Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women?

[Anthony]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Yes, I knew what you meant, Ant. I just needed to give you some shit about it because 40 is THE best age I've ever been and you should all look forward to it. I wouldn't want to be in my 20's again for anything.

And certainly a 40 year old man would be considered an underage girl's elder, but not elderly.

To hell with that, madame; Life truly begins at fifty.

Ant.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Melon, I believe this passes as a brief summary of some of your beliefs on the Bible:

The Old Testament is merely reference material.

You, once again, are ignorant of history. The followers of St. Paul considered discarding the entire Old Testament, Matthew, and John, along with all other non-Pauline epistles and books. They kept these books only for history and so that references to the Old Testament in the New Testament could be easily found. That is all the Old Testament is meant to be: a reference, not law. Of course, the Reformation comes and Protestantism plays this game of revisionism that we are still fighting.

BUT 1 Samuel is pro-homosexuality (never mind the actual context).

Most interestingly, this was Saul's reaction to David and Jonathan's relationship:

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'" - 1 Samuel 20

An interesting comment made over just a "friendship."

The Gospel of Matthew is pro-homosexuality - assuming the most pro-homosexual translations imaginable.

But no one ever brings up the passages that are supportive of homosexuals.

Matthew 5:22 - "But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna."

No one has ever taken the time to translate "Raqa" (or "Raca"). The closest word is "Rhaka," which is Hebrew, is a word for "soft" or "effeminate." "You fool" is also a ridiculous translation. The word "moros" has an amply used connotation of being a "sexual aggressor," namely a "homosexual aggressor." Essentially, this passage could mean that Jesus was displeased with homophobic comments.

Matthew 8:5-13 -- "When He entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, 'Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.' He said to him, 'I will come and cure him.' The centurion said in reply, 'Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it.' When Jesus heard this, He was amazed and said to those following him, 'Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.' And Jesus said to the centurion, 'You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you.' And at that very hour (his) servant was healed."

This parable appears in both Matthew and Luke. Matthew, which was written before Luke, uses the word "pais," which means "boy" or "servant" or "lover." The word "pederasty" comes from "pais." Considering the Centurion's above average concern for a mere "servant," this very likely could refer to a same-sex lover. Why else, perhaps, would a powerful centurion see himself as unworthy ('Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.')? Luke knew this implication, and changed it to "doulos," which, more concretely, refers to "servant" or "slave."

Likewise, Jesus does not condemn the Centurion; He exults him for his extraordinary faith.

BUT Matthew is not to be trusted.

Why do you continue to quote from Matthew? How many times must I state that Matthew is written with Jewish Christian bias? How many times must I state that the Church of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Church of Antioch, which was St. Paul's church? How many times are you just going to simply ignore history?

Paul's works aren't very trustworthy, either.

St. Paul is a very tricky writer. He hooked in the Jewish-minded Christians of Rome by appealing to their sense of morality in Chapter 1. Then he digs into their sense of morality in Chapter 2. By Chapter 14, he rejects their morality. With obscured translations, it is very easy to confuse his hooks as his true intent.

BUT Paul rejects Mosaic law, in verses that are apparently trustworthy.

Romans 13:8-10 -- "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."

St. Paul makes this very clear. He is for the total abolition of the Mosaic Law, as Jesus redeemed us from it, and any purpose of the Mosaic Law is summed up in the last commandment, "Love one another."

You appear to be willing to discard entire chapters, books, and sections of the Bible on the basis that you don't agree with their meaning.

You also appear to be willing to take a verse, divorce it from its legitimate context, and apply the oddest translation theories in order to make it say what you want it to say.

You further don't seem to have any qualms changing your mind about what to believe and what not to believe. In this one thread, you've quoted the Old Testament then criticized it as mere reference material; you've quoted Matthew then asserted that it's little more than a historical souvenir; and you've asserted that Paul uses rhetorical tricks and then assert that one of his verses is "very clear."

You seem hell-bent on shaping the Bible to your will - by whatever means necessary - rather than shaping your will to the Bible.

Your behavior is very familiar. I have considered not making this comparison, but then I recalled some other quotes:

You sit on your ivory tower making Draconian pronouncements on others who are not you, but, if you were on the other side of the fence as gay and had to deal with this ultimatum: "Love women or spend the rest of your life alone," I have a feeling you would be questioning the validity of this pronouncement on whether it was essential for practicing faith in God or not.

So easy to say on your Ivory Tower. You can leave this discussion and forget all about it, because it doesn't concern you. If there is reincarnation, I verily hope you end up gay in the next life. Then, let's see how you react to it.

I guess not everyone has empathy for those who aren't like them.

I'm done. You aren't listening. I might as well have spoken to Pharisees. Jesus surely had a handful debating them. And, like the Pharisees, you cling to legalism and fundamentalism.

"So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, 'Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders, but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'" -- Mark 7:5-9

As I think you will simply not get my point from this passage, let me rewrite it to accent my point:

"So Bubba questioned melon, 'Why do you not follow the tradition of the Bible, but instead support homosexuals?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'"

I'm not going to lie. I do think that your faith is like a Pharisee at times. But I'm not Jesus Christ; however, I try and strive to be like Him, which we are all supposed to do.

So, I'm a Pharisee, sitting in my Ivory Tower, huh?

WELL, I KNOW YOUR KIND, MELON.

I know the type of individual who would twist Scripture to say anything and everything.

See Matthew 4:6 and Luke 4:9-10.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Ok, I'll try and be short and cohesive here. Bubba thankyou for your reply. Just to note though, what is relevent to the discussion is not for you to say. I am not going to join in the argument in the style you and melon use, not because I dont read the Bible, but because it is not related to my beliefs.

I dont see sexuality as a choice. I never made a decsion on it, and every heterosexual, lesbian and gay person I know who has discussed it, have never said they chose it. Could you consider sex with a man? You might but you dont do it because it may repulse you, it may make you want to gag, it feels unnatural to you. To me, being intimate with another woman is the same. You cannot argue what is natural for someone else. Even though they state blindly that it is the case, you still doubt. Why do you? We, contrary to what the bible tells you, have sex for enjoyment. Us and Dolphins. The only 2 species on the planet to do so. Bonobo monkeys have sex for reasons other than procreation but it is not really enjoyment, more for placating other members of the group. Bats have a higher rate of homosexuality than any other mammal. Most common in the fruit bats. Strange facts, but there you go.

Now please, tell me how it is unnatural? How do YOU know what feels right for someone else? The plain truth of the matter is you cant possibly know. I think it follows on that you cannot know it is wrong. Obviously homosexual sex can't produce a baby, but we weren't made to have sex only for this purpose.

 

[Anthony]

AchtungBubba;

Yes, I did read both your and Melon's posts, its a tad hard NOT to read the never-ending story, not that I'm complaining.

I meant it when I said that I was impressed with the level of debate, how can I not be? In rhetoric they comprise a wonderful sum of philosophers and theologians and in length they defy Bernard Shaw's prefaces to his plays.

However, I myself do not hold with them, because they are too closely linked to the Bible. Evidently Melon (I think, though I may be wrong) is trying to beat you on your own ground of beliefs, as well as also positively believing strongly in the Bible, though there are fundamental differences in your beliefs and his, obviously.

My standpoint on using the Bible is that besides from the fact that I can't use it to support my arguments because I have always believed it, and still do, is that it is a book and merely a book written by people who simply didn't get the message. Oh, they got the words alright, but they didn't get the message. ANY book that casts judgement and dictates terms to people while condeming them to damnation is not the Book of God, but the Book of Man. Also, I do not wish to be called a manipulator of the scriptures, I do not wish to be seen as someone who will twist and corrupt their meaning; I do no presume to know enough of the Bible, as I do not wish to know anymore than what my Catholic upbringing taught me, and that was a lot, I would like to add.

