Reading Philosophy

I am, quite frankly, tired of hearing about how homo- and bisexuality is a sin. It does state that in the bible, but there is nothing they can do about it, so why doesn't the chruch let it go? I'm not bisexual, or homosexual, but neither am I religious. And i have always been open to different styles of living, ranging from religions to arts. I study religion to an extent. Doesn't the Christian religion preach acceptance? Isn't their god all-loving towards his children? Isn't all of humanity his children?

If so, and if being homosexual is a sin, then doesnt that mean homosexuals are no longer human?

To make a jump, humans are the only species that have sex for pleasure. All others have sex because they have to, they do it to keep thier race alive and thriving. When we were blessed with minds of our own, driven by thought processes more than by instinct, we got freedom of choice. Homosexuals choose to be that way, and they dont hurt anyone by being the way they are. If they were hurting people, I would definately see why it's a sin. But they aren't.

I swear, if a video game came out that had very detailed scenes of people getting chopped into tiny bits with meat cleavers, it would be met with more acceptance than one with not-very-detailed scenes of homosexual interaction.

Just another example of how amazingly screwed-up we are. But what can you do...

I'm very handy with a meat-cleaver, ~Arei Drea

Technically, dolphins have sex for pleasure.

But yeah, it bothers me that a religion that's centered around love and acceptance such as Christianity is so full of idiotic bigots who can't see past the tip of their own noses.

Thbbbbt

Technically, dolphins have sex for pleasure.

Also, I'm not sure about pigs. There's no scientific hint that they have sex for pleasure, but a pig's orgasm is said to last about 30 minutes, and dammit if that wouldn't be a good reason! :-P

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Just wanted to add a link to this 'ere post. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

I opened this issue up in a forum with my christian community, actually. Just the fact that we're discussing it is already something, since to even raise the possibility among evangelical christians that homosexuality is not a sin used to be out of the question. So i laid down my arguments for homosexuality including the ones raised by professor walter wink from auburn theological seminary (http://Www.Bridges-across.Org/ba/wink.Htm). However, there was a former homosexual in our community who testified to how he was "delivered" by god from his "rebellious" lifestyle. Not being gay myself, i don't know what it's like and can't claim to know that he is absolutely wrong.

I'm unsure about where to stand. On the one hand, i can see oppression and i'd like to fight it. On the other hand, i can see sincere people who have come from the other side and claim they have found the truth and christ has led them out of a "sinful" lefestyle.

It's difficult to argue rationally when i have to argue against people who know what it's like to be gay. But if i were to be honest with my own rational convictions, i really feel that homosexuality is not the sin but the culture of promiscuity that some of these "converts" have come from. And promiscuity is a sin that that oppresses both homo- and hetero-sexuals.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

I'd like to start of by saying I am a Christian, anyways thats the label one could give myself. I do believe that homo- and bisexuality is a sin, however I also believe that you brought up some good points. Yes you are correct in saying that the Christian religion encourages acceptance, forgiveness, and mercy to others. However as I have become more comitted to my faith I realize that there are a large number of "fake" Christians. People who call themselves Christians but don't really live by the will of God. These are the people that I believe are causing you to be irritated with the Christian religion. I myself are as tired as you are with these kind of people. A large majority of the Christian religion are hypocrites and give the religion a bad name. I myself believe that homo and bisexuality is a sin, however I still respect them like my good friends. I don't treat them any different. And I believe that is how God would want me to. So to sum this up, yes you are correct in saying that people are wrong for judging people who are homo and bisexual, but because those people are wrong, doesn't mean that homo and bisexuality is right.

I'm bisexual. My mom is christian. I'm not--gladly so. My boyfriend and I have been together for about 5 years. Everyone, amazingly accepts him as part of the family, even my mom. She occasionally hints that he and I are going to hell if we don't "get right with god." But by this I think she means "accept God."

No offense to anyone inparticular, but fuc% that Shi7. Christians don't give a convincing argument for a happy, healthy life for themselves--or anyone else for that matter.

Heard the rhetoric. Not convinced of the logic in their argument. Homosexuality is only a "sin" because it essentially means non-procreational. That's the Calvinistic approach to life: if it's tough, painful or unpleasant, it must be "good" for the person.

The concept is couched in the language of "lifestyle." That makes it easy to think of the behaviour as a sin. Fucking little boys isn't a sin, but two grown men loving each other is. Ah, the sweet logic of The Church. The point is that if it's a choice, one might reasonably consider the action a sin, like robbery or adultry. But if we look at the behaviour as stemming from our "harware", i.e. engrained in our brain's wiring, not as a result of trauma, or bad decisions (by us or our parents), then logically we would have to say "s/he was born that way. And therefore perhaps God intended that person to be that way."

Additionally, we could also reasonably extrapolate that God, in Its infinite wisdom, decided that would be a great means of birth control. A behaviour that most humans have a terrible time pursuing.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Also, the fact that it has now recently been shown (I dont have the studies, but I'm sure that you could easily find the) that homosexuality is as much a biological determination as a choice kinda makes discrimination against gays worse. I mean, since it's not really the preson's choice (biology determines it), discrimination here is similar to discrimination on racial grounds.

Personally, I feel homosexuals should enjoy the same rights and benefits as everyone else, including marriage and completely equal rights; at least we are moving that way, but progress needs to be made faster... too bad we have an intolerant asshoel as President (codifying marriage as "between man and woman" just seems against the American principle of equality, if you ask me)

"It was not God who created man, but man who created God." --Santa Caserio

It also seems against the doctrine of separation of church and state. A "civil union" is a legal recognition of two people's right to "be one." A marriage is a church-sanctioned activity where the church recognises two people's right to "be one."

Therefore, doesn't it seem a bit "fishy" for the President of America, the "land of the free, home of the Braves," to declare anything at all improper about marriage?

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I'm assuming your talking about Bush's efforts to pass the amendment against gay marriage. I had a quote from him somewhere that claimed that this amendment is what would make everyone happy...by everyone I guess he forgot to mention homosexuals, etc.

