The bible and homosexuality

This topic has been beaten to death here, but as a gay man I can hardly take exception to renewing the debate.I think I've expressed my own views about this adequately in other threads. My only request here would be that anyone considering bringing up the story of Lot and the city of Sodom please review a previous thread starting with this message. You will note that the Sodom story is not adequate to make any case that homosexuality is immoral. You will also note that the discussion left many hurt feelings and apparently resulted in the exit of one or two creo members.In other words, tread carefully.

Unseul jabbers:

quote:

---

Right im defining damage as causing cuts, any open wound. Not very large ones, nothing dangerous, that wont heal, they probably arent even noticed, but still an open wound.

---

If this sort of thing upsets God then what they hell are sports all about? Most sports carry significant risk of open wounds; cuts and blood are in fact concomitant to most popular sports. Not very large ones, usually nothing dangerous that won't heal, etc.

quote:

---

I have been to Africa where its a real problem, seen the effects, its not pleasent.

---

Then why do you insist that AIDS is related to homosexuality? As Rrhain keeps telling you and you keep ignoring, it is primarily a heterosexual disease. All STDs affect all sexualities; if there is any exception at all to this rule it would be lesbianism. Is lesbianism more pleasing to God than heterosexuality? By your silly standard it would seem so.

Sorry, I didn't go back and read through the entire thread before responding, which I should have done. I mentioned near the top of this thread that this subject has been beaten to death on this forum. I've tried to stay away from this thread because I don't want to get into another heated exchange like the one about Lot and the city of Sodom. I came in here, read the last dozen or so posts, and off I went. My bad.At any rate, you DID at least seem to aver that AIDS is primarily a gay disease. I think the case has been adequately made that it is not. If all you are now trying to say is that anal sex carries increased risk of AIDS transmission then there's nothing to argue about. Is that indeed all you're trying to say?

Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

...the rectal lining is a bit more delicate than the vaginal lining, but not by that much.

---

And even that depends on how conditioned (for lack of a better word) the vaginal lining is in relation to the anal lining to which it is being compared. I read about this many years ago - I think C. Everett Koop was surgeon general at the time - and if I remember correctly a virginal vagina might carry a higher risk of HIV reception than would a non-virginal anus. Other factors, like penis size, vagina size and anus size also matter when it comes to this risk. Therefore the claim that vaginal sex is safer would only be true in terms of averages.I could be wrong about this since it's been so long, but it does make sense when you consider that HIV virus almost requires direct access to the bloodstream in order to infect.

Good point, but it's a fact that every topic with 'homosexuality' in the title is going to wander a bit. Every single one I've seen so far has, so I've come to expect it.

Morte writes:

quote:

---

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." This was one of the ones that can be interpreted to be in reference to temple prostitution.

---

It is helpful also to view this and the other Leviticus quote in light of the totality of Leviticus. Just a few passages earlier it is made quite clear that one is not to view the nakedness of any other member of one's family. Thus, when one's infant granchild comes to visit, one must never bath the child or change its diaper. To do so would be to commit an abomination and we wouldn't want that now would we?

quote:

---

Judges 19; I think berberry already laid waste to this argument in another thread, though I might be mixing up names.

---

It was the Sodom story, not this one. Easy mistake to make, though, since the situation is almost identical. In this case, it is a concubine that is offered up for rape and torture. She dies and her body is cut up by the Lot character (unnamed in this version, I believe) into twelve pieces. A piece of her is sent to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.See how neatly it all fits together and leads to the unmistakable conclusion that homosexuality is immoral?

quote:

---

Romans 1:26-27

---

The reference is clearly to an orgy. It is also quite clear that it involves otherwise straight men and women burning in lust toward one another. This has nothing to do with people who never were straight to begin with, nor does it have anything to do with committed, homosexual relationships.

quote:

---

I Corinthians 6:9

---

As you aver, the translation is highly questionable. The one you give is a newer version compiled by fundies. Fundies are not known for their intellect, therefore it is not surprising that they do an execrable job of translating scripture.That's all I have for now. You've done a fine job with this compilation. I hope we'll be seeing more of you here at evc.

I wonder if this thread has anywhere left to go. We've been through about 8 pages, mostly NOT dealing with the subject issue. I think maybe the fundies are tired of getting clobbered on this issue. That might be a good thing.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

You said this about Rom 1:26ff, and this just isn't true.

