Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women?

[z edge]

Bubba and Melon,
This is just me and I'm not speaking for anybody else, but I gave up once they became overly long and repeditive

[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