosexuality is an abomination. What may we infer from this? Sacred books have an honoured place in religious life, of course, but there are two problems with relying on the literal text for guidance. One problem is practical and the other is theoretical.

The practical problem is that sacred texts, especially ones composed a very long time ago, give us more than we bargin for. Not many people have actually read Leviticus, but if they did, they would find that in addition to prohibiting homosexuality, it gives lengthy instructions for treating leprosy, detailed requirements concerning burnt offerings, and an elaborate routine for dealing with women who are menstruating. There is a suprising number of rules about daughters of priests, including the notation that if a priest's daughter "plays the whore, " she shall be burned alive (21:9). Leviticus forbids eating fat (7:23), letting a woman into church until 42 days after giving birth (12:4-5), and seeing your uncle naked. The latter, incidentally, is also called an abomination (18:14, 26). It says that a beard must have square corners (19:27) and that we may purchase slaves from neighbouring states (25:44). There is much more, but this is enough to give the idea.

The problem is that you cannot conclude that homosexuality is an abomination simply because it says so in Leviticus unless you are willing to conclude, also, that these other instructions are moral requirements; and in the 21st century anyone who tried to live according to all those rules would go crazy. One might, of course, concede that the rules about menstruation, and so on, were peculiar to an ancient culture and that they are not binding on us today. That would be sensible. But if we say that, the door is open for saying the same thing about the rule against homosexuality.

In any case, nothing can be morally right or wrong 'simply' because an authority says so. If the precepts in a sacred text are not arbitrary, there must be some reason for them - we sould be able to as 'why' the Bible condemns homosexuality, and expect an answer. That answer will then give the real explanation of why it is wrong. This is the "theoretical" problem that I mentioned: In the logic of moral reasoning, the reference to the text drops out, and the reason behind the pronouncement (if any) takes its place.

But the main point here is not about homosexuality. The main point concerns the nature of moral thinking. Moral thinking and moral conduct are a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. But being guided by reason is very different from following one's own feelings. When we have strong feelings, we may be tempted to ignore reason and go with feelings. But in doing so, we would be opting out of moral thinking altogether. That is why, infocusing on attitudes and feelings, "Ethical Subjectivism" seems to be going in the wrong direction.

[ October 04, 2006, 11:33: Message edited by: Nataraja ]

See that people? We Kiwis aren't all farmer folks. Damn, Nat. That's some brilliant reasoning and I utterly applaud you for it. Welcome to Sorcerer's Place, and we're honestly going to enjoy having you here - do stay!

Very nice post, Nataraja :)
[Edit]Ah! Didn't notice you were a kiwi! I guess that explains the good post!

Two things I couldn't resist commenting on, from previous posts.
Have you ever heard of a "religious conservative pride" march/parade? I didn't think so.I had a sheet of paper given to me yesturday at the railway station. The cover is a nice purpleish colour, with the words "Specially for you!" written on it. I open it up (I love reading these things!) and the first thing it says is what great danger I'm in, and how if I make the right choice now, I could be saved much pain. Then it goes on to tell me that it is true, because God said it was true. (I like that statement, "When God makes a statement, you can afford to accept it, because He cannot lie" - this all powerful being cannot lie?).

It goes on for a bit, saying how much danger I am in as a sinner, and how everything in the Bible is true because He said it was so. It finishes up saying "Now you must make a decision. Will you accept Him or reject Him? Will you believe in Him or will you refuse Him? Will you bow humblying before Him or will you turn away in pride? If you accept the sinner's Saviour, then you will be surely saved".

So from reading that, I have a clear choice. Accept God or die a horrible death (or more live a horrible life after death, as the case may be). And yet, Snook, I hear you claiming that homosexuals "cause the most trouble trying to inform/instruct" people. I have never once had a homosexual tell me I'm going to live an eternity of tourment if I don't listen to what he's saying ;)

Are these things truly contradictions? Are the differing things said really mutually exclusive? Until you can PROVE that these are mutually exclusive, then I’ll ignore that comment in the future.Gnarfflinger, could I not say the same thing about the Bible? Until you can PROVE it is true, am I fully justified to ignore it?

yeah, Id like to see any arguments against it...