All I am saying is that people should leave the Bible out of it, and engage in a debate that deals with US as humans and our prejeduices, and leave Divinity out of it. Why? Because I (and others) are so sick to death of it and are equally cynical about it. You might accuse Melon of twisting the scriptures, but too many it would seem the same for you.

I have asked it and so has AngelaHarlem, WHY is it unnatural? How can you know what the other person feels, and if you don't, what makes you think that you can deem in unnatural? What IS unnatural in your system of beliefs? Angela and I have asked questions, quite remote from the Bible, can you talk reason with us, please? I am not mocking you, I am asking you truthfully because I don't want the debate to end in some distant plain about who said what in what part of what chapter of the Bible.

Ant.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Melon:

I've reviewed what I said, and mentioning Matthew 4 and Luke 4 was unnecessary, and I retract the statement.

However, the fact remains that throughout this thread you have done two things:

* You've quoted the Old Testament, Matthew, and Romans.

* You've disqualified my use of the Old Testament, Matthew, and Romans.

Doing one or the other is fine; doing both is an unacceptable and insurmountable hypocrisy.

There's simply no point debating you if you are going to change the rules of the debate as you go along - if you are going to condemn the works that you yourself quote when I happen to use them.

Thus, I will no longer debate you. You may be right about homosexuality; then again, you may not. But discussing this issue (and any other issue) is a moot point if you're going to cheat.

 

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Ok my turn.
Ant and Melon have been ganging up on Bubba.
Ive read the Bible cover to cover twice, the King James Version.
Homosexuality is condemned in the Old and New
Testaments.
Why is it 'unnatural' because it negates the one of the first commandments of the Bible that God gave Adam and Eve in The Garden-"to multiply and replenish the earth"

Getting back to the original ques. Gay Women are accepted in our society more then men.

Now no one need suppose that I bash certain segments of our population.
I dont.
Theres gay guys that I go out to lunch with that Iam more comfortable with than straight guys who's only mental preoccupation is who their next sexual conquest is gonna be.
This repulses me.
I grew up in So. Calif and have a feel for all classes/segments of society.
I love all people.
I dont accept what all people do though.

Diamond

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Anthony, I'm not trying to change your mind here, but just wanted to explain some things to you.

1. You obviously don't believe that the Bible is the word of God. But I think it's important to note that Bible clearly condemns some things. I think you might even agree with some of it's condemnations:
Jesus repeatedly condemned the hypocracy of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law.
In Matthew 18:6 he says: "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
My only point is that I believe condemnation can be the way of love.

2. "You state that it's against God's will, but how do you know God's will?" Again, I'm not trying to convince you that Christians know the will of God, but I'll tell you that Christians do believe that we can know God's will. I think melon would agree with that. One of many verses that address this issue: Romans 12:2 "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will able to test and approve what God's will is, his good, pleasing, and perfect will." It's largely because of this issue (that we CAN know God's will) that the homosexuality debate doesn't get me too worked up. Christians believe that God's Spirit convicts us of things we're doing that are against God's will. So I believe that if someone has really given their life over to God, and has really submitted their will to His, He'll point out what they need to change in their lives in order to conform to his will.

3. Ultimately, I believe that those who oppose homosexuality have nothing to do with the Bible, whatsoever, except that they use it to condemn homosexuals and others.
I think that this is a gross generalization and is way off. I think there are many, many people who oppose homosexuality and practice the teachings of the Bible.

4. I would sooner have more respect for you (generic 'you', not you specifically AchtungBubba) to simply say that you 'just don't like fags'. That you simply despise them because they are not like you, that they behave in a manner that is different from yours and it is therefore wrong.

Maybe you would respect me more, but I won't say that, because it is not the case. I realize it would be much more convinient for you if that's what I believed. If I had never agonized over this, if I had never prayed about it, if I had never talked to gay friends about it, it would be a lot easier to say I'm an ignorant bastard. But I don't take this lightly. To use your terminology, I like fags. They are not like me, yet I don't despise them.

5. If a homosexual man was indeed put on trial for his immortal soul, and was found to do none harm, think none harm and pray for the welfare of everyone, how could you condemn such a pure soul? If these fundamentals aren't enough to keep a man alive both in this life and the afterlife, then I myself long not to live in either.

Again, don't want to change your mind, but want to explain what Christians believe, as it may help you understand Melon, Bubba, and others more. Christians believe that no man, can live "purely" enough to keep him alive in this life and the afterlife. We believe that EVERYONE has sinned and that we are only saved from the punishment of our sins by the sacrifice Jesus made for us by dying. It's by grace that we're saved, through faith, not by works. So what I'm saying is that no person, heterosecual or homosexual could stand before God and be "found to do none harm, think none harm and pray for the welfare of everyone."

I've gone on much more than I meant to. If you want to know what I think, it's really summed up in my previous post (page 3), and perhaps even more so in point #2 of this post.

-Spiral

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Ok, I'll try and be short and cohesive here. Bubba thankyou for your reply. Just to note though, what is relevent to the discussion is not for you to say. I am not going to join in the argument in the style you and melon use, not because I dont read the Bible, but because it is not related to my beliefs.

I dont see sexuality as a choice. I never made a decsion on it, and every heterosexual, lesbian and gay person I know who has discussed it, have never said they chose it. Could you consider sex with a man? You might but you dont do it because it may repulse you, it may make you want to gag, it feels unnatural to you. To me, being intimate with another woman is the same. You cannot argue what is natural for someone else. Even though they state blindly that it is the case, you still doubt. Why do you? We, contrary to what the bible tells you, have sex for enjoyment. Us and Dolphins. The only 2 species on the planet to do so. Bonobo monkeys have sex for reasons other than procreation but it is not really enjoyment, more for placating other members of the group. Bats have a higher rate of homosexuality than any other mammal. Most common in the fruit bats. Strange facts, but there you go.

Now please, tell me how it is unnatural? How do YOU know what feels right for someone else? The plain truth of the matter is you cant possibly know. I think it follows on that you cannot know it is wrong. Obviously homosexual sex can't produce a baby, but we weren't made to have sex only for this purpose.

First, I know it's not my place to proclaim what can and cannot be discussed (although, if I think a point is not really relevant, I will make mention of it). What I meant was merely that I didn't originally respond to your first post because I didn't find it very substantive. I was explaining my posts (or lack thereof), not banning yours from the forum of debate.

On the discussion of choice, I think we are discussing two things: desires and actions. We cannot help what desires enter our head, including homosexual desires. Because we genuinely cannot help having them, desires in and of themselves are neither moral nor immoral. Thoughts (including the "I-would-if-I-could"-type indulgence of our desires) and actions, however, are under our control. Someone can't help having a homosexual desire for another person; but, right or wrong, the person is responsible for acting on that desire.

Honestly, I think the situation dictates when desires are appropriate and in what ways. Personally, the desire for sex is quite commonly felt - and I imagine such is the case for most men. In many times, such as when one is not married, or when one desires sex with a woman other than one's wife, he is NOT to indulge that desire. Other times, such as when he's with his wife, indulging the desire is absolutely fine.

Further, the Bible DOESN'T say sex isn't for enjoyment, the greatest counterexample being the Song of Solomon.

On the issue of "unnatural" desires...

I'm not sure if homosexual desire is "unnatural." But even if I grant that is natural, that DOESN'T mean that it should be acted on. A natural desire is not necessarily a MORAL desire:

As I mentioned, the sexual desire in general shouldn't be acted on in every situation. And, in most cases, the natural desire to kill (we are competitive animals with some carnivorous teeth, after all) should not be acted on.

