Using The Bible to Argue Against Gay Rights is a Crock.

[The Doctor]

Why SHOULDN'T Gays have rights?

No, seriously. Give me one good reason why we should deny gays equal rights, rights that they should have as human beings.
If we allow them to get married, it's not like they're going to start raping everyone in sight. America isn't going to fall into the sea. Brother won't turn against brother, and we won't get a plague of locusts. So why are people so against it?

Gay people are people, just like women are people, just like black people are people. And as people, they should have equal rights as other people.

There are those who try to cite religion or the Bible as their major argument. I have counterarguments.

Sodom and Gomorrah

If you look at the passages about Sodom:

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. "This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

...you'll see that the main reason God hated Sodom was because they were forcing themselves on everyone. So it's less of "God hates Gays!", more of "God hates *******!"

Leviticus 18:22

Let's look at the Levitical laws now:

22 " 'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Now, there are a few different things to realize when looking at the Levitical laws:

1. These laws were man-made. They were created by men and written down by men into a book which has been edited and translated by men.

2. There are MANY interpretations of the line. The literal translation is:

And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman; it is ritually unclean.

This could quite easily refer to sex rites that several religions at that time were practicing.

Moreover, many have interpreted it to refer to straight men lying with other straight men, or even a condemnation of threesomes.

Matthew 19:11-12

11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others have been made eunuchs; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Interesting.

Contrary to popular belief, a eunuch is not only used to refer to a castrated man. If it was being used in this context to refer to one, it wouldn't have mentioned anything about them being born that way, as castrations are a medical procedure.
A eunuch in those times were men who had no desire to have sexual relations with women, and were used to guard bathhouses and harems.
This means the term eunuch could refer to one of two things:

A. An asexual.
B. A homosexual.

Yeah, Jesus himself said that some people are born gay. Fascinating.

And here's something interesting found in the book of Isaiah:

3 Let no foreigners who have bound themselves to the LORD say,
"The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."
And let no eunuch complain,
"I am only a dry tree."

4 For this is what the LORD says:
"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—

5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.

The Bible itself says that gays can come into Heaven.

The Relationship Between Naomi and Ruth

16 But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me."

For the uninitiated, the book of Ruth details a story where Ruth's husband dies, and her sons marry two women. Before they can have children, the sons die as well. This lives Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah to fend for themselves.
This is significant in several ways. First, back in those times, women were objects, as shown by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They only had two places in society: With their fathers, or with their husbands. Orpah returned to her father's household, but Ruth said to Naomi the lines above.
Ruth and Naomi then spent years together. The line about death is more than symbolic; it refers to the fact that they would both be killed when it was discovered that they were together, in a role completely different from society's expectations: A relationship.

The whole book talks about Naomi and Ruth's relationship with each other. When Ruth finds a husband, it is portrayed as a marriage of which there is no love. A marriage meant only to bear children. When a son is born, the women of the village say (as shown in Ruth 4:17) "Naomi has a son!". That's right, not "Ruth's husband now has a son". "Naomi has a son." Because Naomi is the one who really loved Ruth, whom Ruth loved back.

Hmm.

And you know what's REALLY interesting? That quote is often incorporated into Christian marriage ceremonies. The church indirectly acknowledges this interpretation of the book of Ruth, by showing that this quote can easily refer to romantic love.

So What Does This Show Us?

Basically, that the Bible can't be used to argue against gay rights. The Bible shows several loving gay relationships, and has many verses talking about how gay people are A-OK. Homosexuality is not, as many would have you think, "Against the Bible". In fact, homosexuality is treated with the same respect as heterosexuality in the Bible.

So stop this rubbish.

Homosexuality is not a sin. It's not against God. And there is no reason for gays not to have rights.

 

[The Roid Rage]

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.

Who said anything about it in reference to rights? How about morals? That's the real argument. I'm not here to preach about morality as I am no better than any of you in retrospect, but I believe that is where the argument really lies. Homosexuals have all the same rights as you and I, they are even a protected class, so why do act as though anything else is the case?

If you want to argue whether homosexuality is ok or not let's just leave the Bible out of it and stop trying to decipher everything, and look at what we already know scientifically. We already know scientifically that it is a choice for one. Why? Because if it were not a choice, and people were in fact just born that way, that would mean there would have to be a gene for it in the genetic code which there isn't. It is a statistical fact that most homosexuals admit that it is a choice, look it up. We also know that homosexuality goes hand in hand with depression and a whole rainbow(no pun intended) or other mental illnesses. To move along, it is also a widely known fact that there are higher physical health risks, look it up as well (I'm not putting all the info on here, no word fort today).


I don't care about all the "Bible Code" bullshit everyone wants to pull. Why don't you leave the Bible alone, and quit manipulating it's texts to take on your own meanings. I'm not going to try and tell everyone what the Bible says or does not say about homosexuality, it's not my place. I will say however that I do not agree with homosexuality, nor do I condone it in any way between anyone.

This is such a touchy subject I don't even want to get much further into it. No matter which side you take you can never be right because the other side has whatever they have to say, no one will agree on anything, and no one gets anywhere. All I know is that when I die, I die with a clean conscience and I don't have to worry about whether or not it was right or wrong because I never fell into that category. I pray and ask for forgiveness of my sins, I try to lead a clean and decent life, and I do my best to live by the rules given to man by God and the teachings of Christ(I also delve into the eastern religions quite a bit as the messages are almost the same).

People don't want to be wrong, or to be told they are wrong for what they do. Since that is so, you can never get people to accept the word of God because it forces you to take accountability for your actions which no one in modern times wants to do. There always has to be an excuse for everyone for everything, or some kind of rationale to justify any action. This topic is not different.