Im actually an Aussie, but have lived here most of my life...so eh...hehe

Awesome post Nataraja - I'm pretty sure that others (myself included) have made the same basic points about Leviticus - but thus far it doesn't seem to have had much effect. Maybe you'll have more success though - people might feel bad about ignoring such a long post :)

Oaz:

While it might be true that the authors of the Bible had more important things to worry about than homosexuality - homosexuality is still listed as one of the reasons for obliterating those cities. I'm getting the impression that liking ass makes one an enemy of God's people according to them...

And yeah - my comparisions probably do suck - but Snook was talking about the same crappy comparision basically - substitute 'picketing' for 'blowing up' and his question is still answered - I was just trying to make things more extreme to make the point that conservative Christians can be far worse than homosexuals in their activities.

And you can't conclude that the actions of several conservative Christians set the bar for conservative Christians in general; I know plenty of such people who wouldn't physically/verbally abuse GLBT's (but it would probably be an issue for them when they vote). If you choose to think about abortionist killings and the like when you think about Christians -- well, how broad/applicable is that view?That's exactly what he's doing to homosexuals.
I'm willing to bet that it's not very applicable at all - just like I'm willing to bet that the idea of homosexuals being depraved etc. is not very applicable at all...

what i find incredibly funny is that they (christians) claim that 'the law' was nailed to the cross...the law being all that 'jewish stuff'...which, suprise suprise, includes the law about homosexuality...

hmmm, so they cant follow basic laws such as dietry laws, or the jewish sabbath, or even more rudimentry laws such as the treatment of leprosy, mildew, mould and the like, yet cling to laws that suit them fine, disregarding those that do not suit them.

what they might not realise is that left-handedness is also looked down upon in the Bible. it is symbollic with wrongness, weakness, corruption...but...was it not one of the judges, Ehud i think, who saved Israel from the dreaded Moabites because he was left-handed?

btw, look that story up, its damn funny...basically, this big fat king was taking tribute from some tribes or something, so this left-handed guy - ie scorned and looked down upon guy - gets himself a metre long sword, sheaths it down his right leg, and goes off to visit this obese king. the guards for the king search the guys left leg for a sword, find none, so they let this lefty in. he whips out his sword and stabs the fatty so hard that his fat sucks the sword in and mr lefty cant get it out. the fatty kings servants just assume the kings taking a dump, so they ignore the throne room...

and an "abomination" saves the day!

woo...christian schooling really payed off

just to the sodoma/gomora, why does an all knowing god need to go and have a look to know? oh wait i forgot he dosn't get all-knowing untill the new testemony :p

One of the problems I have with christiannity lies in "freedom". The reason God created created man, as opposed to the other animals, is he wanted king of animals. He created Adam in his image and graced him with free-thinking (as opposed to the other animals). But... why would God give man imposed strict rules to follow, death and eternal torment as punishment if you do not. How can man be truly free in making choices, like homosexuality, if we're forced to follow God's rules. It doesn't make sense.

If God knows all, and has everything predestined, then free-will is rendered useless. Our 'free-will' would be nothing more than us following his pre-approved plan for this universe.

Therefore, for us to have free-will, God could not possibly know everything, such as the future. If he did we would be nothing more than puppets set up for his ammusement.

If, however, God did not know everything, then we could have what is considered free-will, the freedom to make our own choices regardless of any 'plan' for this universe.

Therefore, for Christianity to hold that we have free-will (the ability to choose our own future) and to hold that God has everything predestined, is nothing more than a simple paradox that can easily be summed up as:

"The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false."

The result is an infinite loop which explains nothing and does nothing other than confuse. Therefore, Christianity is a religion of confusion!

If Christianity wasn't confused, it would hold every single part of the Bible to be 100% relevant, or 100% irrelevant. There is no middle ground in Christianity. Its black and white, it does not allow for balance or moderation. As soon as one says "No, I don't wish to believe THAT part of the Bible", the door is wide open for every other belief to be casually thrown out.

