The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

I could rant on each point you made, most of them are VERY rant worthy, but I wont.Instead I would like to guide you back on topic, and back tword the point of my origional post.You seem to be supporting the OT, rape and all, by simply saying "things were different back then so it was ok". Since that is the case, why can't I simply say "Things are different now, so homosexuality is ok"?You still not adress the main thrust of my argument, basicaly that you are cherry picking which rules we follow, and which rules we don't. Why do we keep the rules on homosexuality and yet don't stone women in the street?You can't have it both ways, and no where in the bible are eithr of these rules expressley abolished. So riVeRrat, you up for stonning every teenaged girl who is sexually active? Heck, I know plenty of women my age who are sexualy active and aren't married, wanna stone them too?So then riVeRrat, what criteria do we use to say which laws we keep and which we dont?An Aside:A woman may not call out when she is being raped simply because she has been knocked unconcious by her rapist. Held down under threat of death with a gun or a knife, or for many other reasons. I don't think you thought your statement thrugh, because if you did you would have noted that the OTs criteria for judgement is ultimetly stupid on this issue.Furthermore your comment about women being "stinky" at that time of the month... is just insulting.

PecosGeorge responds to me:

quote:

---

since I am writing this and not speaking it......I'm ok. Right?

---

There was more to my response than just your voice, remember. That you've managed to keep your vocal chords pristine and never use them for something they weren't "invented" to do doesn't get you off the hook since so many other parts of your anatomy weren't "invented" to do the things they are commonly used for.Of course, your fingers weren't invented to type, either, so you've got a problem there.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to contracycle:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Two police officers have just been found guilty in the UK for committing rape, in which the woman did not scream becuase she did not want to wake her children and have them see what was going on.

​

In a partirarchic society in which a woman may be seen as polluted or spoiled even by non-consensual sex, then they may not scream because the result of someone coming to help would be ostracism, in the long run.

​

This sort of criteria basically gives men a free licence to rape, and is exactly the sort of thing we criticised the Taliban for.

---

​

Why do I have to spell it out for you?

---

Because you are simply not understanding the responses made to you.

quote:

---

The moral of the story is, if a woman enjoys rape, then she wants to get raped, and she should be stoned.

---

See, here's the part you don't seem to understand.Ignoring the completely stupid idea that anybody enjoys actual, honest-to-goodness, we're not playacting rape, the only criterion used to determine if the woman "enjoyed" this rape is whether or not she didn't scream.That's it. If you don't scream, then you must have enjoyed it.You were just given an example of a reason why a woman might not scream while she was being raped.But by your logic, she should be stoned to death because, since she didn't scream, she must have enjoyed it.Are you truly incapable of understanding this? Just because you don't scream doesn't mean you like it. Are you so enamored with, "The Bible says it so it must be true!" that you cannot see the truth?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

All sin is enjoyable for the flesh.

---

No, you can't have it both ways. Either gay sex is disgusting or it's pleasurable. It can't be both.

quote:

---

Then you should thank God your father wasn't gay, otherwise you wouldn't be here right now.

---

Since when did being gay mean you couldn't have children?

quote:

---

Before I even knew what sex was, I had 2 gay people try to get me involved in gay sex.

---

Stop right there.From your description, your swim coach wasn't gay. He was a pedophile. Surely we have hashed this out for you often enough for you to remember that pedophilia is not equivalent to homosexuality and that one cannot infer the sexual orientation of a pedophile by looking at the sex of the children who are molested.Overwhelmingly, pedophiles are straight. Male pedophiles who molest little boys aren't doing it because the children are male. They are doing it because they are children. Children are androgynous. Adult males have body hair, their penises are fully developed, their voices have cracked. None of these things have happened to boys. If it weren't for the presence of the penis and testicles, you'd be hard pressed to distinguish a boy from a girl and that is precisely the point. A pedophile, in general, isn't attracted to the sex of the child. They are attracted to the child.In short, riVeRraT, you have no idea if these people were gay.

quote:

---

Another guy when I was a little older, who was married and claimed to be Mr.Georgia, made a pass at me. We were alone, and he could have easily raped me, but he respected my opinion, but not until he first tried to convince me.

