Homophobia, how is it justified?

It comes up every election, the same topic that never serves to gain anything but divide the country, in a time when we our nation is already divided enough. Every time the elections come around the republicans can mention one issue that can swing an entire election in their favor. Gay marriage. This is the one topic that everyone has heard of, and everyone has an opinion on. If I were to walk into a building and say gay marriage, it would instantaneously be divided into two separate camps, one side opposing it the other not really caring what gays do in their bedrooms, I would be in the latter of the two. Now its easily noticed and widely know that homophobia almost completely pertains to the religious right, why? Simple, the bible says so. How do we know the bible is right? Even more simple, the bible says it's right. The support come from Leviticus chapter 22 verse 18 that says man shall not lie with man as he lies with women, this is an abomination. I am an Atheist, but at one time I was Christian and I remember them telling me that all sins are equal? So what make homosexuality so bad then? before I move on let me also mention that Leviticus is the same book of the bible that says (this is god talking to moses) to kill people that work on sunday, and slavery is (yes god is saying this) fine. So if all sins are equal I have a great topic to replace gay marriage for the next election, obesity. Really. Think about it all sins are equal, 10% of the population is homosexual, over 60% is overweight, and as an added kicker gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins. How can you not follow that logic? Even the homosexuals that...practice their "sin" once a day (pretty active) don't "sin" as much as overweight people because chances are they are overeating at least twice a day. See it's easy to name something more sinful and common than homosexuality, so why do people go after them so ravenously? I don't want to know what drives the twisted logic of these people, but my guess is that it is simply bigotry wrapped in scripture, and because that isn't enough anymore no the flag. Do you know Jesus never said anything about homosexuals? As Bill Maher said "he was too busy hanging out with twelve other guys".

So, let's attack "homophobes" and overweight people? That will make homosexuals feel better? Sorry, I don't get it.

I was simply showing how ridicules they are by temporarily sinking to their level.

Do you think a rational, sane, and intelligent person can have an opinion different from yours on the subject? Or do you consider anyone who disagrees with you a "homophobe?"

Is that they are suppressing a large group of people who did nothing to them for no other reason than they read it in a 2000 yr old jewish book.

You didn't answer my question, though.....

of course not.

"Of course not" in the subject line. He just didnt punctuate between the two sentences. (I think)

is that you can be opposed to gay marriage without being a homophobe. I bet you he cites some bogus anthropological hypothesis next ("for the maintenance of a healthy society" or something).

but I live in Ohio. OHIO only state redder than us is texas and I have never encountered a person who was against it but not a homophobe and I have met a lot.

oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe? I can't make sense of it, and in your experience there aren't any non-homophobic opponents.

Ohio is considered a swing state btw.

Was there ever a someone who wasn't a racist who was also against giving blacks their rights?

You left out Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia (Home of Newt Gingrich and Zell Miller)and South Carolina. And maybe some others. But on behalf of all Texans I forgive you, and I get your point.

No. No use beating my head against the wall when people have, clearly, already made up their minds about my motives....or the motives of people with whom they disagree. Such clairvoyance is, indeed, impressive.

So we don't get to hear your evidence? Pity.

without being a homophobe?

It is the action to amend the constitution. That's not an opinion, that is the desecration of a document to force hate based on religion into our governing document.

That even someone who doesn't support the amendment, but DOES still disagree with your opinion on the subject is still, in your mind, a religious zealot and "homophobe?" Right?

As long as those people you describe make no effort to desecrate the constitution I don't care what they think. However, they have in the past and will continue in the future try to take constitutional liberties away from law abiding, tax paying citizens. I do not want them codifying their hate. That is not an opinion.

So, it's okay for you and those you agree with to "codify" your own values (tolerance), but not okay for others to "codify" their values.....

In a democratic society, how does one determine whose values ought to be "codified" and whose ought to be declared, as based in religion (whether or not that is true,) and "codifying hatred?"

Interesting distinction you are trying to make....

and I'm not getting somewhere, I'm already there. We live today in a democratic society. If the amendment supporters had their way we would not. Freedom is a value that I espouse and support and almost got killed supporting and its embedded in our current constitution. Zealots are free in this country to hate in the name of Jesus Christ and I'm just fine and dandy with that. Their goal is have me do likewise. I harken back to my oath of enlistment.

and you should now be all too aware that deviating from the norm here will get you crucified. You inadvertantly unveiled the truth that tolerance is just a myth...

tolerant people are shoving their ideology down the throats of others, or is it some other mechanism?