Therefore you have to either accept that the Bible is 100% true and follow every single rule which is highly impractical and nearly always has no scientific basis in reality, OR, you have to accept that only portions are true and thereby follow only those rules you wish to follow.

If you can pick and choose which rules you follow and which ones you keep, then the whole system that the religion is based apon crumbles, the very foundation has been removed. Therefore the only way to keep a solid foundation is to either take it as being 100% literal, or nothing at all. There is no other way.

In conclusion, the rule against homosexuality is relevant IF every single other rule is relevant, OR, the rule against homosexuality is not relevant if you can just pick and choose which ones to keep and which ones to discard.

(kinda obvious im a philosophy student eh?)

Therefore you have to either accept that the Bible is 100% true and follow every single rule which is highly impractical and nearly always has no scientific basis in reality, OR, you have to accept that only portions are true and thereby follow only those rules you wish to follow.

If you can pick and choose which rules you follow and which ones you keep, then the whole system that the religion is based apon crumbles, the very foundation has been removed. Therefore the only way to keep a solid foundation is to either take it as being 100% literal, or nothing at all. There is no other way.

In conclusion, the rule against homosexuality is relevant IF every single other rule is relevant, OR, the rule against homosexuality is not relevant if you can just pick and choose which ones to keep and which ones to discard.Bingo. The only thing I would add here is that Christian doctrine is to meant as a quideline for living a clean fruitful life, not a 100% infallible ruleset that everyone must follow without error in order to be a good person in God's eyes. There are things which should be taken literally (such as the ten commandments, though shalt not kill, etc.) and that are obviously a story for which the moral is important, and not the literal translation (such as Adam & Eve). So I wouldn't say either take it 100% or nothing, I would say God gave you a brain (and with it, common sense)...use it.

I'm planning a more lengthy rebuttal to Gnarff's post above, but for now this is excellent. Welcome aboard, Nat. :wave:

[ October 04, 2006, 22:19: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

You're welcome, I'm glad to finally have gotten a reason to sign up since I'm on this site at least 10 times a day (total D&D fiend!).

This is nothing, really, I am yet to pull out the 'big guns.'

In the meantime, I dare anyone to form a rebuttal to any of my arguments.

Another New Zealander? And talking sense too? Who'd have thought New Zealand was such a hotbed of rational thinking?

In regards to the Bible not needing to be infallable, I point you towards a verse in one of the Timothy books that says something along the lines of "Every scripture is relevant and from God"...or something like that. I don't want to touch a Bible to quote it verbatim.

But, however, if it is the word of God as people claim it to be, then it must be relevant in its entirety.

And as for the 10 Commandments rubbish, I'm sorry to say that things don't work like that in real life. There are no black and whites in reality like that.

Take for example a classic argument that was (I think) used to prove to Immanuel Kant that one of his views was wrong...

If a stranger came to your door and asked you to hide them because a person was after them with the intention to kill, what would you do? You would hide the intended victim. Now, lets say the inquiring murder comes to your door and asks you if you have seen the intended victim. What would you do? You would say "No, I have not seen that person.", which is a lie. Therefore, in certain situations it is required for us to lie.

But, if we lie, then we break a 10 Commandment, and surely that is a sin against God just as much as homosexuality is. To God, according to Judaism and Christianity, every sin is equally 'sinful'.

Common sense ought to be the only rule we live by. Anti-homosexuality views are against common sense.

That's exactly what he's doing to homosexuals.
I'm willing to bet that it's not very applicable at all - just like I'm willing to bet that the idea of homosexuals being depraved etc. is not very applicable at all... Fair enough -- it's silly to demonize homosexuals as depraved/wicked/whatever, but it's also silly (IMO) to counter bad speech with more bad speech (or to just censor bad speech altogether). Why not use good speech for homosexuals instead of demonization of conservative Christians?