 

[HBK-aholic]

It amuses me when people use the bible to argue against anything. The Bible is nothing more than a book written and interpreted by man, in regards to what they think a being which may not even exists would say and think. I don't know about any of you, but I have severe problems with believing in a God who would condemn a homosexual to hell, simply for his sexual orientation. If there is a God, I feel he'd take a holistic look at someone's entire life, and not have categories regarding sexual orientation and automatic hell. Homosexuality hurts no one, so how can ANYONE sit there and say it's wrong? It's not your place to judge.

It also amuses me when people say homosexuality is a choice. Have you seen the amount of homphobia in the world? How people are persecuted and excluded for it? Why would anyone CHOOSE that? People spend years hiding this, even get married to hide it. If it were true homosexuality was a choice, wouldn't they choose the easy option? Which leads m to my point, if God made everything, he must have made certain people homosexual. And it's you, as a person judging and even abusing that will suffer later, not the homosexual.

 

[Razor]

I really like your essay there, Doc. Finally someone other than myself posted something over 2000 words in the Cigar Lounge.

The stigma against gays is unique to Extremists. Extremist Muslim governments still arrest or kill gay people, extremist Christians still claim that their actions will send them to Hell. I'm assuming (admittedly with no grounds) that extremist Jews do the same thing.

However, it seems as though gay people are accepted by most other religions. Native American Indians (most if not all of them) have creation myths that establish a third sex. This third sex, or "Berdache" or "two-spirit." These people, when having the ritual spiritual vision every Native American goes through, see a double woman. If you're a chick, that just means you're really good at seducing men. If you're a dude, you are presented with chick tools (baskets, dresses, the like) and it's accepted that you are what we would call a homosexual. You have sex with men, and you still have an established ritual part in the community. You're even used to settle disputes between men and women, because you are seen as having personalities of both men and women.

Hinduism believes in the third gender as well. Taoism directly relates to sexuality, and does not directly condemn homosexuality because Taoism works with...well, anything. Buddhism does not teach directly against homosexuality, as the Buddha taught to be "a lamp unto yourself."

This "religion against homosexuality" seems to be a phenomenon basically tied to extremist Abrahamaic Religions. I won't hesitate to say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims accept gays and lesbians as they are everyday. Or that the Buddhists or Hindus have people in the religion that don't like homosexuality.

However, the thing that should be taken away from this post is that religion itself has never taught against homosexuality directly. It's always been a tool, used by primates and our handy thumbs, to teach against what we are uncomfortable with.

 

[X]

Who said anything about it in reference to rights? How about morals? That's the real argument. I'm not here to preach about morality as I am no better than any of you in retrospect, but I believe that is where the argument really lies. Homosexuals have all the same rights as you and I, they are even a protected class, so why do act as though anything else is the case?

...Care to back that statement up? Because it's an absolutely hilariously false one. A civil union is in no way, shape, or form the same thing as marriage, and it does not provide all of the same rights and privileges. Gays are not allowed to do something (marry) that heterosexual couples are allowed to do, strictly because of their sexual preference. That's the textbook definition of discrimination, sorry.

If you want to argue whether homosexuality is ok or not let's just leave the Bible out of it and stop trying to decipher everything, and look at what we already know scientifically. We already know scientifically that it is a choice for one.

And there goes any credibility you might have had in this discussion, right out the window. Being gay is a choice? Funny, I don't remember choosing who I was attracted to, did you?

Feel free to show me this scientific evidence.

Why? Because if it were not a choice, and people were in fact just born that way, that would mean there would have to be a gene for it in the genetic code which there isn't.

Feel free to explain the existence of homosexuality in just about every species known to man. I didn't realize sea turtles chose to be gay, glad to know that one.

It is a statistical fact that most homosexuals admit that it is a choice, look it up.

...Fucking EXCUSE ME? Show us this "fact", please, I need a nice long chuckle, because whatever source you're getting that crock of shit from is absolutely laughable.

We also know that homosexuality goes hand in hand with depression and a whole rainbow(no pun intended) or other mental illnesses.

Perhaps because they've been one of the most discriminated against groups of people since the dawn of mankind? This is different from minorities going hand-in-hand with drug addiction and crime how? Society creates these problems.

To move along, it is also a widely known fact that there are higher physical health risks, look it up as well (I'm not putting all the info on here, no word fort today).

More bullshit. Unprotected sex of any kind with any partner can be dangerous, regardless of their sexual preference.

I don't care about all the "Bible Code" bullshit everyone wants to pull. Why don't you leave the Bible alone, and quit manipulating it's texts to take on your own meanings. I'm not going to try and tell everyone what the Bible says or does not say about homosexuality, it's not my place. I will say however that I do not agree with homosexuality, nor do I condone it in any way between anyone.

That's nice, well I don't agree or condone bigoted morons, such as yourself. How does it feel to know that I don't approve of your existence on this planet? Probably not very good, does it?

This is such a touchy subject I don't even want to get much further into it. No matter which side you take you can never be right because the other side has whatever they have to say, no one will agree on anything, and no one gets anywhere. All I know is that when I die, I die with a clean conscience and I don't have to worry about whether or not it was right or wrong because I never fell into that category. I pray and ask for forgiveness of my sins, I try to lead a clean and decent life, and I do my best to live by the rules given to man by God and the teachings of Christ(I also delve into the eastern religions quite a bit as the messages are almost the same).

People don't want to be wrong, or to be told they are wrong for what they do. Since that is so, you can never get people to accept the word of God because it forces you to take accountability for your actions which no one in modern times wants to do. There always has to be an excuse for everyone for everything, or some kind of rationale to justify any action. This topic is not different.

