Is being gay wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

For that matter, an undercover cop buying crack looks like a crackhead to a crack dealer until he's placed under arrest. On the other hand, an undercover cop posing as a crack dealer looks like a crack dealer to a crackhead...until he is placed under arrest. --They know they are doing something wrong, and they are being caught, and having to pay the price for doing so.

Conversely, surrounding a guy's house and intimidating him to send out his housegeusts in order to be raped was wrong, and is still wrong today, and they got caught and dealt with appropriately.




What you have just quoted is the opinion of the Apostle Paul, who was already a Rabbi before he converted, and became a follower of Jesus. accepting his opinion as "God's Truth" is like accepting Stalin's Communism as what Karl Marx put forth in Das Kapital. I don't seem to recall any of the other books of the New Testament , Particularly the ones that recall the life and quotations of Jesus making any referances to queerness.

Skipping forwards a few hundred years to a closely related religion, I only seem to recall the Koran as making glancing and dissaproving referances to sexual impropriety, but nothing is explicitly mentioned about queer people or how queer people conduct themselves. The Hadiths, (The Collected writings of Mohammed) on the pther hand say some very nasty things about it.

Conversely, if you go back to the book of Leviticus, Gayness is not explicitly mentioned, except for a passage that states that a man should not take another man as he would a woman.

Back when this was written, women were essentially one step above chattel slaves. Their purpose was essentially to bear children, and help her husband.
In short, a woman was very much a second class person. --In that light, subjecting a man to that type of treatment, or subjecting yourself to that type of treatment would be heinous.

Furthermore, Marriage in that culture in that time was essentially the same as it is in Arab culture today, in that Marriage is not about love, it is about building alliances through family unions in a tribal culture.

Yet further still, The book of Leviticus was written at a time when Hebrews were small in number, having recently escaped from slavery in Egypt. Homosex did not do much to produce male offspring (The most important at that time and place) or any other offspring. Any wonder why it was an abomination in that day and age?

The book of Leviticus also contained dietary law. Even though it's not stated outright, Eating pork is forbidden by dietary law, because pigs do not conform to the guidelines. What happens if you eat raw, or undercooked pork in this day and age? Chances are that you come down with a case of trichinosis, which is still a potentially fatal condition even with today's advanced medicine. What happened if you ate raw or undercooked Pork 5000 years ago? You died!

Christians on the other hand, seem to always zero in queerness being an abomination, and citing that particular verse in Leviticus, but have no problems wearing clothes of Mixed fabric, or eating Lobster, crabs, or mixing meat with milk products, all of which are forbidden under Leviticus.

On another completely differant note, many Christian and Islamic fundamentalists always play up the Fire and Brimstone aspects of their religions, replete with the ongoing battle of the Forces of Light, (God and his Angelic shock troops) versus the Legions of Darkness , (Satan and his minions of Demons). Jews on the other hand do NOT believe any of this at all.--It was appropriated from the religion of Zoroastrianism, which was a very popular belief system 2000 years ago.

Even though this religion doesn't have many practitioners today, The basic concepts of this religion live on in Christianity and Islam today, first and foremost, the belief that homosex is the worst of all possible sins. Many followers of the Prophet Zoraster converted en Masse to Christianity as well as Islam as the Persian empire crumbled.

Another minor remnant of this religion can be seen throughout the country to this day. The Eternal Flame (Symbolising the light of God) is used at the Unknown Sodiers Monument, as well as more common gravesites throughout the country. The Eternal flame was, and still is the hallmark of temples of Zoroaster, however most people don't know that much about the religion at all, but have no problems following the traditions of it.

I wasn't actually referring to the fall of Sodom, I was referring to sodomy. But yeah I can see how that could be mistaken, so sorry I wasn't clear.

I must disagree with this, I'm afraid. The whole point of the Bible is that it is all considered to be the word of God- inspired by the holy spirit. (Ie God speaking through men, by the holy spirit)
There are plenty of other books and early church documents that the church considers to be legitimate and factual, yet they aren't included in the bible because they aren't considered to be the word of God.
(And yes what is included in the Bible does vary according to denomination, yet I'm pretty certain that Paul would be included in it, according to all mainstream Christianity)

Anyway I'm gonna back out of this argument, because my issue here is not with the homosexuality debate (which to be honest I don't really give a damn about- I'm staying neutral), but with people's claims about the Bible, which I felt the need to correct- (no offense intended to anyone).

I understand that there are many various interpretations of the Bible, so I haven't made any comment on any of them- I've only commented on that which was a matter of fact.
The bible DOES speak specifically against homosexuality, that is a FACT. However there are plenty of ways to interpret what it says (as unyielding law, or as outdated hygiene principles, etc etc).

Anyway I was just trying to clear some things up here. Please continue with the debate!