(kinda obvious im a philosophy student eh?)Haha, I figured that out when you brought in Plato... :p

Take for example a classic argument that was (I think) used to prove to Immanuel Kant that one of his views was wrong...It's funny. I have an ethics class and just last week, we were arguying over Kant's categorical imperative (is that it in english?), and that's precisely the argument we used. I am strongly against Kant's philosophy because I beleive that what determines if an action is moral is intentions and context (I am closer to Mill's utilitarism).

Just a thought, the bible was written and rewritten for many hundreds of years. Mistakes? Parts left out? Changed? I am a christian and a (worse to some) Baptist, still I believe all have a right to decide how they want to live even if I do not agree on what they do or say. Gays have the right to speak and live in any way that does not break the law without "demonization" and so do I! We can change the laws as a people and although I would vote for "one man one woman" as is my right gay people should have the same right. I also cannot see what is wrong with a partnership made lawfull by contract. I admire the thought in this thread , cannot people just let each other live in peace?!

[ October 05, 2006, 08:19: Message edited by: Old One ]

Not quite. Polygamy affirms only that marriage belongs to exactly two people...not that they have to be opposite genders. It doesn't have to be that narrow.But why change the definition of marriage for one group but not for another? Is that not contrary to the reason behind legal precedent?

You said : "To have that endless posterity, our chosen eternal companion must be of the opposite gender.". I explained to you why endless posterity and gay couples are not contracdictory. So now, explain to me why, then, the chosen companion must be of opposite gender to further the plan of God?Because after we are resurrected, our bodies are in perfect order. We then would be eligible to procreate. Two guys can’t procreate with each other.

What your saying is Christian doctrine decided (because it's different) that it's temptation.It is a temptation because it violates God’s divinely given law.

Really, why can't you truly mind your business and let others do as they please. They're not asking that you agree with what they do, but simply let them exerce they're life as any other citizen. (homosexuals couples, again, are two consenting adults)When they want to change the laws that we were satisfied with to something that offends us, we are obligated to stand for what we believe. In a democracy, I understood that the people rule, and when the people rule, they should have the right to define the society as they see fit. If that means not sustaining an objectionable practice, then so be it.

Again, it's not a question of belief, it's a question of respect and acceptance.So you would demand that we accept the unacceptable?

Like Fel said, it is different with homosexuality, because like traditionnal marriages, only two constenting adults are implicated.And as I have said, why change the definition for one group when you wouldn’t change the definition for another group. You religion haters accuse us of changing the rules as we go along, but when you WANT the rules changed, you try to do the same thing?

Over in Canada, we have the Conservative party, which in a whole lot like the republican party. While the overhead policy is against homosexual marriages, the candidate in my town is not against homosexuality. In all parties, there's shades. I won't even start about contempt votes (someone who is voting for a party because the other party did something they didn't like) or ignorant votes (voting for something you don't know about). Instead, give me the pourcentage of people in the US who are against the homosexual marriage. Until then, refrain from using statistics.How about this, in 10 states, there was something on the ballot about gay marriage. In all 10 states, it was defeated, meaning it failed to get 50% support.

Rights for homosexuals is not a teaching. They're fighting for same rights as heterosexuals. They're not trying to convert you. They want to be able to live their lives like any memebr of society.I was referring to the people that come door to door with religious information. These are teachings, which many people reject daily. The Gay Community wants to stifle any opposition to their cause…

Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them because they are right.I’ll take b. I’ll also put forth that God not only exists, but knows better than we do. These laws come forward from this superior knowledge.

Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted.But if God is all knowing and all good, then would not His laws reflect that good?

The most pertinent fact is that homosexuals are pursuing the only way of life that affords them a chance of happiness. Sex is a particularly strong urge - it isn't hard to understand why - and few people are able to fashion a happy life without satisfying their sexual needs. We should not, however, focus simply on sex. More than one gay writer has said that homosexuality is not about who you have sex with; it's about who you fall in love with.Can you differentiate between sexual attraction and actual love? If so that puts you above the majority any more. Look at the divorce rates. People think that they are in love all the time, but then they realize that this is not the case and dissolve the relationship…

Moreover, individuals do not choose their sexual orientations; both homosexuals and heterosexuals find themselves to be what they are without having exercised any option in the matter.Sexual attraction is at the very root, a temptation to engage in sexual relations contrary to the laws of God. It only becomes legitimized in the bonds of legal and lawful marriage. This means that fornication and adultery (even heterosexual) are abominations on the same page as homosexuality.