No, don't worry, you are absolutely positively wrong here, no doubt about it. Religious morals are irrelevant in a discussion about civil rights. I especially find this shit absolutely HILARIOUS from you Christians when just this past week we've discovered that the Pope himself had a hand in covering up child molestation by priests, and fought to let a fucking child rapist be buried as fully ordained priest with all of the rights and benefits of any other priest. These are the people so concerned about morals? The ones protecting child rapists?

Enjoy your righteous bigotry.

 

[The Doctor]

Funny you mention that verse Game Rage.

The word used to refer to effeminates (and homosexuals in that verse) in the Greek version is "malakos". Malakos means "of uncertain affinity; a catamite.". According to Merriam-Webster online, a catamite is:

Main Entry: cat·a·mite
Pronunciation: \ˈka-tə-ˌmīt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin catamitus, from Catamitus Ganymede, from Etruscan Catmite, from Greek Ganymēdēs
Date: 1593
: a boy kept by a pederast

In other words, a prostitute. In those days, it was common for young boys to become prostitutes for older men, in order to get money. They would literally ****e themselves out.

Malakos also has connotations of laziness, being a degenerate, and decadence.

It does not refer to homosexuals; that is a mistranslation.

 

[lghikas]

Yup, pretty what is already being said. Using the Bible against or to argue against Gay rights is really stupid and has some major flaws. Now I'm not going to quote from the bible but just simply say this. Marriage is really no longer a Religious thing, much like the USA isn't a big religious country anymore. Back in the 1950's this argument might have been able to score some points but not in today's worlds. Also there is something called Separation of Church and State, but like I said getting married is for the most part not a religious thing any more in my opinion. Marriage is about two people(or more) showing their love for each other....WTF does that have to do with religion???

Another thing I can't stand being a History Buff is when someone says the USA was founded on Christianity or whatever. Immigrants came here to be able to celebrate and worship any religion they wanted to without being persecuted for it. Also when settlers first settled here there was a handful of different religions, now granted for the most part if I remember correctly most of the religions here were just branches of Christianity, but I really think that is besides the point. They wanted a place where people could celebrate/worship/practice whatever religion they wanted to.

I usually tend to be on the Conservative/Christian side but I get absolutely disgusted at reasons people try to make up for why Gay people shouldn't be able to get married. People just need to fucking GROW UP.

 

[Razor]

If you are trying to argue that homosexuality is a scientific choice, then you're wrong. We've even made breakthroughs in the realm of science that claim LBGT have a brain that works differently than heterosexuals. Their brain chemistry is different. If that's a choice, then please tell me how I can alter my own brain chemistry by choice. I fucking hate taking these Prozac everyday.

Before anyone says "EVOLUTION!" Homosexuality is shown in many primates and other animal species. They often use it to cement social bonds. In fact, an entire race of lizards are nothing but women. They have sex with each other (lesbians) and transfer genes and what not. It keeps the genetic variety necessary for healthy procreation intact.

Also, evolution states that "The organism most fit will survive over those not as fit." The principle of evolutionary fitness applies to finding food and having children. Uh oh Razor, gays can't have children! It's alright, because Evolutionary Theory has a corollary. "Altruistic acts help improve an animal's evolutionary fitness." This includes adoption of other animal's children and giving away food or other charitable acts.

As you can see, evolutionarily speaking LBGT are not at any disadvantage. There are no scientific laws saying that LBGT should not exist in the bigger picture of our species.

Other than that, I don't know. The only area of concern when it comes to homosexuality is morality, and that comes from religious tensions. But don't say science says no to homosexuality, because it doesn't.

 

[The Doctor]

Homosexuals have all the same rights as you and I, they are even a protected class, so why do act as though anything else is the case?

Same rights? Yeah...no. Let's see, what can homosexuals not do?

1. They cannot serve openly in the military.
They have to hide their true selves for fear of getting fired. How is that right? How is that having the same rights as a straight person, the right to live how you wish to live and be yourself?

2. They cannot get married.
Yeah, unlike heterosexuals, gays can't get married. And why the fuck not? I know more happily in love gay couples than I do straight ones.

If you want to argue whether homosexuality is ok or not let's just leave the Bible out of it and stop trying to decipher everything,

LOL, I didn't decipher shit. I quoted directly from the Bible, using facts to back up my argument. But you wouldn't know anything about them, would you, judging by:

We already know scientifically that it is a choice for one.

I have a friend, whose name I will not reveal on here. We talked on MSN a lot, and via PMs. He constantly told me about the troubles with depression he has had to struggle with because of his sexual orientation. He told me again and again, that this was not his choice. Do you think he CHOSE to be discriminated against? Do you think he CHOSE to have the issues that came with the ignorant bullshit spewed by haters?

No.

No he did not.

Why? Because if it were not a choice, and people were in fact just born that way, that would mean there would have to be a gene for it in the genetic code which there isn't. It is a statistical fact that most homosexuals admit that it is a choice, look it up.

HURRDURR LOOK AT ME, I'M DR. SCIENCE.

It is not known what causes homosexuality. However, a study was conducted in 1999 that showed that the hypothalamus in gay men is smaller than it is in straight men. Food for thought.

We also know that homosexuality goes hand in hand with depression and a whole rainbow(no pun intended) or other mental illnesses.

I'd be pretty damn depressed myself if I had to listen to crap like this post all the freakin' time.

To move along, it is also a widely known fact that there are higher physical health risks, look it up as well (I'm not putting all the info on here, no word fort today).

You can get the same diseases by having unprotected anal or oral sex with a woman. Homosexuality has nothing to do with STDs.

I don't care about all the "Bible Code" bullshit everyone wants to pull. Why don't you leave the Bible alone, and quit manipulating it's texts to take on your own meanings.