(I know, the obvious response is that murder violates "love thy neighbor" and homosexuality doesn't, though I think it violates "love God" insofar as God's plan is heterosexual monogamy. But the end result is what matters: the desire is still wrong. Again, not all natural desires are moral.)

Besides, we're flooded with many conflicting desires at one time. I suspect that they can't all be right all the time.

Again: the reason I think homosexuality is wrong is that God made us with the plan that a man and a woman would join together in the unbreakable bond of marriage - for reasons beyond mere procreation - and sex is reserved for that one relationship.

Yes, sex wass made for more than procreation; it's pleasurable and intimate. But that doesn not justify having sex in whatever way we see fit.

Anthony:

There are reasons I asked whether you had read my posts is because you implied that I'm a prejudiced homophobe:

Those who agree with you (Melon), like me, are free from the such prejeduice and judgmentalism, those who don't have their own reasons for doing so; ultimately the ones who are prejeduiced are the ones who suffer.

Apparently, according to the rhetoric of the homophobes, the homosexuals are as guilty of their 'vices' and faults as much as left-handed people were of their left-handedness in the old days, and nothing will make them change their mentality otherwise.

As I said before in this thread, I have friends who are homosexual and bisexual, and I don't treat them any differently than my other friends, who are less than perfect in other ways. Further, I don't think the law should show any difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples (despite the fact that I think the church should continue to recognize "marriages" as strictly heterosexual).

I simply believe that homosexual activity is immoral. THAT doesn't make me a prejudiced bigot and homophobe.

I believe that gambling is wrong; that doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against gamblers. I believe that alcohol abuse is wrong; that doesn't mean that alcoholics shouldn't be loved (even and particularly when they think they don't have a problem). Likewise, the belief that homosexuality is wrong doesn't immediately make me a homophobe.

You also attribute my beliefs to the suppposed fact that I was "raised to think and feel in such a way that makes (me) cringe when (I) see two homosexual lovers kiss in public," AND that I am simply "qualified enough to be God's voice."

That runs completely contrary to the fact that I've presented in every way possible the Biblical text that leads to believe homosexuality is wrong. You have no basis to jump to the conclusion that I'm reacting from my upbringing, that I was raised to be repulsed by homosexuality - and no basis to suggest that I'm pretending to be a prophet, speaking for God.

The reason I believe homosexuality is wrong is NOT my upbringing, it is that I honestly believe it's outside the bounds of God's will. And I don't claim my belief is God's will without reason: I BACK UP MY CLAIM WITH SCRIPTURE AND REASON.

THAT is why I don't think you read my posts.

Returning to the discussion, I don't think the Bible is terrible and judgmental. Christ condemned adultery and lust (Matthew 5:27-28) AND showed concern for those who committed adultery (John 4:4-26, John 8:1-11).

THAT is what is meant by hating the sin and loving the sinner. The two are not mutually exclusive - and both are embraced in the Bible.

All I am saying is that people should leave the Bible out of it, and engage in a debate that deals with US as humans and our prejeduices, and leave Divinity out of it. Why? Because I (and others) are so sick to death of it and are equally cynical about it. You might accuse Melon of twisting the scriptures, but too many it would seem the same for you.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to leave God and the Bible out of the discussion of the morality of homosexuality. The reason is, I believe it immoral BECAUSE of my religious beliefs, and morality ITSELF calls on values that may be outside the realm of mere philosophy.

You want to discuss whether homosexuality is legal, I will and gladly leave the Bible out of it for the most part (using, rather, theories on the social contract, the rights of man, etc.). But the question arose of why I think homosexuality is IMMORAL, and that is a religious question.

Finally, I explained the difference between natural desires and whether acting on those desires is moral. See above.

Basically, I believe homosexuality is wrong because I believe, essentially, God said so. I have no other substantive reason, but I don't NEED any other reason.

Diamond:

I love all people.
I dont accept what all people do though.

THANK YOU for your post.

(Spiral, just noticed your recent post. Well said.)

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-06-2002).]

 

[Salome]

I think God feels more love for gay people than for people who smack each other on the head with the Bible

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Salome:
I think God feels more love for gay people than for people who smack each other on the head with the Bible

I thought God loved everyone equally!

 

[melon]

I really don't have much time, so I have to make it brief. Perhaps I shall respond in more detail later.

1) I apologize for speaking on the behalf of Bubba with the post written by Angela Harlem. However, what I wrote I have a feeling is the truth, but it was not my place to respond to that post in that manner.

2) On the Bible: I believe it is a dangerous book to give to people ignorant of history and contextual backgrounds.

I hate Matthew, quite simply, because it is a contextual nightmare. The congregation that wrote Matthew was in a transitory period, whereas the first half contains many Jewish Christian biases, whereas the second half reflects its conversion to Gentile Christians. My opinion on its current form is that it was originally written by Jewish Christians and edited by the Gentile Christians to change beliefs--but not perfectly. In the manuscript, the phrase, "This is the law and the prophets," was appended to what Jesus stated of the Golden Rule, and is considered by scholars to be an "evangelist's edit."

Normally, someone with knowledge of the Church of Jerusalem, dominated by Jewish Christians, and the Church of Antioch, dominated by Gentile Christians, which competed with each other diametrically during the first two centuries of Christianity, would understand the semantical contradictions and have no problem with it. Since we are descendents of the Church of Antioch, which disregarded the Mosaic Law in practice (even if it is written ambiguously in the New Testament, it is historical fact), I take any such "commandments" that link us to the Mosaic Law as "cultural bias."

With St. Paul, the Catholic Church rightfully calls him the originator of "theology," defined in this instance as the act of creating religious doctrine that either contradicts Jesus or teaches on something He never covered. Hence, from his precedent, the Catholic Church took it upon itself to make its own "theology," as it is the direct successor of St. Paul's own Church of Antioch. As such, I take his writings very cautiously, since I don't even buy all the theology that the Catholic Church teaches.

Like it or not, Jesus makes no mention of homosexuality. He makes a mention of Sodom and Gomorrah once, but in the interpretation that it was a sin of inhospitality, as stated elsewhere in the Old Testament. If it so bothered Jesus, I'm sure he would have directly mentioned it.

However, most intriguingly, Protestant Bibles completely malign His own pronouncements on divorce, making a supposed exception for "adultery," which is a blatant mistranslation. The "exception" in Matthew referred to the Leviticus "blood mixing" laws (basically, pronoucements against incest)...a gift from the Jewish Christians. Funny how straight people bend the rules, though, when it applies to them...

Unfortunately, I am arguing with a Christianity that is ignorant of its own origins, preferring some romanticized ideal of "divine inspiration" and happy people prancing around in some euphoric glee. The reality is just like the rest of life: full of conflict and disagreement about what constitutes salvation. We have never, in any time in history, had all Christians in agreement on what is "the law."

My suggestion would be to pick up a Catholic Bible (for the scholarly contextual footnotes that are easily readable and placed near the actual verses, along with contextual prefaces for each book). I wholly understand if you aren't Catholic, but you don't have to be Catholic to own one of their Bibles. I own a copy of the KJV, mind you, and I'm not Protestant. I use it for comparison to my preferred Catholic Bible, because it is very interesting to see the differences between the two in translation.

Unfortunately, I'm limited by my own knowledge of the subject. I am seriously considering, at this point, to get my doctorate in this field and dedicate my life to Biblical study, since it engrosses me so much. Then, at last, I could get a hold of the original documents and study it for myself.

3) It is useless to continue this discussion on the origins of homosexuality. No one, not even the most ardent and serious scientist, knows for sure. Heck, they don't even know what makes people "straight," let alone gay. If you think it is just estrogen/testosterone and XX/XY sex chromosomes, you are wrong. I advise that if you are interested in genetics, in particular, buy an introductory college-level genetics book. High school ones won't cut it, because they are likely only to stick to the basic Mendel model of "dominant" and "recessive," which has notable and major exceptions.

4) DB9: Those supposed condemnations of homosexuals in the KJV are completely lacking in contextual knowledge. The definition of "homosexual" that we currently have was coined in 1874.

Previously, it was straight people who did same-sex acts or revulsion against male temple prostitution (a cult ritual in the temple where bisexual orgies made you closer to the gods), but these prostitutes had sex with males and females.

To complicate it, most modern translations make the big error of putting in the word "homosexual" in reference to these beliefs. A straight person committing same-sex acts is a major difference than with the modern concept of homosexuality, so it is no wonder, with this model, they would have condemned it.

5) Much thanks to Spiral_Staircase for putting my thoughts into words. I believe, in many cases, "God's will" is different for each individual, as I believe we are all here to learn a separate lesson in life. I believe greatly in providence, and much of my life has been guided by this providence. The fact that it has taken me beyond traditional interpretations is interesting to me.

6) Bubba: I don't think the Song of Solomon trumps St. Paul, who stated that the ideal is celibacy, but that marriage was for the morally weak. Perhaps God changed His mind from the Old to the New Testament?

St. John Chrysostom and his stoic contemporaries were concerned with making us as perfect as possible, taking from the tradition of St. Paul.

As such, since you seem to ignore Biblical context to support your arguments, I think 1 and 2 Samuel, with the obvious same-sex relationship of David and Jonathan, shows that same-sex relationships are allowed. The language is very erotic as written.

At the same token, the Song of Solomon never states that the two lovers are married. They could easily be fornicating, but the New Testament is definitely against it.

Ultimately, whether you know it or not, your pronouncements against homosexuality stem from the medieval stoic tradition (resurrected by Sigmund Freud), rather than the Bible. Your statements on "geneological dead ends" and implicit echoes of natural law arguments gave you away.

"Conflicting desires." I'm not having conflicting desires. Are you?

7) Much thanks to Anthony for his posts, along with Salome's brief, but important, comments.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Melon:

I quote myself, since you may have missed it the first time.

There's simply no point debating you if you are going to change the rules of the debate as you go along - if you are going to condemn the works that you yourself quote when I happen to use them.

Thus, I will no longer debate you. You may be right about homosexuality; then again, you may not. But discussing this issue (and any other issue) is a moot point if you're going to cheat.

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I thought God loved everyone equally!

you thought wrong

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Very witty, Salome.

I hope you're joking, and I *would* ask, but it doesn't much matter.

Let's look at what you said once more:

Originally posted by Salome:
I think God feels more love for gay people than for people who smack each other on the head with the Bible

NOW, let's say that someone posted the EXACT opposite:

Not posted by anyone; purely hypothetical:
I think God feels more love for Christians than for...

...and you can fill in any number of insulting slurs against homosexuals.

Joking OR NOT, that kind of comment wouldn't be tolerated. It would result, I imagine, in immediate removal from the forum - without the possibility of any sort of appeal.

What I wonder is, why is it okay to make bigoted slurs about Christians?

 

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Bubba-
I think he does it because-
a.
-it's 'fahionable' to do so
b.
-it's an easy path.

Diamond

ps-continue Bubba to
fight the good fight.

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
What I wonder is, why is it okay to make bigoted slurs about Christians?

what I wonder is how you make all of this up

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
Bubba-
I think he does it because-
a.
-it's 'fahionable' to do so
b.
-it's an easy path.

I consider myself a christian
my own brother is a priest
I don't care what's fashionable, I never did

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Salome:
what I wonder is how you make all of this up

I'm not making it up: reverse WHAT YOU SAID, and you get, "I think God feels more love for Christians than for gay people."

THAT wouldn't be tolerated.

So, please don't avoid the issue by saying stuff like "how do you make this up." Please address the actual issue.

You say you're a Christian, and I accept that. Still, why would you insult your fellow Christians like that? And why is it acceptible to do so when it's clearly not acceptible to insult other groups?

Look: in this thread, I have put forth the position that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture and homosexual couples cannot be married by the definition of what marriage is - and THAT'S IT. I supported what I said with actual verses and with what logic I have. I ALSO said repeatedly that I oppose criminalizing homosexuality and support legal equivalence for all adult couples, and that I personally have homosexual and bisexual friends that I don't treat any differently than anyone else.

For that, what do I get? Well, Melon calls me a Pharisee. Anthony says that I'm a prejudiced homophobe who was raised to hate homosexuals, someone who arrogantly supposes God's will without any real basis. And, now, you bring up the specter of "Bible thumpers," "people who smack each other on the head with the Bible."

All because I don't think homosexuality is Biblically permissible.

WHAT THE HELL happened to tolerance for different opinions?

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
There's simply no point debating you if you are going to change the rules of the debate as you go along - if you are going to condemn the works that you yourself quote when I happen to use them.

It is not my fault that you lack contextual knowledge to know what goes where. I suggested certain books above, like a Catholic Bible and a college-level genetics text,. and I suggest you look at them, if only for comparison. I read many books I ultimately reject, but I'm better for having read them to, at least, "know my opponent."

Thus, I will no longer debate you. You may be right about homosexuality; then again, you may not. But discussing this issue (and any other issue) is a moot point if you're going to cheat.[/B]

I'm "cheating" now? I'll laugh this one off...

I'm ultimately tired of arguing this futher, having stated my position thoroughly, and I'm glad I got you to cave in first.

(<-- joke)

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
What I wonder is, why is it okay to make bigoted slurs about Christians?

Honestly? I've seen many bigoted slurs against homosexuals in this forum, and nothing happens to them. Likewise, though, if the slur had been altered to judge race, they would have been kicked out. Ultimately, that is why your argument here does not work.

Also, if you think that comparing homosexuals to "bestiality" isn't considered a slur, then you really need a reality check. That ranks high on the offensive scale to homosexuals, not so different than using the "N" word with black people.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I'm not making it up: reverse WHAT YOU SAID, and you get, "I think God feels more love for Christians than for gay people."

THAT wouldn't be tolerated.

okay, so we've established that if you reverse what I say then you'd say something that wouldn't be tolerated
I can't say I totally get what you're trying to say with this, but I guess I agree

Please address the actual issue.

well, I tried to that just now because you asked so nicely

You say you're a Christian, and I accept that. Still, why would you insult your fellow Christians like that?

I'm very glad you accept my christianity
I don't see how I actually insulted anybody though, but I guess I'll find out when I'll read the rest of your post

Look: in this thread, I have put forth the position that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture and homosexual couples cannot be married by the definition of what marriage is - and THAT'S IT

what worries me is not so much what you say, but the reason why you say it
if anyone else but Melon was involved in this thread you would have quit a long time ago
don't get me wrong, same goes for Melon
but I don't think personal dislike is a healthy basis for a debate

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
what do I get? Well, Melon calls me a Pharisee. Anthony says that I'm a prejudiced homophobe who was raised to hate homosexuals, someone who arrogantly supposes God's will without any real basis. And, now, you bring up the specter of "Bible thumpers," "people who smack each other on the head with the Bible."