I think tolerance is a myth because everyone has bias, and operate according to it. Sure tolerance exists as a philosophical idea, but thak kind of tolerance of any and all viewpoints, positions, behaviours, etc. is not how people operate. I'm not being cynical at all (I hope) Many people here for example are not tolerant of the Repbulican government, conservative ideology, theocratic power, etc, and have good, well-thought out reasons for their positions. Discrimination is the means by which people get through their day from deiciding what to wear to what media they ingest to who they want their kids associating with. We can all call ourselves tolerant and work like hell to wrest political social power from those whose ideas we find abhorrent, or simply unqualified due to religious affiliation. This is just a quick response and not at all cogent as I'm off to work, but thanks for the question! I'll try to elaborate further. I LOVE this forum btw. So many smart folks! Really! Not being condescending or sarcastic at all! Gets my over-caffeinated brain working.

regardless of what Bill O'Reilly says.

I can tolerate the presence of the KKK and say they have an equal right to speak bigotry and hate - but I neither accept their beliefs nor will I relinquish my own equal right to call them out on their hatred.

Same for the gay marriage issue. I can say that someone who opposes equal rights of any citizen is a bigot - and I think the Constitution backs up the right to the pursuit of happiness. I would never say they don't have the right to their misguided and hateful speech - they can blather their hate all they want, but please do not legislate it.

I for one am sick of this intolerance toward intolerance meme which is a Right Wing talking point to discredit us. It does you a disservice to use it, but again, feel free to ignore that and I will feel free to point out the holes in your logic.

Welcome to America! Where we still (for now) have the right to disagree.

And i disagree with Kotter also - I do not see how someone can refuse equal rights to homosexuals and not be homophobic, and I don't see him defending his position.

Beyond tolerance is acceptance.

of their right to pursue happiness. I can tolerate anyone's OPINION on anything, but as soon as they cross a line, such as demanding that I have to LIVE according to THEIR opinions and beliefs, sorry, that NOT TOLERABLE. These whiny fucking religious nuts love to twist the word "tolerance" to mean that I have to tolerate them forcing their religion and beliefs on the rest of society and that's bullshit. And then they take it even further by claiming that because they are not allowed to force me to pray, or because they are not allowed to tell me who I am allowed to marry or what I'm allowed to do in the privacy of my own bedroom, that they are being persecuted. This sort of persecution complex is, quite frankly, a mental disorder, or even worse, deliberate, calculated propoganda.

If you're a homophobe lunatic who hates gays and wants to strip them of their freedoms, good for you, I will tolerate your opinion and your right to express it, but I will NOT tolerate you desecrating the constitution and codification of your lunatic beliefs into law. I will NOT tolerate you forcing your idiotic, hateful beliefs on everyone else.

and I won't tolerate your not tolerating! Haha! and that's exactly what I mean! Tolerance in the absolute is impossible, not that we're all just a bunch of me-monkeys cavorting about in the selfish altogether. We can certainly put up with each others (idiotic, hateful) beliefs here, right? Right? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

Am I the only one that can feel the love? :-)

Since no one is NOT tolerating your beliefs here. This is a discussion board. If people think you're full of shit, they call you on it. That's not intolerance, it's discussion and debate.

1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.*
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
3. To put up with; endure. ** See Synonyms at bear1.
4 . Medicine. To have tolerance for (a substance or pathogen).

* to allow with prohibiting - gee, which group is being "intolerant"? The ones prohibiting gay people from the Constitutional right to happiness or the ones calling them bigots? I permit you to be a bigot, therefore I am tolerant. You refuse to permit someone to be married, therefore....

** You do not "endure" something you agree with. I can disagree with you, think you are a bigot or ignorant, and still tolerate your right to do so AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT TRY TO PROHIBIT someone's rights. People are permitted to be as ignorant as they want as far as I cam concerned, but I will not tolerate them trying to remove rights which all of us citizens have.

at the end of the day we all discriminate, and it is all relative.

Now that I've summed it all up with cliche's I have probably killed the thread. I do that a lot.

The rest of us are not asking to have our values made into law, I think that is his point

How can someone oppose the rights of a group of people and not be bigoted against said group?

if I said black people should not marry, am I racist? You bet I would be.