I manipulated nothing! Great way to totally miss the point of my post. I used actual quotes, directly from the Bible, to prove that it is pro-gay rights. Why don't we throw in another story while we're at it: The story of Johnathan and David.

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.

26 "How I weep for you, my brother Jonathan!
Oh, how much I loved you!
And your love for me was deep,
deeper than the love of women!"

Fascinating.

I'm not going to try and tell everyone what the Bible says or does not say about homosexuality, it's not my place. I will say however that I do not agree with homosexuality, nor do I condone it in any way between anyone.

And why not? It's not like they're going to rape you or anything.

I pray and ask for forgiveness of my sins, I try to lead a clean and decent life, and I do my best to live by the rules given to man by God and the teachings of Christ(I also delve into the eastern religions quite a bit as the messages are almost the same).

Want to know something shocking?

I'm a Christian, too.

People don't want to be wrong, or to be told they are wrong for what they do.

Then shut up and stop prohibiting gays from having the rights they should have as human beings.

Oh, and one last thing. I'd like to show you a picture.

Madness.

 

[Mufasa]

I think all the arguments against gay marriage are really secondary to the real reason people are against gay marriage, and that reason is that they feel that homosexuality is gross/dirty/obscene.

They can say things like they don't hate gays, they just want to preserve traditional marriage. Nobody wants traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is bride prices, dowries, and man's complete domination over woman. That's traditional marriage. The traditional marriage argument is a hallow one.

I think the biblical one is hallow is well. The bible can be used to justified all kinds of things, especially when your just picking and choosing the parts that fit your agenda. Also marriage is not just a Christian institution. Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc... are all allowed to get married.

I think the ban on gay marriage is really the same as the ban on interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was banned, miscegenation laws were put in place, because the dominate culture found minorities to be inferior. Their inferiority required separation. The dominate culture didn't want to taint white marriage.

 

[Tastycles]

Using the Bible to argue anything is ridiculous. The Bible is allegorical, not literal, and if you want to use it to make me do anything in the year 2010, then you are going to have to explain why I should believe that homosexuality is wrong but not that the earth is flat, because that's in there. Nobody who has any grasp of theology takes the Bible literally and nobody has done for almost two thousand years.

As for the morality of homosexuality, I think there is an issue looking at genetics and the animal kingdom. Whether there is or isn't a gay gene is unknown for sure, but in all honesty should that influence our decisions either way? If there was a paedophile gene, does that make it ok? No. Morality arguments come from human social norms and that alone. There has always been homosexuality, people are attracted to others based on a whole number of reasons and the burden is to show that what people do is wrong and not for them to show it's right.

Specifically, is there any reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as everyone else? With something like paedophiles, there is, because children are innocent and unable to protect themselves, so there is obvious moral basis for outlawing that behaviour, but what is the reason to fear homosexuality between consenting adults? If someone can give me one reason why it is wrong for people to live their life that way, whether they do so by choice or by destiny, then I will tolerate this debate. However, there isn't one, which is why people have to grasp at straws and start bringing up scripture written 6,000 years ago.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I didn't add to the conversation to get into 5 debates. Based off of the info I have read from numerous and varied sources, everything I said is true. Here's a couple links.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboutus.htm

http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_gene.htm

Take a gander at those.

By the way, I live in IOWA!!!!!!! One of the only states who does allow it, they do have equal rights here, so fuck you! And as far as the military thing goes, it's called "Don't ask, Don't tell" and that's as fair as it gets, it's "I don't need to know about you in that manner, and you don't need to know about me in that manner. That's not what we are here for."

t is not known what causes homosexuality.

That was all you had to say, nothing further necessary. Thank you.

You can get the same diseases by having unprotected anal or oral sex with a woman. Homosexuality has nothing to do with STDs.

Go ask the hoards of homosexuals who all contracted AIDS during the 70's and 80's if it has anything to do with STD's if you can find one that hasn't died yet. The lifestyle promotes promiscuity and homosexuals statistically have more partners over the course of their lives putting them at higher risk for ohhhh everything.

I used actual quotes, directly from the Bible, to prove that it is pro-gay rights.

Exactly, you used the Bible to try and prove your personal agenda, the exact thing you started this thread bitching about. I don't think I misinterpreted anything.

Then shut up and stop prohibiting gays from having the rights they should have as human beings.

Hey ya know what's real funny fuckface, I never prohibited any homosexual from ever doing anything ever, SO FUCK YOU. I never said they shouldn't have the same rights either, you put those words in my mouth, SO FUCK YOU AGAIN. I was saying you should leave the Bible out of it as you were doing the very thing you were speaking against, and stick to something more concrete like science. Unfortunately the science is inconclusive, and so nothing you or anyone else has said in regards to that is accurate either, SO FUCK YOU AGAIN TWICE.

It does not refer to homosexuals; that is a mistranslation.

I must still be stoned, let's take a look at this again.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.

Well looks to me like they sure as hell did refer to homosexuals directly here, not some variation of a word with a different meaning due to it's origins.

.Care to back that statement up? Because it's an absolutely hilariously false one. A civil union is in no way, shape, or form the same thing as marriage, and it does not provide all of the same rights and privileges. Gays are not allowed to do something (marry) that heterosexual couples are allowed to do, strictly because of their sexual preference. That's the textbook definition of discrimination, sorry.

It's due to an entirely different debate regarding the definition of marriage, that being a union between a man and a woman. That's not depriving anyone, it's people cutting themselves out due to their own personal choice of lifestyle and partner. Want to change that, change the definition. Until then, they are still a protected class legally.

And there goes any credibility you might have had in this discussion, right out the window.

This puked on pile of shit you call a statement of sorts should be your sig. I swear you never stop saying that. All the time you just proclaim that people have lost their credibility. Why? Because you say so? And that counts why? Because your such a fucking scholar you know everything? Yeah ok. Without fail at some point you always seem to bust this line out, it's becoming a trademark of yours.

Feel free to explain the existence of homosexuality in just about every species known to man. I didn't realize sea turtles chose to be gay, glad to know that one.

Because when an animal or another lower life form want to mate that's all there is to it. The animal isn't going to ponder whether they prefer a male or female, it's going to mate with whatever it can to satisfy it's urge. If there are female and male animals together they will mate, but if you put two males together they will mate too. They are not capable of the higher brain functions we are, and can not reason with their impulses, or make personal choices of preference, we can and do.

Perhaps because they've been one of the most discriminated against groups of people since the dawn of mankind?

Really, because as I recall in history at many points in time in many different societies it was widely accepted, and in some circles very popular. Rome or Greece ring any bells there? You talk like they are the Jews or something. Couldn't be further from the truth. Gays haven't had half as bad a rap as Jews, Black people, China, the American Indians, etc....

Religious morals are irrelevant in a discussion about civil rights.

And when did I say any different dick? I didn't, but you and few others just assume all of this shit, and slap me with this label of the person you want to persecute for not being advocates of homosexuality. You seem to have things pretty fucked up there shit for brains. You seem to think I have to support homosexuality of something, or that by some fucking unwritten decree that I have to be ok with homosexuality. I've got news for you numb-nuts, I don't have to agree with shit! And if I don't agree with Homosexuality that's my fucking business and it's my right, but fuckers like you want to take even that away. Can't have a problem with gays, everyone just has to like it and kiss their ass. Fuck that and Fuck you for being a bitch to me because I am not down with that.



BTW Tasty, Loved your post, called it fair and square.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Legally Wed and marriage are two different things. Marriage is a religious belief, and as such, it should be respected for that right.

I agree, gays should be able to legally wed, but the routine of a marriage is a religious thing and that's why I don't like when people say "Gay Marriage".

Edit

And why NOT use the bible as a reference? After all, it IS the bible that is used to wed two people together. It is the BIBLE that a lot of people live by. So why not use the religious point of view as a reason not to accept it? I mean it's not like I have a problem with gay couples, I just don't think it's right for the same sex to share a dual sex ritual.

And for people who are putting civil rights... keep in mind that most marriages happen INSIDE a church. Therefore, it IS a religious thing. So just deal with it.

 

[gd]

The whole Bible thing is stupid. Why should a book written thousands of years ago have anything to do with the the laws we have today? It's pretty silly using passages to back up an argument, as they can be construed to argue any side of any arguemnts.

As for the whole Gay Rights debate, obviously they should have rights. I don't see any argument that could support that and I don't think anyone is arguing that here. Whether it is biological or not is a whole nother matter, as there has been evidence on both sides, leaning a little more towards biological. In the end, does it really matter though?

 

[Mufasa]

Legally Wed and marriage are two different things. Marriage is a religious belief, and as such, it should be respected for that right.

I agree, gays should be able to legally wed, but the routine of a marriage is a religious thing and that's why I don't like when people say "Gay Marriage".

Edit

And why NOT use the bible as a reference? After all, it IS the bible that is used to wed two people together. It is the BIBLE that a lot of people live by. So why not use the religious point of view as a reason not to accept it? I mean it's not like I have a problem with gay couples, I just don't think it's right for the same sex to share a dual sex ritual.

And for people who are putting civil rights... keep in mind that most marriages happen INSIDE a church. Therefore, it IS a religious thing. So just deal with it.

Marriage very much so exist outside of Christianity. The majority of the people who have ever been married weren't Christian, weren't married inside the Christian church, and weren't married with bibles. There has always been more non-Christians than there were Christians. Only about a third of the people living in the world are Christians. Marriage is a widespread custom that has been practiced independently from the Christian Church throughout the world. Christians didn't invent marriage. Biblical arguments should never be used to deny marriage, marriage is not a Christian exclusive custom.

Honestly, I don't even like marriage as a custom, but it's bullshit to deny someone else the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want to marry their partner. It's pure discrimination by those in power of those not in power.

 

[Барбоса]

For me, what the OP highlights is the ambiguity of using the Bible to argue for anything. The fact that its meaning can be so easily interpreted to mean whatever you want it to depending on translation demonstrates how dangerous using such a text can be.

This causes trouble even within more obvious tenets of Judaeo-Christian belief than its stance on homosexuality. Even the seemingly simple order “You shall not kill” of the 5th/6th (depending on your religion/denomination) Commandment has caused debate regarding its exact meaning. The controversy lies with the translation of the original Hebrew word רצח (retzach). While many translations consider it to mean ‘kill’, the Hebrew would for ‘kill’ is הרג (harog). The word רצח (retzach), and therefore its subsequent derivation, לא תרצח (lo tirtzach) is better translated as ‘murder.’

While this may seem like trivial pedantry, it has wide consequences for the morality of a devout Jew or Christian entering into military service or ideas of self-defense. Because ‘kill’ is a far more general term than ‘murder,’ it could be suggested that any kind of killing is to be considered wrong. However, the connotations of the translation ‘murder’ are quite different. Would killing in war or self-defense be considered ‘murder’?

That the meaning of even the seemingly most straightforward of commands can be rendered ambiguous by the slightest deviation in the translation demonstrates the potential pitfalls. While the Old Testament is used to counter Christian opposition to military activity by Augustine of Hippo (contra Faustum 22.74-75; Ep.189.4), another Christian historian, Lactantius, claimed that there was “no exception at all [as] it is always unlawful to put to death a man” (Divine Institutes VI.20) and by making no reference to the manner in which death is inflicted he appears stricter than Biblical teachings seem to warrant.

The New Testament also contains many ambiguous statements regarding the morality of killing stemming from military service. Passages urging people to ‘turn the other cheek,’ ‘love your enemies’ and ‘those who draw the sword, die by the sword’ clearly seem to be in opposition to a military career (Matthew 5.38-48; Luke 6.27-38; Matthew 26.52).

However, there are plenty of other passages that could be construed as accepting military service as a necessary part of society. Jesus interacted with Roman centurions and at no stage did he ridicule or show any disgust for their career (Matthew 8.5-13; Acts 10). John the Baptist went as far as to encourage baptised soldiers to do their duty (Luke 3.14). Christians are also told to submit to worldly authorities (Romans 13.1-6), most famously with the advice “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22.21). This is normally seen as encouraging Christians to pay Roman taxes but it could easily be construed as meaning that serving the Empire, including in the military, was part of a Christian’s obligation.

With Biblical ambiguities verging on the contradictory, it must have caused confusion among the burgeoning Christian community at the time and as dominate languages changed many of the messages of the Bible have been further muddied by numerous translations. Who is to say that something very important has not been missed out along the line from Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> Medieval Latin -> English?

 

[The Doctor]

I didn't add to the conversation to get into 5 debates. Based off of the info I have read from numerous and varied sources, everything I said is true. Here's a couple links.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboutus.htm

http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_gene.htm

Take a gander at those.

tl;dr

By the way, I live in IOWA!!!!!!!

Good for YOU!!!!!!!

One of the only states who does allow it, they do have equal rights here,

Yeah, but they don't have equal rights everywhere else. Until gays can get married and stay married in every single state, they do not have equal rights to heterosexuals!

so fuck you!

You know you want to.

And as far as the military thing goes, it's called "Don't ask, Don't tell"

Believe me, I know all about DADT. My dad's in the military, see, as is my brother. A bisexual friend of mine is in ROTC. I research this regularly. So don't tell me things I already know.

and that's as fair as it gets,

Oh, so it's fair that a straight male can go around talking about how many girls he's done in a day, and walk around with his girlfriend or wife, but a gay man can't be with his boyfriend, or even say that he is homosexual, for fear of getting terminated from his job? That's fair?

it's "I don't need to know about you in that manner, and you don't need to know about me in that manner. That's not what we are here for."

And yet it happens all the time with straight people boasting about their conquests.

That was all you had to say, nothing further necessary. Thank you.

The irony here is hilarious.

Go ask the hoards of homosexuals who all contracted AIDS during the 70's and 80's if it has anything to do with STD's if you can find one that hasn't died yet.

Irrelevant. Straight people can get AIDs too. GTFO.

The lifestyle promotes promiscuity and homosexuals statistically have more partners over the course of their lives putting them at higher risk for ohhhh everything.

Um, excuse me? Excuse me? The lifestyle promotes promiscuity? And straight people have a single partner their whole lives, do they?

Do not paint all homosexuals with the same brush. There are many who are in perfectly normal loving, monogamous relationships. Homosexuals are not deviants nor are they nymphomaniacs.

Exactly, you used the Bible to try and prove your personal agenda, the exact thing you started this thread bitching about. I don't think I misinterpreted anything.

Lol bitching. I just showed several examples of pro-gay passages and several loving gay relationships that are in the Bible.

Hey ya know what's real funny fuckface, I never prohibited any homosexual from ever doing anything ever, SO FUCK YOU.

Oh..dear? Um,. here, right now? Gee, Gamey, this is...kinda sudden...

I never said they shouldn't have the same rights either, you put those words in my mouth, SO FUCK YOU AGAIN.

Well...if you insist.

Come get some, big boy.

I was saying you should leave the Bible out of it as you were doing the very thing you were speaking against, and stick to something more concrete like science.

And I did. I referenced a scientific study done in 1999 that proved that the hypothalamus in gay males is smaller than in straight males. However, science is not perfect.

Did you even read my post?

Unfortunately the science is inconclusive, and so nothing you or anyone else has said in regards to that is accurate either,

Except for the study I talked about which proved the bit about the hypothalamus.

SO FUCK YOU AGAIN TWICE.

*faints* <333

I must still be stoned, let's take a look at this again.

Or you're an idiot.

Well looks to me like they sure as hell did refer to homosexuals directly here, not some variation of a word with a different meaning due to it's origins.

Jeepers creepers, do you believe that the English translation of the Bible is the original? I clearly talked about the translation that came BEFORE the English version, the one in Greek, that uses the words "Malakos" and "Arsenokoites". Malakos means "catamite", which means male prostitute. Arsenokoites means "sodomite". According to Dictionary.com, a sodomite is:

noun
1. an inhabitant of Sodom.
2. (lowercase) a person who engages in sodomy.

The inhabitants of Sodom were rapists, which is why Sodom was destroyed.

"But Matt," you say, "the other definition is 'one who engages in sodomy', in other words, gay people!".

Well, let's go even further back, before the Bible was translated into Greek. Let's look at the Hebrew Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible, arsenokoites was qadesh. Translated, a qadesh is a slave who engages in prostitution. And yet, for some reason, many Bibles decided to use it to condemn homosexuals.

The verse in the New Revised Edition, however, gets it mostly correct:

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

Huh.

Personally, I would take the several examples of loving gay relationships and pro-gay verses in the Bible over one poorly translated verse in the book of 1 Corinthians.

BTW Tasty, Loved your post, called it fair and square.

He does that.

