Gays and Homophobia

[Andrew Bohan]

You forgot The Village People

In the navy, yes you can sail the seven seas...

Hmm?

What of Jesus' teachings that you follow condemn Homosexuality? Do you base your opinion solely on your religion?

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

It was a joke. Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. Also with romans wasn't it written like an epilogue? Like the letters written after the times of jesus? Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Now this is a much meatier topic. For the sake of argument, why would you 'fucking kill' a zoopheliac? It may not be something you want to do, but I don't exactly think it obviously a crime punishable by death. Same is true for most of the other things you listed.

To be fair, pedophilia (including most of the lolicon stuff), rape, guro, and debatably necrophilia all almost certainly qualify for the death penality. Pedophilia because it's gross abuse of children, rape because it's, well, rape, and guro because at the end of the day one or both parties are going to be missing some probably vital body parts. Necrophilia is pretty much the most extreme way to disrespect the dead, and while I'm not sure that qualifies for execution, it's pretty damn disturbing and I'd definitely punch someone I caught doing it.

Bestiality is just gross. Not really worthy of death, but definitely disturbing on a number of levels.

I guess the point I am making though is that they are pretty much just sexual preferences along a different access. Is someone who, for example, fantasizes about Rape or Guro just as guilty as someone who rapes, or dismembers a loved one? Even BDSM has its practicers, and that can involve some amount of CONSENSUAL VIOLENCE which while weird to me, seems rather fair and in bounds. As gamers, we very much know the difference between pretending, or imagining doing something, and actually doing it, don't we?

 

[Agayek]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

My religion is why I am against homosexual acts, yes. Man was meant to be with woman. Simple as that. To go further, ONE man and ONE woman. I am against polygamy, too.

I'm not going to get into an argument over this, feel free to dismiss it entirely as you almost surely will, but I can't stop myself from pointing out one thing:

You are letting a book written at least 2,000 years ago make your decisions for you. Whether or not that's a bad thing remains to be seen, but I can say that it's an abandonment of free will (you know, that thing YHWH granted humanity to raise us above beasts). If you're against gays, that's your right and all the more power to you. Just make that choice yourself.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Now this is a much meatier topic. For the sake of argument, why would you 'fucking kill' a zoopheliac? It may not be something you want to do, but I don't exactly think it obviously a crime punishable by death. Same is true for most of the other things you listed.

It is, isn't it? I didn't mean all of them, more just the pedophile, rapist and possibly the necrophile.

I don't really give a shit about crime. If one of my friends was raped, I'd probably kill the bastard. Depends on a lot, details make everything, but I think I have the capacity.

But you're right, that topic would be much more interesting. Loli/guro/scats don't bother me, as there aren't usually real people involved, and if there are, it's voluntary. Beastiality/zoophelia is just plain wrong.

Yeah, they are... rather icky to talk about too much I admit. But if you could arrange for the zoophelia to not be harmful to the animal, I'm not sure I would classify it as inherently evil or anything.

I disagree with your vigilante opinion on Rape, but I at the very least completely understand the emotions that would motivate you to that opinion. Also, it hasn't happened to anyone I know... I might have a sudden change of heart if one of my loved ones was violated in that manner.

 

[Agayek]

I guess the point I am making though is that they are pretty much just sexual preferences along a different access. Is someone who, for example, fantasizes about Rape or Guro just as guilty as someone who rapes, or dismembers a loved one? Even BDSM has its practicers, and that can involve some amount of CONSENSUAL VIOLENCE which while weird to me, seems rather fair and in bounds. As gamers, we very much know the difference between pretending, or imagining doing something, and actually doing it, don't we?

Someone who fantasizes about it isn't guilty of anything. I never meant to imply that people with fantasies of those fetishes deserved death. All I was saying is that the act (for the sake of clarity, I'm assuming non-consenting partners, any act between consenting adults that doesn't harm anyone else is perfectly acceptable) implied by them warrants an execution.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I really couldn't care less about gay people/marriages. But, when they start complaining over a name and social security benefits, then it starts to annoy me. Let me put it in context. I'm from California, yet I voted to for that gay marriage ban. Why? Because they already have something in California that is almost exactly the same as marriage. It's called a civil union, and the only differences between marriage and civil union (besides the names) is that marriage gets you social security benefits and is recognized most, if not all, religions.