My boyfriend has 3 dad's...2 of which are a gay couple. They are both Christian, and attend an upscale Episcopalian church, which also allows cross-dressers and other not formally accepted groups. I am not religious, but it is good to know that they can be accepted and deserve to be if that is how they want to live. I love them and have never had a problem with them. They don't have too many problems with society giving them a hard time, just fighting the same battles that every gay couple would fight for (ie, marriage, etc). The sad part is that my boyfriend has to keep it quiet in school or else he would get shit for it...it's not cool that he has to hide his background so he doesn't have to live constantly in defense mode.

This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.

Well, just for the sake of clarity, my post has little to do with Bush's malintentioned, perverse ideas of remaking the Constitution and Bill of Rights in his image.

I'm actually talking about the legal construct of "civil unions", versus, the religious recognition and sanction OF a "civil union" called a marriage. On one hand they are different. But on the other hand, we're conditioned to think that they're the same, so terms and words get confused.

I'm not going to bore myself with details and minutae, but the whole point here and in that previous post is that the government has no business sanctioning or discriminating against two adults seeking to have join together as one.

(Oh, and thanks for replying btw. I've been doing stuff elsewhere, and this gives me a chance to pop my face over here and say hi.)

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I just wanted to agree with you that it is wrong that Christians have so much hate towards gay people but go around preaching to others to "love thy neighbor." I think gay people should have the right to choose if they want to be married. It isn't something I choose to do. It's their buisness. I won't look at someone who is gay and look at them as any less of a person. They are just different than I am. Everyone has things that are different about them from other people. I don't understand why people are so afraid of what isn't "normal"? I love God and I read the bible all the time. It says in the bible that God loves everyone. Even murderers. Has anyone heard of a site called Godhatesfags.com? *cringes* Gay people don't harm anyone. Someone braught up to me the subject of aids. How ignorant. Sexual diseases can be passed on in both heterosexual and homosexual intercoarse. So don't try to blame it on Gay people. All I ask everyone to do is look at God seperate from all of the hipocritical people. You can't judge God from how people act. People are very very far from perfect.

when living and breathing is still overated in the eyes of the seeking.

Doesn't the Christian religion preach acceptance? Isn't their god all-loving towards his children? Isn't all of humanity his children?
If so, and if being homosexual is a sin, then doesnt that mean homosexuals are no longer human?

I see your logic. But, you made a tremendous jump to that conclusion. But first things first...Christianity is based on the Bible, which preaches as much unconditional acceptance as merciless judgement. The reason given is that God wants to be loving, yet he is intolerant of sin. As you can imagine, many people in the Christian community, as well as the entire world, are very confused.

This is why you have those aggresive, intolerant, bible-basher Christians that are made famous by the media, and consequentially are now the face for Christianity around the world. Sad but true. Then you have the middle of the road Christians, who prefer to keep quiet and live within the walls of their church community. These guys were the first to hide at Y2K because they thought God was coming back. *snicker snicker* The last group is the group of Christians who preach tolerance and unconditional acceptance, which I think is the group you are referring to.

However it gets more complicated...the acceptance group itself is divided into two halves. The first half preach unconditional acceptance from God who loves everybody. I venture to say that this is only half true. The second half preach that everyone is UNaccepted because of the sin we are inherently born with, but in acknowledging your own inability to be perfect you are granted acceptance on the account that Jesus died for your sins.

So...about the gay issue. We all have our struggles to deal with. But the difference between for example thieves and homosexuals, is that stealing can be done covertly. But, homosexuality is kind of apparent in the lifestyle. That's why it's more easily attacked. I'm not homosexual, so I'm not sure if it's something that you can change your mind about or get "healed" from. But, as with everybody in the whole world who is struggling with their own imperfection, I'm pretty sure that just believing inside something like "my life is ugly, jesus make it right," I'm pretty sure he will.

Attack, el Robot. Attack!

...about the gay issue...the difference between for example thieves and homosexuals, is that stealing can be done covertly. But, homosexuality is kind of apparent in the lifestyle. That's why it's more easily attacked. I'm not homosexual, so I'm not sure if it's something that you can change your mind about or get "healed" from.

Hmmm. Sorry but I don't get the correlation. I've seen people steal in broad daylight. As a gay man, I'm not flamboyant, nor "queeny." In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you met me on the street or in a store, you've never be able to tell I'm a fag.

Those who are open in their sexuality are truly brave individuals. They "act" a certain way, knowing that they can likely get swore at, or beat up, or get eggs thrown at their house, or have their car spray-painted, or denounced, or condemned to hell. They stand for, and act upon, their "convictions"; a strength of character that most straights (i.e;. "breeders") will never know.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Jan 09, 2004.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you met me on the street or in a store, you've never be able to tell I'm a fag.

Actually, there is some possibilty I'd recognize you as a homosexual - this is, because many (not all of course, maybe only a third or half of the) homosexuals take care in what they're wearing and what they look like. dont get this wrong: of course, anybody other half-civiilized person would act so, but in this - and my experience - its MORE than just the "lets wear clean clothers", etc. stuff.

My former head of school was/is gay, and although my father told me before, because he (head of school) was just one or two semesters below my father, who already was into active teaching. thanks to particular help of my father, this g(a)uy managed it to get his teacher diploma, so he could become what he is nowadays. ;)

anyway, this should not be seen as a general rule - dressign better, particularly looking better, etc. - as eg. this also counts for non-homosexual men. also, this is a thing mainly appearing at/with gays, but not lesbians (I dont know lesbians, so I cant really state anything about them).

just my two cents,
cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

GB, can I call you that, I love reading your posts. But I'll have to disagree with this stereotype too. Both me and my Shweetie defy that stereotype as well.

I'll say that you are right in a general sense. Fags tend to look my "catty" in their appearence. They can be described as "finnicky" also. I'm neither. Sometimes in rare moment, around my house I'll act "queeny" but that's merely because I let me guard down, and try not to "Think" about how I come acrosssss. If people see me in a private moment, they'll definitely say "Oh, HE'S GAY! But those don't happen very often. Generally I don't tend to labor ove my apparence. I'll go out unshaven. I'll have stains on my clothes. My hair needs to be cut for 2 months now,etc.