Thus to say that people should not express their homosexuality is, more often than not, to condemn them to unhappy lives.I, being unmarried, am commanded by my religion to abstain from sex until I am legally and lawfully married. What difference is there between asking an unmarried heterosexual to abstain from sex and asking a homosexual to abstain from sex?

Simmilarly, the purpose of our genitals is procreation: Sex is for making babies. It may be argued, then, that gay sex is unnatural because it is a sexual activity that is divorced from its natural purpose.

This seems to express what many people have in mind when they object to homosexuality as being unnatural. However, if gay sex were condemned for this reason, a host of other sexual practices would also have to be condemned: masturbation, oral sex,I believe that those practices are also condemned.

Leviticus 18:22 says "You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Some commentators have said that, contrary to appearances, the Bible is really not so harsh about homosexuality; and they explain how each relevant passage (there seem to be nine of them) should be understood.By what authority do they claim this. If they hold no religious authority, then they do not speak for cannon of any faith.

The practical problem is that sacred texts, especially ones composed a very long time ago, give us more than we bargin for. Not many people have actually read Leviticus, but if they did, they would find that in addition to prohibiting homosexuality, it gives lengthy instructions for treating leprosy, detailed requirements concerning burnt offerings, and an elaborate routine for dealing with women who are menstruating. There is a suprising number of rules about daughters of priests, including the notation that if a priest's daughter "plays the whore, " she shall be burned alive (21:9). Leviticus forbids eating fat (7:23), letting a woman into church until 42 days after giving birth (12:4-5), and seeing your uncle naked. The latter, incidentally, is also called an abomination (18:14, 26). It says that a beard must have square corners (19:27) and that we may purchase slaves from neighbouring states (25:44). There is much more, but this is enough to give the idea.Many of those laws were enacted by the scribes and Pharisees, in order to keep the people in line. Some others were designed to detail the ordinances and procedures of worship. When Jesus Christ came to earth, many of the stricter parts were fulfilled in the death of Christ. The difference is that the laws regarding sexual purity have been upheld in the new testament. Further more, Parts of Leviticus were historical. It reflected the history of those people.

The problem is that you cannot conclude that homosexuality is an abomination simply because it says so in Leviticus unless you are willing to conclude, also, that these other instructions are moral requirements; and in the 21st century anyone who tried to live according to all those rules would go crazyThe prohibition against Homosexuality has been upheld in sources other than Leviticus.

One of the problems I have with christiannity lies in "freedom". The reason God created created man, as opposed to the other animals, is he wanted king of animals. He created Adam in his image and graced him with free-thinking (as opposed to the other animals). But... why would God give man imposed strict rules to follow, death and eternal torment as punishment if you do not. How can man be truly free in making choices, like homosexuality, if we're forced to follow God's rules. It doesn't make sense.To whom much is given, much is expected. We are given intellects in hopes that we will learn not only to obey, but to understand why we do. Take a focus on the family as we have traditionally known. It has a mother and a father. It is the way God intended the family to function, and when we do things God’s way, things go a lot smoother. Challenging this causes unnecessary contention.

If God knows all, and has everything predestined, then free-will is rendered useless. Our 'free-will' would be nothing more than us following his pre-approved plan for this universe.

Therefore, for us to have free-will, God could not possibly know everything, such as the future. If he did we would be nothing more than puppets set up for his ammusement.But what if God is omniscient but not everything is predetermined? Then we retain our free will, and God knows all that currently happens and has the big picture view of the future. He knows that we will sin and has provided a way to extend mercy to us without robbing Justice.