---

Excuse me? "Could have easily raped you"? Where on earth does this come from? You are equating getting hit on with attempted rape? Congratulations, riVeRraT. You've just made every heterosexual male a potential rapist.I suggest you get yourself to a therapist post haste. You have some very twisted notions of sexuality.

quote:

---

When you don't know any better, these kinds of things can happen.

---

You seriously think someone could turn you gay? With just the right cajoling, you could be made to enjoy something you find repugnant?You don't get to have it both ways, riVeRraT.

quote:

---

I know other people who have decided to live a gay life because of what happened to them with women.

---

No, you don't. You're lying. Nobody becomes gay because of a "bad experience" with the opposite sex.Given the description you have had, it would appear that you're actually gay but instead became straight because of the "bad experiences" you had with other men. You are so emotionally destroyed by mn that it made you change your sexual desires. Your hatred toward men made you never want to have one again.So tell us, riVeRraT: What sort of man turns you on? Do you go for the big, burly bears or for the twinks? Does a man in a suit get you going or maybe you have a thing for uniforms.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain I am appaled by what I have just read! Normaly your posts (including the majority of the one quoted) are well reasoned, polite and astute. But those last 2 paragraphs are way out of line. Perhaps you meant them in a joking fashion but if so it was NOT funny.It has always been my policy never to speculate about the sexual orentation of others. If someone wishes to volenteer such information that's fine but this sort of post is, frankly, offensive.Did you actualy think that posting that sort of comment would prompt a response that would be usefull to this discussion in any way?It might seem like I'm singleing you out, and I suppose I am, but that is because I think that you, more than others, should be able to make your points without resorting to what is essentualy name calling.This does not mean that I think it is name calling to call someone gay. If someone is openly gay and you reference that as part of your argument that can be constructive. But it IS name calling to openly speculate about their sexual preferances, not to mention very poor taste.I know that we can all get very emotional when discussing this topic and it is perhaps one of the reasons the Admins wish to close this topic off for good. I think that would be a shame but when I read posts like this I'm inclined to agree.I for one get very upset when I hear homophobic remarks thrown around by fundimentalists, but the only way to respond to such remarks is with a rational discussion, not comments that can only result in a flame war.Rrhain I know that you are far better than this and I hope you will take the opportunity to apologise to riverrat.

By the way riverrat don't think you are off the hook.I picked on Rrhain because he is better than this. You have yet to prove that you are. Your comments about rape are several orders of magnitude worse.This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-13-2004 06:23 PM

I totally understand your point, but I don't think Rrhain was saying it in either a serious or joking way. I think he was being ironic, and using RiverRats own description of a gay person against him to show that he didn't think it made sense. Obviously that won't necessarily make it less offensive, but it does at least give it some purpose.

If you consider saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, then yes I have. people in this forum have said that it is impossible for him to exist.I think maybe one other time, someone said something, but I don't remember the details. I find that so curious.But I guess it would be hard to speak against something you didn't know.I find that the lack of knowledge concerning the Holy Spirit these days is amazing. I believe that is the root plan of the devil. He has made it so hard for us to even know he exists, that we have hardly a chance. It starts with the people who run churches.

The Dread Dormammu responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Given the description you have had, it would appear that you're actually gay but instead became straight because of the "bad experiences" you had with other men. You are so emotionally destroyed by mn that it made you change your sexual desires. Your hatred toward men made you never want to have one again.

​

So tell us, riVeRraT: What sort of man turns you on? Do you go for the big, burly bears or for the twinks? Does a man in a suit get you going or maybe you have a thing for uniforms.

---

​

Rrhain I am appaled by what I have just read!

---

Good. You're supposed to be.Now you know exactly what it feels like to be gay in this country and have such ridiculously stupid arguments put to you every day. The assumption is that there is something wrong with being gay, that there is a fundamental disconnect with reality among gay people, that gay people are somehow denying their inner heterosexual.I am simply taking riVeRraT's comments to their logical conclusion. People are gay because they had a bad experience with a member of the opposite sex. If that's true, then gay people must really be straight inside and if they were to just be honest with themselves, they'd admit it. They would have preferences for the types of opposite sex partners they'd like to have.So if it's OK to assume that gay people are really straight people deep down inside who are gay simply because they were molested as children or had someone they found sexually unattractive make a pass at them, then the same must be true for some straight people: They're really gay but are straight simply because they were molested as children or had someone they found sexually unattractive make a pass at them.RiVeRraT truly has no comprehension of just how obnoxious and offensive his claim is. And if you find it appalling to be asked what sort of person you find to be sexually attractive, then you don't really get it, either. RiVeRraT is saying that gay people are mentally defective. I am simply turning it around on him.

quote:

---

Perhaps you meant them in a joking fashion but if so it was NOT funny.

---

Who said I was joking? He claims that people are gay because of a "bad experience." Well, he had a "bad experience" or two and he turned out straight. By his logic, he must really be gay. Therefore, I want to explore that with him and help him come out of the closet. The first step to overcoming a problem is admitting you have one, so let him be honest: What kind of man does he find sexually attractive?He's the one saying that if it weren't for Christ, he might have succumbed to other men finding him attractive and doing what normal people do when they find other people attractive: Approach them and state their attractions (how psychologically damaging! If another person of the same sex hits on me, then I must actually be gay!) He's the one saying that he might have become gay. If that's true, then there must be something about other men that he finds sexually arousing since being gay means having a sexually positive rection to people of the same sex.So what is it? What does he find sexually attractive about other men?And if there is nothing that he finds sexually attractive about other men, then he could never be induced into being gay and his entire argument falls flat. Gay people are not gay because they are afraid of the opposite sex. They are not gay because of a "bad experience." They cannot be "recruited."And make no mistake about it: That is riVeRraT's claim: Gay people are after your children.Do you not see how utterly disgusting his attitude is?

quote:

---

It has always been my policy never to speculate about the sexual orentation of others. If someone wishes to volenteer such information that's fine but this sort of post is, frankly, offensive.

---

And what was riVeRraT's? Manna from heaven? Do you honestly not understand what he was saying? He basically was denying that gay people could possibly have any hold on sanity and still claim to be gay. That there is something wrong with being gay. That the only reason a person could possibly be gay is because there is something broken inside.In other words, gays are sub-human.He deserves to have the same attitude reflected back upon him.

quote:

---

Did you actualy think that posting that sort of comment would prompt a response that would be usefull to this discussion in any way?

---

From riVeRraT? Hard to say. He is incapable of understanding his own arguments. Logic doesn't work with him. That leaves shock. Eventually something will get through to him to convince him that he literally doesn't know what he's talking about.

quote:

---

It might seem like I'm singleing you out, and I suppose I am, but that is because I think that you, more than others, should be able to make your points without resorting to what is essentualy name calling.

​

This does not mean that I think it is name calling to call someone gay.

---

Yes, it does. If there is nothing wrong with being gay, then there is nothing wrong with being called gay. Even if it is erroneous to do so. I'm a man. If someone calls me a woman, I don't take offense at that because there is nothing wrong with being a woman. In fact, I start playing it up at that point because they obviously think there is something wrong with being a woman and I then want to show them that I would be quite happy to be a woman. They're the ones with the problem and they are the ones that need to get over it.

quote:

---

But it IS name calling to openly speculate about their sexual preferances,

---

No, it isn't. How on earth do you ever get up the nerve to ask somebody out without speculating about their sexual orientation?

quote:

---

not to mention very poor taste.

---

Does the term "context" mean nothing to you? Did you not read riVeRraT's comments that prompted me to respond? The only problem here is riVeRraT's homophobia and presumption that gay people are defective. He has come up with a line of reasoning that, if applied to him, means that he's gay.If he can't handle that, if he is absolutely insistent upon the fact that his "bad experiences" with men didn't make him straight, then perhaps he should reconsider his noisome and odious claim that gay people are gay because they had a "bad experience."

quote:

---

I for one get very upset when I hear homophobic remarks thrown around by fundimentalists, but the only way to respond to such remarks is with a rational discussion

---

No, rational discussion doesn't work with a fundamentalist. That's why they are fundamentalists in the first place: They are incapable of thinking in a rational manner. The only thing they understand is emotion.

quote:

---

Rrhain I know that you are far better than this and I hope you will take the opportunity to apologise to riverrat.

---

Oh give me a break. He claims that gay people are mentally defective, sexually abused, broken people and my rubbing his nose in it is somehow the problem?Sorry. I refuse to apologize for riVeRraT's homophobia and irrationality. He gets what he deserves.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You are not relating it to the times.
In those days, I picture people living in tents, and surely the scream of a woman would have been heard, and she could be rescued. If she doesn't scream when she thinks she can be rescued, then it is a sign she is enjoying it.If she doesn't scream in fear of losing her life, then thats another story.You completely bypass the meaning of the scripture when you make all these comments.

Bingo!, now you got it too.
If your wife doesn't scream when shes being raped, then she just might be consenting to it. Thats the moral. So you too agree with the bible, congrats!
There is even more hope now. Peace.

Hey Riverrat - This whole argument seems quite ridiculous to me: Some people scream during non-consensual sex.
Some people are silent during non-consensual sex.
Some people scream during consensual sex.
Some people are silent during consensual sex.Thus we could easily rewrite your statement: "If your wife screams when shes being raped, then she just might be consenting to it."Do you understand this? Do you understand that the Bible is making a very random death sentence to a portion of these people?Many, many people retreat from reality during sexual assault - they go someplace else in their mind to escape the trauma; or they simply have a silent emotional breakdown; or a multitude of other reasons besides "enjoying it". Many people continue their silence, not reporting their assault - and not because they enjoyed it...Given this, it is simply absurd to sentence a women to death based on silence during assault.
This is "blaming the victim" taken to the most disgusting extreme.

It's ludicrous to suggest that not screaming equals consent and enjoyment. Anyone that claims that obviously has very little empathy. It's easy to say you would scream in a given situation, but you can't know for sure what would happen in a given situation. It is a crime for the women to be so scared they can't scream? So ashamed of being violated that they don't want others to know about it? This rules out the whole "not screaming equals consent" claim. Please tell me how you'd tell the difference between "not screaming because you love it" and "not screaming out of fear"?This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-13-2004 07:57 PM

First off, thank you so much for not ranting, it is a blessing in these forums. Lets instead talk this out so we understand each other. I hope you don't think I support rape.
The rules described back, and the way it was written was for the times. We must extract the moral of the rule because times have changed. How do we do that? We can study their culture from back then, or get to know God better, and understand the bible better, and the meaning becomes very clear.That rule about a woman screaming during rape, or the moral of it, still exists today. The moral has not changed. I am not cherry picking. Homosexuality is an act. Stoning is a punishment for an act. You cannot compare the two.Stealing is an act. It was punished differently back then, but it is still wrong today.Enjoying rape is an act. That is what they meant by a woman not screaming. If you went to court after being raped, and they determined you enjoyed it, then you consented to it, and it is not rape. It would then be punishable in the sense that your husband could then legally divorce you and take eveything with him. (I'm not a lawyer, so don't start correcting me on who gets what in a divorce).
Back then there was no divorce court, so they just stoned you. Jesus came and taught us a little different. He would say something like, if anyone of you here is guilt free, then go ahead and stone her. He leaves the punishment up to God. That is faith. He taught us how to have faith and opened the heavens for us, so we could do all that he did. Thats a big twisting there if I ever heard one. Hopefully the preceeding words will help untwist your thoughts there.But truthfully, they way I was born into sin, I would indeed want to stone any woman who cheated on me. But now that I have come to know God, and learn of his righteousness, I wouldn't do that. If I stone someone, I put myself in a prison. I let go, and let God.
How many people these days come home and see there spouse cheating on them, and then proceed to "stone" them. Please tell me your period doesn't have a smell to it. If you had no feminine napkins, or clean running water, what would it smell like. I am not trying to be gross or insulting, but truthful.If I had no shower, or underarm deoderant, my pits would stink up the place too. I would also have a bad case of "cranky ass". Me being the person I am with a good sense of smell, would not want to offend anyone with that smell, and yes, I would stay our of the temple until I was clean.Someone help me here, there is a word for what she just did, twisting up the whole story, and then trying to make it sound bad, or make the homosexuality argument invalid, because we shouldn't stone women.

Perhaps he's trying to justify something he did in the past?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!