I never intended that post to be solely meant for you
even if you think I did

WHAT THE HELL happened to tolerance for different opinions?

that's what I've been wondering around here for some time now

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Melon:

Once again, you've said that the Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted. BUT, you also suggest that if you look at the very same sources (and take verses out of context AND use the most obscure translations), you'll find that they condone homosexuality and therefore - Praise the Lord! - homosexuality's okay.

Pray tell, what part of the Catholic Bible suggests that you can disregard the Old Testament and Matthew UNLESS you find something you agree with? And tell me, what genetics textbook says you can't assert two completely inconsistent theorems as long as both are contrary to an idea you oppose?

What "contextual knowledge" allows you to be that manipulative and dishonest?

Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality:

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Again, I think His will is heterosexual monogamy or chastity, and that precludes a whole SLEW of thoughts and behaviors, not just homosexuality: spouse swapping, even consensually; pedophilia which moves the relationship from equal partners to predator and prey; and bestiality, which moves God's plan even out of the realm of the same species. Even if these practices aren't explicitly restricted, they probably still qualify as violations of God's will.

I compared the two only insofar as I believe both are outside of God's will for sexuality; if you noticed, I included wife-swapping in that list, and I implied that bestiality is worse than both in that it moves "even out of the realm of the same species."

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
That said, perhaps homosexuality and bestiality aren't precisely comparable - they do both seem to be inappropriate expressions of the human desire for sexual pleasure, but as you said, it's not "as if the soul can be shared with an animal in terms emotional and physical."

I emphasized that homosexuality and bestiality were similar in that I believe both are inappropriate expression of sexual desire - and that was the only comparison I was trying to make. I also admitted they were significantly different, a fact you seem happy to ignore.

Now, if you care to stop taking my comments out of context, I'm finished with this discussion.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Once again, you've said that the Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted. BUT, you also suggest that if you look at the very same sources (and take verses out of context AND use the most obscure translations), you'll find that they condone homosexuality and therefore - Praise the Lord! - homosexuality's okay.

Hmm...I love being taken out of context. So, let's set it straight, once again, to what I actually believe.

The Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted blindly. If you know contextual knowledge, then it should be no problem.

Unfortunately, despite your very noble "eggshell" analogy, you seem to take the Bible very black-and-white. That is, all or none. I take the Bible on the basis of which group wrote it and the meaning between the lines. I'm trying not to eat the eggshells essentially, while still enjoying the meal. You call it "picking and choosing." I call it, not to mention the world of literature, as "critical reading." Learn it sometime.

Next, I already stated many arguments back that the pro-gay texts were theory. If you don't remember, go back in the behemoth we call this thread and look it up. I think you are grown up enough to find it, without me quoting it again. And, yet, you bring it up again.

The Bible says nothing at all about modern homosexuality. Period.

And, yet, when Jesus condemns divorce, one of the few things He explicitly condemns, leave it to poorly translated Protestant Bibles to create an exception that shouldn't be there. I just love all the divorces these "good Christian people" have. I get a good laugh when I hear of their marriages are collapsing. Oh boo hoo.

When St. Paul puts celibacy at the level of perfection, while putting marriage for the "weak," how come there aren't any movements for celibacy within "good Christian" circles? In fact, it is the opposite: if you don't get married, there must be something wrong with you.

Yet, they throw boulders at homosexuals for not conforming to unrealistic ideals of "perfection" from asininely obscure passages in the Bible and bringing up subjective ideas of "it disgusts me" as to why they hate it.

My favorite line, though, had to be from the homophobic minister's son on MTV's "Real World": "I know it is wrong and all, but there's just something about two women kissing that makes it so hot," in referring to the lesbian on the show, yet he also goes on in other parts of the show about how gross he thinks the gay guy is. Nice.

Pray tell, what part of the Catholic Bible suggests that you can disregard the Old Testament and Matthew UNLESS you find something you agree with?

Pray tell, do you read anything I write, or do you enjoy taking me out of context for gaffs and follies?

The Catholic Bible contains footnotes on context with verses, along with introductions to all the books. These same footnotes and introductions, if you read them, would state that the Mosaic Law was thrown out for "love one another," according to St. Paul, and that Matthew was written by conflicting Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian authors.

Since I am adamantly against Jewish Christian beliefs, not to mention St. Paul's attempts at "theology," I am not going to believe them. A trained critical reader will be able to pick out which ones are written by whom, a talent I acquired over 13 years of Catholic education.

Not to mention that you are arguing with someone who is wholly against fundamentalism, as reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in 1987, which is my religion, whether you agree with it or not. "Critical reading" is not only encouraged. It is required.

And tell me, what genetics textbook says you can't assert two completely inconsistent theorems as long as both are contrary to an idea you oppose?

A nice pseudointellectual question. I was just stating, rightfully, that you have no genetics knowledge outside of the basics, citing:

1) That science cannot even pinpoint the genetic origins of heterosexuality, let alone homosexuality. A nice gaping wide hole for those who insist that it cannot be genetic.

2) That the simple dominant-recessive genetics proposed by Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and what you implicitly cited, has lots of exceptions. For simplicity sake, they don't teach you this in high school.

I was stating that your argument against homosexuality on genetic bases doesn't float, citing the glaring errors in your logic. Try again.

What "contextual knowledge" allows you to be that manipulative and dishonest?

"Manipulative" and "dishonest" is in the eye of the beholder, and an argument on the subjective basis of a personal attack will get you laughed at in a forensics competition.

Grow up. I'm going to argue as deep as I am able, and if you cannot handle it, it is your problem, and no one is commanding you to agree with everything I've written.

Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality:

I emphasized that homosexuality and bestiality were similar in that I believe both are inappropriate expression of sexual desire - and that was the only comparison I was trying to make. I also admitted they were significantly different, a fact you seem happy to ignore.

And this changes things how? You made the connection between the two, obviously so that you could raise the "disgust" factor to outside readers. You made the connection between the two, not I, and I've seen this argument enough in "Christian" circles to know that you didn't come up with this all innocently on your own. Not only is associating the two not only repugant, it is offensive and bigoted.

Homosexuality has as much in common with bestiality as heterosexuality does.

Oh and if you are wondering what I mean by "Christian," it refers to people or groups who call themselves Christian, but, to me, they are anything but.

I'm not calling you that, but if you wish to take this out of context and lump yourself in that category, be my guest. I've been implicitly called "anti-Christian" enough by you, just because I don't agree with you, that it certainly could be appropriate.

Now, if you care to stop taking my comments out of context, I'm finished with this discussion.

Go ahead. No one is forcing you to reply. Good day.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[sulawesigirl4]

*peeks cautiously into the thread*

ummm, so 4 pages and 144 posts later, did we come up with a general conclusion as to if America is more accepting of gay men than gay women?

 

[Anthony]

AchtungBubba;

I am sorry if you felt that I aimed the homophobe comment at you, but if you actually read the structure of it, I addressed homphobes and not you in person. When I did address you in person I asked you a direct question, though I am ready to admit that the questioning and the rant was invariably mixed, and I apologized for that - I admit that I am too personal when it comes to this. I am ready to criticise others for their prejuduices, without the ability to identify my own prejeduices.

However, I am baffled. How can you say that you love everyone? (You said that you treat and respect your bisexual and gay friends normally, and you echoed Diamond's very nice sentiments about loving everyone) Its a very nice thought, I admit, but do you love your enemy? WHen was the last time either of you, or indeed any of US ever turned the other cheek for the other to strike? When did you ever NOT support the bombing of Afghanistan and the war on Terrorism; don't you love Osama bin Laden? How can you possibly make sweeping comments like saying that you love everybody. I'm sorry, but if you honestly believe that then I believe you are not being honest with yourself.

