homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from? (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Where did the demonisation of homosexuality come from?
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I don't think massive polygamy is a control on population growth, except as an effect of reducing diversity and therefore resistance to disease. You need to control the numbers of mothers, not fathers. See the numbers of men with a Y chromosome possibly derived from Genghis Khan.

Discussion of this inheritance.

It depends on the style of massive polygamy. If the polygamy is intended to generate maximum offspring, then it's as effective in progeny generation. If it's merely for the pleasure of the male, then the schedule may not be organized to keep all wives pregnant. If the same women were in couples with minor adultery then the continuous pregnancy happens by default. You might need divorce or some minor adultery to deal with infertile couples.
Posts: 2974 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
bump
Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm pretty sure, could be wrong here... the demonization comes from the Christian Old Testament.

I mean look, progressives want to dismiss the OT bits about stoning gays but it's there. Call me crazy but God said stone the fornicators and gays ... but for some reason homophobia is some new idea?

Has anyone figured that something serious is going on with this whole "made in the image of God" thing?

Noah gets seen naked by his son and then he gets cursed.... anyone else find that a little spooky?

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Call me crazy

All right, You are crazy.

OK,OK, in keeping with the rules, your idea is crazy.

quote:

but God said stone the fornicators and gays ... but for some reason homophobia is some new idea?

No one says it is new, just wrong.
quote:

Has anyone figured that something serious is going on with this whole "made in the image of God" thing?

So, WTF? Not sure what you are on about with this and how/if it relates to the thread.
quote:

Noah gets seen naked by his son and then he gets cursed.... anyone else find that a little spooky?

First couple of analyses on
this page explain that it is retroactive justification for invasion. More rational than arks, by a long shot.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16599 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
God said stone the fornicators and gays

Did he? I'd be terribly surprised to find the word "gays" even in your English translation of the Bible, and the Bible wasn't written in English.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Point is, the OP is asking the question of where all the phobia comes from in a rhetorical way, framing the discussion as if the phobia is recent. Sure, there are groups with true phobia, some of those groups are cult like and newish over recent decades.

Point is, by our standards the ancient Hebrews were homophobes. God didn't really explain WHY he chose the laws he did, and not other laws. It wasn't for the main reason to create a nation wierdos that he could use for fun wars and plagues.

of course "gays" isn't a strictly accurate translation, when I get to the accurate translation threads I'll whip out my interlinear, didn't seem needed for this thread, I think we all know the terms yes? Is "gays" not a word anymore?

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's a lot of stuff in the OT that we don't do these days. Child marriage, slavery, cutting off the foreskins of people you slay in battle. I submit that demonizing homosexuals comes under that heading.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 5355 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Noah gets seen naked by his son and then he gets cursed.... anyone else find that a little spooky?

Pronoun difficulty. Actually Noah gets seen naked by his son Ham so a curse is laid on Noah's grandson Canaan. Collective punishment and guilt by family association are two more of those things "in the OT that we don't do these days". Or at least say we don't do.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10334 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a lot of stuff in the OT that we don't do these days. Child marriage, slavery, cutting off the foreskins of people you slay in battle. I submit that demonizing homosexuals comes under that heading.

Of course we don't do them today. The penalty applied in a certain context, God terminated that with the Hebrews, that isn't to say he thought homosexuality to be harmless, as so many like to suppose.

A god that punishes homosexuals for "loving" each other or having bit of fun by murdering them isn't much of a loving God. So, there must be a reason why he strictly banned it.

Virgin rapists were allowed to live if they pulled it off secretly and paid 50 in silver. There has to be a good reason for that too.

Seems a lot of pundits think the law of Moses was God's experiment in doing things terribly wrong. What kind of God is that! It's incumbent on us to figure out what was good about it, not just kabosh the whole thing.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, if one takes the Bible as literal, besides being an idot, one is accepting a psychopathic, inept, schizophrenic as one's deity.
If one takes the rational view, the one that flows from Jesus' message, one understands that the Bible was written by humans and filtered through their predjudices, as well as other weaknesses.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16599 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How would accepting Jesus message, rejecting literal interpretation magically remove the label of OT Yaweh being a Psycho?

Yaweh is either all good, even good at making laws, or, he's nutzo.

What I tend to see here is a lot of people who are probably gay justifying themselves and their actions in a band of merry celebration, succesfully throwing off evil Yaweh's wierd stupid ideas in favor of this new guy Jesus.

Do you all not think Jesus is Yaweh here? Is trinitarian trickery thing in play where Yahweh has passed the torch on to Jesus to take-it-from-here-I-can't-figure-this-out.

FWIW I'm not out to change laws or ban gay sex, and I'm pretty comfortable with guy guys being around. I don't mind gay's being in unions or what have you, but I do think the church should not be blessing gay unions. Just trying to get a feel for the swing of things here. Not trying to make this like the Hell boards (though I'm not going to be shocked if everyone turns to name calling)

[ 26. May 2017, 16:17: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
How would accepting Jesus message, rejecting literal interpretation magically remove the label of OT Yaweh being a Psycho?

Jesus is the point. Anything that doesn't jibe with his message is suspect.
quote:

FWIW I'm not out to change laws or ban gay sex, and I'm pretty comfortable with guy guys being around.

Just guys?
quote:

I don't mind gay's being in unions or what have you, but I do think the church should not be blessing gay unions.

The problem is that you use injunctions from passages in a book filled injunctions you ignore. To suggest this bit changes and that bit didn't smacks of convenience more than any real discernment.
quote:

Just trying to get a feel for the swing of things here. Not trying to make this like the Hell boards (though I'm not going to be shocked if everyone turns to name calling)

People aren't called to Hell for the viewpoint they espouse, but the manner in which they present it. It would help to form arguments rather than just simple, spasmodic assertions.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16599 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Point is, the OP is asking the question of where all the phobia comes from in a rhetorical way, framing the discussion as if the phobia is recent. Sure, there are groups with true phobia, some of those groups are cult like and newish over recent decades.

Point is, by our standards the ancient Hebrews were homophobes. God didn't really explain WHY he chose the laws he did, and not other laws. It wasn't for the main reason to create a nation wierdos that he could use for fun wars and plagues.

of course "gays" isn't a strictly accurate translation, when I get to the accurate translation threads I'll whip out my interlinear, didn't seem needed for this thread, I think we all know the terms yes? Is "gays" not a word anymore?

The massive assumption here is that the ancient Hebrews read these texts the same way that you read these texts. And that several thousand years of linguistic and cultural change have done nothing to your ability to understand what is actually being said.

And that accurate translations can be saved for esoteric little study groups, rather than being crucial to how the text is actually applied by people in the here and now.

I very much doubt that the ancient Hebrews were "homophobes" in the modern sense because I very much doubt they had a conception of "homosexuality" equivalent to a modern conception. They certainly didn't have a modern idea about how procreation works, and so even at a basic level any reasons they had for finding man-on-man sex wrong are not going to be in line with conservative Christian arguments nowadays about why it's wrong.

But it's also at least questionable whether their objections were based in fundamental moral rules about the innate nature of men and women in the first place. There is some evidence suggesting it was about the association of certain sexual practices with other religions.

Saying "God didn't really explain WHY" is frankly a bit of a copout, because you can't properly apply a law if you don't understand the rationale and framework behind it. Modern people working with the modern law need to interpret it in context all the time. I don't see why we would think that ancient Hebrews checked their brains at the door and just shrugged their shoulders and said "God said it, I don't need to think", especially not given the large amount of interpretative text from rabbis and teachers that we have in things like the Talmud and Mishnah. These people thought.

The biggest problem we have in looking at a text that is several thousand years old is that there are things the original readers would have readily understood, and didn't need explained to them, that we don't get in the same way. Things that we can only now understand by reference to other equally ancient texts that help explain the culture and mindset of the original audience.

[ 26. May 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
[qb] How would accepting Jesus message, rejecting literal interpretation magically remove the label of OT Yaweh being a Psycho?

Jesus is the point. Anything that doesn't jibe with his message is suspect.

You avoided my question. Or are you saying that Yaweh and Jesus inherently conflict...? What are you saying?


quote:
quote:

FWIW I'm not out to change laws or ban gay sex, and I'm pretty comfortable with guy guys being around.

Just guys?

I meant "gay" guys. Not that I readily hang with them, that's just not my social group TBH.

quote:
quote:

I don't mind gay's being in unions or what have you, but I do think the church should not be blessing gay unions.

The problem is that you use injunctions from passages in a book filled injunctions you ignore. To suggest this bit changes and that bit didn't smacks of convenience more than any real discernment.
[qb]

I'm not saying that being gay deserves death, or that it's even that big a sin. I am saying it's still a sin, but even then many of my sins I'm sure are worse. The issue really is about whether one believes it's wrong in any way. i might even say it's a trivial sin. Never the less, that's the problem you have.

Just striking out all the sins in the Code of Moses as no longer sins doesn't make sense.

Penalties and enforcement are another matter. The administration of the law was for the purpose of establishing/preserving national Israel. It was a contract. That all passed away. There is NO ADMINISTRATION. Being that as it may it doesn't mean God switched to approving of the sins that he formerly executed people for. If it was wrong for Israel, it's just wrong. The severity of the penalty, we simply don't have a way of applying that. We simply know God is strict about sin. We have Jesus now, but Jesus didn't ever bless sin. That's foolishness. He forgives it, not shrugs it off.

Homosexuality is a sin forgiven just as any other sin is.

The issue is the nature in which one might celebrate or identify with said sin, or even make it an "identity". That's a whole ball of wax in itself.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Point is, the OP is asking the question of where all the phobia comes from in a rhetorical way, framing the discussion as if the phobia is recent. Sure, there are groups with true phobia, some of those groups are cult like and newish over recent decades.

Point is, by our standards the ancient Hebrews were homophobes. God didn't really explain WHY he chose the laws he did, and not other laws. It wasn't for the main reason to create a nation wierdos that he could use for fun wars and plagues.

of course "gays" isn't a strictly accurate translation, when I get to the accurate translation threads I'll whip out my interlinear, didn't seem needed for this thread, I think we all know the terms yes? Is "gays" not a word anymore?

The massive assumption here is that the ancient Hebrews read these texts the same way that you read these texts. And that several thousand years of linguistic and cultural change have done nothing to your ability to understand what is actually being said.