I'm just saying there's nothing about me that particularly stands out in what could be called a gay stereotype--wiht one exception. People don't see me with women. But...if you just me me periodically, you'd probably never know that.

Apparences are deceiving.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Jan 10, 2004.

I agree. It doesn't mean guys who tend to care more about their appearances are gays. There's this new term --metrosexual rite? Coined by some London guy. And very straight guys like David Beckham and Justin Timberlake fall under such a classification, cos they groom themselves well, wear jewellery (Beckham's diamond stud), tight clothes etc.

In my school, there's a large no. of non-straight people, very possibly becos we do design (but even this is a stereo-type, it is like saying all engineers are boring, which is not true, look at the funny guy Scott Adams who gave us the Dilbert Comics, I can't imagine him boring). The gays are not extra queeny/catty/girlish, the lesbians are not macho. In fact, it precisely because you can't differentiate them, that there are many cases of heart breaks on campus.

However, I do understand where GB's generic description of them comes from. Last year, I had a gay tutor which is fine, except he obviously picks on the girls in my class and praises the guys' works. He also behaves rather queenily esp. when he critiques your work-- one hand clapsed in his armpit, while the other hand swivels around lazily. But I think he's just about the only extreme example I have encountered. My gay friend who came to rescue my design last year, on the other hand, behaves just like a normal guy. He does weights, fixes pipes, dresses in ratty clothes and doesn't shave when he's got no time.

This year, I have got a straight tutor, he has a weakness for girls so the guys are a doomed lot this time round. Now, I have to rescue my gay friend's school work.

So to me, people are just nice or not nice. Biased or not. Their sexual preference is just like preferring apple to orange, it bears no meaning. What's more important is if he/she is nice and willing to share with you the apple/orange.

p/s: just a note on lesbians. They are as pretty and can be as soft spoken. Not exactly the ice hockey amazon stereo-type. When the girl they like rejects them, they are upset in the same way as when a guy/gal rejects you. You have to rally and comfort them as you would to a friend who has been rejected. It is the same. And perhaps worse, cos they get rejected so often.

"Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating." --Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Glad this topic still has some life. It meanse that some people are actually thinking about it. I'm going to take this discussion to the next level, or milestone...whichever comes first.

I think that most rational, reasonable people can see that identifying a person by a stereotype is damaging: fat people are jolly, or unhealthy, Chinese/orientals are good in math and science, lesbians don't shave (oops, that's feminists), blacks are well-endowed and emotional, whites can't jump, the list is endless. To classify a person by the stereotype is to say that that person is only as good, or bad, as that stereotype.

I agree with 98% of what shopgal recently stated. With that said, I've posted that some gays are, in fact neat, and CAN be catty, or act queeny. I've done it myself. It is fun. (Many gays also like having fun:)) It's like playing a role and knowing it well. To me I act queeny around my boyfriend because it drives my Shweetie up a wall. I'd think the same if it were reversed. However, to me there's a difference between knowing that you're acting, as opposed to trying to fit into the stereotype to assume that identity. That's a discussion better perhaps saved for a different time.

Where I'm going with this discussion on stereotypes is that I believe that these general identificational terms, bunch-o-terms are used by people to differentiate. In the case of faggots, I believe I can make a reasonable case that these so-called attributes imposed on gay men and women are invented by a status quo mentality, perhaps by the majority "white middle-class", aka w.a.s.p., to help protect themselves. If not invented whole-cloth by them, then certainly these "middle-class" men/boys (the guys I went to school with) have no problems perpetuating such rumor and inuendo to isolate and insulate themselves. The intention being not for inclusion, this group as I said, but rather to protect fragile egos and insecure identities of manhood.

Of course I'm classifying w.a.s.p. men/boys in a stereotypical manner. But as I said above with gays, some individuals fit into the stereotype. Ande some individuals also seek to mold themselves to the stereotype as their identity.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Jan 11, 2004.

But I'll have to disagree with this stereotype too. Both me and my Shweetie defy that stereotype as well.

actually, I did say it doesnt have to be a common / gereral rule - I also know lots of homosexual people who are NOT this way, not even to mention bisexuals, and I'm surely NOT the source/well of wisdom or similar.

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

Sorry, I thought that your point is that you could tell about something private about the person (his/her sexuality) just by the way the person looks, or acts. That's a stereotype. That's the point I was making.

I'm willing to take what you said in conversation, and leave it at that. It just seemed that your point was that that you'd probably be able to tell me apart from anyone else on the street. That's just incorrect.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

It just seemed that your point was that that you'd probably be able to tell me apart from anyone else on the street. That's just incorrect.

whilst reading my posts, you always have to keep this in mind: English is NOT my mother language, I'm a german natural speaker. So some things I want to point out sometimes do get cluttered, twisted, etc. simply because of the fact that I am NOT grown up with this language.

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

I'm glad you mentioned that because after I posted, I thought that I got too emotional about my post and it showed when I wrote. I re-read your post and then I got the meaning of what you were trying to say.

I was thinking exactly what you said but in a little different way. If we were writing in German, I'd be in big trouble!!!!! :( You speak English very well most of the time, so I naturally forget that English is not your first language.

o_0_o to you my friend...

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

It's been said that lesbians are supposed to act more like a man than a woman. However, I know alot of lesbians who you'd never tell are homosexual. They are just as pretty (some are just downright hott) and just as feminine as any other woman. Of course, I also know lesbians who haven't owned a skirt since they were 13, wouldnt know the difference between Revlon and Wet n Wild, and drive rusy pick-up trucks. So I suppose it goes both ways.

Oh -- What IS it with men and watching women kissing/having sex/etc. ? I remeber a quote from a sculptor, but I cant remember who; "Two women making love is the most beautiful thing in the world.". Granted, some men don't go for that (I'm engaged to one such man) but alot do. Is it just because those are the kind of men who are womanizers, or do most men, even on a small scale, enjoy watching lesbians? I don't know. Just a random question.

I can't control where my ideas go; I just write them down.

I'm very handy with a meat-cleaver, ~Arei Drea

This post was edited by Arei_Drea on Jan 10, 2004.

Oh -- What IS it with men and watching women kissing/having sex/etc. ?

Now this is my theory from what I gathered by asking other men.

For most boys in the country where I live,( India ) their first sexual encounters takes place through pornographic material, and I would think it is the same around the world. This is the medium through which boys get to see that strange, mysterious side. As the level of what material is seen degrades, boys/men stop seeing themselves as what you could call 'smooth lovers'.

However, men who see two women making out see a very sensuous process. It is something they yearn to be; good lovers.

I am not speaking for all men here. Maybe im wrong. Just what i've gathered from talking to people.

NI

You know, if you hadn't of pointed that out, I would have missed it completely. But, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me. Watching two women interact with each other on that level does look 'smoother' and more.. emotional then watching a man and a woman. Hm. That's a really good point... thanks. :]

I'm very handy with a meat-cleaver, ~Arei Drea

Watching two women interact with each other on that level does look 'smoother' and more.. Emotional then watching a man and a woman

of course, this depends of what you are watching ;)

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

I totally agree with the points you make.

However, what bothers me a bit is the title you chose for this topic.

Gay's are humans, too. Treat them like it.

I've seen similar phrases all over the internet, but I suspect a homosexual would find them offensive, as the notion of gays not being humans is totally absurd and can't even be considered.

I know how you meant it (and you stated it very clearly), but the title itself implies there could potentially be a question about it. There can't.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

The Christian religion DOES teach acceptance, but it also teaches God's laws. By acceptance it means accepting that they too are people, and deserve to be treated as such. That said, it also places laws (among them, laws of sexual morality) on humans. There is a profound misunderstanding that all Christians (conservative ones, anyway) hate Gays. This is not true. We do not hate them, rather we just believe what they are doing is evil.

"If so, and if being homosexual is a sin, then doesnt that mean homosexuals are no longer human?"

No...it doesn't. If you have studied Christianity in detail, you should know that sin does not make someone inhuman, in fact, sin and humanity go together. Humans are, by nature, sinful. The fact that they are sinful does not make them not human. Also if you have studied Christianity, you would know that Christians believe Sex is not solely for pleasure. If it were, we would be going around having sex with abesolutely anybody. Instead, it is believed to be not just a means of procreating, but also a method of coming together with a wife... *A WIFE* ...in a loving bond. Or as it is said quite clearly in Genesis: "Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." God does love homosexuals, just as he loves all other humans on the earth, however he does not always love the things they do. He does not love sin.
This is a belief engraved in the heart of every god-fearing Christian who accepts his word (Scripture) as the guide to their life. Furthermore, in Leviticus, it states: "Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." This is believed to be God's laws, which later became the basis for all Jewish law in the ancient world.
One must also take note of the fact that humans also have sex to "keep their race alive and thriving" as you put it. It is not something solely created for our enjoyment (though we do enjoy it much :) ). It is true that we have been given freedom of choice. It is also true that that freedom allowed our fall into Sin.

"they dont hurt anyone by being the way they are. If they were hurting people, I would definately see why it's a sin. But they aren't."

You need to keep in mind that things can still be wrong though they do not physically harm anyone else (I will not get into an argument about the AIDS virus). You do not have to hurt others to sin. For instance, denouncing God and accepting Satan as your savior is a sin, yet you harm no one. I am not sure where humanity decided that sin was directly related to harming others, but the statement itself simply screams "ENLIGHTENMENT ERA!!!"

-Ecthelion-

-ecthelion-

This is a belief engraved in the heart of every god-fearing Christian who accepts his word (Scripture) as the guide to their life. Furthermore, in Leviticus, it states:

You're pretty much into this, aint you? Ever had the thought that there actually are so-called Christians who DO NOT belong to some strange club which calls itself 'Church of ... '? What you are saying essentially is: all christians are this way, and if they are not, they aint no Christians!

... talking about closed mindness, eh?

yours, bG.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

What you are saying essentially is: all christians are this way, and if they are not, they aint no Christians!

So what. It's just about stupid labels and where you draw the line between them. The "strange church of..." club as you call it has every right in the world to claim an own label for their religion. Your own faith is not inherently worse or better because it's labelled Christianity or not, or because someone said something about their notion of Christianity that happened to not include your own belief.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Furthermore, in Leviticus, it states: "Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." This is believed to be God's laws,

This reminds me of this.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This reminds me of this.

Exactly. But to state it in this topic nonetheless - as many probably won't follow this very enlightening link:

You absolutely can't argue on grounds of one verse of the Bible, especially from the Old Testament. You can probably find a quote to back anything there (the more closed-minded your position the likelier). So please, argue in the spirit of the Bible (seen as a whole) if you want, but don't quote single verses.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

This post was edited by wizz on Feb 19, 2004.

Well said.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

You should not assume that, just because I only quoted one bible verse (despite the fact that it comes from one of the books that dictated Jewish law for centuries), that there are not other similar teachings in the Bible. The most powerful I can think of among these is the account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Sodom eventually developed into our word Sodomy). In Genesis, Abraham begs the Lord not to destroy the town of Sodom if he can find fifty good people there. Realizing that this is unlikely, he continues to plead with the Lord, lessening the number each time, asking him not to destroy it if he can find that many, until he reaches the number ten. However, still not so many as ten can be found. Then the Lord sends two of his messengers, angels, into the city and they stay with Lot. Then a crowd approaches Lot’s home. “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” (Genesis 19:5). After Lot leaves the town, God destroys it. The town is punished for its sinful nature and for having departed from the will of God.

Furthermore, I would also like to cite (though not quote) these other areas: Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and of course as before, Leviticus 18:22. One should also take note of the fact that because only one quote might have existed, the quote is not therefore rendered as less significant. Particularly in this case, for the entire book of Leviticus is devoted to the laws of God. As He tells us, “You must obey all my regulations and be careful to keep my laws, for I, the Lord, am your God. If you obey my laws and regulations, you will find life through them. I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:4).

Ever since the Enlightenment Era, humanity has developed this notion that for something to be reliable, it must: 1-be proven scientifically, or 2-in the case of historical events must be a well-known historical fact that has been tested and tried to be true. Citing the fact that the Old Testament is, in fact, old, is completely irrelevant. The age of a document has absolutely no effect whatsoever on its legitimacy. If it did, 2000 years from now, we would have little reason to believe that documents like our Declaration of Independence are accurate or legitimate. After all (as a liberal would say), we humans evolve in our understanding of all that is, and grow intellectually with each generation. This, however, is completely untrue. Humanity would be blessed if it ever got another Socrates or another Confucius. I believe it was a Roman poet who said that every generation thinks they are the most advanced. Technologically true, though not intellectually.

Furthermore, on the issue of whether or not homosexuality can be considered wrong (on the grounds of whether or not it harms people), the lifestyle does in fact do harm. It is harming our society, splitting it up between the supporting and opposing groups. The issue is being forced into the public forum (as we see in this thread), and quite frankly, most people are tired of it. The issue is forming a schism in our society today and is serving no other purpose, other than furthering & advocating the belief that we humans should be completely free to do whatever the hell we want. Freedom is a seriously misunderstood thing, and is not always good. Complete freedom, in fact, is wrong. No one should have absolutely no restraints put on them at all. One should note the fact that in our Declaration of Independence, in the famous phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their created with certain unalienable rights, among these, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the word “freedom” is not used a single time. Instead the world “liberty” is written, and there is a great difference. Liberty is not getting to do what you want, rather getting to do what you want that is right. Some might say that homosexuals should be fully allowed to indulge in their lifestyles, since it is their pursuit of happiness, but that statement is still under the “jurisdiction” (so to speak) of the right to liberty. Our country was not originally about freedom, rather, liberty. When it was founded, people still believed in and followed moral and ethical teachings that had been accepted for more than two millennia. Now, however, we depart from this.

-Ecthelion-

-ecthelion-

You should not assume that, just because I only quoted one bible verse (despite the fact that it comes from one of the books that dictated Jewish law for centuries), that there are not other similar teachings in the Bible.

I didn't assume there weren't others. Yet even ten or twenty are irrelevant. There are a lot of verses in the old testament that are completely ignored. A few get picked out because they happen to support what people think anyhow. Some are even - if taken by the letter - contradicted in the new testament. I don't see why I should consider the old testament a valid source for any kind of argument, I really don't.

Citing the fact that the Old Testament is, in fact, old, is completely irrelevant.

Agreed. The point is not that it is old, but that it is "the old testament" (see above). (Which doesn't mean I'd sign anything in the new testament, mind you...)

Furthermore, on the issue of whether or not homosexuality can be considered wrong (on the grounds of whether or not it harms people), the lifestyle does in fact do harm. It is harming our society, splitting it up between the supporting and opposing groups. The issue is being forced into the public forum (as we see in this thread), and quite frankly, most people are tired of it. The issue is forming a schism in our society today and is serving no other purpose, other than furthering & advocating the belief that we humans should be completely free to do whatever the hell we want.

1. Sorry, but I cannot take the argument seriously, that something is wrong just because it is polarizing and you're tired of it. Imagine a country where women can't vote. You could use the same arguments against women suffrage there.
2. We're talking about humans here. This is about the discrimination against a part of society. You can't stop the discussion because there might be harmful sideeffects.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

Ever since the Enlightenment Era, humanity has developed this notion that for something to be reliable, it must: 1-be proven scientifically, or 2-in the case of historical events must be a well-known historical fact that has been tested and tried to be true.

No, no… no one is doubting the validity of the old/new testament. Personally, the problem I have is rather with the self-fufilling logic that becos it is proven scientifically that it exists and that the historical events are true (say, the miracles), therefore the words of the 2 texts must be true and held to be commandments.

Many other religions from my part of the world have equally valid carbon-dated texts (that are ironically stored in your western museums), events were also true, miracles were also performed. Hence, I’ll just like to highlight that “everyone’s” religions also hold true words. It should not be the case that 1 religion’s commandments should hold true for the entire society. I tend to think of religions’ commandments as guidelines, but not holdfast laws for any society (which is made up of many religions to begin with). But this point is for another dicussion.

on the issue of whether or not homosexuality can be considered wrong (on the grounds of whether or not it harms people)

May I para-phrase what u r saying?
Are u saying that homosexuality is considered wrong (meaning harms people) because their lifestyle harms our society by 1) splitting us into opposing camps 2) advocating freedom to pursuit happiness without restraint? (as opposed to liberty, which is freedom to do what is right)

I think your argument is somewhat problematic, cos aren’t there a lot of issues in society that drive all of us into (many differing) opposing camps? E.g. the political issues or even whether God exists. If by your claim that issues that drive schisms into society are bad, then I think there’s a lot of issues that would be considered wrong by your standards, not just homosexuality. Don’t use the issue of homosexuality as a whipping boy for the myriad of opinions that society holds today. That’s neither right nor fair.

Moreover, why should having an opinion or a differing opinion, consequently be in differing camps be wrong/harmful? In fact I think it serves as a good check for people bigoted enough to think that only they are correct/ only they have the correct brand of liberty/ only they are “doing what is right”. Don’t you agree?

advocating the belief that we humans should be completely free to do whatever the hell we want. Freedom is a seriously misunderstood thing, and is not always good. Complete freedom, in fact, is wrong. No one should have absolutely no restraints put on them at all

How did homosexuality ever get linked up to freedom/liberty? In any case, why should one’s sexuality be linked up to freedom/liberty? Your sexuality is part of you, as God-given (ah, how ironic) as the blue/brown of your eyes or the yellow/black of your hair. There was already no freedom/liberty (the freedom to do the right thing, as u say) right from the beginning.

Also, I don’t see why a homosexual lifestyle is getting into anybody’s way, esp. if you are heterosexual? Sorry, your argument is somewhat vague to me: are u linking homosexuality with promiscuity? (which in any case is an alarmingly wrong view and are 2 totally different issues). Becos you use the word “indulge” to label their actions and lifestyle, which seems to imply that they are somehow decadent in your eyes. Do you know some of them personally? I do. And their commitment to relationships puts me, a hetero, to shame at times.

The issue is being forced into the public forum (as we see in this thread), and quite frankly, most people are tired of it.

Don’t say that. I don’t think andrei wanted to “force” this into the public forum.
“most people are tired of it”—(how do you quantify “most”?) as long as the issue is not resolved, a certain group of people is still being discriminated against, this issue is valid and has the urgency to be discussed.

~~~~

I am not sure if you’ve read Oscar Wilde, E.M. Forster and Jeanette Winterson before. 3 different authors from 3 different eras who are all non-straight. Wilde was persecuted in court for his sexuality, Forster died alone unable to admit his sexuality, Winterson is currently living and openly non-straight. They are talented people, contributed much to society by pushing the frontiers of literature. They’ve done much for the society, but what has the society in turn done for them? Not to discriminate against them and giving them the equal rights that we, as heterosexuals have, is not too much to ask (isn’t it a shame that these fundamental rights are even ours (heterosexuals) to give in the 1st place?). This issue has taken a long enough time in the history of mankind to resolve, shouldn’t it be about time to make yet another progressive step ahead?

"Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating." --Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

What about the effects it might have on some people? Since some countries started allowing homosexuals to marry each other... there are already thousands of couples 'happily' living together... then they adopt children from the orphanage. Do you think it's fair for the child to grow up with two fathers?? then the child will be mocked in school for that reason too... this will lead to no good... Of course orphans dream of having mom and dad as his/her parents, not two dadS.

~ Imagination is more important than Knowledge ~

Of course orphans dream of having mom and dad as his/her parents, not two dads.

We're okay with broken marriages and single parents, which makes this point seem a little like a strawman argument against gay marriage.

then the child will be mocked in school for that reason too...

I agree that this isn't a problem that's going to go away tomorrow. But let's not put it like homosexual couples would be blind to this issue.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

then they adopt children from the orphanage. Do you think it's fair for the child to grow up with two fathers?? then the child will be mocked in school for that reason too... this will lead to no good...

So basically, it's wrong for homosexuals to adopt children because the children of flaming heterosexuals will treat them poorly?

Thbbbbt

We're okay with broken marriages and single parents, which makes this point seem a little like a strawman argument against gay marriage.

Maybe you feel okay.. but wouldnt you be feeling better to have the perfect marriages and parents?

So basically, it's wrong for homosexuals to adopt children because the children of flaming heterosexuals will treat them poorly?

well.. actually, i never said it was wrong. I only said that it can lead to no good... being mocked in school might turn someone to be a shy and silent person... im talking about the effects it can give psychologically. the child might be a more successfull person if he/she was in the hands of normal parents. I just thought that it'll be better to hand orphans to normal couples, unless the child himself is big enough to accept/agree with it...then go ahead.

~ Imagination is more important than Knowledge ~

I just thought that it'll be better to hand orphans to normal couples, unless the child himself is big enough to accept/agree with it...then go ahead.

By assuming heterosexual couples as 'normal', you've already failed. homosexual couples are as 'normal' as anybody else - DO you know any homosexual folks? DO YOU? Personally, I mean, in your circle of friends - not from TV, newspaper, etc.! If not, I neither think nor understand why or where of you got the nerves judging about something that you dont know, didnt have made experiences, etc! X-(

But back to your thesis that it would be better for the child to:

1. grow up with heterosexual couples and
2. let him/her decide, if she/he wants to live that way

so, about #1:

Either you're living in a world full of fantasies and dreams (ie. not in reailty) or you still havent got over the fact that there are waaay less so-called standard families consisting of two heterosexual parents (ie. man and woman) and their child(ren). this really is the ideal situation, which wont work in about 50% - 60% of all the cases we got with 'normal' couples. In Germany, about 50% of all so-called families consist of a single, either divorced or never married parent, looking after one or more children, either having a friend, or if divorced, maybe letting the child/ren visit their other parent each weekend / once in a month / during holiydays / or even never, because this person doesnt want to have to do anything with his/her children!

To this discussion I can also add some personal experiences I made lately when I was visiting my sister (she's living in Bielefeld since 09/2003, taking part on the OSK school project), which was when we were in a discussion and came to exactly this topic - one of her friends was there, too, and told her one of his homosexual friends (a 'dyke' aka lesbian) said she would like to let them (my sister and him) grow up their children.

First, we (me and my sister) didnt understand what he meant exactly, but then, after he explained it to us, it was right clear: living in a flat-sharing community with one or more couples, where everybody could take out some time to look after the growing up children. A quite nice solution to this problem I think - as a lesbian, you still could get pregnant, give birth do your child and still have some male friends who could help the child in being something like a uncle to them. And with gay couples, they could do the same - if they were allowed to adopt children, it wouldnt make any difference, as there still would be some female people who could be equal to an aunt - a psychological parent / attachment figure for them.

As you can see, of course I do see the problem of the missing other part of parentship, but it aint that big - there are waaaay other big trouble in world which will let children stumble in their growing up, personal development and environment then just this - also, think of all the poor children who have to grow up with both parents, but where the mother eg. is an alcoholic, and the father is just a big fat asshole beating his children to cripples or even to death!

And about #2:

Mice idea, but you could say this nearly about ANYTHING - me, I didnt have the chance to choose if I would like to be a vegetarian, but when I started to eat meat when I started attending school, my parents didnt say anything against it ...
Sure, I still say, its bad they didnt give me the chance to choose between whether I would like to eat meat or be a vegetarian, but thats just life ;)