But why can't Gays have the exact same as Straight couples, why do you believe there should be any discrepancy?

My strong catholic upbringing tells me it's wrong. But really I don't care. As I said, my biggest complaint is when they complain. I believe in a strictly "Don't ask, Don't Tell" ideology and it works pretty well. Don't even get me started on how that San Francisco judge banning it is fucking up our military...

 

[Zechnophobe]

I guess the point I am making though is that they are pretty much just sexual preferences along a different access. Is someone who, for example, fantasizes about Rape or Guro just as guilty as someone who rapes, or dismembers a loved one? Even BDSM has its practicers, and that can involve some amount of CONSENSUAL VIOLENCE which while weird to me, seems rather fair and in bounds. As gamers, we very much know the difference between pretending, or imagining doing something, and actually doing it, don't we?

Someone who fantasizes about it isn't guilty of anything. I never meant to imply that people with fantasies of those fetishes deserved death. All I was saying is that the act (for the sake of clarity, I'm assuming non-consenting partners, any act between consenting adults that doesn't harm anyone else is perfectly acceptable) implied by them warrants an execution.

I think we are on the same page then. I wasn't really sure if you were assuming consent or not, but I do know people who strongly feel that the idea of being aroused by certain things is wrong. Which always seemed rather a self centered approach to sexuality.

 

[zen5887]

Joe Rogan can say more than I can

 

[Agayek]

Still, time means nothing. People will always look for others to guide them. We're humans, it's what we do. I don't think CHOOSING to follow the Bible is an abandonment of free will any more than choosing to follow the law is. Keep in mind that he's choosing to believe the Bible through his own free will.

First: Society, science and even religion has evolved a hell of a lot over the last couple of millennia. Laws become less and less relevant the more the society meant to employ them changes, which is why every (mostly) successful legal system on the planet has the means to amend and update their laws.

Second: While it's true that it's an act of choice to follow the Bible, using it as your entire reason for anything is a cop-out. If your reason is "God said so", you have clearly exerted absolutely no effort to reach a decision, and have abandoned all logic. Therefore, it is a safe and valid conclusion that you're doing it wrong.

 

[Mad World]

It was a joke. Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. Also with romans wasn't it written like an epilogue? Like the letters written after the times of jesus? Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

I figured it was a joke; just was making sure.

Anyway, I really don't think that the possibilities you listed are what the scripture is describing. It said that women felt lust for one another, so, yeah... seems kind of obvious to me.

You really don't think that it meant that? I'm not being rude or anything; I'm merely wondering.

I'm not going to get into an argument over this, feel free to dismiss it entirely as you almost surely will, but I can't stop myself from pointing out one thing:

You are letting a book written at least 2,000 years ago make your decisions for you. Whether or not that's a bad thing remains to be seen, but I can say that it's an abandonment of free will (you know, that thing YHWH granted humanity to raise us above beasts). If you're against gays, that's your right and all the more power to you. Just make that choice yourself.

I'm following a book which is the Word of God. It was written by men, but it was inspired by God, a being who still exists (and always has and will). A being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

You may not believe this, but understand why I consider the Bible to be infinitely more than just "a book written a long time ago."

Yes - we have freewill. And I am exercising mine by choosing to follow God's Word. I am not being forced.

 

[Sacman]

I'm strongly against gay acts because they go against Jesus.

I don't hate gays. I love them - just the same as I love any other person. However, I am against gay acts, such as marriage.

You forgot The Village People

In the navy, yes you can sail the seven seas...

In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy
...*clears throat*...

Come on he's leaving out the good parts... like where God instructs a man to murder his enemies and take his virgin daughters... or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

 

[Kimarous]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

 

[Gigaguy64]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

 

[Sacman]

or the part where Adam's first wife is turned into a demon for wanting to be on top during sex...<.<

Just taking this for a sec.
You do realize that Lilith does not Exist right?
She is just a Jewish Legend.