-----

In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with a picture. As a Christian, I found it both humorous and thought-provoking.

Spoiler

Think about it.

 

[The Gribbler]

Who said anything about it in reference to rights? How about morals? That's the real argument. I'm not here to preach about morality as I am no better than any of you in retrospect, but I believe that is where the argument really lies. Homosexuals have all the same rights as you and I, they are even a protected class, so why do act as though anything else is the case?

If you want to argue whether homosexuality is ok or not let's just leave the Bible out of it and stop trying to decipher everything, and look at what we already know scientifically. We already know scientifically that it is a choice for one. Why? Because if it were not a choice, and people were in fact just born that way, that would mean there would have to be a gene for it in the genetic code which there isn't. It is a statistical fact that most homosexuals admit that it is a choice, look it up. We also know that homosexuality goes hand in hand with depression and a whole rainbow(no pun intended) or other mental illnesses. To move along, it is also a widely known fact that there are higher physical health risks, look it up as well (I'm not putting all the info on here, no word fort today).


I don't care about all the "Bible Code" bullshit everyone wants to pull. Why don't you leave the Bible alone, and quit manipulating it's texts to take on your own meanings. I'm not going to try and tell everyone what the Bible says or does not say about homosexuality, it's not my place. I will say however that I do not agree with homosexuality, nor do I condone it in any way between anyone.

This is such a touchy subject I don't even want to get much further into it. No matter which side you take you can never be right because the other side has whatever they have to say, no one will agree on anything, and no one gets anywhere. All I know is that when I die, I die with a clean conscience and I don't have to worry about whether or not it was right or wrong because I never fell into that category. I pray and ask for forgiveness of my sins, I try to lead a clean and decent life, and I do my best to live by the rules given to man by God and the teachings of Christ(I also delve into the eastern religions quite a bit as the messages are almost the same).

People don't want to be wrong, or to be told they are wrong for what they do. Since that is so, you can never get people to accept the word of God because it forces you to take accountability for your actions which no one in modern times wants to do. There always has to be an excuse for everyone for everything, or some kind of rationale to justify any action. This topic is not different.

Can I ask where you get your information from, because Christ.org really isnt a scientific website.

This is contrary to everything I have ever read or heard on the subject and sounds like the same religious propaganda I see being handed out on street corners where science is taken out of context or simply fabricated by some street preecher who calls himself a doctor.

Sources please.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I didn't add to the conversation to get into 5 debates. Based off of the info I have read from numerous and varied sources, everything I said is true. Here's a couple links.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboutus.htm

http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_gene.htm

Take a gander at those.

Firstly, did you even read your own links? A direct link from http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_gene.htm says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

I put in bold the crucial part of that quote for you because it contradicts a point you were trying to make in your first post on the first page:

We already know scientifically that it is a choice for one. Why? Because if it were not a choice, and people were in fact just born that way, that would mean there would have to be a gene for it in the genetic code which there isn't. It is a statistical fact that most homosexuals admit that it is a choice, look it up.

Firstly, the link even states that most people don't experience a sense of choice, which you clearly said they do. Secondly, we don't know if there is a gay gene or not, as of now there is no scientific evidence to conclude that there is, but that doesn't mean there isn't. Your own link even states that the most accept hypothesis at this time is that it's a combination of nature versus nurture, which would suggest upbringing and something inherent of that

We also know that homosexuality goes hand in hand with depression and a whole rainbow(no pun intended) or other mental illnesses. To move along, it is also a widely known fact that there are higher physical health risks, look it up as well (I'm not putting all the info on here, no word fort today).

This is an interesting point, but allow me to make a comparison. I doubt any one on this forum would agree with the statement that being African-American goes hand-in-hand with depression and a whole host of other mental illnesses. However, imagine if I made this claim in the late 1950's or 1960's. Do you think there would be a reason for African-American's to be depressed? Psychological trauma leads to psychological illness, I know this because I am studying at Brock University in Canada to become a Psychologist. Do you think there is a reason why gay, lesbian and bisexuals experience more psychological trauma? It's absurd to make the claims you have when there are multiple reasons to explain results such as the ones you said.

All I know is that when I die, I die with a clean conscience and I don't have to worry about whether or not it was right or wrong because I never fell into that category.

Absolutely ridiculous. Let's say you're living in 1915; a bill that would allow women to vote just failed in United States congress. You hold the position that women should be denied the right to vote. If you were to die, you might feel that you have a clean conscience about that issue as well, however know we view those people as a disgrace, and their acts as shameful.

There is absolutely no reason to not allow lesbians, gays, or bisexuals (LGB) to marry, and/or have the exact same rights as every one else. You can twist research any which way you want, there are countless papers that review articles and come to different conclusions.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Right on Doc, I've been all for a discussion like this.

First of all, just like HBK-aholic hit on, the Bible (Book of Wisdom itself) has been the key to wars with mankind ever since man sat down and wrote it. Why? Because it's extremely judgmental. But I will save that argument for some other thread.

Homosexuality, it is said in that condemnable book, is in fact a sin. It can be argued with who said what and why about the whole thing, but it is a fact the book says it's a sin.


Should that mean gays, lesbians, and bisexuals shouldn't have rights? HELL NO.

All man was created equal after all. Oh look at that I hit another verse. Christians (mostly Conservative, usually ultra-Right Wing nutjobs) do a lot of gay-bashing, especially in today's society and they have transcended this discussion to a morality level.


He who is without sin cast the first stone. <--look I don't even read the Bible and I know this stuff wow.

Homosexuals and Bisexuals are a group of people that would like the same rights as the rest of us. Who are we to say No, You Can't Marry or No, You Cannot Adopt? Don't they have just as much right to be miserable in marraige as we do?