And I find it even more baffling to understand you when you say that you RESPECT and LOVE (you may not have said love, but you certainly said respect, the love thing was again.. an echo of Diamond's post) your gay friends when you think them to be immoral. Its like saying, 'I respect you and like you, even though I think you will and should burn in hell for all eternity for violating God's law'. You think them to be immoral, so how much do you respect and love immoral people? Again, see the above question, how much respect and love do you have for Osama bin Laden, who no doubt according to God's law should burn in hell for all eternity for his crimes.

I am not saying that you are intolerant, I am calling you HUMAN. I can't say that I love everyone. 'Love your neighbour' it is always said; I HATE my neighbours and I hope their stupid dogs die soon before they wear my ears off. Given that, I certainly don't see how you can truly and properly respect and love people when you think them to be immoral to the core, as anyone else would. And when I make this deduction I aim the question towards you Diamond, as well, who was responsible for the 'loving everyone' comment. I don't believe anyone loves everybody, and I don't think either of you two do.

So, as an honest question, how can you love and respect your gay friends while thinking them to be immoral? How?

And as for your 'ganging up on AchtungBubba' comment, Diamond; I am very much taken aback. This is not dockside bullying, its a forum where people stand up for what they believe in, if no one else chose to support AchtungBubba its because they didn't share his views, not because the world has decided to gang up on him.

And besides, if AchtungBubba and yourself are correct about your comments, then apparently he has God on his side and has therefore nothing to fear.

And sulaswesigirl, I can not vouch for everyone, but I for one said it in my first post and continue to say it; we (the whole world as a global society) are NOT tolerant enough of either, gays or lesbians.

Ant.

[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Orignally posted by melon:
Hmm...I love being taken out of context. So, let's set it straight, once again, to what I actually believe.

The Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted blindly. If you know contextual knowledge, then it should be no problem.

"If you know contextual knowledge, then it should be no problem."

Orignally posted by melon:
*Sigh* Context is lost again. The Gospel of Matthew is the sole gospel of the Church of Jerusalem, which believed that all Christians must follow the Mosaic Law to the letter. We are descendents of the Church of Antioch, led by St. Paul, and his followers only kept this gospel in the canon as a keepsake for historical context.

"His followers only kept this gospel in the canon as a keepsake for historical context."

Orignally posted by melon:
STOP QUOTING MATTHEW. "Murder" and "sex with animals" is a violation of "love one another."

"STOP QUOTING MATTHEW."

Orignally posted by melon:
Why do you continue to quote from Matthew? How many times must I state that Matthew is written with Jewish Christian bias? How many times must I state that the Church of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Church of Antioch, which was St. Paul's church? How many times are you just going to simply ignore history?

"Why do you continue to quote from Matthew?"

...

Orignally posted by melon:
Oh and if you are wondering what I mean by "Christian," it refers to people or groups who call themselves Christian, but, to me, they are anything but.

"it refers to people or groups who call themselves Christian, but, to me, they are anything but."

Orignally posted by melon:
Romans 13:8-10 -- "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law."

St. Paul makes this very clear. He is for the total abolition of the Mosaic Law, as Jesus redeemed us from it, and any purpose of the Mosaic Law is summed up in the last commandment, "Love one another."

"Jesus redeemed us from it, and any purpose of the Mosaic Law is summed up in the last commandment, 'Love one another.'"

Orignally posted by melon:
And, yet, when Jesus condemns divorce, one of the few things He explicitly condemns, leave it to poorly translated Protestant Bibles to create an exception that shouldn't be there. I just love all the divorces these "good Christian people" have. I get a good laugh when I hear of their marriages are collapsing. Oh boo hoo.

"I get a good laugh when I hear of their marriages are collapsing. Oh boo hoo."

(Not really a conflicting argument, but worth noting.)

...

Originally posted by melon:
I was stating that your argument against homosexuality on genetic bases doesn't float, citing the glaring errors in your logic. Try again.

This is, I believe the quote you're referring to:

"The left-handed example is quite different from homosexuality, in ways that I think invalidate the comparison: Left-handedness is an ability, while homosexuality is an expression of desire. Left-handedness is statistically frequent enough to justify the belief that it's one of the many common configurations (black, white, male, female, righty, lefty). I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex."

This was your original reply:

Bingo. I was waiting for this argument.

"Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a geneological dead-end."

I remind you, "I was ONLY pointing out the differences between left-handedness and homosexuality."

I said, IF is genetic, etc. I never asserted that it was genetically based (honestly, I don't know). Nor did I implicitly say anything about Gregor Mendel or his theories.

I didn't make any such argument. There aren't any "glaring" logical errors to my argument because I DIDN'T MAKE ANY ARGUMENT.

If you can find proof that I actually assert that homosexuality is based on genetics, PROVIDE THAT PROOF.

...

Orignally posted by melon:
And this changes things how? You made the connection between the two, obviously so that you could raise the "disgust" factor to outside readers. You made the connection between the two, not I, and I've seen this argument enough in "Christian" circles to know that you didn't come up with this all innocently on your own. Not only is associating the two not only repugant, it is offensive and bigoted.

You say I said this:

"Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality:

"I emphasized that homosexuality and bestiality were similar in that I believe both are inappropriate expression of sexual desire - and that was the only comparison I was trying to make. I also admitted they were significantly different, a fact you seem happy to ignore."

But you ignored the paragraph I wrote BETWEEN those two:

I compared the two only insofar as I believe both are outside of God's will for sexuality; if you noticed, I included wife-swapping in that list, and I implied that bestiality is worse than both in that it moves "even out of the realm of the same species."

Didn't I just get finished telling you you take me out of context? And yet, you've done it again - conveniently excising the part in which I include heterosexual wife-swapping as a counterexample, AND INCLUDING the part where I criticize you for taking me out of context.

Again, stop doing this, and I might just stop replying.

Finally...

Orignally posted by melon:
"Manipulative" and "dishonest" is in the eye of the beholder, and an argument on the subjective basis of a personal attack will get you laughed at in a forensics competition.

Grow up. I'm going to argue as deep as I am able, and if you cannot handle it, it is your problem, and no one is commanding you to agree with everything I've written.

An argument based on a personal attack does go nowhere. Hence, I've provided more than enough damning evidence that proves my point.

You are manipulative, and you are dishonest.

Your arguments are not deep. They are riddled with inconsistencies, half-truths, hypocrisies, and lies. You repeatedly take your opponents out of context and tear down imaginary arguments they didn't even make. You repeatedly take the Bible out of context and change your mind on what can and cannot be cited. And you repeatedly ignore your own past comments if sticking by them proves to be inconvenient.

Deep arguments? Hardly.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[camiloj]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
*peeks cautiously into the thread*

ummm, so 4 pages and 144 posts later, did we come up with a general conclusion as to if America is more accepting of gay men than gay women?

I dont think there is an easy answer to that original question.

Gay men that act like Will from Will and Grace and are woman's "best friend" tend to be accepted more than lesbians with mullets or who are politically active, like Ellen Degeneres.

A gay man that acts like a straight man in all mannerisms (and maybe even likes sports and doesnt talk with a lisp) but has sexual relations with a male and may even domesticate with one is not accepted more than a lesbian with long hair (not a mullet) and lipstick.

A lipstick lesbian ala Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct is many American males fantasy concept. She may even make other straight woman feel a mild attraction. She is the most accepted face of any type of homosexual, be it male or female.

You see, it is my opinion that the majoirity of us Americans love our stereotypes. We love to think we know how everyone acts and what kind of behavior we can expect from the people that we judge on the outside like a book on a day to day basis. We don't like it when things disrupt that.