Yeah... but you can say the same thing about the entire Old Testament...
besides she was included in several different variations and was used by the Church to explain crib deaths up until the about the 1600's...<.<

 

[Andrew Bohan]

It was a joke. Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. Also with romans wasn't it written like an epilogue? Like the letters written after the times of jesus? Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

I figured it was a joke; just was making sure.

Anyway, I really don't think that the possibilities you listed are what the scripture is describing. It said that women felt lust for one another, so, yeah... seems kind of obvious to me.

You really don't think that it meant that? I'm not being rude or anything; I'm merely wondering.

I'm not going to get into an argument over this, feel free to dismiss it entirely as you almost surely will, but I can't stop myself from pointing out one thing:

You are letting a book written at least 2,000 years ago make your decisions for you. Whether or not that's a bad thing remains to be seen, but I can say that it's an abandonment of free will (you know, that thing YHWH granted humanity to raise us above beasts). If you're against gays, that's your right and all the more power to you. Just make that choice yourself.

I'm following a book which is the Word of God. It was written by men, but it was inspired by God, a being who still exists (and always has and will). A being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

You may not believe this, but understand why I consider the Bible to be infinitely more than just "a book written a long time ago."

Yes - we have freewill. And I am exercising mine by choosing to follow God's Word. I am not being forced.

It was just a possibility that came to mind reading the bit about men. Also. Lust is one of the deadly sins, it doesn't necessarily mean it was two women. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Iunno. I've heard outrageous twistings of the same text for years as a lapsed catholic who now identifies as an agnostic. Some parts of it are so broad they can mean about anything. The bible also mentions shit about incest being fine. I just don't see why certain bits are maintained over others myself. What I see there is to my mind more of a fetish issue than a gender one, but that's one interpretation. It says they abandoned their natural sexual relations, it doesn't say explicitly how and doesn't DIRECTLY say that it was in their turning to their own gender they wronged god. You could infer that meaning from it, yeah, but it's broad enough to mean either to me.

 

[Andrew Bohan]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

That's one sexual act in a whole city. You take a crossection of your city alot of shit will go on. It doesn't mean it was purely homosexuality that Sodom & Gomorrah were said to have been destroyed for.

Genesis also tells us the world's only about 3000 or so years old. Just saying.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

While it's not my post you quoted, I would like to say that I'm not a fan of homosexuality either. I like plenty of homosexual people but the act of homosexual sex is something I'm not a fan of. I wouldn't do it and don't want to see it, and thinking about it puts me off a little.
Does that make sence?

Now, I don't share Kimarous' view but I did share his lack of support for the gay community. I've always had gay friends (I just didn't always know they were gay) but I always felt that marriage was something that men and women do and that gay couples didn't need it, then earlier this year I realised that even though I may not necissarily want gay people to get married, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.
And since then I realised how much of a douche I was being, now I fully support gay marriage along with gay rights in general (as far as I'm aware the only discrepancy in my country is marriage and adoption laws.)

I think you'll find plenty of people who support gay rights think this too, they just don't say it because it can often be misinterpreted.

StBishop, what about homosexuality puts you off? Is it the idea of a same-sex relationship or intercourse and, if intercourse, is it only man-to-man, femal-to-female or both? And why did you feel that same-sex couples shouldn't marry?

I suppose I worded that wrong, I'm not put off by homosexuality, it's fine, I mean seeing people of the same sex staring lovingly into each others eyes, it's not off-putting as much as strange, like seeing a fish with legs walking on land.
I don't think it's bad, it's just so alien that I'm a little uncomfortable.

Where as homosexual couples kissing I'm fine with.

Now onto the same sex intercourse. I don't find lesbian sex offputting because I don't see it as sex. Does that make sence? I know it is sex to them, and probably everyone else in the world, but there's no penetration by genitalia, maybe that's why.
But if we took, say lesbian porn, I wouldn't be put off by that, nor would I be put off by gay (as in male only) porn. Because it's porn. Which is weird I know.

