Marriage Equality Defended in Massachusetts

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
phillyfan26 said:


Thus, you cannot cite the Bible as a source of information on modern homosexuality. It can't work. It doesn't work.


I was asked to defend my position on homosexuality and explain where my beliefs came from. I did that.

maycocksean, here is my response to that story. Yes, it is sad and upsetting that such thing occured. However, sorry, that doesnt change my stance.

Also, I'm not "afraid" of anything like you propose I am. Maybe you could elaborate on your statement.
 
I don't think people embrace anti-sexualism like that (and I think if you take a blowjob to being sin counts on that score) unless they fear the concequences.
 
2861U2 said:


I was asked to defend my position on homosexuality and explain where my beliefs came from. I did that.

maycocksean, here is my response to that story. Yes, it is sad and upsetting that such thing occured. However, sorry, that doesnt change my stance.

Also, I'm not "afraid" of anything like you propose I am. Maybe you could elaborate on your statement.

Now I am asking you to find something that proves they could see the future in which homosexuality became what it is today. (ETA: Because, based on citing those texts in the Bible, which referred to a completely different kind of homosexuality, you would have to prove that the writers of the Bible could SEE INTO THE FUTURE. And you wonder why we have such a hard time understanding your point of view.)

How easily you brushed that aside! Care to elaborate on why that doesn't bother you?

You're afraid to even allow the idea that you could be wrong. As in, when someone makes an argument, your first thought isn't to think about what they've said, but rather find something to defend against it, which is no way to educate yourself or grow intellectually. It's subconsciously living in fear by consciously holding tightly to ignorant opinions.
 
Last edited:
phillyfan26 said:


Now I am asking you to find something that proves they could see the future in which homosexuality became what it is today. (ETA: Because, based on citing those texts in the Bible, which referred to a completely different kind of homosexuality, you would have to prove that the writers of the Bible could SEE INTO THE FUTURE. And you wonder why we have such a hard time understanding your point of view.)

How easily you brushed that aside! Care to elaborate on why that doesn't bother you?

You're afraid to even allow the idea that you could be wrong. As in, when someone makes an argument, your first thought isn't to think about what they've said, but rather find something to defend against it, which is no way to educate yourself or grow intellectually. It's subconsciously living in fear by consciously holding tightly to ignorant opinions.

WHAT?! Homosexuality is homosexuality. Men lusting after other men 2000 years ago is not that different from men lusting after men today. It's the reason Sodom was destroyed. Check it out. A "different kind of homosexuality?" Sorry, I know you would love to have it this way to validate your argument, but there are not too many different definitions of homosexuality.

I said the story was sad. What else do you want? My position remains the same.

How do you know exactly what I am thinking when I read your posts? You dont, and so what you say is incorrect. Also, I havent read any of those holding your opinion acknowledge that they too might be wrong.
 
2861U2 said:


WHAT?! Homosexuality is homosexuality. Men lusting after other men 2000 years ago is not that different from men lusting after men today. It's the reason Sodom was destroyed. Check it out. A "different kind of homosexuality?" Sorry, I know you would love to have it this way to validate your argument, but there are not too many different definitions of homosexuality.

I said the story was sad. What else do you want? My position remains the same.

How do you know exactly what I am thinking when I read your posts? You dont, and so what you say is incorrect. Also, I havent read any of those holding your opinion acknowledge that they too might be wrong.

I'm amazed. Have you read the posts by Ormus in the previous thread? Go back to them and you'll see what I'm referring to. It's not a matter of me loving it for my argument, it's a fact that those who refer to the Bible for discrimination love to skip over. It's called context.

And the fact that you knocked homosexuality back to "men lusting after men" is something in and of itself that is worthy of debate.

To the last part of your post I ask, do you agree that homosexuality is not a choice or a preference or a way of life, but something a person is born into just like race?
 
2861U2 said:
No, I dont buy into the idea that people are born gay. I believe they choose to be.

Well, that's why we are certain we are not wrong. Because it's a fact that people are born gay. A fact. Science has proved it. It's not an "idea."

Thus, we can make our statements with complete confidence that you seem to take issue with.

I could name thousands of scientific facts. If you are debating an issue, and a person in the debate chooses to ignore facts, it's hard to debate reasonably with said person.
 
2861U2 said:


WHAT?! Homosexuality is homosexuality. Men lusting after other men 2000 years ago is not that different from men lusting after men today. It's the reason Sodom was destroyed. Check it out. A "different kind of homosexuality?" Sorry, I know you would love to have it this way to validate your argument, but there are not too many different definitions of homosexuality.

I said the story was sad. What else do you want? My position remains the same.