The result is an infinite loop which explains nothing and does nothing other than confuse. Therefore, Christianity is a religion of confusion!How about this idea, instead of explaining God, obey His commandments. It is only after the trial of our faith that we gain the witness of the truthfulness therein.

In conclusion, the rule against homosexuality is relevant IF every single other rule is relevant, OR, the rule against homosexuality is not relevant if you can just pick and choose which ones to keep and which ones to discard.You are oversimplifying this. The bible must be carefully studied. Homosexuality falls under the heading of the big things, like adultery, theft, lying, murder…

The only thing I would add here is that Christian doctrine is to meant as a quideline for living a clean fruitful life,And that includes the prohibition on homosexuality.

I point you towards a verse in one of the Timothy books that says something along the lines of "Every scripture is relevant and from God"...or something like that. I don't want to touch a Bible to quote it verbatim.Then you probably have sufficient contempt for Christianity to believe that your views may be tainted towards the negative view of Christian beliefs. You have, however granted relevance to the epistles of Paul that were criticized earlier in this thread…

If a stranger came to your door and asked you to hide them because a person was after them with the intention to kill, what would you do? You would hide the intended victim.Of course, it is good to protect those in danger.

Now, lets say the inquiring murder comes to your door and asks you if you have seen the intended victim. What would you do? You would say "No, I have not seen that person.", which is a lie. Therefore, in certain situations it is required for us to lie.Not necessarily. You could simply refuse to co-operate with the would-be murderer. You have no obligation or good reason to further his agenda. You are within your rights to insist that the aggressive one leave.

Common sense ought to be the only rule we live by. Anti-homosexuality views are against common sense.Not necessarily. If we are taught that a proper marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to live a happy life, then it follows that homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations.

I am a christian and a (worse to some) Baptist, still I believe all have a right to decide how they want to live even if I do not agree on what they do or say.But when they put that life out in public, then they invite the judgement of those who they present themselves before. Their right to live as they choose does not make it morally right, and if they attempt to re-engineer society to their liking, then they can expect a negative reaction from those that are offended.

Ethics was fun for me, my lecturer was quite offended when I said Kant was stupid. I am a rationalist idealist existentialist, mostly interested in Spinoza, Descartes, Socrates...pretty much the mind/body problem, existence of God etc.

I believe in God, my bhakti is Shiva. My personal belief is that Hinduism supercedes everything else in the terms of its scope and magnitude of understanding, and its incredible simmilarity with scientific fact. However, fundamentalism of any sorts, regardless if it is religious or scientific or anything else, is harmful to the peaceful existence of all human kind.

If you deny the rights of a fellow human being, you might aswell go back to the thinking that 'primitive' people have no souls, or that African's have the curse of Ham. It's just ludicrous, and I'm tired and can't think enough to back it up in a proper argument...

Fair enough -- it's silly to demonize homosexuals as depraved/wicked/whatever, but it's also silly (IMO) to counter bad speech with more bad speech (or to just censor bad speech altogether). Why not use good speech for homosexuals instead of demonization of conservative Christians?Probably true - chances are that I was hoping for ironic effect or something or other at the time of writing - but this is the internet and such things get lost in translation pretty easily (no guarentee that this was actually what I was thinking mind you - it might just be what I hope I was thinking :) )

How about this idea, instead of explaining God, obey His commandments. It is only after the trial of our faith that we gain the witness of the truthfulness therein.*throws up*

I find that kind of thinking to be really braindead. Answer me this - why would I feel inclined to obey these commandments if I don't believe that this God exists? The only way that I could be convinced that this God exists is if some credible evidence was presented for it - which might then lead me to want to obey the commandments (not likely - seeing that I find many of the commands of your God to be abhorent).

Following a set of beliefs that doesn't make sense to me doesn't sound appealing - does it to you?