Gay gangsters, skaters, and hip hoppers just freak us out, as does the all american jock that watches football with his buddies but has a secret boyfriend. We dont want to think that those things exist because it upsets our concept of the reality.

We dont like the mullet lesbian that watches Raiders games and has a kid and lover for 10 years. It threatens us. They dont look like we think they should, they dont live like we think they should.

It's all about stereotypes and perception when it comes to who is accepted more or less.

When it comes to acceptance, we are still light years behind. When a gay or lesbian couple cannot still adopt in Florida, when sodomy laws in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma only target same sex couples, when two people who love each other cannot get the EXACT SAME legal contract as MARRIAGE(except in Vermont), there is still a long way from real acceptance.

What we have right now is generalized acceptance. I see alot of changes in the younger generations(high school seniors), they seem to be more truly accepting, and maybe in 20-30 years when they are old enough to hold public offices and change laws, we will see some true acceptance in black and white, not just talk.

Anyway, this is my long winded opinion on the original question (there is no easy answer), it is just that, my opinion with just a few facts a couple of paragraphs above. So, it may be strong, it may be biased, but it is after all, just an opinion.

I aint even gonna touch the Melon/Bubba stuff, been there done that. It's like RECYCLE YOUR MIND, LOL!

[This message has been edited by U2LA (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Anthony,

Thanks for your reply; I guess I took your comments out of context. Sorry about that.

To be honest, I don't love everyone, though I know I should and I do try. You mention Osama bin Ladin, and I honestly don't know whether I hate him more or are just baffled by his hatred of us and his belief that he could attack us so brazenly without a military response. Either way, I probably do hate him, and that IS something that God and I need to work on.

But the reason I've been in constant support of the war, even after the shock of 9/11 has begun to fade, is that I honestly think it's the smart, right thing to do: it's a matter of logic, not emotion. If we do not root out our enemies and deprive them of the opportunity, they will attack us again, with as much deadly force as they can muster, be it conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear. The enemy made one thing clear enough on 9/11: it's us or them.

But, that's a politcal decision and VERY different from how I treat my friends.

Here's a brief example of how I treat my friends: A couple years ago, one of my good friends lost her virginity, and this caused a HUGE rift between her and her mother (both Christians, her mother thought her a failure and disappointment for committing such a sin).

She came to me, and I mentioned her that I thought that sex before marriage is wrong, but that it wouldn't affect our friendship - the morality of the subject was almost an afterthought, something barely mentioned: "I do think it's wrong, but that doesn't matter; I'll always be here for you." She REALLY needed friends then, people to remind her that she was loved regardless of what she did, and I would have been DEAD WRONG to not be her friend in a time of need. She has since gotten married to the same guy and patched things up with her mom, and rather than resent that "justice" wasn't done, I'm glad that her actions didn't lead to disaster.

I suppose, what it comes down to is remembering that we're ALL sinners. Even Christians, who have been saved from their sin, aren't perfect in staying away from their old life of sin. I have anger issues, some friends gamble on sporting events, some (many, actually) have had sex before marriage, and a couple are homosexual. We're ALL guilty of something; I'm grateful my friends don't hold my faults against me, and I don't hold theirs against them.

(And the ONLY reason this discussion kept going was because I felt like I had to defend my position; honestly, the immorality of homosexuality is not something that deeply influences my existence.)

And in terms of fearing that some may not be saved, that's not something that pushes me away from others but creates more concern for them.

Anyway, a very legitimate question, and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction.

 

[melon]

Bubba, face it. You know nothing about half the stuff I'm talking about. This isn't some little simple argument, so if you don't understand something, go to the library and look it up. I don't have time to teach you stuff you should have learned and retained in school, but likely went through one ear and out the other.

Your quote:

"I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex."

This is a reference to the theories of Gregor Mendel. I apologize if my arguments are too smart for you, but too bad. He is the founder and father of genetic theory, so when you think of simple dominant/recessive genetics that are passed on generationally, that is Mendel's theories.

However, there are major exceptions to Mendel's dominant/recessive theories, most notably what causes "dwarfism" (again, I don't remember the scientific name). You rejected homosexuality on the basis of genetic argument, and I refuted it on the same basis.

Assuming that homosexuality is passed in the same context as "dwarfism," just for argument's sake, you, Bubba, could contain the dominant "gay gene," but be totally straight. You could give this dominant gene to your children, who end up straight. Your children could pass this on to all their children, and one ends up gay. There is no rhyme or reason as to why some people with the dominant gene express it, whereas others don't.

Another genetic possibility is in somatic mutations, whereas, during the routine creation of eggs and sperm, the gene for sexuality is changed making people gay. These somatic mutations always occur--each person has an average of eight mutations--but it is totally random as to which genes will be changed.

Hence, my argument comparing left-handedness and homosexuality is, potentially, correct, as these facts of genetic blow holes in your arguments on it.

You referred to genetics in the context of his simple theories that everyone from junior high to high school students learn. I argue at a very precise level. If you would like me to put any of my arguments to a sixth grade level, request it and I will do it so that you may understand.

You don't assert that homosexuality is based on genetics, but you make it sound impossible. My discussions on genetics were to show that perfect XX / XY males and females that the Christian Coalition trumpets as the only creatures of God's creation (hence, the only "natural" humans) is incorrect. Hence, the belief that because God just created "men" (XY) and "women" (XX) that that is all that God intended for relationships. Science alone debunks that theory.

As for your quotes on bestiality, let me remind you your first little quote:

"And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality."

And this little doozy:

"If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?"

You may think of that as a little innocent comment that you don't think should offend anyone, but you wrote it exactly to stir up nasty sentiments, because you know that everyone thinks of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality as repugnant (yes, even gay people do), not to mention stating that "people" are equivalent to inanimate objects. Hence, I'm telling you now, just so you don't get physically attacked someday: if you put "homosexuality" and "bestiality" in the same sentence again, you will greatly offend gay people, just like stating the "N" word around black people.

I am "manipulative" and "dishonest"? If I may throw some name calling around, since you chose to throw the first punch, you are an imbecile. If I misinterpret your arguments, it is because they are literally stupid and incoherent. You do not know what you are talking about half of the time, and I spend half of my time correcting you on science and history, "facts" that you easily should have learned in school--or should have researched ahead of time, before trying to delve into this argument. If you can't play with the big players in this forum, then don't even start arguing with them.

You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of--filled with consistent falsehoods you claim as "truth." I argue on "theory," which is all you can argue this topic on, and there are multiple theories. That may be why you mistake it as "inconsistencies." I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side. I am more here to inform on the various theories, rather than do an elementary argument that has a "winner" and a "loser."

"Ignoring past comments?" What are you doing with your "bestiality" comments? I explained to you the meaning of my comments, just as you explained your "bestiality" comments. And you've taken tons of my arguments out of context. You just completely ignore any of my explanations, and I doubt even if you read all of my arguments. After explaining the dubiousness of the so-called "pro-divorce" passage in Matthew, you used it again as "evidence." Poor arguing, Bubba.

"Deep arguments" they are indeed, especially when stacked up to your sloppy ones I could have likely picked up from a Christian Coalition web site. Nothing you've stated, from beginning to end, is anything new to me, but you are good at writing pseudointellectual psychobabble arguments that look intelligent, but are filled with falsehoods passed off as "truth." At least I'm admitting mine are "theories," and I'm well-versed in several theories. You should work for the Catholic Church...they always need writers like that up in the Vatican.

If you want to stop arguing, then stop arguing. I will continue to correct your Limbaugh-esque manipulation of my arguments as long as I have to.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Achtung Bubba]

On the issue of genetics:

As you say, I made two comments that supposedly rely on simple high-school biology courses; I will address each comment on its own:

"I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation."

