Gays and Homophobia

[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.

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...<.<

True.
But Lilith isnt even in the OT, the passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation.
Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl".
Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context.
Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

I'm gay and I support equal rights, of course.

I personally don't give a toss about you either way.. as a section of society you've managed to legitimise yourselves, you're accepted.. Get over yourselves... This hasn't been an issue in 20 years.

I hope you don't really believe that. Gays still do not have equal rights in the slightest. We are just starting to be allowed to marry people of the same sex and there is still a long way to go on that. Homophobia is very common especially in high school; you may have heard about all the suicides recently. I frequent a forum for gay teenagers, and you would not believe how many people from all over the world have experienced bullying due to homophobia or are still waiting for equal rights. It is very much still an issue.

 

[Snotnarok]

You forgot Asexual OP.

I'm not against much besides pedos, that's just a bit beyond okay (by a few lightyears). I figure as long as you're not forcing it on me then fair enough do what ya want.

I don't get why people are so strongly vocal against people with different sexualities. Does a girl who likes girls guy who likes guys really effect you much?

 

[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.

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.

The "entire" population. We're talking about a story that was originally passed down by word of mouth. It could've been as little as 10 people. You know how hyperbole works surely. It's used often to make a point. It's like saying "the entire school watched the fight when really only about 10 people did. It happens. Chinese whispers. Yes, my other point is irrelevant but it was intended to be more of a flippant remark on my personal view of genesis. Just because the common consensus is that all those people were damned to fire for their sexuality doesn't mean it's exactly what the book says. The ark. Most people believe the animals were taken in twos, while it was two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean. Clean, I assume, refers to kosher law but I cannot confirm this.

 

[Andrew Bohan]

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...<.<

I love you already.

 

[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...

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?

I don't prefer them to keep it hidden, I just don't want to know. Say I'm going hunting with this guy, and I know he's gay. I'm going to fear sleeping in the same tent as him, it's not logical, but there it is. If I don't know if he's gay, I won't care because we're two guys out hunting in the woods, I won't see him as any different than me. Religion has bred us to see gay and straight as two complete opposite things, and America has helped it along.

 

[Glamorgan]

I am straight, but am completely for homo and bisexuality.

I think that it is simply their choice. I cannot deny them that privilege, even if I wanted to. They're still people, and they deserve the same rights as us, no matter what most religions say about them.

I was hoping for a diversity of opinions; some based in faith, some in logic.

On that note, I have always wondered exactly why the religious are so opposed to same sex couples, and anything other than heterosexuality in general. Even then, a good deal wont have sex before marriage...

EDIT: Some other questions:

I don't prefer them to keep it hidden, I just don't want to know. Say I'm going hunting with this guy, and I know he's gay. I'm going to fear sleeping in the same tent as him, it's not logical, but there it is. If I don't know if he's gay, I won't care because we're two guys out hunting in the woods, I won't see him as any different than me. Religion has bred us to see gay and straight as two complete opposite things, and America has helped it along.

So how is it different from sleeping in a tent with someone of the opposite sex?

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.

But why are you against it? I know that it is against Jesus, as you say, but why is it?

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

I don't prefer them to keep it hidden, I just don't want to know. Say I'm going hunting with this guy, and I know he's gay. I'm going to fear sleeping in the same tent as him, it's not logical, but there it is. If I don't know if he's gay, I won't care because we're two guys out hunting in the woods, I won't see him as any different than me. Religion has bred us to see gay and straight as two complete opposite things, and America has helped it along.

So, your entire opinion of an individual has been altered due to one characteristic because of Religion and American society. Why do you see the gay as a threat? Do you think women would have the same opinion to a straight man? What about religion and American Society has bred this view?

 

[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...<.<

True.
But Lilith isnt even in the OT, the passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation.
Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl".
Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context.
Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.

Actually her existence is pointed at in the story of Gilgamesh popular in several religions before the old testament, which the Old Testament rips off with all of the shame and decency of the Move ripping off the wii... and since there roll in the story was basically the same it sort of just got ported over and given Lilith her name later... and for some reason it was generally accepted...

I just had to brush up it's been a while since I've read either stories...<.<

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Well I accept it but I?m not really sure that?s even the right word. It?s that people would like the world to be simple, hell people believe the world is that simple but they are wrong. Gender and sex are not a two sided coin, and sexuality doesn?t even fit into the three labels we typically give it. I don?t see it as being a problem either. I mean it has worked out so far, society hasn?t collapsed, humanity hasn?t ended and everybody hasn?t caught the gay. The only problems it causes are due to peoples lack of acceptance/tolerance and basically people making other people feel like shit or even going so far as to bring physical harm to them.

Oh but ?What if everybody was ? well everybody isn?t and even if they where I think there is a chasm between what the reality would be and what you think the reality would be. Besides even if it was bad if everybody was that thing, it doesn?t follow that it is harmful when only some people are it. It might even have its benefits.

 

[loc978]

Yeah, I'm all for equal rights for homo-and-bi-sexuals... and discriminatory behavior against those folks sickens me just as much as any other discriminatory behavior.
That said, I'm sort of on my own special little side in the gay marriage debate: I firmly believe marriage should be an entirely religious and/or personal function, having nothing to do with government, taxes or other financial or legal concerns. If two homosexuals want to say they're married, and they can hold a ceremony of some kind to satisfy their need for acceptance, let 'em. If religious folks want to have traditional ceremonies, let 'em. Just don't give 'em any special rights, legal ties to the other person, or tax breaks. One group's definition of marriage should not affect any other group's ability to define it as they please.