Because after we are resurrected, our bodies are in perfect order. We then would be eligible to procreate. Two guys can’t procreate with each other.What's the point in procreating after resurrection?
You religion haters accuse us of changing the rules as we go along, but when you WANT the rules changed, you try to do the same thing?I would have thought that the divine word of God and legal procedures defined by people wouldn't be on the same scope as per whether they can be changed by the people.
Parts of Leviticus were historical. It reflected the history of those people.How exactly do you make the distinction?

I was referring to the people that come door to door with religious information. These are teachings, which many people reject daily. The Gay Community wants to stifle any opposition to their cause…:rolleyes:
That is amazing. Simply amazing. I would be willing to stake all of what I own on a bet that if your religion was banned (or made you a second class citizen) in your country, you would try to give yourself equal rights as well.

And as I have said, why change the definition for one group when you wouldn’t change the definition for another group. You religion haters accuse us of changing the rules as we go along, but when you WANT the rules changed, you try to do the same thing?Religion haters? Slightly strong terms there.
We'll be envoking Godwin's Law very shortly, at this rate ;)

There is a clear difference between changing written laws and changing something that is claimed to be god given. I am sure you would agree that the only way the latter could be changed is by god himself, or someone speaking for him. Now, compare this to a law, which is designed with the ability to be changed by humans through legal means. I hope you can see the difference there.

How about this idea, instead of explaining God, obey His commandments. It is only after the trial of our faith that we gain the witness of the truthfulness therein.Could not the same be applied to any of the arguments that have been used against you, as well? This is a copout argument.

i wonder if gnarff roughly 100 years ago would qoute the bible when women demanded equel rights and the right to wote?
I meen the bible tells us women are inferior to men, and it was not before 1912 that women got the right to vote.
the bible also tells us that certain people forever should be used as slaves. in fact the bible has nothing against people using slaves.

face it the bible is writen of men of it time and on many parts it can not be used in our time. in my world it clearly shows its not divine, allthough some of it messages are good. and i have nothing against people who believe in it. as long as they dont try to force does believes on me or anybody else. Especially not the outdated ones.

i wonder if gnarff roughly 100 years ago would qoute the bible when women demanded equel rights and the right to wote? Hey - now that's a very good point. The inferiority of females is supported in the New Testament also - so it must still be valid according to Gnarff's reasoning on homosexuality and why it still is...

Aikanaro & Equester:
Could you please specify where the New Testament says women are inferior? I've read through it several times and I haven't noticed that anywhere. As for 'out of date' messages, you're supposed to read things in context, they make more sense then. Paul's letters to the Corinthians are all out of date as the problems the churches in Corinth are experiencing now are probably very different, but if you know what the Corinthians were dealing with at the time, you can apply Paul's advice to your own similar problems. Context, that's all it takes.

NOG can you point out to me where in the new testemony god, jesus or a prophet of some credibility says that women are no longer inferior to men?
cause if you cant i must asume, just like in the case of homosexuals that the old testemony still applies here.
the same goes for slavery.

if you on the other hand cant find a single place in the new testemony where gods rules about slaves and women being inferior is lifted and still says that clearly we cant have slave or call women inferior, even though the bible tells us to.
you must explain to me why the same dosn't apply to homosexuals.
If you cant do any of this, your religion and believe is build on hyprocazy, not mine.
and i must again stress you dont need to go more then 200years back to ind the churche sanctionen slavery and no more then 100years back to the church finding women inferior to men. Even today and woman cant raise as high in the clergery as a man in the catholic faith.

and regarding context, as soon as you start reading in context you are in the nature of it making up your own rules and conclutions and by that almost anything can pass as a sin or as justifieble, its then in the eye of the beholder.

The OT doesn't say women are inferior to men, unless you're talking about the Catholic Bible, in which case women are the root of all evil :rolleyes: . The Bible does say that women are weaker (in a physical endurance sense) and that they should be respected and protected, but if anything it raises women on a pedestal above men. In the Old Testament, in Israel, women could work, in fact most of them participated in earning money for the family somehow, they faced the same punishments under the law, in fact, Proverbs even says that the woman of good character takes her husband's money during the day and trades with it, making a profit off it, or invests it in good ventures, making a profit off it. Now how does that say that women are inferior to men?

the bible and there is no such thing as a specific catholic bible quite clearly states that women are inferior and shall be the servants of man for all eternety after Eva have offered the forbidden fruit to adam.
and you fail to produce any links and take into account the rest of my post

Ok, back to the topic...homosexuality, which is basically "morality depends on religon."