Joking aside, I find it pathetic that in today's society we have to here the same garbage that was spoken in the Middle Ages. Honestly, no one REALLY cares if Gays marry, it's just homophobic propaganda that keeps people in fear because they aren't open-minded to realize "It's not gross".

Westboro Baptist Church, AKA the protesting Klansmen of our time, says "God Hates ****" and uses that as an angle to demonstrate down here in the South.

"God Hates ****"? Really? Show me that passage in your Bible.

Kind of goes to show who is the most moralistic, because that's what it all boils down to. Conservative people judging (doing their God's job) other people bases on their sexual preference.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Oh joy, another homosexuality debate.

I'm not getting too deep into this thread, to avoid being raped by admins and moderators.

However, many of you are just as ignorant on the issue as you claim those on the other side to be. If you aren't pro-homosexual, you must be a homophobe, a people hater, and seek a world ruled by Hitler. Its ridiculous.

Its also ridiculous for people to pretend they know how the Bible was written. Its literal, and was inspired by God. If you don't have faith in Jesus Christ as your Saviour you wont look at the Bible the same way, but don't act like you have it on factually sound basis that the Bible was man-made, and only exists to eliminate fun and start wars. That is as ignorant of a stance as there can be.

And I literally burst out in laughter when someone stated, "It hasn't been proven to not exist, so we can go with that", while they were trying to use science in the rest of their post.

You cannot manipulate things to the way you see fit. To emphatically use a phrase stating how something is not reliable because its "man-made, edited by men, translated by men, etc" to only follow it up with their own personal translation shows a high degree of stupidity.

 

[The Doctor]

Oh joy, another homosexuality debate.

I'm not getting too deep into this thread, to avoid being raped by admins and moderators.

And yet, you bumped it.

Its also ridiculous for people to pretend they know how the Bible was written. Its literal,

You've contradicted yourself, young Twisticles. First you say that we shouldn't pretend to know how the Bible is written, and then you say that it should be taken at face value. Tell me, what makes my interpretation of the Bible as a book of symbolic meanings and subtext any less important or valid than your literal interpretation?

To emphatically use a phrase stating how something is not reliable because its "man-made, edited by men, translated by men, etc" to only follow it up with their own personal translation shows a high degree of stupidity.

Actually, I followed it up with my own interpretation. There's a difference between translation and interpretation. A translation is when a text is translated from one language to another. An interpretation is done when one studies said text and offers his own opinion or explanation of it, as I have done.

 

[TwistofRKO]

And yet, you bumped it.

I can't stand for the non-sense and insulting language used throughout the thread. I bumped a 3 week old thread, still on the first page of the section.

You've contradicted yourself, young Twisticles. First you say that we shouldn't pretend to know how the Bible is written, and then you say that it should be taken at face value. Tell me, what makes my interpretation of the Bible as a book of symbolic meanings and subtext any less important or valid than your literal interpretation?

The way you perceive it. You see it as nothing more than a tool. You can manipulate it in use of promoting your own argument, yet still take it and demean Christianity.

Whereas, I see a book that has changed lives, one that has proven itself over and over again, has stood the test of time, and still proves right today. If there's not anything else behind it, why was it not destroyed during translation, and why would it be the most scrutinized piece of literature? None of the other man-made religious books have drawn like criticism, and no other book is known by nearly as many people.

Actually, I followed it up with my own interpretation. There's a difference between translation and interpretation. A translation is when a text is translated from one language to another. An interpretation is done when one studies said text and offers his own opinion or explanation of it, as I have done.

Incorrect. You literally stated it was the translation. You can go back and look if you like.

If you'd prefer to sit here and work out an understanding of various vocabulary, you can always do that to.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I am curious whether a new thread should be created to debate gay rights generally, or whether it should be done in this thread. Clearly the original post was arguing a very specific point about how you cannot use the bible to argue against gay rights, but clearly the larger issue is gay rights in general.

 

[The Doctor]

I can't stand for the non-sense and insulting language used throughout the thread. I bumped a 3 week old thread, still on the first page of the section.

Why bump an argument you didn't want to take part in? Why not sit in your computer chair and silently seethe to yourself?

The way you perceive it. You see it as nothing more than a tool. You can manipulate it in use of promoting your own argument, yet still take it and demean Christianity.

"Demean Christianity"? That's a laugh. Perhaps I demean your narrow-minded views, but I certainly don't demean Christianity by trying to spread Jesus' message of love and acceptance to the world. Maybe you didn't read the thread properly, but I am a Christian. I consider myself to be an extremely faithful and religious one, too. I do my best to follow Jesus' true message to this world, and to love all I can and to turn the other cheek to those I cannot. Obviously, I am human and therefore imperfect, and I mess up. We all mess up. But that doesn't mean I don't try.

Whereas, I see a book that has changed lives, one that has proven itself over and over again, has stood the test of time, and still proves right today.

As do I, though in a different way.

If there's not anything else behind it, why was it not destroyed during translation, and why would it be the most scrutinized piece of literature? None of the other man-made religious books have drawn like criticism, and no other book is known by nearly as many people.

Excuse me? When did I say there was nothing behind the Bible? I merely stated my opinion that it is more symbolic than literal. The Bible is supposed to be interpreted by ourselves in order to grow our faith. It is not something to take at face value.

Incorrect. You literally stated it was the translation. You can go back and look if you like.

Um...

OK, I'm reading...

Let's see, I talked about the Greek and Hebrew translations of the Bible, and other translations, but never did I say "GOD HATES *******" was a real and legit translation. That is my interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. And so it is for my other examples. I interpret various passages in the Bible, using translations of older versions.