So show me how this is different please.

people you describe believe the bible governs our lives and nothing could be further from the truth. Religious zealots are constitution hating morons who do not deserve constitutional liberties. A few weeks ago I was "chatting" with a local homophobe and he said why should we allow them to marry? I asked him why should we allow them to pay taxes? They are sick, evil bastards.

Thankfully for the gop it does not take much to rile up their base. All it takes is hate.

"Religious zealots are constitution hating morons who do not deserve constitutional liberties."

Wow. Just wow.

no one except Rev. Phelps & co. would deny that someone who commits a hate crime against a gay person, bombs a clinic, or shoots a physician in the living room of his own home deserves to have the full array of civil liberties.

You are comparing having a rational, intelligent, and conscientious opininion that diverges from your own, as akin to violence and hate crimes directed at homosexuals?

Interesting, indeed.

Based on my posts in this thread I could be an anti-gay-marriage homophobe. All I am saying is that I have never heard an argument against gay marriage that isn't founded in homophobia. The challenge is to you, since you seem to be claiming one can be made that isn't. But you already stepped off, so why are you still talking to me?

Just wondering where you get the idea for such "interesting" analogies...

And I was pointing out that there is nothing extraordinary about depriving people of liberty because of their zealotry.

Several strawmen, though.

It's my nature; I adore Socratic questioning...

as being logical arguments.

evasion and myopia aren't very logical either.

so where is your actual argument?

so how many strawmen have you bagged today?

(Honest question, btw)

which I am all too often guilty of myself. I meant it as a compliment. We (me included) have the tendency to approach the absurd as the endpoint of all we disagree with.

amending the constitution to take constitutional liberties away from citizens have no concept of constitutional liberty. Its really quite simple. If religious zealots in America had their way we would be a theocracy run by radical christian clerics, no different then Iran accept the leaders would dress differently. Gays and anyone else they deemed would be rounded up. If they had their way none of us would have constitutional liberties. Wow. Just wow.

I DIDN'T SPEND 24 YEARS IN UNIFORM SUPPORTING AND DEFENDING THE BIBLE.

Instead of letting religious zealots take over the country, we ought to allow well-intentioned atheist/agnostic/secular/moral relavists to do it instead. Gotcha.

If homosexuality is not against the person's religion, he or she should be allowed to practice it. There is nothing harmful about consentual homosexual relationships, and it should be treated that way. Instead, people try to force their religious beliefs down the throats of the homosexuals.

Or, as the Devil's advocate might ask, are moral relativists trying to force their "religion" down the throat of society?

They are not forcing you to believe that there is no God, they are just doing what they believe is right. You are not there, watching them 'sin'. Is there anything wrong with gay people going out together but not having sex? Show me in the Bible where it says that people who are attracted to (but don't do anything sexual with) people of the same sex is a sin. Since you don't see them sin, you just imagine that they are sinning (which you have no proof of), then they are not interfering with your religion, you just imagine that they are sinning.

take a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights and call me in the morning.

Church and state should be separate, end of story.

would require the destruction of the constitution, no matter which group was doing it. The oath of enlistment states to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Those who proposed and those who supported the gay marriage amendment are domestic enemies of the constitution, because they want to destroy it one step at a time.

Article five seems to allow for a democratic process for amending the document...however unlikely it may be, which speaks to the isue of: why are we concerned, then?

who do not want to amend the constitution they want to destroy it and replace it with the bible. Fortunately, their only outlet right now is the amendment clause. And every amendment to date has been for citizens. That concept just doesn't sit well with many.

to rational and critical thinking?

I've yet to meet one who has tried to create a law banning religion, despite what FOX will tell you.

to be free from state religion. What part of the 1st ammendment do you not understand?

Constitutional liberties should be given only to those who agree with me! :sarcasm:

And if you are more religious than I am, why then, no soup for you! I mean, no Constitutional liberties for you!

How do you distinguish homophobia from simply being opposed to homosexuality?

I don't think they're any different. Phobia means fear but it tends to take on a strong anti- meaning too.

Well, we might be opposed to fundamentalist churches, but that doesn't make us christophobes.

I figure there has to be a distinction between simply being opposed to homosexuality, and actually being "phobic" of it.

Hate, fear, and opposition being interchangeable.

Or maybe I'm thinking of Xenaphobia. :)

an irrational fear -- a thing for which there is no good reason to fear it or the fear response in way out of proportion to the thing at hand. With respect to homosexuality, I think not being a homosexual is not a sign of homophobia nor is being mildly disgusted with the idea. However, once you start asserting that others are wrong or bad the sake of being homosexuals, then I think you have skeedaddled into the realm of homophobia (or at least, how we use the term).

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia

fear of (phobia) homosexuals (homo)

So people who are OPPOSED to homosexuals, but not AFRAID (phobia) of homosexuals, are not by definition homophobic. I just don't know what the word to describe them is.

That's what it all boils down to.

Whether we like it or not, this is a "Christian" nation. I know 8 or 10 hardcore Republicans. There are only TWO of them for whom religion isn't the main reason for their support.

They're not logical. They don't see that "sin" is "sin". They don't see that compassion for your fellow man (whatever his sexuality) is one of the core tenets of their belief system. They've found their crusade and they're not letting go.

If you love me you will feed my sheep

Like during the Victorian era. The entire 20th century was about the battle between society and intellect.
There are many people who don't realize that intellect won.

It is still being fought in the south.

in South Mississippi. A picture of the confederate flag with "Till Death do us part" written across it.

If we did not have the Supreme Court on our side for several decades in some key cases, the neanderthals and relgious maniacs and creationists would still be running things. I am afraid if we get another Bush nominee, homosexuals will be shackeled and the creationists will get to pot shot evolution and ignore the first amendment. They are determined to get religion back into schools so we can go back to the fifties with cavemen running things. I am not as worried as I was, some of us are working real hard, fact is that is all we do.

...seems to me that people are even more the mind-numbed chattel of ideology and consumer pleasure. Feeling good has replaced critical thinking as the outcome of choice in formal education and few have the desire to sacrifice anything for a greater good.

is greater good not allowing an entire group equal rights? Should gay people also vote at a different rate, say 5/8 vote for gay men, and 3/4 vote for lesbians (because they are more acceptable...)

about this issue, is that a single generation ago, virtually everyone was taught...literally taught (by parents, peers, in school) that homosexual behavior was unnatural, unhealthy, a perversion, at the very least a mental illness. (and calling it a mental illness was actually an improvement on the rest of the labels.)

In my family (I am pushing 60) it was never mentioned, and the fact that is was such a taboo that it was never discussed, spoke louder than any words ever could.

In the past few decades, gay folks have started to demand a seat at the table. And a good number of people are saying "here, sit by me" because it is obvious to us that this orientation is neither a choice nor an abomination.

However, this kind of cultural shift is enormous and it comes slowly. I personally do not call people who are not ready for the shift "bigots" but then again, I'm not gay. I personally am overweight, and I call people who discriminate against fat folks "bigots" so it might be a matter of personal perspective. But I call those folks (the ones not ready) illinformed, naive, and people whose consciousness has not yet been raised by associating with gay folks and figuring out they are just people. I don't think it helps gay couples, or gay folks in general to throw around the "b" word. (bigot) . Let's try to understand where the prejudice comes from and work in a proactive, positve way to eliminate it.

about black people? Since in your generation you were "taught" certain things about them, as well. How do you feel about people who still don't believe in equal rights for black people? That they need "more time"? It's pushing forty years since Stonewall. I think the people who still need "more time" are going to die before they realize they were taught wrong.

BTW--you could lose weight, but no one can stop being gay. So I'd say you have your b-words backwards. Not criticizing you; just your forgiving attitude towards discrimination except when it's directed at you.

I was never taught, by my parents or teachers, that black people were less worthy than I, less moral, or somehow perverted. In fact my parents and teacher all made a very, very big deal about the value of all human life, etc. So did my church. I grew up during the civil rights movement and I grew up in NJ. I never heard the word "nigger" until I came south in 1978. But as I said, I was definitely taught...even in health classes in 1968, that homosexuality was an illness and very taboo.

But your example has some merit as an analogy, but for my point rather than yours. During slavery years, most people believed black humans were not at all human. They were believed to be a childlike sub-species. The abolitionists were the ones to point out what is now obvious..that skin color is not indicative of another species.

We've come a long way in a few centuries. One interesting story my mother-in-law used to tell was their horror at learning that their town in Germany (an industrial town) would be occupied by African soldiers. There was some talk about modifying chairs to accommodate their tails. Now these folks lived not all that far from Africa, but they had no history, no knowledge of this mysterious race. She tells me that the occupiers were thought of as kind (kinder than the Nazis) and that the positive relationship that ensured led to many of the Africans moving permanently to their town.

Forty years is NOTHING is the course of human events and cultural shift. And yes, the people who need more time will have to die. Most of them have absolutely no contact with gay folks and it is an abstraction to them and therefore have no motivation to put aside what they learned as a child.

And I am the one that chastized myself for the "b-word" narrow perspective. However, you do need to remember that both this issues (weight loss and homosexuality) are far from understood from a genetic, physiological perspective. Many people look at fat people and see gluttons who have no control. Many people look at gay people and see sexually promiscuous people who have no control. You can talk yourself blue in the face arguing nature or nurture.

I am certain that this post will garner quite a few responses that will say that obesity is not analogous to homosexuality. And I can't maintain that it is, because I don't know. But I know that I personally have tried to lose weight for about 40 years and never had any success. So maybe I am just supposed to be fat, and some folks are just supposed to be gay?

Someday we'll understand.

I don't really have anything to say, just thought I should match your post title.

It's interesting that people in "your day" thought black people were perfectly normal and totally equal and yet moved out as soon as their neighborhoods allowed black people to move in. Life was easier when one could be baldly hypocritical, instead of defensively so, I guess.

LOL

Yes, segregation was alive and well in my childhood. Even in NJ. But of course that was because "they" preferred to "live with each other."

I mean, THIS queer fears what these nutbags would do to me if given a chance...such as enshrining bigotry in the Constitution, like Mr. Oh You're Intolerant Of My Obvious Homophobia upthread.

the whole thing lost me before I could finish it

obesity
homophobia

Homophobia is a serious topic. I think people that use religion, particularly the bible just read what they want to out of things.

These so called biblical literalists who think that the bible is clearly prohibiting homosexuality, may be wrong about that.

They also fail to take all the bible literally, and I don't think there are many that are nuts enough to think the whole bible is to be taken literally. Usually biblical "literalists" are just literalist when it suits there agenda.

Peace Zhade

don't take a yawn personally

I read the OP and just well, it bored me.

1. "The Bible/Koran says homosexuality is bad."
2. "Homosexuality is Ickky!"



Other than that there is no justification for homophobia.

It just doesn't seem like very good justification for me. To say one doesn't like something or finds it offensive, you can always ask 'why'. For example "I don't like turtles". Why? "Because they're slow and have a shell and are green and they are an abomination against Gawd". You get the picture.

But people use both of them to justify their homophobia. :shrug:


(Just go over to any RW board and see how many variations of "It's gross" you can find when they're talking about homosexuality--as if sex in any form isn't ooky in one way or another. )

But what I was getting at is that if you dig down into the reasoning, #1 is where it's at.

Basically, there has to be a reason that small passages are soooooo important, (eg. you gives a flying fuck about shellfish) and I believe that is because certain people want them to be. Why? I guess #2.

Therefore #1 boils down to #2. ;)

Curses! Foiled again.

I think you're right when you're talking about when the scriptures were actually written - but by today's standards? Nahhh. I'm gonna stick to my guns.

but that the desire to discriminate means that the particular sections get increased emphasis, as per the persons wishes.

However, that does not change the fact that they are using scripture to do justify it (ie. #1 is true), merely meaning that scripture is interpreted according to their wishes. (ie. #1 stemmed from #2)

So there :P.

I think that's the problem here. Which way does the causation run? Does scripture cause discrimination? I think for some people this might be true, but largely I think such passages legitimize descrimination (i.e. It's not that I don't like gays, it says it in the BIBLE!). Do people point that one passage out more than others to get in line behind their own prejudices? I think that's probably the most common strategy. In other words, I think I agree with you.

:D

mine doesn't, and yes, I'm a Christian

Like you. :-)

:hug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and while your at it why don't you just go peddle your hatred elsewhere.

ever find me in your bedroom! Haha! As for peddling my 'hate' elsewhere, only if you agree to do the same. Eat a Tums and have a nice day. Peace out!

What hatred did I express? I just called out yours. Just because your words are dressed up in religious trappings does not mean they are not hatred.

And what hatred did I express? Just because your words are dressed up in secular humanist trappings does not mean they are not hatred. I expressed no hatred. You call religious speech that contradicts your values hatred. Disagreement about this issue or holding a particular religious faith does not automatically equal hatred. I don't accept your position that it does. Mmmmkay? Sheesh.

and sinning. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is simply a way to try and disguise bigotry. People are doing nothing wrong by simply living their life and loving whom they want.

Loving the sinner and hating the sin is not a disguise for bigotry. It's regularly practiced by those who counsel sex offenders, by drug and alcohol counselors. It's done when you effectively discipline your children. Also I have not condemned anyone. All I have done is state what the Bible says about the continuum of sin, and where homosexual sex fits into it. I personally don't care what a gay person or straight person does behind closed doors, and I have no problem with states removing sodomy legislation from the law. Marriage however is an instution with demonstrable social impact and thus should be discussed, as we are doing here (Yay!) even though we have gotten well away from the original question of the thread. Rock on!

and it's not bigotry? :eyes:

Just keep digging...

and you know it. What I did was compare homosexual sex to adultery in the context of Christian scripture. Pwned!

Your dissembling is pathetic.

But that's okay. Tolerate it, if you would please. Pwned!

to an existence without enjoyable sex or companionship, but as long as you stop short of actually jailing or killing them, you can still claim to "love" them.

Just saying that, IAW the Bible, a person practicing homosexual sex will be judged along with an adulterer, AS an adulterer. As for companionship? What does that have to do with this? I don't recall anthing being said by anyone that you can't have friends. Silly! No one here is advocating jailing or killing anyone either, dude, that's over on the Taliban Underground forum LOL! The only way someone's 'rights' came into this discussion was in the context of legally recognized marriage, and IIRC whether opposing it consituted homophobia or not, which the majority of participants seem to agree that it does. Mmmkay? Chill, y'all. Good discussion all around but let's not take it to where we all need some Mylanta. It's Friday!

And I'm still learning, so if I read something that completely contradicts what I know up to this point I'll then retract everything I've posted. S'all good, gang.

on the definition of marriage in your bible?

Objection your honor! A leading question!

In this country we're bound by the Constitution, and not the Bible. So when it comes to public policy, atheists and the religious alike can ignore the paranoid restrictions of ancient texts and focus on equal rights for everyone.

For anyone who thinks marriage equality is a bad thing, all you have to do is look at Massachusetts. We're the one state that recognizes all marriages, and we have the lowest divorce rate in the nation, low crime, a well-educated populace, and a strong Democratic party. In short, for the average DUer, it's paradise.

This "God" fellow has had a couple years to strike us Bay Staters down for offending his delicate sensibilities, and so far all I've heard are crickets.

Taught that all sins are equal. Thats another reason I left, so many different kinds of Christians squabbling over the petty details and forgetting the overall message of love and tolerance which is not shown when they publicly (not all of them) advocate stripping people of their rights. And I know there is more than one passage but if you look at pasdom in the older bible version when the people say they want to have sex with the man hiding the angle, in the older version what they say just translates into we want to get to know. God then destroyed the city because of so many sinners, this is the biggest argument against gay marriage using the bible. But what if in fact their sin had been their utter inhospitality towards strangers that they were willing to kill them on sight?

BTW I use the bible in my argument for two reasons
1)Its important to know the other sides argument
2)Its where this is all stemming from

You claim sociological validity, where are your peer-reviewed articles or books?

Men in the Bible could not commit adultry. Only women could because they were property. Men in the bible were pretty much free to sire children with whomever they wanted. Take the case of Abraham the patriarch of all the western religions.

Exactly where does the bible define adultery as sex outside of heterosexual marriage? Chapter and verse, please?

It's not until modern times that monogamy is imposed on men. You are a victim of revisionism.

Also take a look at all the activities that the bible considers an "abomination unto the lord," and for which the penalty is death. You are cherry picking.

--IMM

That is SO news to me. I think the victim of revisionism is thou, but heck, maybe you are right. But what does what may or may not be an abomination have to do with whether homosexual sex and sex outside of monogamous marriage are equivalent?

Anyway:
"Exactly where does the bible define adultery as sex outside of heterosexual marriage? Chapter and verse, please?"

Leviticus 20:10 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

The whole of that chapter should be pretty clear. The New Testament admonitions by the apostles refer back to the Old Testament restrictions.

Proverbs 6 also has a couple warnings against adultery for men.

John 8:4-11 is the episode of Jesus forgiving the woman who committed adultery.

Job 24:15

That's certainly not all, but I'm starting to think you asked for c&v just to keep me busy for a while. Rock on!

It doesn't say sex outside of marriage, or with your wife's handmaiden.

But we're missing the big picture here. There is all sorts of stuff from not eating shellfish, to selling your daughters into slavery, to mixed composition of fabrics, that has been re-evaluated for the modern age. Who decides what's valid? Apparently, you think you do. But not for me.

The bible is a quaint and interesting document that reflects a period of transition in human history from tribal to state organization. It might interest you to know that the world wasn't created in six days, and it's not flat. Woman wasn't carved from the rib of a man. There is no firmament, or windows of heaven. Anyone is free to pick and choose what they believe, just like you. But the bible has nothing to do with the governance of the US or truth in general. It would be nice to think we've made some progress in 3000 years.

Sorry for giving you the homework. I was hoping that perusing all the nonsense that the bible includes might sway you from quoting it as an authority. Imagine if your parents were as neurotic as the god of the bible.

--IMM

You claim that you believe being homosexual is not a sin. Then why not allow homosexual marriage? Marriage is not about being allowed to have homosexual sex - that has been established as a right already, by the Supreme Court. It's about a mutually supportive relationship, and having that recognised by society. So your feelings about homosexual sex being a sin are irrelevant. However, you liken it to adultery. If homosexual couples were allowed to get married, it wouldn't be like adultery, would it? They would have a partner to be faithful to, who they have promised to take responsibility for.

Please show us these "sociological reasons for barring homosexual marriage", and the effects on "social health and welfare" of homosexual marriage. If they, however, assume that homosexual marriage is "built solely around personal sexual satisfation", they're invalid, and you should revise your position.

In scriptural terms, being a homosexual is no different, from a sin perspective, than being an adulterer, or some who lusts in general. The civil condition of marriage won't change that. See? It's not a matter of calling out homosexual sex in particular. It's the ACT of homosexual sex, like the ACT of adultery that is the sin. Thus, a homosexual marriage would then, scripturally be sinful, like a guy leaving his wife and going and living with another woman and having a sexual relationship with her. Both are a sin. Adultery used to be illegal too, recall. I believe it's still a punishable offence under the UCMJ IIRC. Before you go there and get your Scarlet Letter undies in a bunch, no I don't think it should be illegal. Just as I don't think gay sex should be illegal either, nor descriminated against for housing or employment.

I know my personal feelings regarding homosexual sex being a sin are irrelevant. Duh. That's meh personal religious beliefs. Y'all have reiterated where I can stick them LOL! I know there is a lot more to gay relationships beside sex, Double Duh, but the sex is what defines them as homo- or heterosexual, right? As for whether they ARE beneficial to society, YOU SHOW ME where they are. Y'all should have mountains of evidence for the utopias nations have become where homosexuals can marry. I'm open to it! School me, y'all.

You say: "It's not a matter of calling out homosexual sex in particular. It's the ACT of homosexual sex, like the ACT of adultery that is the sin."

So you are calling out homosexual sex - in the sentence after the one where you claim you don't. You are saying it's a sin, while heterosexual sex isn't. Now, you consider some forms of heterosexual sex as sins too, but not when a marriage indicates public fidelity between the two people. So why do you want to deny that public fidelity to a homosexual couple?

The benefit of homosexual marriages to society: the people who get married are happier. Thus, members of society are happier. QED. There's nothing more needed than that. I'll remind you that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a founding principle of the USA, and so something that increases happiness for Americans should be welcomed by the American state.

Well cited, and I agree that a net increase in happiness is a good thing. But your citation argues for the benefits of marriage to individuals, not society and then later in your own citation it states:

"in several large national surveys, the general level of happiness in marriages has not increased and probably has declined slightly." :-(

you should have kept reading...and it's addressing HETEROSEXUAL marriage. We're talking about gay marriage and if and how it benefits society, remember? But there is more to marriage than happiness. Not everyone who gets married is happy. Not all happy people marry. Not buying that argument, but good effort anyway.

So if individuals are happier, then society is happier. That happiness in marriages may be decreasing is irrelevant - we're comparing the situation where people who want to get married are allowed to, versus a situation where they're not. Common sense says that allowing people to do something they want to will make them happier than forbidding them; so does research.

I have shown you a simple argument that marriage benefits society. If you're just going to stick your head in the sand and ignore arguments, without producing any counter arguments, then you're a waste of space. You have still shown nothing about the supposed disadvantges of homosexual marriage.

Yeah, except your simple argument don't work. Sure it sounds great - if your happy, and I'm happy then ours is a happy world. Simple as 2+2. Happy people everywhere are putting an end to war in the middle east, lowering gas prices, keeping prescription drug costs down, etc. etc. Good on ya for trying though.

This has nothing to do with war, gas prices, or drug costs; increased happiness is a good thing in itself. Since you have shown no evidence that homosexual marriage produces any problems, and haven't tried to show it doesn't produce happiness, you haven't even tried to argue. You have in no way showed that my argument doesn't work. That's why you are a waste of space.



See? That's happiness.

You have completely lost the thread of this discussion. Go! Be happy! Pwned!

post links to the valid arguments you have against gay marriage, because unless you can, your "Pwned!" is not particularly valid. :)

Therefore het marriage is a good model for gay marriage, therefore the part about "marriage is (attribute) than cohabitation" implies the same for gay marriage, therefore allowing gay marriage increases happiness, WITHOUT the need for marriage = happiness. :) Also, d(happiness) does not imply happiness (marriage allowed) < hapiness (no option of marriage at any time).

In other words, denying gay people the right to get married is going to result in a society less happy than if you did not; therefore the better option is to allow gay marriage, therefore the QED holds on its original terms. (Though I would have used different ones, personally)

...a good model? Sure it is. Right. 'Cause m/f psychodynamic communication is SO much like m/m or f/f psychodynamic communication FOR STARTERS. Please. You are going to have to prove to me that the two are functionally equivalent. Like I said before there ought to be loads of info out there from places where gay marriage is legal and has been for some time.

"in other words, denying gay people the right to get married is going to result in a society less happy than if you did not"

Uh huh. So you say. Again show me the evidence from societies where it's legal and accepted and I'll buy it. I'm not asking for academic studies. A news article or two will do. Carry on!

Pwned!

when assessing the similarites. As cited previous, marriage involves psych diffs from greater commitment, which is the only thing that has to carry from het to gay marriage, which does not involve communication psychodynamics, bieng dominated by cognition & carries because m/f vs f/f or m/m does not interfere with said cognition, so the point remains valid, & your "Pwned!" is, well, a touch premature. I'll put it like that.

P.S. Citing? One variable in a society? Would you be offended if I thought you were unfamiliar with statistics?

I sincerely hope that one day we can all look back on things like racism, sexism, and homophobia (all examples of xenophobia, in my opinion) as something that seems as absurd as a flat earth.

The topic sure brought out the ... shall we say, "dissenters" who gave no argument other than to attack. Oh well - I don't honestly expect them to answer my posts.

I always held a special interest in the religious agenda. Besides as much as I love talking politics, its a lot of the same here lately, just thought the place could use a change of pace.

I was thinking of maybe doing something on evolution next.

In all other forums, there would have been spring cleaning on the homophobic, religious idiots. This is one of my major problems with religion. Through the religious avenue, you can say some of the most disgusting sexist, homophobic, misogynist shit and nobody calls you on it.

This thread is fucking sickening. C'mon "liberal" christians...this is your fucking chance to stand up for your gay brothers and sisters. Why isn't anybody standing up?

:)

a roasting before going.

Notice any pattern about who is standing up to the religious homophobes in this thread (and most others in R/T).

Now I'm not saying that theists don't fight for gay rights (when I was 14 it was a religious friend of mine who got me to truly understand the GLBT struggles and problems in one of those rare conversations that I'll remember perfectly for the rest of my life) but I have noticed a marked absence of religious folks standing up to the religious homophobes on this site.

I shall attribute this to external factors.

For now. I will keep an eye on other threads with homophobia, though I must admit I have been around a short enough time that I am familiar with none.

;)

He was an obvious fundie troll on a mission to antagonize and preach.

Sure, people use this to justify their homophobia but this verse of Leviticus was probably written not because of homosexuality itself. The people who wrote the Hebrew Bible were anti-paganism and trying to ween people from primitive rituals (such as human sacrifice - as told in the "biding of Isaac" story, for example) and pagan rituals such as some that included homosexual acts and orgies. They were probably more worried about the pagan ritual. As far as lesbians go, I don't think there is anything in the bible that bans or even touches on the subject of lesbianism.



And washing their feet. - Sorry, I couldn't resist! :-)

cycles and are simply meant to motivate a "base". (Usually Fundies).

Just as abortion, flag burning and taxes come out, so does the homophobic line...with nauseating reglarity I might add.

The RW know the hot buttons and push them whenever they get in a bind, as one stated not so long ago, "if your a flag burning homosexual, this is goning to be a long year for you".

It is the politics of fear, and it apparently works, albeit the populace is beginning to see the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Typical "junk mail" of the RW...x(