In the major theistic traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is conceived as a lawgiver who has laid down rules that we are to obey. He does not compel us to obey them. We were created as free agents, so we may choose to accept or to reject his commandments. But if we are to live as we should live, we must follow God's laws. This conception has been elaborated by some theologians into a theory about the nature of right and wrong known as the Divine Command Theory. Essentially, this theory says that "morally right" means "commanded by God", and "morally wrong" means "forbidden by God."

This theory has a number of attractive features. it immediately solves the old problem about the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is right if God commands it, wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command Theory suggests an answer to the perennial question of why anyone should bother with morality. Why not forget about "ethics" and just look out for oneself? If immorality is the violation of God's commandments, there is an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems for the theory. Of course, atheists would not accept it, because they do not believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for believers. The main problem was first noted by Plato, the Greek philosopher who lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus.

Plato's writings were in the form of dialogues, usually between Socrates and one of more interlocutors. In one of thse dialogues, the 'Euphythro', there is a discussion concerning whether "right" can be defined as "that which the gods command." Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? This is one of the most famous questions in the history of philosophy. The British philosopher Antony Flew suggests that "one good test of a person's aptitude for philosophy is to discover whether he can grasp its force and point."

The point is that if we accept the theological conception of right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma. Socrates's question asks us to clarify what we mean. There are two things we might mean, and both lead to trouble.

First, we might mean that 'right conduct is right because God commands it.' For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor bad. It is God's command that 'makes' truthfulness right.

But this leads to trouble, for it represents God's commands as arbitrary. It means that God could have given different commandments just as easily. He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, not truthfulness, would be right. (You may be tempted to reply: "But God would never command us to lie." But why not? If he endorsed lying, God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because hsi command would make it right.) Remember that on this view, honesty was not right before God commanded it. Therefore, he could have had no more reason to command it than its opposite; and so, from a moral point of view, his command is arbitrary.

Another problem is that, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced to nonsense. It is important to religious believers that God is not only all-powerful and all-knowing, but that he is also good; yet if we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to Go'ds will, this notion is deprived of any meaning. If "X is good" means "X is commanded by God," then "God's commands are good" would mean only "God's commands are commanded by God", an empty truism.

In 1686, Leibinz observed in his 'Discourse on Metaphysics':

"So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he could be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?"

Thus if we choose the first of Socrates's two options, we seem to be stuck with consequences that even the most religious people would find unacceptable.

There is a way to avoid these troublesom consequences. We can take the second of Socrates's options. We need not say that right conduct is right because God commands it. Instead, we may say that God commands us to do certain things 'because they are right.' God, who is infintely wise, realizes that truthfulness is better than deceitfulness, and so he commands us to be truthful; he sees killing is wrong, and so he commands us not to kill; and so on for all the moral rules.

If we take this option, we avoid the troublesome consequences that spoiled the first alternative. God's commands are not arbitrary; they are the result of his wisdom in knowing what is best. And the doctrine of the goodness of God is preserved: To say that his commands are good means that he commands only what, in perfect wisdom, he sees to be best.

Unfortunately, however, this second option leads to a different problem, which is equally troublesome. In taking this option, we have abandoned the theological conception of right and wrong - when we say that God commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we are acknowledging a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will. The rightness exists prior to and independent of God's command, and it is the reason for the command. Thus, if we want to know why we should be truthful, the reply "Because God commands it" does not really tell us, for we may still ask "But why does God command it?" and the answer to 'that' question will provide the underlying reason why truthfulness is a good thing.

Many religious people believe that they must accept a theological conception of right and wrong because it would be impious not to do so. They feel, somehow, that if they believe in God, they should say that right and wrong are to be de