[Slade]

Ok, so rather, they are sexually attracted to members of the same gender. Happy now?

[Obbah]

Let's check the argument "it's so unnatural".

What is unnatural?
Clearly it just can't be things that occur in only one species, are ants unnatural for example?
What your term unnatural seems to mean to me is something invented, something that isn't an instinct, you are thereby implying that hetero is somekind of normal state one is born with whilst one chooses to be homosexual.
The task of giving proof is thus upon the anti-gay lobby.

Another approach is this one. What are you turning on then? I'm straight, I turn on women, or rather, I give in to natural temptations that arise when I watch women, would I care if that woman was sterile? -Hell no! Heterosexuality is thus no better than homosexuality.

There are two kinds of paedophilias, 95% act out of psycological disorders and can be treated, the others do not to any extenct at all respond to psycological treatment and say that they have discovered their sexual POV simply by watching children (ask ECPAT). Obviously straight isn't the single way to be born, furthermore:

(wikipedia)"A disease is any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories."

WHO does not consider homosexuality a disease so give up calling it unnatural!


Now, what about the sexual act itself?

Well giving in to heterosexuality is clearly a sin since all spilled seed is a sin and giving in to it would be honorig it, so what moore proof do you want for being ignorant?


To get this debate back on track, the concept of an almighty, allknowing, morally perfect creator is very new, man has for thousands of years (believing neurobiologists) made without such things, a raingod has often sufficed, leaving humans unknowing in other aspects of life, so what a fucking low selfconfidence do you need to feel a need for such a way to explain the world? Join me, the religous existenialist!:)

This post has been edited by Obbah: 24 March 2005 - 01:32 PM

[Despondent]

I came across an argument for the hetrosexuals. Romans 1:26-27 I believe.

I don't side with the author (of the referring work,) but thought it an interesting piece of scripture I'd not seen referenced elsewhere. Besides, we all know about Lot's family.

I have good friends that are gay. And I know they do a lot of good work for the Church and I would imagine God is kinda happy with them. I don't know enough to say otherwise.

[Slade]

Well I'll be damned. After long last, a line that says men lusting after other men is 'unatural.' That at least gives people a half-assed excuse. Although you can just as easily take that sentence to say that it was the lust that was the problem, not the actual practice.

And my word, the grammar is atrocious in that book.

[J m HofMarN]

I finally found the line in the old testament, the ONLY one I've ever seen, that justifies ignorant people to hate gays. It's from Leviticus. Here's some other stuff Leviticus gave us:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

Sacrificing cattle to our god?

If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

Priests can sin as long as they kill cows afterwards?

And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

Ummm, what about peace and brotherhood?

But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.

Oh, fabulous idea, I love starving to death.

Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Leviticus was one hard core mofo.

On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the LORD.

Yes, yes you certainly are!

Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD.
I think we established that already, Levi.

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Oh no! Not with stones!

And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

The BEAST too? Ok...

And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Briteny Spears must die! God told me to do it!

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

So noone's going to live past their teenage years, huh?

Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Couldnt they stone him with, like, volleyballs or something? It'd hurt less.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Well, coming from such a compassionate and obviously not at all FUCKING LOONEY individual I can't argue with that, Leviticus is just full of wisdom. Really though I think homosexuals have it easy, I mean at least he dosnt call for them to be stoned with stones or anything, fuckin' ingrates. I tell you you cut them a bit of slack and...

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 24 March 2005 - 05:57 PM

[Dr Lecter]

There are hundreds of things you could say about that. I'll just say:

the people of the land shall stone him with stones

Ha now we have drugs to do that.

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 24 March 2005 - 06:08 PM

[J m HofMarN]

That post inspired me, Lecter, it inspired me to create a message of tolerance for all gods children:

[Laughlyn]

Cannabis, Is ther no problem it can't solve?

This line did bug me however:

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this emply that it's ok to stone Mr Potter and his Hogwarts pals should they ever be caught in the act of magic wand mambo? Not that I'm keen on the stoning of people or anything, I'm just willing to make an exception in their case .

[J m HofMarN]

I really am hoping to see the argument from our Christian friends here. I am curious as to why you guys are following the advice of a guy who liked to kill cows and throw rocks at people. It seems that there only being two references to this in the bible is kind of a tip off. For instance, if God wants something bashed into our heads, he does it.

Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not kill.

Hey, Dumbass, what did I tell you about killing.

Did I mention quit killin people?

Thou shalt kill not.

What part of thou shalt not kill do you fail to understand?

And yet, in a book that repeats ad infinitum any point that might be important, homosexuality is mentioned just twice, almost in passing. The mention in the new testament is likely a nod to what Leviticus said, so basically the only source of gay bashing in the bible is the guy who wants you to sacrifice heffers to god and stone children to death if they curse at their parents.

Really, go read Leviticus. It is SICK. The man just rants about how you have to sacrifice cows to the lord and how to do it properly so he dosnt get pissed. Then he lists like three pages of reasons to kill people when just a few pages back he was mentioning the ten commandments.

[Slade]

Well, this is the Old Testament God. He was a mean vindicative bastard, always smiting and casting out and turning people into salt and proclaiming "DEATH TO THE NONBELIEVERS!" He kinda grew up in the New Testament.

[Despondent]

And yet, in a book that repeats ad infinitum any point that might be important, homosexuality is mentioned just twice, almost in passing. The mention in the new testament is likely a nod to what Leviticus said,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I introduced that "most likely..." passage only 36 hours ago (I'd discovered it 14 hours prior. And it came as a complete surprise to me, as this book I'm reading has nothing to do with the subject. The only reason I recalled the verse was because I like the number 127, and the verse was Romans 1:27. Easy to cite.)

Are you claiming to accept that there are now only two references but no more, when less than two days ago you must have been steadfast there was only one? I honestly don't know or don't care too much. I was just producing evidence for the point of debate.

Repetition is key in the Bible, for it's not just a book but a collection of books (as you must know.) But the one thing the authors all have in common is recognition of a higher power.
Why don't YOU try to get 66 people to agree on one thing?

I heard it the other day. I'd rather be right and find out that it didn't matter than be wrong and find out too late. Oh. But a merciful God wouldn't allow that.
But you seem drawn to the OT God

He kinda grew up in the New Testament.

On Earth among us;

that's where Christians branch off.

[J m HofMarN]

I think that the second occurence in Romans 1:27 is derivative of what Leviticus said, sort of like how George Lucas decided to put Boba Fett in the PT simply because he existed in the older version. The point is that regardless of whether its one or two messages the fact that it dosnt pop up often is still suspect. I know beastiality is pointed out as being bad at least twice, and witchcraft gets a good many mentions as well. So it's pretty clear what people were more concerned about.

The other thing that people use is the tale of Sodom and Gomorah. First of all sodomy is not necessarily a homosexual act. And the likelyhood of homosexuality being tolerated in an entire town is very low, so in my view I believe that this alleged sodomy occured (at least for the most part) between men and women. I'm not sure what the story with Gomorah is but I think the man upstairs just didn't like the name.

So what Christians should be doing, rather than bashing gays, is monitoring what sexual positions are used between men and women. Cuz if his prick goes in her bum, the apocalypse' gunna come.

[Jordan]

Paul talks about un-natural relations, men with men and women with women.

As a Christian, I belive Paul was inspired by God, and that it was not his personal agenda.

Therefore, from a Christian point of view, God does not ordane gay sex has a normal act.

Liberal Christians accept gay marriage, but they are just bleeding heart pansies, most of them don't even believe in a hell.

They dope up Christianity with secluar humanism.

Just call us in-tolerant biggots, like you always have. But please don't try tell me that God likes or simply has no say on gay sex. Because you're wrong.


If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;
they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. — Leviticus 20:13

The New Testament never pardons gay sex. It pardons death for the act. The act is still a sin. IT falls under sexual immorality. The only sex God ordanes is Sex in wed lock between a Man and Woman, everything outside of that is a sin. Strict stuff here.

You're only defense in the matter is that Paul is a biggot who did not follow what Christ wanted. Which is fine, since you're not a Christian, go for it.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 26 March 2005 - 04:30 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Question: Did Paul ever speak directly to God? I think he did not. In fact, if you've actually read things, Paul was actually the least of the disciples, falling in order right before the betrayor of the Christ. Was it not Paul who denied Jesus three times to the Romans? So here you have a guy who is kind of shakey in his faith, and he's preaching to the folks who just nailed his best bud to a chunk of mahogany. (and will eventually nail HIM to a chunk of wood upside down)

The Roman plebeians are no lovers of homosexuality. So maybe he tosses in this bit to get their ear. Maybe he justifies it by thinking back to old Leviticus. But let's look directly at the text.

1/26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1/27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This is a pretty strong move away from Leviticus from "lets kill them" to "its unseemly" And it sounds to me like it's not even about homosexuality, but rather about lust. Let's not forget that god is, UNDENIABLY, not a big fan of lust. Would a lusty person make love to another man? If he was lustful enough, sure he probably would. Is that unnatural? Yeah. Would a lusty person make love to a woman he did not love? Yeah. Is that unnatural? Yes!

So what 1/26 and 1/27 could be read as is "These guys were so horny that they were screwing those of the same sex" And yes, this actually did happen among the Roman noble and patrician classes amidst their orgies. So you have a topical thing for Paul to attack. If these people are so horny than theres something wrong with them. The common people Paul would have been preaching to would clearly not have participated in the orgies that occured, and might see it as more reason to dislike the patricians, who by the way did not like Christianity.

Now let's put this even further in context.

1/23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1/24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1/25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Put 23-25 together with 26-27 and what you have is: These people glorified flesh above god, they lusted after eachother, they enjoyed flesh more than god, even to the point of doing weird things with eachother.

They're not identifying consensual and loving sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman as a sin, they're identifying extreme lust as a sin. This is a far cry from what Leviticus said, which was simply to name it as a sin. No, this gives us a reason why they believed it. They figure that two men having sex could not possibly be in love, and for the most part this was the case in Rome. Men fucked eachother for shits and giggles. Paul was obviously no fan of the Roman aristocracy, so it's only natural that he would add this in to poke at them.

By the way, does anyone else find it odd that I, being a communist who shuns organized religion, am quoting the bible more than all the Christians in this debate combined?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 26 March 2005 - 05:38 AM

[Jordan]

Did Paul ever speak directly to God? I think he did not

Paul claims that he did speak to God. God blinded him even, and came to him in a vision. You don't have to think so. But that's what happened from a christian point of view. And if he was inspired by God, then the things he said about homosexuality remain true.

they're identifying extreme lust as a sin

Lust leads to sin. That is what it's saying. Your arguement can be used to pardon just about everything. He's innocent, he lusted after money, sex, power etc. Whocares if people lust for something unharmful. Why would anybody bother write about that? LOL, nice one. The lust leads to sin, if that was not the case, then it would not be a problem.

Was it not Paul who denied Jesus three times to the Romans?

Paul did not become a follower till after Jesus was killed. He was a staunch religous leader, the kind that Christ denounced.

BTW, Leviticus was written way before the Roman Empire.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 26 March 2005 - 10:32 AM