I don't see any area of contention. Let's say, for an instant (and I'm NOT SUGGESTING I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS), that both left-handedness and homosexuality are gentic. Left-handedness, if dominant AND expressed, doesn't seriously impede the organism's efforts to procreate and ensure the survival of its genetic information. Homosexuality, if dominant and expressed, causes the person to desire the opposite sex LESS than normal. Thus, the person is less likely to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, and is less likely to create any offspring. (A similar statement can be made for infertility: if a gene causes a lower sperm count, it's not going to do very well over time.) There's nothing controversial in my statement, and as far as I know, there's NOTHING that is refuted by ANY level of biological science.

(If you know of such a refutation, go right ahead.)

My other statement was this:

"the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex."

You attacked this comment once already, and I responded then:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." - Mark 10:6-8.

I didn't use Mendel, genetics, biology, or science to back up my claim that God intentionally created the two sexes. I used the BIBLE. Now, I grant that there are deviations from the norm, but they are simply that: deviations. I'm sure that those with XXY chromosomes, etc., are really nice people, but most of them can't reproduce. That they can't pass on their genes is a pretty damn good indication that something wrong about the genes - that they do not work precisely as intended. I continue to assert that male and female are the intended states of humanity, and that we were made to join a monogomous, heterosexual union - not because of genetics, but because of the Bible.

(I also note that you don't really refute the specific Biblical passages I quote, other than the usual arguments of "Old Testament bad" and "Matthew bad.")

At any rate, I'm sure plenty of people from the Christian Coalition have tried to use simplified genetics to back up their claims that there are no such deviations - BUT I HAVEN'T. Again, you're attacking claims I simply didn't make.

...

You bring up other quotes I made about bestiality. Let's - FOR ONCE - look at them in context:

"Simple: one would fear something that might arouse you because there are things that SHOULDN'T arouse you. Examples? Your own parents, children, and animals. Sexual attraction to such things is morally abhorrent and against natural laws.

"And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.

"(Let me be the first to say that I do believe that homosexuality is against God's plan for humanity, and thus a sin. But just as murder is worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, pedophilia is far worse than homosexuality. Murder and pedophilia should CERTAINLY be illegal; swearing and homosexuality should not. If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy), I say, live and let live.)"

What's this? I partially defend homosexuality, saying that it SHOULD be legal, AND that things like pedophilia are far worse. (For the record, bestiality is also worse, but I thought that could be left unsaid; sorry if that offended you.)

"I see no problem with homosexual couples having the same access to medical benefits and legal rights that married couples have. But marriage is an entirely different matter, because it is DEFINED to be the union of a man and a woman (usually sealed by an oath before God).

"If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?"

And look: here I say that homosexuals SHOULD have the same medical benefits as heterosexuals. Ultimately, I was responding to the suggestion to redefine marriage from "one woman and one man" to "two adult humans." My response was that, if you can argue the opposite-sex requirement out of the definition, you could also argue out the other requirements: that the number be limited to two, the age be of consentual adults, and even the species. If you read the entire quote, you would see I'm only defending the definition of the word "marriage", not equating homosexuality and bestiality.

Any other quotes you want to take out of context?

...

Originally posted by melon:
I am "manipulative" and "dishonest"? If I may throw some name calling around, since you chose to throw the first punch, you are an imbecile. If I misinterpret your arguments, it is because they are literally stupid and incoherent. You do not know what you are talking about half of the time, and I spend half of my time correcting you on science and history, "facts" that you easily should have learned in school--or should have researched ahead of time, before trying to delve into this argument. If you can't play with the big players in this forum, then don't even start arguing with them.

I didn't throw the first punch. You called me a Pharisee. THREE TIMES.

At any rate, you CONTINUE to take me out of context, and continue to assert that I made claims that I simply didn't make. Oh, I know what you'll say, because you've said before:

"If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense."

Well, frankly, that's bullshit. IF I don't make any sense, you would quote me in full, so all the world could see how idiotic I am. Rather, you take sentences utterly out of context and see things that simply aren't there to be seen.

You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of--filled with consistent falsehoods you claim as "truth." I argue on "theory," which is all you can argue this topic on, and there are multiple theories. That may be why you mistake it as "inconsistencies." I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side. I am more here to inform on the various theories, rather than do an elementary argument that has a "winner" and a "loser."

"You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of--filled with consistent falsehoods you claim as 'truth.'"

"I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side."

So, you can't be lying because are no truths. But in addition to that, I MYSELF AM LYING.

If there are no facts, how can there be falsehoods? If there's no such thing as truth, how can I be lying?

Or is this some more of your deeply philosophical bullshit?

"Ignoring past comments?" What are you doing with your "bestiality" comments? I explained to you the meaning of my comments, just as you explained your "bestiality" comments. And you've taken tons of my arguments out of context. You just completely ignore any of my explanations, and I doubt even if you read all of my arguments. After explaining the dubiousness of the so-called "pro-divorce" passage in Matthew, you used it again as "evidence." Poor arguing, Bubba.

What am I doing with the bestiality comments? Restoring them to their true context and explaining what I meant.

IF I took YOUR comments out of context, prove it, in the same way I defended myself.

On the issue of divorce - surprise, surprise - I already answered your objection. Your objection was this:

Originally posted by Melon:
You are ignoring everything I've written. The Catholic Bible rightfully states that that passage is INCORRECT. An analyzation of the original language shows that the Catholic Bible is most CORRECT. By saying "except when unlawful," it is a reference to blood mixing (incest).

My reply was this:

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Either way, it still proves my point. Regardless of what exceptions it makes, it does make an exception to divorce, and that fact discounts your assertion that Christ "totally condemns it everywhere else in the gospels." A minor point, I know.

As far as I can tell, you never noticed that reply. That's not my fault.

"Deep arguments" they are indeed, especially when stacked up to your sloppy ones I could have likely picked up from a Christian Coalition web site. Nothing you've stated, from beginning to end, is anything new to me, but you are good at writing pseudointellectual psychobabble arguments that look intelligent, but are filled with falsehoods passed off as "truth." At least I'm admitting mine are "theories," and I'm well-versed in several theories. You should work for the Catholic Church...they always need writers like that up in the Vatican.

I thought you liked Catholics, that "Luckily, my convictions are close to official Catholic stances." Or was that just another theory?

Anyway, I believe you're giving away one of your problems: the fact that you think I'm spouting off things that are exactly like a Christian Coalition website, which lets you believe all you need to do is find the reply to those sites and post it here. Hence, you believe I am EQUATING homosexuality and bestiality; hence, you think I have some grand proof that homosexuality is immoral on genetic reasons.

You THINK I say those things because I use two words (homosexuality and bestiality; homosexuality and genetics) in the same paragraph. You then cut out that paragraph, ignore the crucial explanations before it, after it, and in successive posts. You then act like I said something that I didn't, and criticize the imaginary argument as "pseudointellectual psychobabble."

I then explain myself, you then take THE EXPLANATION out of context to further "prove your point."

Melon, that's fucking insane.

And if you honestly think I'm doing the same thing to you, I invite you to prove it.

If you want to stop arguing, then stop arguing. I will continue to correct your Limbaugh-esque manipulation of my arguments as long as I have to.

Again, I AM willing to stop this, if you could simply stop taking me out of context.

Including your most recent post, you have taken me out of context, utterly misunderstood my argument, and ignored my successive replies some SEVEN times in the past three posts. Hell, just taking me out of context ONCE a post would be an improvement.

Stop doing that; prove IN CONTEXT that I said what you think I said, or simply shut up.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-08-2002).]