Are most Homosexuals Atheists and Non Religious ?

Post Reply New Topic

Muhammad did shave his balls more than a thousand years before it became fashionable through metrosexual reality television

Yeah and people now adays do that because girls like a clean shaved guy.

There are other religions besides Judaism, Christianity, and Islam! For example, I'm a bisexual Pagan. MUAHAHAHAHAAA! I'm so EEEEEEEEVIILLLL!

Thats hot

Yeeeeah, mostly it's just the radicals who actually give a s**t. Several synogogues of various sects have support groups for homosexuals in my area--and they're more along the lines of Gay-Straight-Alliance meetings.

I am not religious.

I know I was refearing to the people who are.

Oh, I like that word, "refearing". Refearing the fear of God in people.

Now I'm thinking of the Voltaire song "When You're Evil". I would find it and post it, but I'm too lazy. It's on YouTube though.

I read that as "reefering". LOL!

I think the OP needs a good prostate massage. It'll relieve the tension.

Of course, he'll first have to remove that giant stick...

And his head...

I knew one who was a Pentacostal. Gayest man I've ever known. He went to church every Sunday, and he spent every bit of time he had taking care of an elderly Catholic gent that he had a long-standing platonic relationship with.

And there you just denied the existence of about 70 million people, so you are sounding kind of stupid here.

That would make an excellent pretext for me to go around kicking his followers in the nuts, but the God of Abraham's views on homosexuality are greatly exaggerated at best.

well, back to the Original post.

The answer to the question "are gays religious, or non religous?" is that according to scripture we are all sinners.

Homosexuality is just one more in the endless list of sins.

There are religious liars, fornicators, and mafia hitmen. So why wouldnt there be religious homosexuals as well?

Let me emphasize, the God of Abraham's views on homosexuality are greatly exaggerated at best. There are those who claim that all references to homosexuality in the Old Testament were references to male temple prostitutes, and there are credible arguments for this view. There are those who argue that many of the laws listed in Leviticus were intended to preserve hygiene in what amounted to a crowded war camp, which makes perfect sense even in modern contexts: non-invasive acts between individuals of the same sex are never mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so it was clearly a hygienic concern. Many gay men today prefer predominantly or even exclusively non-invasive sexual intercourse, and about half of them haven't even tried "anal sex," which the passages from the Old Testament were most likely referring to.

Furthermore, I would make an argument from the Book of Numbers that "unclean" was meant literally as "unsanitary," not as "spiritually impure": Numbers 19 refers to a "water of cleansing," and the ingredients specified in Numbers 19:6 all have strong antimicrobial and antiseptic properties, including madder, which would have been the most likely dye used to make "scarlet wool.' Wood ash mixes with animal fat to create a potent soap. Also, Numbers 19:12 suggests that the mixture should be used every few days after exposure to contaminated material, which also corresponds with the theory that they are using a strong soap here: soap made using this method can strip the skin if used too often. "Abomination" is translated from "toevah, which also referred to practices that were considered to be unclean and especially unclean for Jewish people, not something intrinsically evil. A lot of "liberal" Christians don't know it, but a more literal and especially more scholarly view of the Bible actually tends to favor their political affiliations.

Also, homosexuality was viewed very differently in ancient Rome from how it's viewed today: in ancient Rome, homosexuality, in the public eye, took the form of non-consensual acts against male slaves. They also had an especially hideous practice where a nobleman would take a fancy to a preteen boy, called a puer delicatus, frequently having him castrated to keep him looking young and effeminate. This was actually practiced by Emperor Nero: the child's name was Sporus. It makes a whole lot of sense for Paul to mention these filthy and disgusting rapists in the same breath as swindlers, thieves and adulterers. It doesn't make any sense at all for Paul the Apostle, given his character, to attack innocent men who are just trying to live the most normal lives they conceivably could. Paul himself was an outsider in his culture, and he wouldn't have deliberately created a hostile environment for other outsiders or minorities. On the other hand, he would have been appalled by abuse against slaves and children.

Therefore, there is just no content whatsoever to the argument that homophobia is justified or supported anywhere in the Bible. It has no more justification than the violent, oppressive slavery practiced by Europeans at the expense of Africans: although the Bible does mention the use of servants, this would have been the status of any household employee in a time period in which symbolic currency was not standard and wages were unheard of. In "biblical" times, a household servant would have had a much better life than the common agricultural worker. Unfortunately, European slave-holders used instances of "slavery" in the Bible as a justification for their violent crime against a whole race of people. Plantation slaves were being worked to death in what we would call "concentration camp" settings today. If they misbehaved, they were sent off to sugar plantations farther south, where death within a few years was certain, not just a likelihood. It was genocide.

It is just as evil to use the Bible to justify homophobia as it is to use the Bible to justify slavery and genocide. It is evil, full stop.

Actually it was the monotheists writing a preaching in the name of G-D that produced the anti-homosexual doctrine.

We do not know (1) if God exists and (2) even if God does exist, we have no really firm idea of what It is thinking.

ruveyn