It's homosexual love-making that I don't really like (not dislike, just don't like) and I think it's that same, alien feeling.

Also, I think it's because if someone talks about say, oral sex, I think of what it would be like, and I don't really like the idea of performing oral sex on a dude. Same with if people talk about vasectomies, I feel like someone's talking about doing it to me, not plesant.

I don't really know why I was against same sex marriage. Maybe because I was afraid of change?
I can't explain it, and am a little embarrased of the fact that I was actually against it.
Perhaps it has to do with me wanting marrage to remain the way I saw it as a child?
My view of marriage was shaken alot by the circumstances of my parent's break up, and I feel like my mother's subsiqunet re-marriage is immoral and I was, and still am, very angry that she was married in a church, the state marriage didn't offend me but the fact that a preist sanctioned it is a pretty slanderous act in my mind.
Maybe that had a hand. Who knows?

Have I answered all of your questions?

EDIT: Having thought more about it, I remebered the realisation I had about 3 years ago that homosexuality isn't just, "Being attracted sexually to the same gender" it's "Being attracted to sexually and falling in love with the same gender."

I found that a shocking realisation and perhaps as I've only realised it pretty recently it's taking me longer to get use to it. I mean, I've always known that people can be attracted to the same sex, It was explained to me at the same time as the birds and the bees at about age 4 or 5 when my mum became pregnant with my sister.

The first time I saw two guys say "I love you" in a non-platonic way was at age 17 and it spun my head. I hadn't really thought about homosexuality all that much and it just hadn't occured to me.

Perhaps that's why I'm put off by same sex lovemaking.

So the "Alien" nature of same-sex love and relationship is what puts you off and for marriage you were holding onto childhood ideals

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

You forgot The Village People

In the navy, yes you can sail the seven seas...

Hmm?

What of Jesus' teachings that you follow condemn Homosexuality? Do you base your opinion solely on your religion?

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

My religion is why I am against homosexual acts, yes. Man was meant to be with woman. Simple as that. To go further, ONE man and ONE woman. I am against polygamy, too.

So it is not Jesus but that the leaders of your faith have taught homosexuality is wrong and not part of the social norm?

 

[Kimarous]

Rom 1:26-27 states, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Jude 1:7 states, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Does it actually explicitly state in these teachings which acts they performed? I mean, shameful acts with other men's a pretty broad term. (...) Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to take it as you wish but you know, it doesn't really state what these acts are. It could be threesomes with animals, corpses, scat, y'know it's a pretty broad spectrum.

1) If they were "inflamed with lust for one another," why would they be doing anything else? If you're horny for somebody, is your first impulse to rape a goat or a corpse?

2) Let's see what Genesis 19:4-5 tells us about Sodom and Gomorrah...

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

I think that's pretty darn specific.

That's one sexual act in a whole city. You take a crossection of your city alot of shit will go on. It doesn't mean it was purely homosexuality that Sodom & Gomorrah were said to have been destroyed for.

Genesis also tells us the world's only about 3000 or so years old. Just saying.

Right, because the entire male populate of a city wanting to gangbang a pair of visitors totally counts as ONE sexual act. >_>

Your other "point" is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

I really couldn't care less about gay people/marriages. But, when they start complaining over a name and social security benefits, then it starts to annoy me. Let me put it in context. I'm from California, yet I voted to for that gay marriage ban. Why? Because they already have something in California that is almost exactly the same as marriage. It's called a civil union, and the only differences between marriage and civil union (besides the names) is that marriage gets you social security benefits and is recognized most, if not all, religions.

But why can't Gays have the exact same as Straight couples, why do you believe there should be any discrepancy?

My strong catholic upbringing tells me it's wrong. But really I don't care. As I said, my biggest complaint is when they complain. I believe in a strictly "Don't ask, Don't Tell" ideology and it works pretty well. Don't even get me started on how that San Francisco judge banning it is fucking up our military...

But why do you believe they should keep an intricle part of who they are a secert? Why do you believe they shouldn't be able to express that they're gay as freely as you can say you're a Catholic?