And that accurate translations can be saved for esoteric little study groups, rather than being crucial to how the text is actually applied by people in the here and now.

I very much doubt that the ancient Hebrews were "homophobes" in the modern sense because I very much doubt they had a conception of "homosexuality" equivalent to a modern conception. They certainly didn't have a modern idea about how procreation works, and so even at a basic level any reasons they had for finding man-on-man sex wrong are not going to be in line with conservative Christian arguments nowadays about why it's wrong.

But it's also at least questionable whether their objections were based in fundamental moral rules about the innate nature of men and women in the first place. There is some evidence suggesting it was about the association of certain sexual practices with other religions.

Saying "God didn't really explain WHY" is frankly a bit of a copout, because you can't properly apply a law if you don't understand the rationale and framework behind it. Modern people working with the modern law need to interpret it in context all the time. I don't see why we would think that ancient Hebrews checked their brains at the door and just shrugged their shoulders and said "God said it, I don't need to think", especially not given the large amount of interpretative text from rabbis and teachers that we have in things like the Talmud and Mishnah. These people thought.

The biggest problem we have in looking at a text that is several thousand years old is that there are things the original readers would have readily understood, and didn't need explained to them, that we don't get in the same way. Things that we can only now understand by reference to other equally ancient texts that help explain the culture and mindset of the original audience.

All fine and well, a lot of truth there, but none of that allows us to fundamentally REVERSE something bad to something good. God regulated sexuality, it may be true we don't get the full picture from the Bible alone, and we don't think like they do, but stark reality is there.

Also the way that people I've read on here are throwing out the text is by claiming things like "it's about idolatry" and not gay sex...as if sex wasn't the thing being regulated. Hogwash.

Why do you suppose that the pagans/Caananites used homosexual sex as a form of idolatry? HELLO! It was a form of submission, a sacrifice to their god. There is a cost. It is intellectually dishonest to just pick and choose from the aspects of the prohibited acts that fit your paradigm. Any and all aspects of the banned activity are on the table.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Any and all aspects of the banned activity are on the table.

And here I thought gays did it on the bed like us breeders.

<i'll get my hat>

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What are "gay" gays please?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6616 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You avoided my question. Or are you saying that Yaweh and Jesus inherently conflict...? What are you saying?

I am saying that the bible is not the literal word of God. That depictions of OT God's instructions that do not match Jesus teachings are in conflict with Christianity.


quote:

I meant "gay" guys. Not that I readily hang with them, that's just not my social group TBH.

[Roll Eyes] There are gay women as well, that was my reference.
BTW, I bet gay men are part of your social group. On that note, being gay does not confer any social attributes. You would not be aware of most gay men being gay in any neutral context.

quote:

Just striking out all the sins in the Code of Moses as no longer sins doesn't make sense.

Why is the enforcement in a separate category from the sin if you believe they were both God's instruction?
quote:

We simply know God is strict about sin.

Wrong. You do not know anything. You have a book that someone says someone else said God told another person. You believe it to be true.

quote:

Homosexuality is a sin forgiven just as any other sin is.

No, homosexuality is not a sin. It is something one is, not something one does.

Now, do you have a solid rationale for the bits of the OT that are now not to worry about and the bits which are still in force? If not, I will no longer bother to engage because either your argument has no rational basis or is disingenuous.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16599 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715

 - Posted      Profile for wabale   Author's homepage   Email wabale   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm pretty sure, could be wrong here... the demonization comes from the Christian Old Testament.

I’m guessing myself, quite seriously, that the demonization arose from what is sometimes called ‘the yuk factor’, that is to say that heterosexual people can feel a revulsion to the very idea of homosexual sex (and vice-versa I understand). Everything else is attempted rationalisation.

Some years ago, shortly after the law regarding ‘homosexual activity’ was changed in England, I was sharing a flat in London with four other men. One of our number received some unsolicited mail, advertising exotic male under ware. He hit the roof, and when I suggested he just throw the catalogue in the bin, he started talking about ‘drawing lines’ and where was I going to draw mine? Meanwhile, my other friends, all from a very respectable and quiet C of E parish in SouthWest London, instantly turned into Nazi Stormtroopers, with sneering comments such as ‘batting for the other side’ etc. As far as I know, none of them had any particular reason to be homophobic. One reason why I didn’t join in was that some time before this I had worked as an usher in a West End cinema, where my colleagues would have loved to have been described as ‘camp as a row of tents’, the word ‘gay’ not I think in common currency then. The point is I don’t think my flatmates’ aversion to what we now call gay culture came from anything other than popular prejudice.

My feeling is that throughout the history of the Christian faith ‘the yuk factor’ has always been the consistent factor, whatever the particular reasons actually put forward to justify the characterisation of homosexual ‘behaviour’ as a sin. I also think that whenever Church and State has decided to make homosexual behaviour a capital offence it has always been politically, not theologically, driven.

Its characterisation as a ‘sin’, however, has been inconsistently applied over time, and for remarkably different reasons. The Bible, particularly passages in Leviticus, Romans and l Corinthians, were not even consistently cited by Christians as arguments until comparatively modern times. Meanwhile Genesis 19 has been spectacularly misused in giving us the dreadful term ‘Sodomites’: a glance at Ezekiel 16 shows there is more to the story of Sodom and Gommorah than meets the eye, and that it can be argued that the ‘sin of Sodom’ has no relationship to homosexuality whatsoever.

Many people were criminalised and killed over the centuries for ‘Sodomy’, something the Church aided and abetted and in some ways led. The Church owes them one of those ‘historical apologies’ just for starters.

Posts: 55 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
God is very strict about sins like eating shrimp and divorce. Oh wait.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not saying that being gay deserves death, or that it's even that big a sin.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is intellectually dishonest to just pick and choose from the aspects of the prohibited acts that fit your paradigm.

Well that's a contradiction. Why do you get to "pick and choose" the sin of not stoning male homosexuals to death and claim it doesn't really count as a sin any more, but homosexuality still is a sin? Seems pretty selective to me.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant "gay" guys. Not that I readily hang with them, that's just not my social group TBH.

[Roll Eyes] There are gay women as well, that was my reference.
But gay women are totally acceptable from an Old Testament perspective. Only male homosexuality is considered a sin under the law of Moses.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10334 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting
Hello,
Can I ask people not to derail this thread with arguments about whether same-sex sexual relations/relationships are sinful or condemned by the Bible? That belongs on our 94 page thread Homosexuality and Christianity while arguments about biblical inerrancy belong on the Biblical Inerrancy thread.

We also have a thread on Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages if anyone wants to argue about particular passages in the Bible.

Can I ask new people who are bringing up old general arguments which have been raised many times before to familiarise themselves, at least a bit, with these threads and the arguments raised in them, and to post on the relevant thread? This thread was originally asking about the recent prominence of this issue over past decades, but has looked at older history too, but that's not an excuse to re-litigate basic, general arguments which belong on the other threads.

If you want to reply to a post and the reply doesn't belong on this thread please copy the post to the relevant thread and reply there

Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6891 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is intellectually dishonest to just pick and choose from the aspects of the prohibited acts that fit your paradigm.

Excuse me, but there is nothing at all intellectually dishonest about trying to think through what is said and what is meant. Especially not when it is done against the observed reality of people's lives.

Arriving at different conclusions to your own is not "intellectual dishonesty". And quite frankly you are just the latest in a long line of people who've thrown that accusation around in total ignorance of the many years, now decades, that I have spent thinking about these issues with as much intellectual honesty as I can possibly muster.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting

A reminder to everyone about how the Ship's rules on personal/group attacks work.

People are allowed to attack/insult/offend denominations or groups as part of their argument (within reason see C1*) but personal attacks/insults outside the Hell board are strictly banned under C3 and personal conflicts MUST be stopped or taken to the Hell board (C4) - see full list of the board 10Cs here.

So if someone is posting insulting things about a group you are part of or minority you belong to, you can't take personal issue with them here - but must call them to the Hell board to make negative personal remarks about them.

If you're not contributing directly to the discussion of where prejudice/demonisation comes from, then please think about which board or which thread your post actually belongs on - because the chances are it's not this thread.

Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off


*C 1. Don't be a jerk: Lively, intelligent discussion is what we're about. Jerkish behavior includes (but is not limited to): racism, sexism and all the other negative -isms, trolling and flame-baiting.)

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6891 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
in original post by Schroedinger's Cat
quote:
(... homosexuality that has become the touchstone of conevo faith, the cause of all our woes, the biggest issue in the fundamentalist world. And I am left wondering exactly how we moved so far so quickly. Is it just that every other battle has been lost? Is it just that most of the conevo leaders are secretly gay? Why THIS issue, and not some other?
ISTM that many of the hobby horses of the con-evo stable in the UK have been imported from the US: the only notable exception would seem to be the attitude towards divorce, withour US cousins seeming far more accepting of divorce and remarriage than the UK religious conservative.

Second, while there seems to be pretty well universal condemnation of gayness - and that is what it comes down to, however much people use the revoltingly arch expression same-sex attraction - it is only expressed towards gay men and it seems to be part of a preoccupation with penetrative sex; indeed, when I raised the issue at the Shared Conversation I was on, I was assured by several con-evo attendees that the issue of gay women was far less important because "after all, they can't really get up to much in the bedroom department" (my lesbian friends were in stitches when I reported this back to them).

I would ask what is meant by "secretly gay"? Do we take this to mean (1) in the closet, or (2) men who have sex with other men but don't acknowledge it to be "gay" sex?

Over the past 50 years there has been much research into how true it is to label people as being exclusively either heterosexual or homosexual - it was research along these lines that first brought in the description of bi-sexual. What many of the studies have shown, on both sides of the atlantic, is that a substantial number of self-describing heterosexual men have sex with other men from time to time, and that many of these men do not consider such sexual acts to be adulterous (if they are married) or a sign of homosexual orientation (whether married or single). The studies further show that the incidence of such same-gender sexual activity seems to be far more prevalent between men than women.

The other thing that has been known about same-sex activity between younger men is that it is often part of ritual associated with membership of a group, and that those who report it frequently do so in terms that it is to do with bullying and control, not sexual pleasure or preference. For example, it is well known that the incidence of homosexual rape in male prisons is very high, and that the most violent and feared prisoners are often to be 'bought-off' by having their sexual activities with weaker, younger prisoners ignored or condoned. All of this sits very uneasily with the use of slang terms for homosexual men - gay, faggot, etc - in humour.

So, to answer the question is the con-evo preoccupation with homosexuality a sign that its leaders are "secretly gay" I'd say the conclusion should be a qualified perhaps. But statistically it is almost guaranteed that a fair number of the con-evo male leadership is regularly having sex with other men.

All of which begs the question Why do they continue to go on about the evils of homosexuality? Well, perhaps its their own version of whistling in the dark - I'm not one of those vile people with those vile proclivities performing those disgusting acts and to bolster their 'courage' they're not above telling outright lies, hence the continual statement that "Jesus condemned homosexuality" even when it is pointed out that Our Lord didn't express a single word on the subject.

And before anyone quotes St Paul, all of the above likely applied to him too.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4603 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hello,
Can I ask people not to derail this thread with arguments about whether same-sex sexual relations/relationships are sinful or condemned by the Bible? That belongs on our 94 page thread Homosexuality and Christianity while arguments about biblical inerrancy belong on the Biblical Inerrancy thread.

We also have a thread on Biblical interpretation of apparently anti-gay passages if anyone wants to argue about particular passages in the Bible.

Can I ask new people who are bringing up old general arguments which have been raised many times before to familiarize themselves, at least a bit, with these threads and the arguments raised in them, and to post on the relevant thread? This thread was originally asking about the recent prominence of this issue over past decades, but has looked at older history too, but that's not an excuse to re-litigate basic, general arguments which belong on the other threads.

If you want to reply to a post and the reply doesn't belong on this thread please copy the post to the relevant thread and reply there

Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

Thanks for the helpful links, I shall explore those

I don't wish to be obtuse, but if I come across that way to you, no worries, I shall exit.

I had said that the OP is just being rhetorical about the nature of homophobia, as if it is unreasonable. Of course we see it as unreasonable TODAY in our post modern context.

I think it is actually quite obtuse to act rhetorical/shocked or bewildered that anyone ever thought homosexuality needed to be demonized at all. Knowing that the literal viewpoint on scriptures has been held so long, it is a very natural and reasonable reaction to prohibit homosexuality and instill guilt and fear into the next generation - in a setting where that view prevails.

Yes, truly I think the literal viewpoint is eroding away, and many nuanced views are competing for position in the aftermath.

Furthermore I think what is going on is people are starting to reverse-demonize anyone who continues to disapprove of homosexuality in any way.

It's just a revenge reaction to the attitudes of the past.

I am simply trying to point out that demonization of the practice is fairly reasonable and easy to predict in a scenario where for centuries a simple minded view of the Scripture as literal and inerrant prevailed.

It is no more right to demonise those who continue to believe homosexuality is a sin than for those who believe eating shrimp is sin. I have learned that calling someone an idiot for his belief in not eating pork is a foolish thing to do.

I often wish to mock those who abstain from alcohol, as if it makes them more holy. Well there are actually good reasons to abstain from alcohol, though being automatically holier isn't one of them.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
however much people use the revoltingly arch expression same-sex attraction - it is only expressed towards gay men and it seems to be part of a preoccupation with penetrative sex

What is "revoltingly arch" about that expression?

And why don't you see gender biology as of any value in the discussion? Do you see any difference in male and female sex drive? It is often fashionable to belittle what is "unproven". Well, there may not be a single measure of sex drive so isolation of the "key" factor for study may not be possible. But if we take common knowledge, and the frequency that men THINK about sex.... I don't think it's a hard sell. Men are preoccupied with visual stimulation and penetration.

Is it really that hard to see why the anti-gayness efforts are focused on men? Really, is it?

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785

 - Posted      Profile for romanesque     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As far as I'm aware homosexuality is not a sin, the sin is sexual intimacy outside marriage and avoidance of sexual continence (the Samaritan woman at the well, et al). The problem is normalising anything we like to do on the basis we like to do it, which leads to self justification.

As someone who has mostly worked in the arts, homosexuals are numerically over represented among my colleagues and many gay people are friends. I don't think my friendship should extend to condoning their lifestyle choices, nor should I condemn them solely on the basis of it or shun them in any way. We are all sinners, and mostly habitual ones. That doesn't mean we stop trying or fail to recognise sin for what it is. Life's bloody hard, gay, straight or not sure. Whether it's impossibly hard is the question, and whether the degree of difficulty brings its own graces.

Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710

 - Posted      Profile for Caissa     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sex amongst consenting adults is never a sin.
Posts: 915 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785

 - Posted      Profile for romanesque     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Sex amongst consenting adults is never a sin.

Do you have scriptural precedent for that claim?
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Is it really that hard to see why the anti-gayness efforts are focused on men? Really, is it?

Nope. It is about dominance. Men being Men, by God! Being penetrated means you are the woman. gasp, shock, horror! And that is unacceptable.
In most homophobic groups, IME women are also supposed to be subservient.
IME this is true in L'organist's Conevo groups.
So, IMO, this is part of where the demonisation comes from.
Another, as mentioned by Schroedinger's Cat, many other battles have been lost. So what issue does one use to define "us" vs "them"? One that, until very recently, the general public largely agreed with.
As to conevo, or other leaders being secretly gay; I have always hated this argument. The Nazis did not secretly want to be Jewish, the KKK do not secretly want to be black. Vilification does not need a closet to speak from.
Can this be a factor in some individuals' anti-gay vehemence? Certainly. But it isn't a requirement.
Statistics would assume that a percentage of any group will have gay people in it. I would think this would be lower, at least slightly, in the more anti-gay congregations for LGBT+ people leaving for that reason.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16599 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The issue raised was "preocupation" with penetrative sex.

I think you rightly postulated that penetrative sex is the heart of the issue, and men being men is certainly tied to that.

Even without a fully literal view of the Scriptures, it isn't that hard to fathom how trying to apply Levitical codes is going to turn out.

Again in keeping with the OP, which you seem to want to drag us away from, it is a very reasonable conclusion that the rules of Moses put forth were for the regulation of society and for the best function of the male and female body and health.

One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. How did we get here, and who cares where we're going? Bible is a pretty good resourse, if you want to look for resources that is.

Demonizing (or really I thin it is demagogue-ing) those that have a different storyline, that is the purpose of the thread. I'll say it again, this thread was put here to demonize those that don't APPROVE of homosexuality. I'm throwing it back at you. Just admit, it's payback time, you're paying the world back for it's vile treatment of you, or your friend, or family or whatever.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9515 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Bible is a pretty good resourse, if you want to look for resources that is.

It is actually a piss-poor resource. No, really, not denigrating any of the major religions which use it as a basis, but it is not fit to purpose. That is, if one chooses to apply it without context, and that is what anti-homosexuals do. And this is a source of the demonisation.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.

They are not free to persecute, poor dears.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16599 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality.

I have never heard of anybody using a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. Do you have any cites for that?

Most non-Christians I know judge storylines from CNN or BBC according to their already-formed morality. I think you've overspoke your thought.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62941 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
... One person uses the storyline from the Bible as a basis for health and life and morality, and another person uses a storyline from CNN or BBC as a basis for morality. ...

Please. CNN and BBC report news - actual observations of actual events in real time. The Bible is a work of fiction. I also notice that you dropped "health and life" from the second part of your sentence. Nice try. Feel free to look to any source you want for your own morality. For factual information on human health, the BBC and CNN win hands down. The Bible says pi is a rational number, FFS.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5333 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by Aijalon
quote:
(previously posted by me)
...however much people use the revoltingly arch expression same-sex attraction - it is only expressed towards gay men and it seems to be part of a preoccupation with penetrative sex
quote:

What is "revoltingly arch" about that expression?

And why don't you see gender biology as of any value in the discussion? Do you see any difference in male and female sex drive? It is often fashionable to belittle what is "unproven". Well, there may not be a single measure of sex drive so isolation of the "key" factor for study may not be possible. But if we take common knowledge, and the frequency that men THINK about sex.... I don't think it's a hard sell. Men are preoccupied with visual stimulation and penetration.


What is odd, peculiar and revoltingly arch about the expression "same-sex attraction" is that the term "sex attraction" is only ever applied to people attracted to those of the same gender as themselves, never to people attracted to those of opposite gender. Worse, it is frequently tacked onto a sentence containing the word "suffer" or "experience", which is odd when you consider that most people don't consider being attracted to someone of the same gender as "experience" or something that necessarily causes suffering. Or are you going to tell me that you refer to people as "opposite sex attracted" in the normal course of things?

There is no such thing as "male" and "female sex drive: people have differing libidos, just as people have differing ability to judge pitch, taste saltiness, etc. No one knows why sex drive differs from person to person except in those cases where a medical condition causes changes in hormone level.

The idea that men and women have differing libido - with the implication that all men want sex more than all women - doesn't hold water. Societies have chosen to believe that a sign of a virtuous woman is that she doesn't want or enjoy sex but that is a completely different thing from natural sex drive, and it goes together with the widespread practice of telling little girls that touching themselves "down there" was dirty, disgusting and shameful.

posted by romanesque
quote:
As someone who has mostly worked in the arts, homosexuals are numerically over represented among my colleagues and many gay people are friends. I don't think my friendship should extend to condoning their lifestyle choices, nor should I condemn them solely on the basis of it or shun them in any way.
I too have spent most of my working life among musicians and others involved in the arts: who is to say that gays are numerically over-represented? Certainly in the past it may have seemed that way but, as some of my non-arty gay friends have said, it has been easier to people to be more openly gay in the arts than, say, the armed forces, judiciary or other professions or fields.

As for "condoning" your friends' lifestyle choices, gosh! Are you speaking solely about a choice made to be sexually active when gay, or referring to something more threatening such as, for example, an interest in hand-guns or far-right politics? Why should we be so judgemental about our friends? Surely if we disapprove of something about them so much then we're not really friends?

[ 06. June 2017, 02:42: Message edited by: L'organist ]

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4603 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785

 - Posted      Profile for romanesque     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I too have spent most of my working life among musicians and others involved in the arts: who is to say that gays are numerically over-represented? Certainly in the past it may have seemed that way but, as some of my non-arty gay friends have said, it has been easier to people to be more openly gay in the arts than, say, the armed forces, judiciary or other professions or fields.

As for "condoning" your friends' lifestyle choices, gosh! Are you speaking solely about a choice made to be sexually active when gay, or referring to something more threatening such as, for example, an interest in hand-guns or far-right politics? Why should we be so judgemental about our friends? Surely if we disapprove of something about them so much then we're not really friends? [/QB]

I disagree - on a number of points. First that I should approve of things that remove people from the perfection we are intended to emulate. This is decidedly not an exclusive preserve of homosexuality, I'd feel the same way if a colleague invited me to meet his wife then go out for dinner with his mistress. He may have numerous redeeming features, or I wouldn't be hanging out with him, but that aspect of his life would be thoroughly screwed up and the possible assent of his wife wouldn't unscrew it. Do I send him to purdah for pursuing his lifestyle? Of course not, he still carries the spark of divinity we all contain and I certainly can't presume on God's grace.

As someone who has been around flamboyant and straight acting gays for decades, my gaydar is pretty well tuned to which way people swing. If they're not going to my mates because they need my approval, sod 'em (sic), I'm not going to indulge them in lengthy biblical exegesis when they have a functioning conscience. Ditto for piss heads, greedy gits, the bone idle, swingers and anyone else who wants to treat they personal indulgences as a condition in need of unquestioning approval. Life isn't a bed of roses and very little about the bible suggests it might be.

Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I disagree - on a number of points. First that I should approve of things that remove people from the perfection we are intended to emulate. This is decidedly not an exclusive preserve of homosexuality, I'd feel the same way if a colleague invited me to meet his wife then go out for dinner with his mistress. He may have numerous redeeming features, or I wouldn't be hanging out with him, but that aspect of his life would be thoroughly screwed up and the possible assent of his wife wouldn't unscrew it. Do I send him to purdah for pursuing his lifestyle? Of course not, he still carries the spark of divinity we all contain and I certainly can't presume on God's grace.

The tiresome part of this is that you've just compared someone who is in a loving and committed exclusive relationship with his husband with a philandering bastard who is cheating his wife.

quote:
As someone who has been around flamboyant and straight acting gays for decades, my gaydar is pretty well tuned to which way people swing. If they're not going to my mates because they need my approval, sod 'em (sic), I'm not going to indulge them in lengthy biblical exegesis when they have a functioning conscience. Ditto for piss heads, greedy gits, the bone idle, swingers and anyone else who wants to treat they personal indulgences as a condition in need of unquestioning approval. Life isn't a bed of roses and very little about the bible suggests it might be.
Not even slightly the same thing. And it says something about you that you're prepared to compare someone who is gay with the "bone idle, swingers and anyone else who wants to treat they personal indulgences".

Imagine if you'd said that about a Jewish person or someone who is black or disabled.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785

 - Posted      Profile for romanesque     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Imagine if you'd said that about a Jewish person or someone who is black or disabled.

Not the same at all. I might be predisposed to want to nail every hot and curvy redhead who comes my way. Should I build a wall of justification around my predilection for well endowed Titian haired females? You're making the assumption that predisposition is the same as acting out the desire, and that some preferences are beyond any human ability to restrain from.

Biblical interdictions clearly point to the fact that some activities are soul-destroying, and the Samaritan woman didn't come back at Jesus with the fact she was in a mutually consenting relationship with responsible adults and he should mind his own damned business. Her conscience was clearly, ahem, pricked. I'm being asked to support the insupportable because it's uniquely tough, and that is beyond my pay grade. That shouldn't be conflated with lack of understanding or empathy for anyone in the grip of something, anything, they believe is beyond their control.

For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a choice or that people can be cured of it. Nor do I think it should be celebrated as a manifestation of the wonders of nature. I think it's something people have to live, and in that sense it's far from unique. I don't think someone missing a leg is "special", I think they're missing a leg and will never run the 100 metre hurdles.

Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Not the same at all. I might be predisposed to want to nail every hot and curvy redhead who comes my way. Should I build a wall of justification around my predilection for well endowed Titian haired females? You're making the assumption that predisposition is the same as acting out the desire, and that some preferences are beyond any human ability to restrain from.

And you continue making stupid comparisons. As if your philandering is equivalent to a loving relationship. Why not go the whole hog and compare homosexuality with bestiality or child abuse?


quote:
For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a choice or that people can be cured of it. Nor do I think it should be celebrated as a manifestation of the wonders of nature.
That's nice. Remind why we should care what you think? This isn't a discussion, this is just you muscling in and stating things as truths. I don't agree.

quote:
I think it's something people have to live, and in that sense it's far from unique. I don't think someone missing a leg is "special", I think they're missing a leg and will never run the 100 metre hurdles.
Newsflash: homosexuality is not a disability or an illness. The only possible reason why homosexuals experience disadvantage is because some idiots want to treat them poorly.

[ 06. June 2017, 10:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785

 - Posted      Profile for romanesque     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB]And you continue making stupid comparisons.

If you think the bible is the metaphysical ponderings of bronze age goatherds, and the enlightenment has plucked us from superstition into the sunlit upland of material science, you can argue that point. I think there's scriptural evidence against sex outside marriage, and the bible is a guide against the infinite fallibility of the human heart. If this is modernity vs. faith we can have that discussion, but I assumed you held the Christian message as of some value. If you do, I'd like to know where gay sex gets a free pass when lots of other sex doesn't, and why you think it should. This isn't about My Prejudice and I refuse to defend my position on that basis.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll thank you not to make assumptions about me. If you want to try personal attacks use hell.

For the record, you are utterly wrong.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785

 - Posted      Profile for romanesque     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'll thank you not to make assumptions about me. If you want to try personal attacks use hell.

For the record, you are utterly wrong.

I haven't made any personal attacks, you accused me of stupidity for a mainstream interpretation of Christian doctrine. I'd welcome a reasoned discussion of the topic from any perspective that emphasised mutual goodwill and respect. Everything you've said suggests you find my views morally abhorrent.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I haven't made any personal attacks, you accused me of stupidity for a mainstream interpretation of Christian doctrine.

Nope I said your comparisons are stupid. Read for comprehension.
quote:

I'd welcome a reasoned discussion of the topic from any perspective that emphasised mutual goodwill and respect. Everything you've said suggests you find my views morally abhorrent.

You appear to be under a misapprehension that your views haven't been aired here a zillion times before and that you just have to state things in the most disgusting way possible to win an argument.

I don't want to discuss things within the parameters you've set because they're shallow and disgusting.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785

 - Posted      Profile for romanesque     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I haven't made any personal attacks, you accused me of stupidity for a mainstream interpretation of Christian doctrine.

Nope I said your comparisons are stupid. Read for comprehension.
quote:

I'd welcome a reasoned discussion of the topic from any perspective that emphasised mutual goodwill and respect. Everything you've said suggests you find my views morally abhorrent.

You appear to be under a misapprehension that your views haven't been aired here a zillion times before and that you just have to state things in the most disgusting way possible to win an argument.

I don't want to discuss things within the parameters you've set because they're shallow and disgusting.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I take your valuation of its development at face value. Terms like "disgusting" and "shallow" are non sequiturs that kill debate rather than promote it. Perhaps you believe the topic is completely irrelevant to religious faith, it's impossible to know from your responses.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Once again, the Happy Hour News Dump does not disappoint. (A lot of Trump-related bombshell stories seem to get broken between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm Eastern time, guaranteeing that they'll be discussed during the various U.S. news programs.) The Intercept apparently got hold of an NSA report stating that Russian military intelligence (GRU) conducted cyber-attacks against a voting software provider and several local election officials. That's a whole different level of interference than any of the hacking we've heard about so far.

quote:
Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

<snip>

The report indicates that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into U.S. voting systems than was previously understood. It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document:

quote:
Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.

<snip>

The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

The NSA has confirmed the authenticity of the report, both directly to The Intercept and by having the leaker arrested.

One question that immediately leaps to mind is whether Donald Trump was briefed on this report, which is dated May 5, before he fired FBI director James Comey on May 9.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10334 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops, wrong board! Meant to post that last item here.

If some helpful host could delete it I'd be grateful. Already past the edit window.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10334 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by romanesque (responding topost from Mr Cheesy)
quote:
I think there's scriptural evidence against sex outside marriage, and the bible is a guide against the infinite fallibility of the human heart. If this is modernity vs. faith we can have that discussion, but I assumed you held the Christian message as of some value. If you do, I'd like to know where gay sex gets a free pass when lots of other sex doesn't, and why you think it should. This isn't about My Prejudice and I refuse to defend my position on that basis.
I'm now very confused.

I've read the above three times and still come to the same conclusion: that is that it is only sex outside marriage that you find abhorrent because disallowed by the scriptures. Therefore if a gay couple eschew a physical relationship before marriage it is OK afterwards - you cannot argue that sex is only OK after Christian marriage since the passages that originally prohibit sex outside marriage all come from the pre-Christian era.

When you say "gay sex" (whatever that is) gets a free pass I must ask what you mean? Are you implying that, for example, anal sex is OK within the context of marriage? And what are you referring to as "lots of other sex"???

As for the "Christian message" and whether or not it is perceived as having value, neither mr cheesy nor I have at any time made any statement that would cause you to question whether or not we see the message of Christ as being valuable. Yet again it seems that someone who seeks to prevent a sizeable proportion of the population from being able to have loving, committed, lifelong relationships given affirmation and acceptance is now trying to say that the "Christian message" categorically rejects these people and their sexual orientation - and that is simply not true. At NO point did Jesus Christ condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex: in fact he condemned remarkably little, preferring the line of "let him that is without sin cast the first stone. It is decidedly UN-Christian for a section of believers who purport to be followers of Christ to spend so much of their time condemning and damning fellow human beings and, in some cases, fellow Christians - although, of course, I am aware that there are some so-called Christians who would argue that to be gay is automatically to be outside the prospect of every being a Christian.

[ 06. June 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: L'organist ]

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4603 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, those homophobes suffer so much persecution, don't they? Martyrdom has never looked so dignified.

This kind of sarcasm reinforces my point. Anything less than full approval of homosexuality is viewed as homophobia and demonisation. Thats just the reaction of a very angry and irrational crowd.

I'm not saying everyone is angry and irrational, just that that problem is making it hard to create a dialogue on the topic. It is just cold hard closed mindedness. I mirror image of the churche's closed mindedness. I guess that is a predictable response, just as demonisation is a predictable outcome given human history.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools