Homosexaul Rights

[Anarcho Union]

The Bible never says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. There is one quote in the Book of Jude that says they went after "strange flesh" but that doesn't really imply homosexuality. If I remember correctly, the word for strange was more akin to "other" and in that sense, the flesh of woman would be certainly stranger than that of a man, because of the difference of genders.

But nowhere does God say, "Them Sodomites is bein gay. Gonna burn em up, yessir!"

If you can find any passage that says they were condemned for having homosexual relations with each other, then by all means prove me wrong. But it ain't gonna happen!

They were destoryed because of their gross amount of sin. And it does say somewhere in the Bible that God sees homosexuality as an abomantion.

 

[Giambattista]

I would just like to add that the whole sodomite/gay connotation is a product of fundamentalist Christianity and it's bizarre penchant for book worship AKA regarding the King James Version (also known as the Authorized Version). Basically the association of homosexuality = sodomy is due solely to traditional, dogmatic interpretation of the story.

 

[Giambattista]

The only thing I'm sure is that gays existed since Man existed.

You don't say? Not that some "gays" are actually men. They just exist side by side.

 

[WillNever]

Can't you have a principled position against gay rights, say based on a religious view?

No, I honestly see that as being the same as claiming to have a principled position against, say, black people's rights based on a religious view. Any such position is inherently unprincipled. Instead, it is mythologized.

 

[Giambattista]

I have read that in many militaries in ancient times when men were away from women for long periods of time (their own women, or the women they'd conquered) they'd do each other up the butt. Not rape each other, but do each other. That sort of makes sense... especially because of the close bonds that are formed on the battle field. But this might be revisionist history...

Forget the possibility that two males can actually love each, they just use each other as surrogate women, eh?
Actually, the content of the story seems to suggest a love relationship, not simply a sexual hook-up.

 

[Tiassa]

Christians Ignoring Christ: Screw the biblical argument

A note on the Biblical argument:

What the Bible says about homosexuality is shit. What the Bible says, period, is shit.

No, this is not my critical review, but rather the result of observing constant Christian condemnation of a "lifestyle sin" while wallowing in their own "lifestyle sin".

So until Christians stop sanctioning the marriage of previously-divorced people—and that just as a start—the Biblical argument against gays is simply bullshit. I refuse to bend a society to honor a holy text, especially when the alleged faithful refuse to honor that holy text.

And it's not that the Old Testament is unimportant, but I find it quite ironic that Christians should choose to ignore Christ.

 

[BenTheMan]

No, I honestly I see that as being the same as claiming to have a principled position against, say, black people's rights based on a religious view. Any such position is inherently unprincipled. Instead, it is mythologized.

Who's principles?

 

[Giambattista]

No, I honestly I see that as being the same as claiming to have a principled position against, say, black people's rights based on a religious view. Any such position is inherently unprincipled. Instead, it is mythologized.

The one argument against that is one of genetic categorization versus behavioral categorization. Blacks have dark skin color. They were born that way. It is a dominant trait. Homosexuality is a behavior. It is something people do, not who they are. There is no definitive proof that people are born that way.

 

[WillNever]

Who's principles?

Of whoever is claiming that? Not sure what you are asking.

 

[superstring01]

They were destoryed because of their gross amount of sin. And it does say somewhere in the Bible that God sees homosexuality as an abomantion.

It also says:

• not to eat pork
• not to have sexual intercourse with your wife while she's on the rag
• that it's better for a man to live on his rooftop than to live with a quarrelsome wife
• that witches should be exterminated
• never to get tattoos
• not to plant two crops in the same field or to allow two different kinds of animals to live in the same field
• any man who swears at his parents should be put to death
• not to shave your beard or cut your hair too much
• that people with funny noses or odd deformities should not be allowed to go to God's alter
• And. . . that we should kill a priest's daughter if she's a slut.

So. . . yeah. Gimme' a break. The bible is pretty much a pack of kookie superstitions, lies, vile commands and prescriptions for hatred.

~String

 

[WillNever]

The one argument against that is one of genetic categorization versus behavioral categorization. Blacks have dark skin color. They were born that way. It is a dominant trait. Homosexuality is a behavior. It is something people do, not who they are. There is no definitive proof that people are born that way.

What difference does that make? Why should it be important whether or not you are born that way? In either case, that is the way you are and it isn't by choice.

 

[Giambattista]

No, this is not my critical review, but rather the result of observing constant Christian condemnation of a "lifestyle sin" while wallowing in their own "lifestyle sin".

Like I pointed out in another thread, there's a lot of pro-war Christians who don't think twice or think it's somehow acceptable if maybe a drone kills civilians but have something up their butt about homosexuality.
Christian conservatives have screwy priorities and they allow/disallow things in a consistently arbitrary manner.

What would Jesus do about the war on terror? What would he say? The man who said those who live by the sword die by the sword?

 

[BenTheMan]

Any such position is inherently unprincipled.

Who's principles?

Not sure what you are asking.

Claiming the position is ``unprincipled'' means you've used some criteria to define what a good ``principle'' is. I'm just asking, what criteria must be satisfied before one can have a ``principled'' view on something.

 

[WillNever]

Claiming the position is ``unprincipled'' means you've used some criteria to define what a good ``principle'' is. I'm just asking, what criteria must be satisfied before one can have a ``principled'' view on something.

Ben, perhaps since you were the first to use the expression "principled view," you should state what you meant by that word. It has several meanings to it. How did you mean it..? This way, I can tell you if I meant in the same way that you meant it.

 

[otheadp]

Forget the possibility that two males can actually love each, they just use each other as surrogate women, eh?
Actually, the content of the story seems to suggest a love relationship, not simply a sexual hook-up.

The Yonatan / David story? For sure. That's the biggest part of the story - their mutual love for each other. Maybe the physical aspect of it was a secular revisionist dream... Might be. But for years I grew up with that idea going unchallenged in my head.

Anyway, it doesn't offend me one bit. David had a thousand wives too... and he is still one of the most beloved men in Judaism... and probably Christianity.

 

[S.A.M.]

There are no gays in Pakistan :shrug:

What exactly does that mean?

It means the concept of being "gay" is not an identity in Pakistan. Men who screw men are not "gay", they are just experimenting. Most of them will marry and have kids.

 

[BenTheMan]

Ben, perhaps since you were the first to use the expression "principled view," you should state what you meant by that word. It has several meanings to it. How did you mean it..? This way, I can tell you if I meant in the same way that you meant it.

I submit that one can hold a principled view which denies homosexuals rights. For example, if one is only interested in procreation, any activities to the contrary of procreation should be discouraged. Or, for example, if you are strictly religious, and believe that homosexuality is wrong in the same way that you believe adultery is wrong, then you have a principled position against homosexuality.

You made a blanket statement that any such views are inherently ``unprincipled''. It is up to you to either defend that claim, or abandon it. I see such claims as untenable, because clearly there are principles which exist under which one can deny homosexuals rights. I'm not saying that they're good principles, I'm just saying that you need to choose your words more carefully.

Or you can show me where I'm wrong...

 

[Giambattista]

What difference does that make? Why should it be important whether or not you are born that way? In either case, that is the way you are and it isn't by choice.

You're comparing a physical, readily identifiable, and heritable trait with a type of behavior. Race is what you are, genetically. Which gender you choose to have sex with is rather what you like to do.

I'm not saying I agree with that reasoning 100%. I'm perfectly fine with boys loving other boys. See here But that is the argument used to justify discrimination against homosexually-oriented relationships. And frankly, until (or IF) homosexuality can be found to have a readily-identified genetic component and this is verified, then the behavior/identity argument does have merit.

But beyond that theory, in the real world, sexual attraction is as deep or deeper a preference or predisposition as any other personality trait, so saying that it's acceptable to ask people to deny such a deeply-seated trait is , in a practical sense, unacceptable.

 

[superstring01]

It means the concept of being "gay" is not an identity in Pakistan. Men who screw men are not "gay", they are just experimenting. Most of them will marry and have kids.

Really? I know an Iranian former-Muslim who said that there is a sizable underground gay movement in Iran, the vestige of a once prominent gay society in Tehran during the Shah.

~String

 

[WillNever]

I submit that one can hold a principled view which denies homosexuals rights. For example, if one is only interested in procreation, any activities to the contrary of procreation should be discouraged. Or, for example, if you are strictly religious, and believe that homosexuality is wrong in the same way that you believe adultery is wrong, then you have a principled position against homosexuality.

You made a blanket statement that any such views are inherently ``unprincipled''. It is up to you to either defend that claim, or abandon it. I see such claims as untenable, because clearly there are principles which exist under which one can deny homosexuals rights. I'm not saying that they're good principles, I'm just saying that you need to choose your words more carefully.

Or you can show me where I'm wrong...

According to MY definition (and I'm using my old paperback Webster here), "principle" means "a moral code to which one is devoted." My opinion is that any sort of code that seeks to deny homosexuals these kinds of rights is immoral. That is an immoral course of action, so any code that advocates for that is immoral too -- and therefore unprincipled.

That is the definition I am using, and you may use a different one.