And so they used to tie women's hands in bags, or put stones around their necks, and heave them into bodies of water to test to see if they were witches.

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

If adultery made it to the level of inclusion in the Ten Commandments, but homosexuality did not, does it stand to reason that Christians should ban adultery first? The only obvious reason that adultery is not banned is because heterosexuals are the only ones that can do it and wish to protect themselves. The only time adultery matters is if you are being sued for divorce, and even that does not mean you will lose your entire legal position because of it.

It has seemed rather strange to me that a ban on adultery is never included in these "sanctity of marriage" arguments that politicians put forward. The answer is all too obvious: they aren't interested in turning their own behavior into crimes. Until such time as this ban goes into place, any argument for "sanctity of marriage" is bogus.

It seems like gay activists aren't out to merely seek freedom.
They aren't looking for "live and let live" as many of you attempt to point out.

It appears to me that they want to take over straight customs and spread the newly distorted ideas all over everyone to accept them. It is as if they know that heterosexual practises like marriage and families are normal or they wouldn't be trying to piggyback on the ideas. They seem to be taking these concepts and distorting them into their own. It is not about a freedom fight anymore, I view it as a sneaky, undermining attack against humanity in general.

I don't agree that the gay rights movement can be justified the same way as the black rights movement! "Black" people = " a breed of humans simply coloured and designed for hot climates who want to be recogised as a culture". Gay people = " A group of people who want an infertile and unatural form of sex to be the basis of a whole culture".

Couldn't vote on this one. It's not normal (at least in the sense of "the most common thing" or "the most mainstream thing"), and it's not wrong.

Gay culture (like most subcultures) confuses me, and I don't really participate in it, but it's never struck me as an attempt to undermine humanity. I don't see the logic in "Gay people think heterosexual marriage is normal, that's why some of them are trying to do gay marriage." I mean, I can't follow the chain of reasoning that gets from the first to the second to all the other conclusions.

"Right" and "wrong" as applied to sexuality and other issues are religion-based morality concepts. Only if one cares about and/or adheres to religious teachings does this kind of thing factor in anywhere. As an agnostic-leaning-toward-atheist, I don't care one whit about Biblical (or other religious) "rules"; they're meaningless to me. No matter what your beliefs are, nothing (if there is indeed anything!) will ultimately be "revealed" until you're dead anyway, so who cares? *Boggles*

Gay culture is a subculture only because of the fact that gay people have been repressed for over a thousand years. Only in the past thirty five years has it taken upon itself to ask for the same things that everybody else (Read: Straight People) take for granted.

Unfortunately, the Paranoiac ramblings like the one posted above you point out that no matter how much you attempt to explain the fact that you only want the same as straight people, people will take issue with the matter, and feel threatened and insulted by that.

For what it's worth, I long for a day when my sexual orientation means nothing at all. Also, I have severe misgivings about "Gay Culture" and the mindless consumerism that it seems to represent. Perhaps I'm too much of an Idealogue in these matters, but I long for the day that "Gay Culture" as such is rendered an out of date anachronism due to the full acceptance of gay people as full fledged members of society with the same rights as everybody else. --In short, in an Ideal world, being gay should NOT MATTER.



Don't take this the wrong way, but.... from reading your posts on this thread, as well as a previous thread that you started in the mature section, I have to admit that for a straight person, you seem to be strangely fixated on what people such as myself do in private. Why is this???

I'm not fixated on what people do in "private". Like I said... I don't think that it's "private" anymore and that is where the problem is. Strike a nerve did I? Keep it comming...

I don't understand what the anti-gay people want them to do? All kill themselves? Or force themselves to be with women?

infertile sex? since when has sex been solely about reproduction? have i missed something? everyone here "do" sex just so they can have babies (those of you who do - and that includes masturbation, folks)?

and would you care to define "unnatural" for me, as i'm having grevious trouble trying to get my head round the concept. seems to me you're probably talking about the (erroneous) myth that all gay sex is about anal penetration. oh, and fellatio. but - and perhaps myself and all the other women i know have had strange and unrepresentative experiences - but anal sex and blow jobs seem to be pretty high on the hetero male agenda.

and before ANYONE starts whinging about how this thread has become graphic and explicit, then maybe we should take the gloves off, stop being coy and actually talk about specifics, rather than mincing around the subject, which is what leads to misinformation in the first place.

Probably the former - it'd make it easier on the Neo-cons...

Why, *of course*, dear vetivert! Don'tcha know it's just us deviants, perverts, and eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, foul, hell-bent sinners who like sex for its own sake?

I could throw out the pedophile pride example to argue out the "is it or is it not natural" arguement that I commonly use but I think i'll just pass. The very title of this thread incites a firefight from the get-go. It's FUN!! ! Keep it flowing!

Nothing but trouble, you are. Tsk, tsk...

well, say something worth answering, then - drivel doesn't count