---

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Why does it matter what a small-minded idiot like Paul thinks anyway?The passage talks about men "leaving the natural use of women". Aside from the obvious sexism of this statement, it should be clear that, if they left "the natural use of women" (women are there to be used according to Paul, you gotta love this guy, huh?) then they must have been straight to begin with. Also, if fundies can interpret 1 Samuel 15 as relating the actions of a just and merciful God, I can interpret this nonsense as referring to an orgy!Now about "that which is unseemly": fundies, following the racist, sexist homophobe Paul, may think homosexuality is unseemly, but many other people are smart enough to realize that, as a guide to morality, the bible isn't worth the paper it is printed on.Why on earth does the Corinthians passage matter? If (and it's a big 'if') Paul is talking about homosexuality here, so what? He also damns anyone who is effeminate. Haven't you ever known an effeminate, heterosexual male? Better warn them that they're going to hell if they don't straighten up and quit acting like sissies. God's just waiting to dump them into hellfire, huh?

jar writes:

quote:

---

But there is nothing throught all of even Paul's writings that seems to imply that he saw homosexuality as any worse than any other form of promiscuity...

---

I have great respect for your opinion, jar, but I must take exception to the implication here. Homosexuality is no more a form of promiscuity than heterosexuality. Gays are just as capable of monogamy as anyone else.If one is to take Paul's words seriously (I don't see why one should, if for no other reason than, as you point out, he thought the second coming was imminent), then one must note that he was referring to men who had left "the natural use of women", obviously implying that these men were straight to begin with. Paul seems to feel that using women as sex objects is natural, but to discontinue using women and take up with other men is not. I don't know what type of morality this is supposed to represent, but it is not a morality to which I would ever subscribe.

jar writes:

quote:

---

It didn't matter if it was a married man seeking a man or woman other than his wife, or a married woman seeking another man or woman other than her husband, or two single men or two single woman or a a bisexual couple.

---

This still leaves the implication that any sex between two men is promiscuous while sex between a married man and woman is not. I strongly disagree. Two men or two women involved in a committed, monogomous homosexual relationship are no more promiscuous than a monogomous, married heterosexual couple.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

Lam asked whether the Bible condemned homosexuality anywhere else than Leviticus. It does.

---

No, it may. The Romans passage is the stongest evidence for your point, but it does not describe loving, monogomous homosexual relationships.The reason I condemn Paul so harshly is to make the case that his words ought not be taken as representing any sort of worthwhile morality. Paul was not a moral man in any sense of the word, therefore the proscriptions contained in his epistolary rants should be ignored by anyone who wishes to live a moral life.I neither like nor dislike Paul. He was a product of his time, and if the bible is to be believed then he was indeed changed by Jesus. However, the reason he should be ignored today is that, since his time, we have come to realize that many of the practices he either endorsed or tolerated are immoral. If right is right and wrong is wrong, as many Christians insist, then much of what Paul endorsed and/or tolerated was just as wrong back then as today. Paul's epistles are therefore worthless.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

As far as acting like sissies, I don't think effeminate actions are the same as acting like a sissy. I do think cowardice is among the major sins condemned by the Scriptures...

---

Then why doesn't the bible condemn the actions of Lot in Genesis 19?

Zachariah blathers:

quote:

---

The sphincter muscle of your anus was made to allow things to go out only.

---

According to whom? You? Are you a proctologist?Of course there are health problems associated with anal sex. There are health problems associated with every possible human activity, including sex of every type.And by the way, why is it that you seem to believe all homosexuals practice anal sex? Do you obsess about this sort of thing?

quote:

---

...homosexuality in a whole is unnatural.

---

Again, according to whom? You? By what evidence is it unnatural?

quote:

---

Two women cannot produce a child nor can two men. The whole idea behind procreation of the species is so we can go on.

---

Where does that leave infertile couples? Are they unnatural, too?

quote:

---

If we were all gay life would die.

---

Here we go again! Why are you fundies so paraniod about the whole population becoming gay? You really do obsess about this stuff, don't you?

almeyda repeats the recurring rhetorical:

quote:

---

By the evidence that homosexuals cant naturally reproduce.

---

Neither can infertile couples.

quote:

---

Its like a sickness thats preventing them.

---

Perhaps sometimes. More often it's because of surgery, usually elective surgery. These are heterosexual couples who have chosen to not be able to naturally produce children. If they have sex it would needs be sinful in order for your feeble attempt at logic to hold.

almeyda bleats:

quote:

---

Even if they have surgery to stop them from having babies it is still the natural way to have sex.

---

Why? Because you say so? Sorry, if you're going to make a stab at logic you must be consistent. Sterile couples can no more produce children by having sex with each other than can gay couples. Also, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in this and other threads, gay people can most certainly produce children in the "natural way". The fact that you may not approve of gay people producing children is your problem.The only reason you have for opposing homosexuality is your own narrow-minded bigotry. It has nothing to do with producing children.And, yes, your attempts at logic are very feeble indeed.