And if you would give a child the chance to do anything he/she wants, you soon get in troubles, too, as the child doesnt know where the borders of some action are, and maybe even commits a crime while not knowing it actually IS a crime! You might even know how this way of education / upbringing is called - it's the so-called 'Anti-authoritarian upbringing' model, which was formed by people in the 60s and 70s of the last (20th) century, as their parents did invoke a totalitarian / authoritarian upbringing model to rise their children.

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Mar 11, 2004.

You are lying:

“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (Genesis 19:5).

My Bible says:
"Where are the men which came in to the thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them?"

And shall we remember that it was two "ANGELS" who were with Lot. Lot, the Righteous, knew they were angels, while noone else did, not even his family--they just had to trust that his hallucination was accurate. And in the end of this story, the moral here, is that even Lot's family wasn't just enough.

Quoting quite alot of old testament. Let me pose to you the same standard that I asked of Wizz. Is the Old Testament the Old covenent, and the New Testament the "new covenant", remdering the "old covenant" no longer relevant?

Aklright:
Romans 1:18-23 talks about righteousness and the "wrath of god revealed from heaven against all ungodlieness and un righteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness..."
Again, this is a bullshit red herring that has nothing to do with the iniquity of "faggotry" being a sin in the bible.

Corinthians 6:9-10,

(Cor 1 or 2?) 1 Cor. 6:9-10 lists fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effimenate, abusers of themselves, thieves, revilers, extortioners as those who shall not inherit the "kingdom of god." (A) faggots aren't listed, (B)they sound alot more fun than most of the Christians I've met, present company included; and (c) quite honestly, if your ilk will be found in the "Kingdom of Heaven," quite honestly, I'll take my chances with the idolaters, and effeminate.

Leviticus 18:22

Oh, this is fucking choice. Let's go a little deeper, shall we? Talk about selective reading! First off, he's talking to Moses. He's giving Mo the rules and laws for the poeple that he just led into the desert. Apparently, the :"chosen ones" were acting a little "funky" and "kinky", so "god" has to tell Mo to tell his peeps that they shouldn't uncover their mothers or father's nakedness. Don't pull off your sister's dress, or her underware, and the like. Don't uncover your mnother-in-law, or your father in law. Heck, don't uncover your little baby girl, whether she was born at night, or abroad.
So, 18-22 says something like this: Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Also thou shalt not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Moreover, thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with her. And thou shalt not letany of thy seed pass through the fire of Molech, neither shallprofane the name of god, i am lord. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as withwomankind: it is an abomination.
Lev. 18:18-23 states: Neither shalt

And I'm still trying to find the point in these quotes, and this bullshit rhetoric, way off the mark of the alleged "sin" of faggotry, aside the masterbatory, self-aggrandising blather of a typical Christian trying to thump and stump his religion into those who could really care less.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Mar 15, 2004.

Please... Before you say something like

You are lying:

make sure, he is. Because he quoted correctly, just from a different translation.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

If that's so, then the translation should be given.
And you'll pardon me, but I'm not willing to allow him the weasel tactic of a "good faith" mistake.

More to the point, it's my understanding that the inplication and intention of that passage, which has long been disputed, was never that "we want to have sex with them." Rather that they rightly didn't trust Lot and his shady "angels," so they wanted to "get to know them"--in the same respect that you'd want to "know" a stranger coming on to your property.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Please... Before you say something like

You are lying:

make sure, he is. Because he quoted correctly, just from a different translation.

Maybe "you seem to make up things I cant find in MY text out of the bible" would then be better?

cu, w0lf.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

GB, my esteemed friend and colleague. I appreciate your comments, as always. I thank you for your input. When I care to be, I'm most capable of being diplomatic.

When I care to, I'm willing, and able, to be non-argumentative.

When I care to~

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Sorry, this is so far afield the topic of respecting the rights of people-who-happen-to-be-homosexual-in-their-sexual-orientation, that I might as well coment.

You absolutely can't argue on grounds of one verse of the Bible, especially from the Old Testament. You can probably find a quote to back anything there (the more closed-minded your position the likelier). So please, argue in the spirit of the Bible (seen as a whole) if you want, but don't quote single verses.

what does this mean? Please explain: Argue in the spirit of the bible? Seen as a whole?
Is that the spirit of "Love" perhaps? the "spirit" of moderate values? Or is it the Holy Spirit, where one talks to an invisible spook being (a neutered entity) to get guidance in addition to glossalalia?

Unfortunately, the ilk of that statement is typical to the unreasoned apologist, revisionist devices used by, well yes, Christians, when their Book is taken seriously too. You can't have this both ways. IF, again, IF this is truly the word of God, then those words MUST be taken literally. If it's not the words or god, then one needs a "spiritual" interpreter to get the "spirit of the bible."

Look, this is very simple. This is no "spirit of the Bible" unless it's the holy spirit. The bible is comprised of an Old Testament, and a New Testament. They are two separate things, entirely. One is the old covenant, as it was explained to me. Due to the vicarious atonement doctrine set forth in the Book, the Old testament became null and void.

With all of this said, I'll agree that this is YOUR opinion. As such, this is one person arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

IF, again, IF this is truly the word of God, then those words MUST be taken literally.

We might have a difference what "the word of god" means. I mean, one cannot reasonably believe the whole bible is literally something god "said" (whatever that should mean). The bible has been written down by a multitude of people, the texts have been chosen among a larger amount of available texts, they have been altered, they have been translated...
Is it unreasonable to view the bible as a text that generally formulates god's "teachings", but that cannot been taken literally down to every word? A text that, while generally valid, might have even been subject to "politically" motivated changes?

If you ask me personally, I don't see the bible as the word of god, as I don't believe in god. Yet I generally accept it as a source of ethics. I can't accept verses like those quoted above, but that doesn't render the whole book useless.

Look, this is very simple. This is no "spirit of the Bible" unless it's the holy spirit.

Sorry, I don't follow you here. Perhaps "spirit" is the wrong term, we might face a language problem here. I meant "spirit" like "general tenor" (e.g. "love your neigbour as yourself").

The bible is comprised of an Old Testament, and a New Testament. They are two separate things, entirely. One is the old covenant, as it was explained to me. Due to the vicarious atonement doctrine set forth in the Book, the Old testament became null and void.

A catholic probably wouldn't agree. Catholic theologists even go to great lengths to show that both the new and old testament can coexist.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

Unless you're a catholic, I don't care what their viewpoint is.

Are you saying, (A) that the Old Testament is or is not the "old covenent;" and (B) therefore we are or are not any longer under it's dispensation?

You'll recall that the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges, etc. were the very strict and stringent requirements for dietary laws, scapegoats and sacrificing, marriage, dowry and a whole complex litany of societal mores and folkways of 4,000-5,000 years ago. It talks about animal sacrificing, and tithing, and all of these myriad of laws and rules that the Essenes, and early Jews were held to. Not doing any work on the Sabbath day, was another list. These lists are mercilessly long and convoluted.

Exodus is full of the "movement" of god, and the "spirit" of God moving on the Pharoe, and softening, and then HARDENING pharoe's heard. It says that God HARDENED pharoes heart, and thusly, etc., etc. (with the help of the Holy Spirit) Passover became a holiday millenia later. Exodus is full of the 40 years that were spent in the desert. Full of lists of sins that came out of that, and the resultant 10 commandments. AT NO POINT in those ten commandments does it say that faggotry is a sin.

Again, in none of those ten commandments is faggotry listed as a sin.

It is in those myriad of laws, and supplications written by the Essene and similar cults that have come to be, literally, taken as gospel to this day. Quite clearly, the books of the old testament, are quite different, and stem from a much different, ANCIENT culture, which was, in fact ancient be the time that this character, Jesus, came on to the scene.

Those seeking to trip him up, as I'm sure you'll recall, asked jesus all kinds of questions about the laws and regulations of his day, as observed by the hypocrates, and saducees, and publicans. They ask him if it's ok to pull a ram/sheep out of a ditch in it should fall in on the sabbath. Essentially, he tells them that you do what you have to. They ask Jesus what they should give as a tithe, and to the government (i.e. Rome)--in keeping with that tradition of its day. So what does he tell them?

Give unto Ceasar what is his, Give unto god what is God's. He doesn't law down more laws, and regulations for the people to follow. Remember the charming little bit of his overturning the tables of the money changes, and salesmen in the temple. He screams at them: "Not in my father's house" ...or something to the effect. The ruling caste of that day, the religious elite who were using those rules and dispensations as a means of strangling the people, were a "den of vipers, and a generation of iniquity" to Jesus.

Clearly this fabled notion of taking the Bible as a "unified" book, and treating it with an amorphous "general tenor," is fallacious. For mercy of time and space, I give just a few examples. However, I'll be glad to dispute these fine points on some other post. It's merely the premise which you're basing your planck upon that's faulty.

There is no way that I can agree to anything of the sort as taking the bible in any "spirit" or "general tenor." It defies reason, and common sense.

If you mean that one should read this book, couched in terms of "love thy neighbor," then all the "smite thy neighbors" (i.e. pagans and heathens who believe differently from you) simply get thrown out the window. (Simply by logical extension, I find it difficult to see how I can "love" and "smite" my neighbor at the same time.)

By that logic, IF (and I do not concede such), it may say that faggotry is a "sin," then "love thy neighbor" as a doctrine, or set of standards needs apply. And in this case, love they neighbor means granting them the same rights as you'd afford the practicing Jew, or Buddhist.

But the problem here is that due to the coming of Jesus, and the religion based on his name, he practiced and preached "turn the other cheek." This, to me, seems to idealize the doctrine of "love thy neighbor." Basically, take care of your own problems, and cast out the beam in your own eye before looking to the mote in your brother's.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I'm rather puzzled. I can't really put my fingers on where we actually disagree, (apart from maybe a theological "subtlety" that is basically beyond me). I assume you misread me somewhere along the lines, I might have failed to put my thoughts into the right words. My reply, the one you quoted, was itself a reply to ecthelion33, who I strongly disagree with. Well, let me just answer your questions. Bear with me if I get them wrong. *confused*

Unless you're a catholic, I don't care what their viewpoint is.

I was a catholic, which is why I know a bit about their viewpoint. And as it is a very well-spread denomination, I would think their viewpoint does matter, although we might not share it.
It was, by the way, just the catholic church's closed-mindedness (gay-bashing among it) that made me "quit".

Are you saying, (A) that the Old Testament is or is not the "old covenent;" and (B) therefore we are or are not any longer under it's dispensation?

I don't get (A). I thought "old convenant" was just another term for "old testament".
As for (B): I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god, the bible is just a (albeit very influential) book. In the strict sense, it has no jurisdiction whatsoever to me. Yet, the bible is the base for western ethics, I agree with western ethics and therefore I *generally* accept the bible as a source for ethics. I believe that the idea of not-hitting-that-guy-over-there-because-you-like-his-wife (or boyfriend :-)) is very good indeed. That's all. I'm not familiar with the old testament in great detail. For all I know it might be crap, I just assumed it wasn't.

Again, in none of those ten commandments is faggotry listed as a sin.

Exactly. And more: I suspect that one cannot base any arguement against homosexuality on the bible without abusing it in the process (e.g. ignoring what I thought to be the "general tenor"). That was my whole point.

Frustrating as it might be ;-) I believe to completely agree with everything you've written.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

Alright, apologies for mistaking what you meant. I see you went off on a tangent to prove a point, and them I went off on that. I'll still stick by the point that it's impossible to read that book in a "spirit" or, whatever; as stated earlier. More to the point, due to those things, it's impossible to give a coherent adherence to modern-day societal principles, accordingly.

It's probably just my hatred of archaic doctrine that has me ready to draw blood. Alright, so point me in the right direction, and I'll attack!! <i>hehe</i>

(as to the points I was making, don't worry about it...doesn't necessarily apply to you if you don't follow/believe in the bible)

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second