How do you know exactly what I am thinking when I read your posts? You dont, and so what you say is incorrect. Also, I havent read any of those holding your opinion acknowledge that they too might be wrong.
I've been plenty wrong in the past on plenty of things - but accepting or rejecting things based on the evidence and reappraising them as more evidence is gathered (I mean look at how easy it was to rebuild Iraq with all the oil money flowing into the country) is a good thing. With homosexuality I put it in the context of sexual liberties and while the argument of homosexuality being biologically based is perfectly reasonable (and useful if one wants to say that their intelligent designer made them that way) I don't think it would matter if it was choice or not as it is consensual activity that doens't harm other people. While your moral disgust at it is fine I think trying to legislate against it is very wrong indeed.

Don't like homosexuality then please don't commit that sin; but don't use force to stop others from doing it.
 
2861U2 said:
No, I dont buy into the idea that people are born gay. I believe they choose to be.
So what? How does their choosing to be gay harm you? How does it justify using the tools of state to discriminate against them.

Would you like it if the government discriminated against you because you choose to be Christian?

I think that the evidence of sexuality being hard wired is pretty strong (I just don't get the same physiological response from seeing a naked woman when theres some blokes tackle ruining it - much as i'd imagine the gays don't have as great an appreciation of the female form); but it doens't make a difference when it comes to government.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Don't like homosexuality then please don't commit that sin; but don't use force to stop others from doing it.

Exactly. It's one thing to disagree with homosexuality, as ignorant as it may be. It's another thing to attempt to change law based on it.
 
phillyfan26 said:


Well, that's why we are certain we are not wrong. Because it's a fact that people are born gay. A fact. Science has proved it. It's not an "idea."

Show me.

Some scientists who say that also acknowledge that environmental factors play a role and that it is impossible to predict who will be gay.

Sorry. I'll trust science with many things, but hearing that people are born gay just doesnt make sense.
 
2861U2 said:
Sorry. I'll trust science with many things, but hearing that people are born gay just doesnt make sense.

Hold on. Let me get this straight. Hearing that people are born gay doesn't make sense? That's the thing that doesn't make sense. You're saying that in a proven scientific fact against a Biblical MISinterpretation, the proven scientific fact is the one that doesn't make sense?

And do I really have to show you? Honestly, it's a fact. It's not something hidden in the Internet. It's known. Often ignored, but known. I don't believe I have to give you thousands of links in order to prove to you that science proves it. In fact, I find the request laughable.
 
martha said:


I'm gonna ask, although I know you won't answer, but here goes:

I have had a variety of reproductive organs removed. Therefore, I cannot have children. If I continue to have sex with my male husband of 18 years, are we sinning?

I go off to see the Police, and still no answer. I won't be able to enjoy certain things until I know if I'm sinning. :sad:
 
2861U2 said:

Men lusting after other men 2000 years ago is not that different from men lusting after men today. It's the reason Sodom was destroyed. Check it out.

And what exactly does it say about lesbians? Since you are so up on your scripture please show me something...
 
2861U2 said:
No, I dont buy into the idea that people are born gay. I believe they choose to be.

The American Psychological Association has come right out with saying people are born gay. I've studied sexuality development theories that show the same thing. It isn't just "science" as you say, I didn't pick up a flask nor did I calculate equations. These theories came along after years of studying and observing how people grow. The Cass Model (you can probably google it) is a very good one and used by many in my field. Actually, there are some parallels between sexual identity development and ethnic identity development in that the person is trying to discover a part of themselves that may not be "mainstream" or whatever.

How can you believe that people aren't born gay but are born heterosexual?? That part I don't understand. It is like saying that someone isn't born black, they choose to be.
 
^Another point I find extremely annoying is the selection of science that extreme Christians won't accept....

...They will accept most medicine because it will save their life. They can accept science has given us the ability to fly, to go to the moon and back, they accept science can allow us to predict the weather, or that science can carbon date the Haraldskær woman to 500 BC, or that science created the computer we type on, and many, many other things....

...but science is incredibly wrong when it says homosexuals are born how they are, that it is wrong again when it says the Earth is older than 6000 years, when it is a clear that the earth and humans had been about thousands of years before that...science just has to be wrong, it is ridiculous beyond belief, and should be beyond any reasonable person's faith.
 
Last edited:
^ :yes: you're right it is due to science that we're able to post on these boards.

i'm curious though...i know many christians get a bad rep over this, but aren't there other religious groups that share a similar narrowed perspective against science?
 
Last edited:
I don't think Islam is quite so anti-science, it was under Arab scholars that science continued to flourish before the renaissance, when a lot of science teaching was lost in Europe. The extremists I suppose would, but there isn't anything fundamentally anti-science in Islam.

The Catholic Church basically accepts everything science, except when it comes to homosexuality, it becomes distinctly anti-science.

Buddhism I don't think has any issues with science....

