U2 and Sexuality - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2006, 08:56 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rachel D.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Under a Pile of Words
Posts: 5,829
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


And homosexuals exist to prove that there's more to love than just having a penis and a vagina.

Melon
You seem to be confusing love and sex.
__________________

__________________
Rachel D. is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 08:57 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rachel D.
If it's OK for men to have sex with men who aren't male temple prostitutes, then does that mean that it's OK to sacrifice your children, as long as it's not to a pagan god? No, of course not.
There's a sweeping prohibition against murder. The fact that they had to go back and make a specific prohibition against sacrificing your children to Molech meant that Israelites must not have thought it to be murder. The fact that additional gods are not mentioned is probably because there were no other gods that Israelites were using to sacrifice their children.

Quote:
So does that mean that it's OK for a man to have sex with a man who isn't a prostitute? No.
Your logic is completely twisted. I'm sorry. If the Bible had intended to make a sweeping prohibition against homosexuality, they were capable of doing it. Yet, they chose not to. Instead, modern translators had to go in and place in their biases for concepts that they did not understand.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 08:58 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rachel D.
You seem to be confusing love and sex.
And, apparently, you are doing the same. There's more to homosexuality than having sex.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 08:59 PM   #64
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rachel D.


You seem to be confusing love and sex.
You did that a long time ago...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-23-2006, 10:56 PM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rachel D.
God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


boy, you're realy fucking original.

you embarass God and make your religion look foolish.

i'm so sick of this shit, in light of certain events, that i'm not even going to entertain dialogue anymore. you're free to have your bigotry and to enjoy it, just don't wrap it in the cloak of piety and self-righteousness to make it more pallatable to yourself. you're no different than a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite.

Melon -- sorry i've been away from the computer all day, you've done well as usual, but its increasingly obvious that logic, facts, reason and compassion aren't enough for people who need various boogeymen to define themselves against and give more meaning and importance to lives that obviously aren't terribly fufilling.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 11:05 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 04:05 AM
(stands and applauds)
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 11:34 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 10:05 PM
We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.

I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.

It's sickening and it's getting old.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 07-24-2006, 12:24 AM   #68
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.

I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.

It's sickening and it's getting old.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-24-2006, 02:33 AM   #69
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:05 AM
I do agree that telling someone they're morally wrong on account of their sexuality is fundamentally different from telling them they're wrong on account of their views on the death penalty, euthanasia, or for that matter their beliefs about God. Condemning someone for something they understand themselves to believe in, or to wish to freely practice as they like, can't be fairly compared to condemning them for something they understand themselves simply to be, and to need to realize their very existence through in a holistic way.

Nonetheless, it is very important that at least some of us remain willing and able to discuss these things. I'm as grateful as anyone else that, in the main, segregationism and organized anti-semitism are no longer with us. But if they were, if they were front and center in public debate today, I would think it important that we be able to discuss them here. Looking away from what just is out there will not help matters. Neither will settling for shouting about it.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 02:36 AM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Sometimes I wonder why we, as fundamentalist Christians, make such a big deal out of homosexuality. . .what's really going on here? I can't figure it out. I mean I can understand why a gay person would get hot under the collar in a discussion like this--their very personhood is being attacked. But why do those who believe homosexuality is a sin get so riled up? Is it that we're scared? Grossed out? Do we feel like we need to "stand up against the world" on some point, and these seems like a fairly easy point to do it on? It seems that no other "sin" sets conservative Christians off like this, and I'm not sure why.

Of course, the obvious explanation, would have to be homophobia (a fear of homosexuals and a fear of what might become of our society if they were fully accepted into our society). I think this is why people who say gay sex is wrong are automatically assumed to be homophobes, because why else the extreme responses? We all say, "we're all sinners" but that's not what comes across at all. What comes across is something more akin to "It's got to be STOPPED!!"

I'm a Christian "fundamentalist", I guess. Anyone who's read many of my posts here on FYM knows that. I believe in Adam and Eve and a six day creation and Noahs Ark and all the rest. I believe that the Bible is written by men, but inspired by God. I believe it is true and it can be trusted. However. . .I think the one place where I apparently differ from most of my fellow conservative Christians is that I recognize that understanding the truths of Scripture is a dynamic, growing process. There is always the possibility that I might be wrong. That what I THOUGHT the scripture said, and what it actually says might be two different things. I also recognize the danger inherent in wanting to hold on to a particular belief and then ignoring all Bible scholarship that might require me to give up that treasured belief.

So I have to ask Rachel D, and castriano, have you ever considered the possiblity that you MIGHT be wrong? And have you considered that you MIGHT not want to change your views on certain issues, such as homosexuality because it scares you, makes you uncomfortable, and just seems weird to you, and thus you might NOT WANT to consider any scriptural evidence that would force you to reevaluate what you always thought to be true?

It's scary to think we might be wrong. But it's important to hold on that possiblity, if only because it keeps us relying on God's grace. This is what is missing for most fundamentalist Christians, I'm discovering, the willingness to concede the possiblity of being wrong. Contrary to what you may think, it's is not our righteousness that offends people, but our self-righteousness. Is it possible that the very thing you accuse gay people of, you may be doing yourself, "making the Bible say what you want it to say to support what you already think."

My views are still pretty conservative when it comes to sexuality--I should make that clear, and I know most people would disagree with my belief that sex should be reserved for marriage, for example. Paul wrote that he thought (and he said, interestingly, that this was only his opinion, and not from the Lord) that it was better to be single. But, he said, if you can't control yourself, it's better to marry. For those of us who are heterosexual, we have an "out" for our sexuality. We can get married and share that with someone in a lifetime, monogamous relationship. Check out 1 Corinthians 7: 1-9. But what opponents of homosexuality are saying is that for the gay person, there is no "out." There's no options for you, other than to grit your teeth and be celibate for life. Or you can pray for "healing" but unlike the cancer patient who prays for healing, if you don't get healed, you'll go to hell. For the cancer patient, there is no sin in failing to be healed, but not so for the gay person. Where is God's justice and mercy here?

And you know, I don't think (and I know many here don't support this contention) that homosexuality was a part of God's original plan, before sin. But God has allowed all kinds of things that were not part of his original plan--polygamy and slavery during Biblical times, eating meat, warfare, and others. God's principles are of course unchanging, but the application of those principals, He has in His mercy, allowed to change in accordance with the culture and times of His children. Note, that there God's "stand on slavery" in Scripture is as "clear" as His "stand on homosexuality." slaves were to be obedient to their masters. If you were to stick to a strictly "literal" reading of Scripture you could conclude that God did not support the ending of slavery. And indeed slaveholders in 19th century American turned to these "plain" scriptures to SUPPORT WHAT THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE. Fortunately, there were other Christians who were able to look beyond the letter of the law, to the Spirit of the law, who were able to draw not from "literal" readings but from a broader understanding of God's character found in Scripture that slavery was something that God had allowed for a time, but whose time had come to an end. I wonder if we are not perhaps approaching something similar in regards to homosexuality, where we must look beyond the "literal" reading that conveniently fits with our fears and prejudices to the Spirit of the law, a law of mercy, compassion, understanding, and love.

So to me, if a gay couple sincerely wants to do God's will and follow God and they do all that they can to live up to His will as they understand it by choosing to commit to one another in a lifelong, monogamous relationship, then that is for God to judge, not us. Man looks out on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart.

If I've learned anything from my study of Scripture, it's that God is a lot more patient and a lot more understanding of our struggles down here then we give Him credit for.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 02:40 AM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.

I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.

It's sickening and it's getting old.
Precicely, opposition to the reactionary beliefs and retrograde social pressures demands unequivocal and loud condemnation, just because somebody believe something to be true doesn't stop it being any less offensive or deserving of contempt.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 02:54 AM   #72
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:05 AM
^ From this POV it would seem that MLK Jr. was a patsy and a weakling, since he did not fight contempt with contempt, and insisted on respect even towards men who used violence to keep down those he stood for.

His may not be the answer to everything, but contempt and refusal to extend respect make a poor basis for a social liberation movement.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 02:56 AM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Wow the hatred is deep...
The hatred is sanctioned, and no matter how much is dredged from the well of revealed truth it will always bring forth the same answers. The days of bronze age semitic tribal law is over, reason and rationalism prevailed; bring on the free love, faggotry and blasphemy
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 02:59 AM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
^ From this POV it would seem that MLK Jr. was a patsy and a weakling, since he did not fight contempt with contempt, and insisted on respect even towards men who used violence to keep down those he stood for.

His may not be the answer to everything, but contempt and refusal to extend respect make a poor basis for a social liberation movement.
But it makes for a very fierce defender of ideas and enables the middle ground to be won; there are matters that are simply non-negotiable that have to be defended vigorously and in many of those situations respect for other peoples alternative opinion is simply untenable and in some rarer circumstances an respect for them period is null. Ideas have to be fought for and strong oratory is the prime weapon, just look to the early days of evolution and Thomas Henry Huxley.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 03:12 AM   #75
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:05 AM
I don't think you can compare the acceptance of evolution to the success of the Civil Rights movement; the stakes in terms of human dignity were just not the same. Scientific debate, while obviously not unrelated to social progress, is a different arena and calls for different strategies. Granted, there are of course situations where "respect is null" as you put it--e.g., at the point where you're talking about the government-planned extermination of an entire race, then respectful dialogue is probably no longer of help. But that's not the sort of scenario we're talking about here.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com