 

[Agayek]

Irrelevent, because this is about the personal view, not social. The age of his source of morals or beliefs or whatever shouldn't make a difference. It would make a difference if we were applying it to a large group, or society at large, but not to an individual.


What if you were to say "I don't steal because the law says not to" without thinking for yourself about why it is wrong to steal? Most would agree that this is a good thing. This person takes the Bible the same way as the Law, providing guidelines to follow. Some people just can't think outside the box for everything that comes there way, especially not such large scale issues they really have no personal hand in.

I'll give you the first point. I can't agree with it, but you make a solid argument.

As for the latter, it's a very bad thing for anyone to do anything without at least a reasonably clear idea on why. The morality of whatever the action is doesn't matter in the least. People who, for whatever reason, cannot make a logical argument for why they do something should be condemned at every possible opportunity. It doesn't even have to be a good argument, just something that displays some kind of thought. Acting without the barest attempt at understanding your own motivations is a grievous insult to every sentient being in the universe.

And that's not how faith works. Faith isn't an abandonment of free will, or at least it shouldn't be. There's nothing wrong with letting someone else decide something for you. Some people just won't (or can't) think about these things on there own. There's really nothing we can do about that.

Blind faith is absolutely an abandonment of free will. You surrender your ability to make your own decisions the instant you decide that you will follow the directions of someone else without question. If you cannot at least supply a reason deeper than "I was told to", you have surrendered your free will.

And you are quite correct, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, which is incredibly depressing, but I will continue to call people on it when I see it. Hopefully I can convince others to do the same and maybe we can eventually effect real change. Probably not, but I can dream.

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.

I had this really long post about this bit, but it got deleted when my browser crashed and it's 12:30 AM, so you're gonna get the TLDR version of it:

The Bible was written by men. Regardless of how inspired by God they were, some guy, who is by nature imperfect, had an idea and was convincing enough that other imperfect men believed he was touched by the divine. Then a whole succession of other men added to, altered and edited that work over the course of millennia.

There are errors in the Bible. Period. This is not debatable. People make mistakes. Regardless of how influential YHWH was at every step of the process, there are mistakes, and they have built on each other over many generations.

Also, see above regarding the whole free will schtick. You gave it up the instant you used "God said so" as your entire argument.

 

[blankedboy]

You forgot Asexual OP.

Don't start that, there's about 30 different sexualities, no-one can be bothered listing them all.

Actually, speaking of religious views, I'm actually a Satanist, which is one of the few religions that doesn't hate on non-hetero sexualities... hellz yeah. Pfff, unintentional puns get the best of me wherever I go. Pisss offfff.
I would post more, but I'll probably go off a tangent and make this a thread about Satanism, and I already have like 5 posts in this thread :/

 

[Kimarous]

-snip-

*rolls eyes* Whatever. Believe whatever improbably low numbers you want. We can argue semantics until the cows come home. This argument has long since veered off the main topic.

 

[Aanorith]

I don't care. I'm all for it as long as they are all happy. If you perfer it with a lass or bloke is no concern of mine. Unless you want me to join in. I'm a try-sexual, ill try anything once

 

[Cartman2nd]

Eh, it's a topic I love to argue around. I'm feeling unsatisfied right now, someone find me a homophobe to castrate, decimate and incinerate. Otherwise known as the CD-I method (see what I did there? :3)

See, now your no better than the homophobes that want to castrate, decimate and incinerate you.

 

[Sacman]

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.

The "entire" population. We're talking about a story that was originally passed down by word of mouth. It could've been as little as 10 people. You know how hyperbole works surely. It's used often to make a point. It's like saying "the entire school watched the fight when really only about 10 people did. It happens. Chinese whispers. Yes, my other point is irrelevant but it was intended to be more of a flippant remark on my personal view of genesis. Just because the common consensus is that all those people were damned to fire for their sexuality doesn't mean it's exactly what the book says. The ark. Most people believe the animals were taken in twos, while it was two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean. Clean, I assume, refers to kosher law but I cannot confirm this.

Well unclean animals include Shellfish, pig, camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers?, bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.

And I like how it mentions "winged insects that walk on four legs" but to be properly classified as an insect it needs 6 legs...

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Right out of the gate I'm gonna say I'm a hetero Christian..but that doesn't mean I'm gonna hit you with a bible and say your going to Hell if your words(or actions) reveal your preference. And As for the whole for or against thing....I used to be adamantly against but nowadays I tend to alternate between being all for it and not caring.

 

[Leg End]

Straight.
In full support for LGBT rights.

And I am a Pedophile, so I know a little bit about sexual discrimination and hatred.

So... yeah.

Guys, seriously, don't bash Pedophiles. Pedos are people too. Nothing wrong with our love.

(Has not had any sexual contact with a minor.)

 

[The Lunatic]

I'm gay, pink rainbows and all that.

UK is pretty accepting of homosexuality, there's not really much in the way of people being against it.

So, sure, I guess there's a few things which could be tweaked slightly.

Nothing is really going to change the opinion of douche bags, but, eh. I'm happy as things are.