There are probably some small cults or something that denounces all science, but evangelical Christians are the only ones I can think of that denounce quite a bit of science in the mainstream.
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:
No, I dont buy into the idea that people are born gay. I believe they choose to be.



maybe you chose to be straight, but i didn't choose to be gay.

in order to have any credibility whatsoever on this topic, you're going to have to disabuse yourself of this notion.

did this one gay person you know tell you about the day he/she chose to be gay?

(and can you PLEASE tell me more about the gay lifestyle)
 
2861U2 said:
Sorry. I'll trust science with many things, but hearing that people are born gay just doesnt make sense.



has it occured to you that your religious beliefs pretty much have to be bogus if you have to lie to yourself in order to live with them?
 
2861U2 said:



Sorry. I'll trust science with many things, but hearing that people are born gay just doesnt make sense.

Yeah, it makes a lot more sense that they decide to be gay and live in a world full of people like you.
 
2861U2 said:
It's the reason Sodom was destroyed. Check it out.

This is a later revisionist view originated by the apocryphal "Book of Jubilees" (~2nd century B.C.) which was intended to be a defense of traditional Judaism from the dominant Greek culture of the day.

The traditional view is that it is related to ancient hospitality customs.

Rabbinic writings affirm that the primary crimes of the Sodomites were terrible and repeated economic crimes, both against each other and outsiders.

A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One example is the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up

The linguistic evidence is supportive, as the word traditionally misapplied to "sex acts" literally means "know" (yad'ah).

"Bring them out to us that we may know them."

And, indeed, there are verses in the Bible referring to how one can "yad'ah" YHWH ("know God"). The Book of Jubilees likely made its extrapolation on the fact that "yad'ah" could also have a sexual definition. However, in all other instances of the word in the Old Testament that could refer to sex, it is always in reference to heterosexual sex.

Where I end up further deferring to old rabbinic tradition is on the issue of Judges 19, which tells of the destruction of Gibeah--and the text is pretty much a retelling of the Sodom and Gomorrah texts, but involving a female.

"There they turned off to enter Gibeah for the night. The man waited in the public square of the city he had entered, but no one offered them the shelter of his home for the night. In the evening, however, an old man came from his work in the field; he was from the mountain region of Ephraim, though he lived among the Benjaminite townspeople of Gibeah. When he noticed the traveler in the public square of the city, the old man asked where he was going, and whence he had come. He said to him, "We are traveling from Bethlehem of Judah far up into the mountain region of Ephraim, where I belong. I have been to Bethlehem of Judah and am now going back home; but no one has offered us the shelter of his house. We have straw and fodder for our asses, and bread and wine for the woman and myself and for our servant; there is nothing else we need." "You are welcome," the old man said to him, "but let me provide for all your needs, and do not spend the night in the public square." So he led them to his house and provided fodder for the asses. Then they washed their feet, and ate and drank. While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, who were corrupt, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They said to the old man whose house it was, "Bring out your guest, that we may abuse him." The owner of the house went out to them and said, "No, my brothers; do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime. Rather let me bring out my maiden daughter or his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against the man you must not commit this wanton crime." When the men would not listen to his host, the husband seized his concubine and thrust her outside to them. They had relations with her and abused her all night until the following dawn, when they let her go. Then at daybreak the woman came and collapsed at the entrance of the house in which her husband was a guest, where she lay until the morning. When her husband rose that day and opened the door of the house to start out again on his journey, there lay the woman, his concubine, at the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Come, let us go"; but there was no answer. So the man placed her on an ass and started out again for home. On reaching home, he took a knife to the body of his concubine, cut her into twelve pieces, and sent them throughout the territory of Israel. Everyone who saw this said, "Nothing like this has been done or seen from the day the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt to this day. Take note of it, and state what you propose to do." - Judges 19:15-30

Notice the distinction that they made between "abusing" her and "having relations" with her. Nonetheless, this roving mob of depraved heterosexuals prompted God to raise an army and destroy the entirety of Gibeah. Should we, thus, extrapolate that God destroyed Gibeah because of "heterosexuality"? And if we are to make that extrapolation, should we thus make another extrapolation that says that God prohibits "all heterosexuality"?

This is my main problem with how people view the Bible. Even if we are, for a moment, to assume that the Book of Jubilees was correct, why Sodom and Gomorrah wouldn't be a narrow prohibition against violent rape is because of bias. As far as I'm concerned, those who wish to condemn the entirety of "homosexuality" based on Sodom and Gomorrah must also condemn the entirety of "heterosexuality" based on Gibeah.
 
Last edited:
LJT said:

The Catholic Church basically accepts everything science, except when it comes to homosexuality, it becomes distinctly anti-science.

Really? I thought they had changed this stance. My understanding is that the catholic church believes that people are born gay, that it is okay to "be" gay, but not okay to participate in "gay sex." Which...is absurd to me, but whatever.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom