To America on the Topic of Homosexuality: Grow Up!

[FormerFundie2004]

Homosexuality, ahh yes, the hottest debating topic of the decade (or longer?)...

Isn't it time that we just move on from this issue? Haven't we debated it, educated ourselves on it, argued, fought, bickered, and whined long enough?

Or perhaps we have already done that, but have now drawn a dividing line in the sand and have taken sides. Is that it? Perhaps that's it. Because we still haven't gotten over this whole homosexual thing yet.

Now, where am I going with this? I have been a convervative Baptist, card-carrying member of the religious right--until last year. And during that time I considered homosexuality to be a sin. I was a Bible literalist. Remember those verses that say that it's an abomination? Yeah, I took those as the very words of God Himself.

But now I do not believe they are. Don't turn off to me yet, that would be too easy.

America, in believing that homosexuality is a sin and to be rejected, do you realize what you have done? But now I am getting ahead of myself.

I used to think that everyone was born heterosexual, but some were prone to sexual sins. Some were just prone to homosexuality. These people might have fantasies for the same sex, but it's just a passing thing, just a simple sin that will pass. For some it might be very difficult to conquer, but ultimately if you try hard enough, and are spiritual enough, you can conquer it.

But when I began to examine the experiences of some homosexuals, I realized that their "proneness" to homosexuality was stronger than any proneness to sin I have ever experienced. If it was truly a "proneness" then it was different from all other pronenesses or urges than most people encounter.

Then I looked even deeper into it, and I discovered that it was much much more than a proneness.

I know that many of you don't believe this, but I believe that homosexuality is an orientation, not a preference. Just as I--being heterosexual--only desire men, a homosexual only desires members of his or her own sex. I am so thoroughly grounded in this belief now that there is no way anyone could convince me otherwise.

I am reading a book about Mel White (Stranger at the Gate). He discusses his life experiences and struggles with homosexuality. I am only in the 4th chapter and already it has been a very enlightening read. It is clear from his experiences alone that homosexuality is just as much an orientation as heterosexuality is.

Has anyone else read his book?

So many homosexual children, adolescents, and adults have been sacrificed to the homophobia in this country. A child who is scared of his or her emerging sexuality is made to feel condemned by what he or she cannot understand. How could you tell a child that what he or she is feeling for the same sex is a sin, when it is their natural course? How could such a child really be heterosexual, when at the age of 12, their first crush is on a member of the same sex? And all the ones after the first? And then, in later adulthood, they are never sexually stimulated by the opposite sex. How could that be anything other than natural?

If you must call homosexuality a sin or disgusting thing, please at least admit that it is a natural trait.

Back to my point. We really should grow up in this country. It's time to mature. It's time to stop hurting and abusing homosexuals, when they are no different from us. We have the knowledge out there that proves this. We are intelligent enough to reason this out. And we should have the good conscience enough to know that our homophobic attitude in this society is killing the abused. And the abused includes your children--those children and adolescents among us all who are gay, and are made to feel rejected, and even hated.

[dave_a]

While I agree entirely with the thrust of your post, I did note that your present belief is only a year old and before that you believed it to be a choice and a sinful one at that.

Therein lies the problem.

We can't (collectively) move beyond the gay=sin idea until more people do as you have done and moved beyond it.

I also used to believe it was a sin, a choice, and an abomination to God.

It isn't really an issue of maturity, I don't think. It is an issue of faith versus reality.

It is going to take generations to change these views significantly.

[ApostateAbe]

Unfair treatment of homosexuality is largely due to religion. Supposing you are somebody who takes the Bible literally, then you are left with no choice but to think that homosexuality is a sinful choice that people make. There are a dozen verses in the Bible, Old Testament and New, that equate homosexuality with the worst of sin. Go to any anti-gay Christian website to read them. Liberal Christians tend to rationalize those verses, but it is a type of reasoning that people of other stripes of religion cannot accept.

So it doesn't matter how much testimony homosexuals can give that it is natural. Fundamentalist Christians are faced with a choice: they can choose to believe either the testimony of homosexuals or the testimony of the Bible. Since the Bible has provided an order, purpose, and foundation for their lives, and homosexuals are wierd men on TV who have high-pitched voices, they choose to believe the Bible. In fact, everything including scientific discoveries, pictures of animals in homosexual acts, celebrity opinions, and even the pronouncements of their own sexual lusts must yield to the authority of the Bible.

There is probably no good solution to the problem. There are past problems that have arisen from a literal interpretation of the Bible, such as witch burnings, slavery, and sexism in the law. The problems are solved primarily with the slow evolution of society and not with changing individual minds.

[seebs]

I don't think you need the Bible to make people fear and hate people who are different from themselves...

[Dingfod]

I think rejection of homosexuality goes beyond a religious basis in some people, they actually are repulsed by the very thought of same-sex sex, unless it is female-female. I'm not sure the level of response in some people comes from being culturally indoctrinated or if they actually fear they might too be homosexual or is just innate. Have there been any studies of that?

[Dingfod]

Now, where am I going with this? I have been a convervative Baptist, card-carrying member of the religious right--until last year. And during that time I considered homosexuality to be a sin. I was a Bible literalist. Remember those verses that say that it's an abomination? Yeah, I took those as the very words of God Himself. I'm just curious. Did you also avoid seafood and pork? Those abominations are in the same book of the bible.

[Adora]

If you must call homosexuality a sin or disgusting thing, please at least admit that it is a natural trait.

Or, even better, don't call it that at all!

Unfair treatment of homosexuality is largely due to religion.

HAHA no.

What utterly shits me off about all of this is the way religious passages that in no way relate to homosexuality in moder Western society are somehow used to condemn it, and the way Fundamentalist Christianity is used as a smokescreen for gender issues of a far greater power than any religion or spiritual belief. This isn't about "Faith vs Reality" because condemnation has never, ever, truly been about homosexuality being a threat to marriage, god, or anything at all regarding spirituality. It is, however, a threat to perceived illusionary "natural" binary gender constructions, which gets dressed up by the masculine-dominated organisations behind and working in modern Fundamentalist Christianity (the Promise Keepers are just one example of these groups) in religion as an easier way to manipulate the masses that don't know any better.

This isn't about religion, this is about gender, about changing gender and taking supposed "natural" privileges away from those who have held on to them and abused them for too long. Realise that, and then you will truly grow-the-fuck-up.

[ApostateAbe]

There are many people who show a prejudice against homosexuals that has nothing to do with religion. They will use the idea of homosexuality as a perjorative. "Gay" is often meant as an insult to heterosexual males.

And I have a co-worker who is a rare variety of atheist--he has a deep intolerance of gays. He doesn't want his kid being exposed to homosexual ideas, he would prefer that they stay in the closet, and he regularly expresses it. It is a view he inherited from his father who said that he would shoot gays who trespass on his property and kiss.

Still, this doesn't approach what has been to the minds of fundamentalist Christians. Even my co-worker would concede that homosexuality is a natural thing and wouldn't want to remove the political rights of gays (he opposed gay marriage but gave civil unions the OK). Without a doubt, the Abrahamic religions are the basis of anti-gay hysteria in the world.

[Adora]

Without a doubt, the Abrahamic religions are the basis of anti-gay hysteria in the world.

No, they're not. You can't possibly have them as the basis for opposition against homosexuality when you take in a) the fact that nowhere specifically in the Bible (just using fundamentalist Christianity) is homosexuality condemned because b) "homosexuality" is a modern invention, created by the movement of a mostly agrarian culture into an industrial capitalist one. The Fundamentalist movement is an incredibly modern invention, which has only existed for around 30 years and is male-dominated, inherently invested in traditional gender roles because of this, and a branch of conservatism.

The hysteria comes from something far more complex, social-based and far more important to many people than a Big Invisible Friend. The religious excuses are just window dressing, and unless you realise this you're just playing into their hands.

[livius drusus]

We can't (collectively) move beyond the gay=sin idea until more people do as you have done and moved beyond it.

I'm sorry but I don't think literalism or gay=sin is something that more than a tiny little minority of people need to move beyond. You and FormerFundie2004 get :bow: from me for having done so, but y'all's beliefs were then and are still now very much out of the mainstream.

It is going to take generations to change these views significantly.

If you mean among fundamentalists, I couldn't really say, but I don't think this is true about most Americans. Check out these graphs (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5.htm) plotting responses to polls on civil unions. The general trend is very much towards acceptance, and that's just in the last few years and on the very controversial matter of civil unions.

Hell, even among the church-going population there is very a significant percentage (http://pewforum.org/docs/print.php?DocID=37) of people who deal just fine. The evangelical denominations have the lowest percentages, but more than a small minority of them don't seem to be anti-gay rights or anti-gay in general.

[Godless Dave]

The problems are solved primarily with the slow evolution of society and not with changing individual minds.

I think the slow evolution of society consists of many individual minds changing.

FormerFundie2004, I assume from the way it is written that you intend to address this to conservative Christians. Good luck. Many people have been saying the exact same things to them for 30 years and more. But maybe coming from someone who used to be one of them will make it a little more convincing to some.

[ApostateAbe]

Without a doubt, the Abrahamic religions are the basis of anti-gay hysteria in the world.
No, they're not. You can't possibly have them as the basis for opposition against homosexuality when you take in a) the fact that nowhere specifically in the Bible (just using fundamentalist Christianity) is homosexuality condemned because b) "homosexuality" is a modern invention, created by the movement of a mostly agrarian culture into an industrial capitalist one. The Fundamentalist movement is an incredibly modern invention, which has only existed for around 30 years and is male-dominated, inherently invested in traditional gender roles because of this, and a branch of conservatism.

The hysteria comes from something far more complex, social-based and far more important to many people than a Big Invisible Friend. The religious excuses are just window dressing, and unless you realise this you're just playing into their hands.You say that homosexuality is mentioned nowhere specifically in the Bible, but I must disagree. Like I said, liberal Christians have a tendancy to rationalize such verses, but it is not accepted by literalists. Maybe the equivelant word for "homosexual" does not exist in the Bible, but the Bible is specific in its meaning. Consider Leviticus 18:22, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. and Romans 1:26-27, For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. In that passage, homosexuality is condemned among the worst of sins in men AND women. Of course there are many more verses that put homosexuality in a bad light.

You say that fundamentalism is a modern invention. That is true. I'd say it has been around for around 100 years. But Bible literalism has been around much longer than that, and therefore, Bible-based homophobia has been around equivalently long. Homosexuality was always a taboo topic in the Christian world.

[livius drusus]

I think Adora's pointing out that same gender sex acts and homosexuality are not the same thing and therefore the Biblical condemnation of the former cannot be read as a condemnation of the latter, particularly since the very notion of homosexuality as an identity is a modern phenomenon.

[ApostateAbe]

I think Adora's pointing out that same gender sex acts and homosexuality are not the same thing and therefore the Biblical condemnation of the former cannot be read as a condemnation of the latter, particularly since the very notion of homosexuality as an identity is a modern phenomenon.That would clarify it a little. The problem then would be the insistence that thoughts of sin are as evil as the act of sin, as expressed by Jesus: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.Christians justify this by saying that the thoughts often lead to the actions, which makes logical sense.

[Goliath]

I don't think you need the Bible to make people fear and hate people who are different from themselves...

No, but the bible can certainly provide a great deal of help towards that end. Now that I think about it, I don't see what else the bible is useful for (other than kindling).

[bobeh]

Without a doubt, the Abrahamic religions are the basis of anti-gay hysteria in the world.

No, they're not. You can't possibly have them as the basis for opposition against homosexuality when you take in a) the fact that nowhere specifically in the Bible (just using fundamentalist Christianity) is homosexuality condemned because b) "homosexuality" is a modern invention, created by the movement of a mostly agrarian culture into an industrial capitalist one. The Fundamentalist movement is an incredibly modern invention, which has only existed for around 30 years and is male-dominated, inherently invested in traditional gender roles because of this, and a branch of conservatism.

The hysteria comes from something far more complex, social-based and far more important to many people than a Big Invisible Friend. The religious excuses are just window dressing, and unless you realise this you're just playing into their hands.

Minor quibble...fundamentalism has been around a lot longer...in christian religious circles it was used as a term in the 1920's to describe a collection of doctrinal beliefs which were considered "fundamental" to true christianity. We wore the badge proudly in the 1950's as a statement against liberalism in christianity. It is only in the last few decades however that it has become a term that "outsiders" use to describe certain christian groups or individuals. Perhaps that usage is what you are referring to.

In my past belief system the only reason I would have thought homosexuality was wrong was because I believed that the Bible said it was wrong. When I realized that the Bible was not the "Word of God" any residual belief in the wrongness of homosexuality disappeared, evaporated. It had been a belief that I was uncomfortable with..and it felt good to be able to let it go.

[seebs]

Minor quibble...fundamentalism has been around a lot longer...in christian religious circles it was used as a term in the 1920's to describe a collection of doctrinal beliefs which were considered "fundamental" to true christianity. We wore the badge proudly in the 1950's as a statement against liberalism in christianity. It is only in the last few decades however that it has become a term that "outsiders" use to describe certain christian groups or individuals. Perhaps that usage is what you are referring to.

Perhaps. I think Fundamentalism could be traced back probably as far as around 1890, although the pamphlet that really defined things was something like 1917.

[Adora]

Consider Leviticus 18:22, [size=-1]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. and Romans 1:26-27,
Which is talking about anal sodomy, in a misogynistic context. It does not say "Thou shalt not fall in love with men, be physically attracted to only men, want to 'settle down' with only men, participate politically wearing these facts on your sleeve etc etc" which is what "Homosexuality" represents. It is more than just sex-acts, it is an entire social change which has only been classified recently and in binary opposition to "Heterosexuality".

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Which works on the already assumed knowledge of Paul's readers that non-reproductive intercourse is bad, especially in contrast to the sexually indulgent cultures the early Christian population was surrounded with (and threatened by) at the time. It does not condem homosexuality, but (the whole section) threatens already-disliked punishments of the audience if they "go against God".

This is not condemnation of "Homosexuality", though fundamentalists like to paint it like it is. Like I said, if you keep agreeing with them, you'll never rise above them, and start thinking complexly. I can understand how stupid people interpret these passages as somehow condemning homosexuality. That doesn't mean I agree with them, or think they're not stupid for believe what they're told by their preacher/clergy.

It is only in the last few decades however that it has become a term that "outsiders" use to describe certain christian groups or individuals. Perhaps that usage is what you are referring to.
Sort of. I also mean the word 'Fundamentalist' as a majority of a US population, and a political power, which really only cemented with the 70s when conservative backlashes became popular (understandably).

[ApostateAbe]

Consider Leviticus 18:22, [size=-1]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. and Romans 1:26-27, Which is talking about anal sodomy, in a misogynistic context. It does not say "Thou shalt not fall in love with men, be physically attracted to only men, want to 'settle down' with only men, participate politically wearing these facts on your sleeve etc etc" which is what "Homosexuality" represents. It is more than just sex-acts, it is an entire social change which has only been classified recently and in binary opposition to "Heterosexuality".

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Which works on the already assumed knowledge of Paul's readers that non-reproductive intercourse is bad, especially in contrast to the sexually indulgent cultures the early Christian population was surrounded with (and threatened by) at the time. It does not condem homosexuality, but (the whole section) threatens already-disliked punishments of the audience if they "go against God".

This is not condemnation of "Homosexuality", though fundamentalists like to paint it like it is. Like I said, if you keep agreeing with them, you'll never rise above them, and start thinking complexly. I can understand how stupid people interpret these passages as somehow condemning homosexuality. That doesn't mean I agree with them, or think they're not stupid for believe what they're told by their preacher/clergy.It seems quite clear to me that the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are at least five passages in the Bible that seem to give homosexuality the cold shoulder (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, Judges 19, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6), and I have seen many of the liberal Christian's explanations of them. Each one of the passages is typically given a unique explanation. The mind games that liberal Christians play in order to tell us that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is similar to the games that fundamentalists play in order to resolve the contradictions. As usual, I take the simplest explanation, which in this case is that the Bible really does condemn homosexuality. That may seem simple-minded to you, but it is following the rule of Occam's Razor. Those who do not follow Occam's Razor will create a complex system of ad-hoc explanations just to hold one dubious idea to be true. That is what characterizes conspiracy theories and many bogus belief systems.

[livius drusus]

You're not addressing Adora's point here, Abe. Biblical writers had no notion of homosexuality: a sex act is not the same thing as a sexual orientation. The latter is a modern phenomenon and no more condemned in the Bible than Microsoft is.

[ApostateAbe]

You're not addressing Adora's point here, Abe. Biblical writers had no notion of homosexuality: a sex act is not the same thing as a sexual orientation. The latter is a modern phenomenon and no more condemned in the Bible than Microsoft is.OK, you and Adora seem to be making distinctions that are either not clear or are insignificant to me. It seems to me that intolerance of sex acts is inseparable from intolerance of sexual attraction and behavior, especially with the nature of the Bible's morality. It seems very unlikely to me that Jesus, Paul, Moses and the Christian God would have given gay pride parades, for example, the green light. But if it is true that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality yet it condemns homosexual acts, then why should that make an important difference?

[Adora]

The mind games that liberal Christians play in order to tell us that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is similar to the games that fundamentalists play in order to resolve the contradictions.
Except it's not "liberal Christianity" that explains these things, but non-Christian pro-Homosexual rights campaigners, feminists, and theologians who specialise in Christianity.

\That may seem simple-minded to you, but it is following the rule of Occam's Razor.
No, it's not. You're bastardising Occam's Razor as much as people claim the 'ie-God Exists' clause to everything is true to Occam's Razor.

Those who do not follow Occam's Razor will create a complex system of ad-hoc explanations just to hold one dubious idea to be true.
I'm not holding onto any "dubious ideal", and I simply don't see how understanding context is "ad hoc".

But if it is true that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality yet it condemns homosexual acts, then why should that make an important difference?
Because they weren't homosexual acts back then. They were acts of sodomy, rejected by the Judaic tribes because a) they were rather misogynistic when it came to sexual relations, and viewed "receiving" as a "dirty" act, and b) pansexuality was practiced by the tribes the Hewbrews were in competition with for resources, so they sought to distance themselves and create an illusion of difference (and more importantly- purity of bloodline). You can't have a "homosexual act" if there's no concept of "homosexual". You're projecting modern thinking and dogma onto a far different and ancient society. That is not Occam's Razor, that's just stupidity, and exactly what Christian Fundamentalists do when they bastardise any passage they feel like out of the old or new testament.

[ApostateAbe]

Adora, this discussion is getting much too convoluted for my tastes. I am going to go practice self-defense moves now.

[dave_a]

Because they weren't homosexual acts back then. They were acts of sodomy, rejected by the Judaic tribes because a) they were rather misogynistic when it came to sexual relations, and viewed "receiving" as a "dirty" act, and b) pansexuality was practiced by the tribes the Hewbrews were in competition with for resources, so they sought to distance themselves and create an illusion of difference (and more importantly- purity of bloodline). You can't have a "homosexual act" if there's no concept of "homosexual". You're projecting modern thinking and dogma onto a far different and ancient society. That is not Occam's Razor, that's just stupidity, and exactly what Christian Fundamentalists do when they bastardise any passage they feel like out of the old or new testament.

Adora, the text says:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.


Women exchanging "natural" intercourse for 'unnatural' is clearly discusing same sex relations. It describes same sex persons consumed with passion.

I don't understand how some can read this and believe it isn't a condemnation of homosexual lusts and behaviors.

Certainly it is true that many of the customs among early christians were meant to distinguish themselves from their heathen neighbors, but the condemnation of homosexuality goes back much further than Paul.

I regards to your eisogesis of Leviticus 18:22 you said : Which is talking about anal sodomy, in a misogynistic context.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that in the context of the surrounding passages so I don't know where you get the misogynistic context from. The passage (along with Leviticus 20:13) is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, and adultery. Romans condems women with women as well as men with men.

Now, you can say that in the 'bible days' sex not intended for procreation was frowned upon, that women were 3rd class citizens and all this is true, but it doesn't change the plain meaning of the text.

We could make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but what is the point of such a distinction when it comes to the bible? If a person has a homosexual orientation, given a good opportunity they are going to act upon it just as a hetero or bisexual will.

Besides, Jesus is the one who equated hatred (thoughts) with murder (an action)

[Talulah]

I personally believe the passage in Romans is speaking of women participating in anal sex. Since it is talking about male anal sex then the "likewise women" clause makes sense.

There is no other verse that comes close to mentioning female homosexuality either.

[dave_a]

I personally believe the passage in Romans is speaking of women participating in anal sex. Since it is talking about male anal sex then the "likewise women" clause makes sense.

There is no other verse that comes close to mentioning female homosexuality either.

Interesting. I had to think about that one for awhile as it seemed to make sense. I don't think it really fits though, here is why:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

If the condemnation is women having anal sex, then it doesn't flow well to say that the men gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.

If your theory is correct it would make more sense to say the men gave up natural relations with women for unnatural relations with women, not unnatural relations with men. If the women are taking it in the butt then what sense does it make for the men to burn with passion for other men just so they can get some butt sex?

[Talulah]

I think it really makes more sense. A women can't have "intercourse" with another woman. Not in the opinion of the bible writers anyway - notwitstanding strap ons and the like.

I think the "in the same way" means the same sort of sex, not the same as in "both of the same sex" sort of sameness. Look how they state plainly that men were burning in lust for one another. It doesn't say that with women.

[ApostateAbe]

Talulah, don't depend on the subtleties of English words to discern the meaning of passages in the Bible. In this case, "intercourse" is the translation of the Greek word "chresis" (khray'-sis), meaning, "the sexual use of a woman," according to Strong's concordance. Go to searchgodsword.org (http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ro+1:26&translation=nas&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en), and it will give you Strong's Greek and Hebrew translations of all the words found in the Bible.

[Adora]

Adora, this discussion is getting much too convoluted for my tastes. I am going to go practice self-defense moves now.
Oh dear. Something get's complicated and you run off. Puh-lease.

Women exchanging "natural" intercourse for 'unnatural' is clearly discusing same sex relations. It describes same sex persons consumed with passion. I don't understand how some can read this and believe it isn't a condemnation of homosexual lusts and behaviors.
Because, and I see I need to spell it out, there was no concept of "homosexuality" to condemn. As I said to Abe, the projection of modern concepts about homosexuality onto the sexual practices of any ancient culture is doomed to failure.

I also object in the first place to the consideration - even in this day and age - of cunninglingus and anal/oral sex as "homosexual acts" in any way shape or form. The idea that only homosexuals have anal sex, or only lesbians practice cunninglingus is utterly fucking stupid! People are still working in the mindset that sex-only-for-pleasure is relegated to the realms of those exchanging relations outside of reproductive sex. You can't even look at these acts today and call them "homosexual acts", because it is not the act itself that defines it as homosexuality, but the gender of the people involved, and only that.

And that's where my beef with the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" patronising bullshit stance that many Christian branches take in regards to homosexuals/bisexuals/transexuals-genders etc. Because the entire definition of their "sin" is integrally linked to their personal identity and who they are, which makes the theory impossible.

As for Soddom and Gomorrah (as Abe brought up), this is possibly the most laughable example of condemnation of homosexuality ever used by Fundies and those stupid enough to believe what the Fundies tell them. For the main part, it reveals the misogynism of those who use it (okay to throw the female-family inhabitants of the house out to the rapists but not the male guests?) but also their ignorance of the context of the story and Hebrew practices of hospitality, which are the moral of the story.

Anyway...
I'm sorry, but I don't see that in the context of the surrounding passages so I don't know where you get the misogynistic context from. The passage (along with Leviticus 20:13) is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, and adultery. Romans condems women with women as well as men with men.
First of all, Roman's can't condem women along with men because Paul regarded women as sub-human and therefore not citizens to be given the full range of rights as men, let alone the full moralistic responsibility. Like the excessively misogynistic Jews, it was the men's responsibility to practice the ways of god and make up for the women who were the original sinners who had to be controlled/oppressed/whatever for their own good.

Second of all, the basic misogyny in Leviticus is in the simple phrase itself, as well as it's historical-cultural context. Take a good guess at why women are listed as a man's property not to be coveted in the Ten Commandments somewhere between his house and his cattle for me, will ya? Please?

This was why so many of the Jewish laws regarding "cleanliness" were also important to practice after intercourse with women. The man had basically "lowered himself" in a form, not by giving into passion, but by sullying himself with an unclean and subhuman creature. In the same way, to make a male take that same "receiving" position in a m/m anal sex-act was to lower him in that act to the position of the female in heterosexual intercourse sex-acts.

Now, you can say that in the 'bible days' sex not intended for procreation was frowned upon, that women were 3rd class citizens and all this is true, but it doesn't change the plain meaning of the text.
Yes, it does! The context of it when the phrase/law/philosophy created then is completely different than when people take it completely out of context and act like somehow, this phrase is relevant now! Grow up and start using some higher thinking! There is no such thing as a "plain meaning" of any text. Communication in all its forms in a complex, chaotic, ever-changing thing which becomes more complex the older a text gets because we are viewing it through more and more clouded lenses from its original source.

This is what I mean. When people start accepting that just because our culture believes x y and z we can interpret this passage or that passage totally without context anyway we like, whether they're a Fundie or otherwise, it totally destroys any true meaning or deeper, complex, adult thinking processes that should be encouraged. This is what I mean by growing-the-fuck-up. As long as you play into childish interpretations you will never rise above those who use them to persecute minorities be they racists, xenophobes or homophobes.

We could make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but what is the point of such a distinction when it comes to the bible?
Because the Bible did not have that distinction to make, because it had no concept of an "orientation", as I have been repeating here to you peons over and over again.

If a person has a homosexual orientation, given a good opportunity they are going to act upon it just as a hetero or bisexual will.
How do you know that? How do know that bisexuals are not people with a homosexual orientation who have also been indoctrinated into a heterosexist culture and so swing both ways because of it? How can you claim it is simply an "orientation" when so much of human sexuality is based on social and cultural constructions? How can you say that when human beings, at their most basic level, possess incredibly complex systems of self-control and social conditioning?

[dave_a]

As I said to Abe, the projection of modern concepts about homosexuality onto the sexual practices of any ancient culture is doomed to failure.

Yes, you said it, but you didn't prove it. Buttsex is buttsex in any age.

I also object in the first place to the consideration - even in this day and age - of cunninglingus and anal/oral sex as "homosexual acts" in any way shape or form. The idea that only homosexuals have anal sex, or only lesbians practice cunninglingus is utterly fucking stupid!

I am not making any such claim.

People are still working in the mindset that sex-only-for-pleasure is relegated to the realms of those exchanging relations outside of reproductive sex. You can't even look at these acts today and call them "homosexual acts", because it is not the act itself that defines it as homosexuality, but the gender of the people involved, and only that.

Ok, women enjoying sexual pleasure with women or men enjoying it with men is homosexual sex. This is a very simple concept and I doubt that people 3000 years ago failed to grasp it.

And that's where my beef with the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" patronising bullshit stance that many Christian branches take in regards to homosexuals/bisexuals/transexuals-genders etc. Because the entire definition of their "sin" is integrally linked to their personal identity and who they are, which makes the theory impossible.

Either you are on a tangent or I simply don't have any clue where you are coming from.

As for Soddom and Gomorrah (as Abe brought up), this is possibly the most laughable example of condemnation of homosexuality ever used by Fundies and those stupid enough to believe what the Fundies tell them.

I agree that S&G is a poor example.

For the main part, it reveals the misogynism of those who use it (okay to throw the female-family inhabitants of the house out to the rapists but not the male guests?) but also their ignorance of the context of the story and Hebrew practices of hospitality, which are the moral of the story.

Agreed, but still not sure where you are going with this.

First of all, Roman's can't condem women along with men because Paul regarded women as sub-human and therefore not citizens to be given the full range of rights as men, let alone the full moralistic responsibility. Like the excessively misogynistic Jews, it was the men's responsibility to practice the ways of god and make up for the women who were the original sinners who had to be controlled/oppressed/whatever for their own good.

still not seeing the relevance.

Second of all, the basic misogyny in Leviticus is in the simple phrase itself, as well as it's historical-cultural context. Take a good guess at why women are listed as a man's property not to be coveted in the Ten Commandments somewhere between his house and his cattle for me, will ya? Please?

still not seeing the relevance. I am not disagreeing with your assertions, I just don't see how they relate to the issue of homosexuality.

This was why so many of the Jewish laws regarding "cleanliness" were also important to practice after intercourse with women. The man had basically "lowered himself" in a form, not by giving into passion, but by sullying himself with an unclean and subhuman creature. In the same way, to make a male take that same "receiving" position in a m/m anal sex-act was to lower him in that act to the position of the female in heterosexual intercourse sex-acts.

Ok, I see where you are going (I think), but female/female relations are discussed by Paul as well.


Yes, it does! The context of it when the phrase/law/philosophy created then is completely different than when people take it completely out of context and act like somehow, this phrase is relevant now! Grow up and start using some higher thinking!

Perhaps you should tell that to darn near every theologian of the last 1500 years.

There is no such thing as a "plain meaning" of any text. Communication in all its forms in a complex, chaotic, ever-changing thing which becomes more complex the older a text gets because we are viewing it through more and more clouded lenses from its original source.

Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones is what the bible says. Are you of the mind that this means women started taking it up the ass or they engaged in same sex pleasures?

This is what I mean. When people start accepting that just because our culture believes x y and z we can interpret this passage or that passage totally without context anyway we like, whether they're a Fundie or otherwise, it totally destroys any true meaning or deeper, complex, adult thinking processes that should be encouraged. This is what I mean by growing-the-fuck-up. As long as you play into childish interpretations you will never rise above those who use them to persecute minorities be they racists, xenophobes or homophobes.

It really doesn't much matter whether the bible condems same sex relations because being penetrated = bad or because same sex relations = bad, the point is the bible calls it an abomination. Do you disagree?

We could make a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but what is the point of such a distinction when it comes to the bible?
Because the Bible did not have that distinction to make, because it had no concept of an "orientation", as I have been repeating here to you peons over and over again.

If a person has a homosexual orientation, given a good opportunity they are going to act upon it just as a hetero or bisexual will.
How do you know that? How do know that bisexuals are not people with a homosexual orientation who have also been indoctrinated into a heterosexist culture and so swing both ways because of it? How can you claim it is simply an "orientation" when so much of human sexuality is based on social and cultural constructions? How can you say that when human beings, at their most basic level, possess incredibly complex systems of self-control and social conditioning?[/QUOTE]

[Adora]

Buttsex is buttsex in any age.
Y'know, you've just proved your immaturity and currently inability to do exactly what this thread is about: Grow up.

[lpetrich]

I think that some people honestly find the thought of homosexual sex to be very gross; I would not want to pick on anyone who feels that way.

However, some other people seem to believe that acceptance of homosexuality threatens the legitimacy of heterosexuality. An absurd opinion, but one which some people seem to hold.

[dave_a]

Buttsex is buttsex in any age.
Y'know, you've just proved your immaturity and currently inability to do exactly what this thread is about: Grow up.


LOL, OK.

[Nex]

How do you know that? How do know that bisexuals are not people with a homosexual orientation who have also been indoctrinated into a heterosexist culture and so swing both ways because of it? How can you claim it is simply an "orientation" when so much of human sexuality is based on social and cultural constructions? How can you say that when human beings, at their most basic level, possess incredibly complex systems of self-control and social conditioning?

Bisexuality is very much an orientation. I think I'd know this. I'm bi, and have been my whole life.

Listen, sexual orientation isn't a black-or-white kind of thing. It's not men or women. Some gay men will occaisionally fall for a woman, and some lesbians will occaisionally fall for a man, and some people don't really fit into either catagory and end up calling themselves bisexual.

Sure, some bis may really be gay/lesbian, and are just hiding behind the "bi" label. Some bis are really straight, but for whatever reason have problems with restricting themselves to one sex. Some bis have known they were bi since they were very young. Some don't really figure it out until they're middle-aged or older.

Sexuality isn't black-or-white, there are many shades of gay!! :cool:

[Sweetie]

The Jews condemned homosexual sex, even polygamous relationships were only heterosexual. It was forbidden in all forms, in all contexts.

The same is true of the Christianity for the last two thousand years with or without Fundamentalism rearing it's ugly head. That's just meant to say that those who say that there is something wrong with homosexual activity are staying true to principle as the Jews did, you can't say the opposite without a reversing of principle. It seems the only valid principle to many Fundamentalists is "the Bible says so," which I happen to think is a bit ridiculous. Jews and Christians though, seem to have a defense built on the natural law which many won't agree with either.

I don't agree with the insinuations of the OP in that anybody who thinks that homosexual activity is not necessarily good is homophobic and that anybody who disagrees with the action for moral reasons has an interest in abusing people. Do we have to have people tell us that, don't we learn empathy and compassion, "walk a mile in his shoes" starting in second grade? Someone had to tell you that, a book? I know it's hard to learn at 19 what you should have known since you were seven or eight and that's just in response to the lecturing tone of the OP and also to point out that in finding that you may have been ignorant all this time, you may still be ignorant in the sense of understanding the Jews and Christians reasons for disagreeing with the assertion that homosexual activity is natural, normal and good.

I also don't think that all of us have been so blinded as the OP once was, by having been a "card-carrying Baptist" or by not being able to see that homosexual inclinations are not necessarily choices as we consider choices to be. I have unfortunatly never been a card-carrying Baptist so that I can experience what that is like, and luckily, have been attracted to the same-sex a time or two to know what that experience is like.

[Adora]

I don't agree with the insinuations of the OP in that anybody who thinks that homosexual activity is not necessarily good is homophobic and that anybody who disagrees with the action for moral reasons has an interest in abusing people.
So it may not be homophobic, but there's definitely heterosexism involved.

[Jameseb]

I don't think you need the Bible to make people fear and hate people who are different from themselves...


The error here is in assuming that anyone opposed to homosexuality is "fearful" and "hate people who are different from themselves." Its a rather close-minded view of those opposed to it.

[seebs]

I don't think you need the Bible to make people fear and hate people who are different from themselves...


The error here is in assuming that anyone opposed to homosexuality is "fearful" and "hate people who are different from themselves." Its a rather close-minded view of those opposed to it.

I am assuming no such thing. I'm merely observing that there's a very large number of people who meet precisely that description. For better or worse, Fred Phelps has set the tone of discourse; we must deal with him before we can have useful dialogue about anything else.

That said... Being opposed to "homosexuality" is sort of weird; it seems to often be used to mean "opposed to homosexual sex", but this is a serious conflation error. Homosexuality and homosexual sex are distinct traits.

Certainly, though, I know a lot of people whose reactions to homosexuality are merely typical of their reactions to a number of other things different from their own views. (For instance, I know a pretty large number of people who treat those of differing political views in a comparably hostile way.)

[Jameseb]

I am assuming no such thing. I'm merely observing that there's a very large number of people who meet precisely that description. For better or worse, Fred Phelps has set the tone of discourse; we must deal with him before we can have useful dialogue about anything else.

That said... Being opposed to "homosexuality" is sort of weird; it seems to often be used to mean "opposed to homosexual sex", but this is a serious conflation error. Homosexuality and homosexual sex are distinct traits.

I'd disagree with the first sentence of your second paragraph. Obviously you and I don't have to go delve into the age old fight over what Scripture says or doesn't say.... suffice to say we can agree to disagree on how we interpret Scripture. I believe "homosexuality" to be a sin; you do not. The only issue I have was in your post that I had quoted previously.



Certainly, though, I know a lot of people whose reactions to homosexuality are merely typical of their reactions to a number of other things different from their own views. (For instance, I know a pretty large number of people who treat those of differing political views in a comparably hostile way.)


I accept and acknowledge that. I can't speak for others, but only for myself. I'd go so far as to say I've probably known more homosexuals in my life than most gay people under the age of 25... perhaps 30 even. From my landlord, to my boss, to my hair stylist and to my job at the airlines I've been friend and coworker to many people of a different sexual persuasion. Those whom I called friend understand and accepted my beliefs as much as I did theirs. What always bothered me about these discussions here is the erroneous assumption that those opposed to that lifestyle are either "fearful" or "hate" that which is different from them. Neither applies to my beliefs and feelings.

[seebs]

That said... Being opposed to "homosexuality" is sort of weird; it seems to often be used to mean "opposed to homosexual sex", but this is a serious conflation error. Homosexuality and homosexual sex are distinct traits.

I'd disagree with the first sentence of your second paragraph. Obviously you and I don't have to go delve into the age old fight over what Scripture says or doesn't say.... suffice to say we can agree to disagree on how we interpret Scripture. I believe "homosexuality" to be a sin; you do not. The only issue I have was in your post that I had quoted previously.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by "homosexuality". I mean "having biological sexual responses to people of your own sex", which is entirely outside the scope of volition, and thus can be neither sinful nor non-sinful. I put it in the same category as heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, or pedophilia; one of the experiences that comes with having a physical body is sexual attractions, which are a thing that happen to you. What you do with them is the only area where "sin" could be at issue.

Certainly, though, I know a lot of people whose reactions to homosexuality are merely typical of their reactions to a number of other things different from their own views. (For instance, I know a pretty large number of people who treat those of differing political views in a comparably hostile way.)


I accept and acknowledge that. I can't speak for others, but only for myself. I'd go so far as to say I've probably known more homosexuals in my life than most gay people under the age of 25... perhaps 30 even. From my landlord, to my boss, to my hair stylist and to my job at the airlines I've been friend and coworker to many people of a different sexual persuasion. Those whom I called friend understand and accepted my beliefs as much as I did theirs. What always bothered me about these discussions here is the erroneous assumption that those opposed to that lifestyle are either "fearful" or "hate" that which is different from them. Neither applies to my beliefs and feelings.

The problem is, the moment you say "that lifestyle", you are contributing directly to a worldview which is both false and harmful. People are being killed because someone told them about "the gay lifestyle", when in fact, homosexuality is no more a "lifestyle" than heterosexuality is.

Talking about the "gay lifestyle" is like condemning nuns and widows because women who go to dance clubs to pick up one-night stands are sinning.

[Jameseb]

[I honestly have no idea what you mean by "homosexuality".


Seebs, I have no doubt in my mind that if a 3rd-grader came up to you and said, "I dont' like homosexuality" you would know exactly what he means.

Perhaps we can agree on a definition of "homosexuality" provided by Dictionary.com?

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n.
Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

If we can agree on what it "means" to both of use, then we can move on....


The problem is, the moment you say "that lifestyle", you are contributing directly to a worldview which is both false and harmful. People are being killed because someone told them about "the gay lifestyle", when in fact, homosexuality is no more a "lifestyle" than heterosexuality is.

Seebs, I think you're focusing too much on one word used in my post to extrapolate an argument. For convenience I shall refer to heterosexuality as a "lifestyle" too then. That doesn't alter or effect my opinion on this subject. Personally, I think you're placing too much emphasis and negative reflection on the word.

Regardless, my foray into this thread was not intended to engage in a debate on this issue, but rather correct a "false" and "harmful" (to borrow from you) suggestion you made in your post I had initially quoted.

[seebs]

[I honestly have no idea what you mean by "homosexuality".


Seebs, I have no doubt in my mind that if a 3rd-grader came up to you and said, "I dont' like homosexuality" you would know exactly what he means.

No, I wouldn't. I would have to guess that he could mean any of several things.

Perhaps we can agree on a definition of "homosexuality" provided by Dictionary.com?

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n.
Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

If we can agree on what it "means" to both of use, then we can move on....[/quote]

Well, right here you see the problem; you have two definitions, and they are very different things. So, which of those definitions do you have in mind?

The problem is, the moment you say "that lifestyle", you are contributing directly to a worldview which is both false and harmful. People are being killed because someone told them about "the gay lifestyle", when in fact, homosexuality is no more a "lifestyle" than heterosexuality is.

Seebs, I think you're focusing too much on one word used in my post to extrapolate an argument. For convenience I shall refer to heterosexuality as a "lifestyle" too then. That doesn't alter or effect my opinion on this subject. Personally, I think you're placing too much emphasis and negative reflection on the word.

The problem is that, with any other "lifestyle", you can make some kind of predictions about activity, but with the various "...-sexual" lifestyles, you can't. A participant in "the heterosexual lifestyle" may be doing anything from fucking random strangers to monogamous sex only within the context of a legal and church-recognized marriage to total celibacy and chastity.

The conflation of wildly different groups produces detectable harmful results.

I am not focusing on one word in this one post; I'm focusing on a general trend in this debate, which is that people often talk about "the gay lifestyle", without any clear indication of what exactly this phrase is supposed to refer to. It ends up being the subject of a great deal of equivocation.

Regardless, my foray into this thread was not intended to engage in a debate on this issue, but rather correct a "false" and "harmful" (to borrow from you) suggestion you made in your post I had initially quoted.

Ahh, but I didn't say (or even imply) what I was accused of; I restricted my topic to the apparent beliefs of specific people who behave a given way, without any hint at all that other people who may happen to share their opinions on a specific topic behave the same way, or even have the same emotional responses.

[Godless Dave]

A participant in "the heterosexual lifestyle" may be doing anything from fucking random strangers to monogamous sex only within the context of a legal and church-recognized marriage to total celibacy and chastity.

The conflation of wildly different groups produces detectable harmful results.


What he said.

There is no homosexual "lifestyle". There is homosexual attraction, which is something some people feel, and there is homosexual sex, which is an activity some people engage in. But there is no "lifestyle".

[Godless Dave]

I don't think you need the Bible to make people fear and hate people who are different from themselves...


The error here is in assuming that anyone opposed to homosexuality is "fearful" and "hate people who are different from themselves." Its a rather close-minded view of those opposed to it.

Perhaps. But the view comes from this: I, and I imagine many other people, cannot conceive of any other reason why people would be opposed to homosexual attraction or homosexual sex than fear or hate. I am told there are people opposed to homosexual sex for other reasons, but try as I might I cannot understand what they are.

[Jameseb]

Ahh, but I didn't say (or even imply) what I was accused of; I restricted my topic to the apparent beliefs of specific people who behave a given way, without any hint at all that other people who may happen to share their opinions on a specific topic behave the same way, or even have the same emotional responses.

I didn't state that you said it, only that it was "suggested." All the same, if I am in err, then my apologies. One of my pet peeves in such discussions is when people refer to those opposed to "homosexuality" (again, I really don't want to engage in a debate on what that means to each of us) as being "fearful" or "haters" of that which they don't "understand" or is simply different from them. I believe homosexuality (let's just say this encompasses the act of engaging in same-sex... well, "sex.") to be a sin; you and others do not. However, I hope people aren't so closed-minded as to assume I and others consider it a sin because they believe we hate those who engage in such acts or fear them for it.

[seebs]

One of my pet peeves in such discussions is when people refer to those opposed to "homosexuality" (again, I really don't want to engage in a debate on what that means to each of us) as being "fearful" or "haters" of that which they don't "understand" or is simply different from them. I believe homosexuality (let's just say this encompasses the act of engaging in same-sex... well, "sex.") to be a sin; you and others do not. However, I hope people aren't so closed-minded as to assume I and others consider it a sin because they believe we hate those who engage in such acts or fear them for it.

Here's why you must start with the discussion (not debate, because this is a question of reaching mutual understanding, not winning the argument) of what the word means:

Because there are lots of people who think that engaging in same-sex sexual activity is wrong, but having the attractions isn't.

And, most importantly, the word "homosexual" refers to a person who has the attractions, whether or not that person engages in the behavior. The secondary usage is rare, although it is still seen occasionally; outside of some religious groups, everyone will generally assume that you mean "being gay" not "having gay sex".

So... If you keep using the word that way, you are confusing people, who have a pretty well established understanding of a term that's been in use in a consistent way for quite a while.

That clarification turns out to be crucial to having an informed debate.

FWIW, I have no problem with people who hold a broad variety of opinions on the topic of whether or not gay sex is a Good Thing. My primary objection is to conflation of the attraction with the behavior, because this makes life hellish for people who have the attractions; they are regularly and openly condemned, told they cannot be saved, told they should never have been born, and otherwise attacked.

In many cases, this happens simply because people casually conflate "having attractions" and "having gay sex", and end up opposing homosexuals, rather than specific activities... Now, from your own explanations, you're not one of the people doing that. But, you are using language in a way which is visibly connected to the thought processes of people who do, and clarifying this would be very useful.

In this case, I think a good case can be made for sticking with "orientation" usage; we can easily discuss the reasons for which most Catholic priests are straight, but some are gay. We can do this even acknowledging that they are also celibate.

[justaman]

I believe homosexuality (let's just say this encompasses the act of engaging in same-sex... well, "sex.") to be a sin; you and others do not. However, I hope people aren't so closed-minded as to assume I and others consider it a sin because they believe we hate those who engage in such acts or fear them for it.
Probably people assume this not because you feel these emotions, but it would appear the creators of that particular moral standard did. So while you can say you personally don't hate nor fear homosexuality, you still subscribe to a moral standard that is designed to alienate homosexual individuals. We must then reason why this was necessary in the formalisation of that moral standard.

And regardless of anything else, many people who quite clearly do hate and or fear homosexuals are party to the same worldview as yourself and so the birds-of-a-feather thing comes immediately into play. That's not to justify it, by any means, but certainly it is hardly surprising to find yourself on the defensive given the vocal opinions of some with a similar worldview to your own :)

[seebs]

Perhaps. But the view comes from this: I, and I imagine many other people, cannot conceive of any other reason why people would be opposed to homosexual attraction or homosexual sex than fear or hate. I am told there are people opposed to homosexual sex for other reasons, but try as I might I cannot understand what they are.

I have seen many arguments for considering it immoral, some of which are not entirely stupid... However, "opposed to" seems to imply attempts to prevent it, and I've never seen a plausible argument for attempting to prevent gay sex; it's clearly mostly like the millions of other immoral things we make no effort to prevent. (Except that, unlike some of them, it may not even be immoral.)

[justaman]

Seebs man one time you suggested that homosexuality was dubbed a sin in the Bible was to try and quell some practice of taking young male sex-slaves, do you remember that? Could you elaborate again, I forget the detail...

[seebs]

Seebs man one time you suggested that homosexuality was dubbed a sin in the Bible was to try and quell some practice of taking young male sex-slaves, do you remember that? Could you elaborate again, I forget the detail...

Well, there's only a handful of places where the topic comes up. In the OT, we have the Leviticus references, and then we never hear about it again, but shortly later, we start seeing a lot of references to the "unclean", who were male cult prostitutes. (Hebrew "qadesh", roughly transliterated.) Curiously, gay male sex (lesbian sex is never mentioned in the OT) is the only sin that gets the death penalty in Exodus, but isn't mentioned in Deuteronomy... But they do mention the cult prostitutes there.

If you take "If a man lie with a male as with a woman" (note that the "man" and "male" words are two different words; one is clearly adult, one is generic but male), and compare it to the practice of dressing prepubescent boys up in women's clothes and having people pay to fuck 'em, you may find some strange similarities to the repeatedly condemned practice of cult prostitution.

There's never any reference to "homosexuality" as opposed to "gay sex". There are a few references to gay sex, but all of them have context which makes it questionable to generalize. I think one could reasonably and honestly generalize to conclude that same-sex activity is bad, but it's not the only consistent reading of the text, and it tends to get treated as though it were the clearest and most obvious commandment, especially by people who practice, or at least endorse, killing, lending money at interest, accumulation of personal wealth, anger, unjust imprisonment, divorce, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, drinking to excess, derision, racial and sexual discrimination, conspicuous consumption... I mean, not that many people do all of these things, but many many people do at least some of them.

Tony Campolo's comment about the 30,000 starving children comes quickly to mind. There are more Christians committing adultery than gay people breathing. Maybe we should work on the log in our own eyes for a while.

[Jameseb]

Here's why you must start with the discussion (not debate, because this is a question of reaching mutual understanding, not winning the argument) of what the word means:

I'll try to engage a bit here then, but I'm very tired.

Because there are lots of people who think that engaging in same-sex sexual activity is wrong, but having the attractions isn't.

By mine own interpretation of Scripture, I believe same-sex intercourse is a sin. I also believe that having such an attraction is a sin, as Christ made clear that even entertaining the thought of committing such an act is just as wrong.

And, most importantly, the word "homosexual" refers to a person who has the attractions, whether or not that person engages in the behavior. The secondary usage is rare, although it is still seen occasionally; outside of some religious groups, everyone will generally assume that you mean "being gay" not "having gay sex".

For the sake of our discussion, let us assume "homosexuality" encompasses the desire and the act as I believe both constitute sin anyway.

So... If you keep using the word that way, you are confusing people, who have a pretty well established understanding of a term that's been in use in a consistent way for quite a while.

I've honestly never had this become an issue when discussing the issue with gay friends, but I'll acquiesce.

FWIW, I have no problem with people who hold a broad variety of opinions on the topic of whether or not gay sex is a Good Thing. My primary objection is to conflation of the attraction with the behavior, because this makes life hellish for people who have the attractions; they are regularly and openly condemned, told they cannot be saved, told they should never have been born, and otherwise attacked.

I don't care to be an apologetic to anyone but myself, but for the record, I do not engage in "attacking" homosexuality anymore than I would bring attention to any other sin.

In many cases, this happens simply because people casually conflate "having attractions" and "having gay sex", and end up opposing homosexuals, rather than specific activities... Now, from your own explanations, you're not one of the people doing that. But, you are using language in a way which is visibly connected to the thought processes of people who do, and clarifying this would be very useful.

Again, I've never heard such complaints (for lack of a better word here... again, I'm tired, its late!) from friends that are gay. I think less emphasis should be placed on words such as "lifestyle" (which is a very generalized) and how we interpret "homosexuality" when discussing this issue. Instead of people extrapolating on such words to categorize my beliefs, it would behoove them to instead to simply ask me what I think. :)

To delve further into this subject, at your behest, I will state this: I find both the attraction (or entertaining the thoughts of same-sex sexual relations) and the acting upon such homosexual thoughts to be a sin. Now, this doesn't mean I "hate" people of such a sexual persuasion. I'm heterosexual, but like any other man or woman, I must deal with temptation and lust. Let's assume I'm married (which I'm not). Entertaining sexual thoughts of another woman is as much a sin to me as another man lusting after another male. The difference is that while I acknowledge that my lust for another woman is a sin, there are some of a homosexual persuasion (or advocates/defenders of such persuasion) who feel that lusting after another of the same sex is simply natural to them, not sinful. But let's cast that asside and assume that they feel the same way as I do about lusting after someone other than their wife or husband. Where this person and I still disagree is on the sinful nature of same-sex sexual relations.... whether married or not. This I don't believe we're going to resolve. Obviously we disagree on what Scripture says about this.

Did that make sense? I'm very tired, but I hope I presented my belief with some clarity.

[seebs]

I'll try to engage a bit here then, but I'm very tired.

No problem. There are other days.

By mine own interpretation of Scripture, I believe same-sex intercourse is a sin. I also believe that having such an attraction is a sin, as Christ made clear that even entertaining the thought of committing such an act is just as wrong.

This strikes me as very questionable. Is having an attraction to women a sin? I'm married. With one exception out of three billion examples, "entertaining the thought of having sex with that woman" is wrong. (Well, maybe; we could have a debate about what "lust" is.)

But merely having the attraction isn't wrong, because it's not something I'm doing; it's something that happens to me.

Your position here is a very definite minority among Christians, and has unacceptable implications. If "having attractions to X" is a sin whenever "having sex with X" is a sin, then all people who are not asexual are equally guilty of this sin, just about all the time. This removes any possibility for us to avoid that sin... That seems a bad path.

Perhaps we should distinguish between the raw attraction we naturally experience, and what we make of it.

For the sake of our discussion, let us assume "homosexuality" encompasses the desire and the act as I believe both constitute sin anyway.

No. Let us not assume something that is dangerously misleading and contrary to the usage of a word everywhere outside certain Christian groups.

That's the problem. When you conflate them, you conflate a thing which may well be entirely outside of anyone's control with a thing which is clearly under their control.

In short, no, I will not start the discussion by granting you a very hotly disputed point. Furthermore, whether you believe they are both sin or not is not the only issue; if you conflate them, everyone else in the conversation is then obliged to treat them identically, which is impossible for many.

I don't care to be an apologetic to anyone but myself, but for the record, I do not engage in "attacking" homosexuality anymore than I would bring attention to any other sin.

You personally may not, but the conflation causes harm indirectly through other people who do.

Furthermore, it causes harm because, even if we treat it the same as all other sins, it's putting people who experience same-sex attractions in the special category of people who cannot avoid that sin, because their bodies betray them. Unless, of course, you feel the same way about the existence of heterosexual attraction.

Look at it this way. If someone shows you a picture of a woman's breast, your heart rate will probably go up. Is the fact that your body is that way a sin?

If it isn't, then you must distinguish between the orientation and the actions.

Again, I've never heard such complaints (for lack of a better word here... again, I'm tired, its late!) from friends that are gay.

Well, perhaps they know better than to argue the point with someone who uses that language; it's often futile. :)

I think less emphasis should be placed on words such as "lifestyle" (which is a very generalized) and how we interpret "homosexuality" when discussing this issue. Instead of people extrapolating on such words to categorize my beliefs, it would behoove them to instead to simply ask me what I think. :)

Sure.

And upon doing so, we find that you believe exactly what it sounds like you believe, at least on the topic of the use of the word "homosexuality", so the prediction was right; you are conflating things.

To delve further into this subject, at your behest, I will state this: I find both the attraction (or entertaining the thoughts of same-sex sexual relations) and the acting upon such homosexual thoughts to be a sin.

You've just equivocated something fierce. Do you mean attraction, or do you mean entertaining the thoughts? These things are totally different. Attraction is something biological which happens with or without your awareness or consent.

(...)who feel that lusting after another of the same sex is simply natural to them, not sinful.

What do you mean by "lusting"? Keep in mind that not all sexual desire is lust.

Obviously we disagree on what Scripture says about this.

Indeed.

Did that make sense? I'm very tired, but I hope I presented my belief with some clarity.

Some.

There's still some ambiguity, because the way you're using words is a little different from the way most people use them. Attraction to a person, and entertaining thoughts of having sex with them, are two different things. Lust is a third thing, although entertaining thoughts of having sex may well involve lust. But these are three separate things, and you appear to have them entirely conflated; you draw no distinction at all between a man lusting after another man and a man who has non-volitional biological sexual responses to another man. These are very, very, different things, theologically.

I think the Catholics are right to distinguish between these, just as they distinguish between the naturally-occurring sexual desire we experience and our potentially lustful responses to such desire. I think that failure to draw this distinction does serious harm, as gay people are then expected to achieve something that straight people are not; complete elimination of a part of their biological response. This creates despair and closes the doors of churches to people who desperately need support. It is an error, and it is an error which harms people; I think it is probably at least as sinful as anything gay men can do together, and conveniently, it is something that is entirely volitional.

[Godless Dave]

Having an attraction to someone is not at all the same thing as entertaining sexual thoughts about them. I assume you were attracted to your wife before you married her. Was that a sin? How, then, could you avoid this sin, unless they did it like the old days where you didn't see your wife's face until after you were married? That's what conservative Muslims do and frankly it seems cumbersome.

To be heterosexual is not just to entertain sexual thoughts about members of the opposite sex. It is to desire the affection of a member of the opposite sex. I was attracted to girls at about age 11 but I wasn't yet entertaining sexual thoughts about them. Even now I can see a woman and feel an attraction without imagining her naked or imagining the two of us having sex. Is that sinful? Because homosexuality is just like that, except for the same sex.

[Bella]

To be heterosexual is not just to entertain sexual thoughts about members of the opposite sex. It is to desire the affection of a member of the opposite sex. I was attracted to girls at about age 11 but I wasn't yet entertaining sexual thoughts about them. Even now I can see a woman and feel an attraction without imagining her naked or imagining the two of us having sex. Is that sinful? Because homosexuality is just like that, except for the same sex.
:bow: :bow: :bow:

[seebs]

To be heterosexual is not just to entertain sexual thoughts about members of the opposite sex. It is to desire the affection of a member of the opposite sex. I was attracted to girls at about age 11 but I wasn't yet entertaining sexual thoughts about them. Even now I can see a woman and feel an attraction without imagining her naked or imagining the two of us having sex. Is that sinful? Because homosexuality is just like that, except for the same sex.

Exactly. I can tell the difference between experiencing attraction to a woman other than my wife, and entertaining sexual thoughts about her. (Further, I would draw a distinction between different kinds of entertaining of such thoughts, and some of it isn't lust.)

[viscousmemories]

Hmm... I guess I'm not following you guys. There's a reason for the word 'sexual' in homo and heterosexual: It refers specifically to sexual preference. Not just attraction to or interest in members of a particular gender, sexual interest in or attraction to members of a particular gender. At least as I understand the words...

[seebs]

Hmm... I guess I'm not following you guys. There's a reason for the word 'sexual' in homo and heterosexual: It refers specifically to sexual preference. Not just attraction to or interest in members of a particular gender, sexual interest in or attraction to members of a particular gender. At least as I understand the words...

Right. But sexual attraction is not the same as entertaining thoughts about things.

To give concrete examples...

There's this girl I dated in college. We fooled around a little. I still know her, and I still hang out with her. I'm quite aware that she's still attractive. I have probably a couple of times wondered whether she'd still be interested in me, although I don't think I'd pursue the question even if she were. I would say I've probably "entertained thoughts" about her.

Another friend, I've actually gotten sorta flirty with, and thinking about her has actually gotten me sort of turned on a few times. I would probably be obliged to grant that this has at least occasionally crossed the line into lust.

Another friend (hey, what can I say, girls are cool) is a definite hottie, but for whatever reason, that's never turned into any kind of consideration of sex or anything of the sort; she's just hot. But I still have biological attraction to hot women, so I might notice that near her.

All three of these are somewhere in the category of sexual attraction. One of them is purely a biological response, and non-volitional, and my volitional responses are totally different. One of them involves some amount of volition, and is at least potentially in the category of "moral actions", but so far as I can tell, isn't particularly "lust". One of them is definitely volitional and a moral choice, and whether or not my handling of it was good is questionable; I think at least sometimes it hasn't been.

The problem is conflating these. More specifically, the problem is a tendency to conflate these when it's same-sex attraction, while recognizing these very real distinctions in opposite-sex attraction.

[Godless Dave]

Hmm... I guess I'm not following you guys. There's a reason for the word 'sexual' in homo and heterosexual: It refers specifically to sexual preference. Not just attraction to or interest in members of a particular gender, sexual interest in or attraction to members of a particular gender.

But aren't those related? Closely related?

[Sycophant]

Okay, phew, my brain hurts after reading all that.

Anyway, here is my brief input of a few sticking point between some people here that I want to try and address.

The bible can be seen to condemn the action sex with a partner of the same gender. That is what I am going to term gay sex.

Now, so far none of the passages I have seen quoted seem to indicate that an attraction toward the same sex is sinful. However the bible generally condemns lust overall, which obviously someone who has a natural attraction to the same sex will feel for the same sex and someone without that attraction will feel for the opposite sex.

Therefore, some are arguing that while the bible may argue against the idea of same sex parters having sex, the concept of a physical attraction to the same sex is not really addressed anywhere, at least not in any more specific terms than it is for all of us.

To condemn 'homosexuality' (which I will define in a moment) based on the passages in the bible is extrapolating the actions which are addressed directly on to the people who are naturally more likely to partake.

Now homosexuality I would like to define as feeling uncontrolable (as in not conciously chosen) physical attractions primarilly to the same gender. That's all it is really. The actions that someone with these feeling may choose to take are very seperate from their generally day-to-day life.

Now I believe that generally speaking sex outside the confines of a commited relationship (marriage, or whatever) is also condemned in places in the bible, as is sex for reasons other than procreation. If that's correct then I cannot see how it is reasonable to extrapolate out the actions of those attracted to the same sex and not those of the rest of us. I have had a lot of sex (in fact all of it) outside the confines of marriage. And all of it has been specifically trying to avoid procreation (although that avoidance failed recently).

I have lustful feelings toward women, they are not controlable, they are biological. Sometimes I entertain those thoughts (who am I kidding, I ALWAYS DO) and very occasionally (when not otherwise commited) I act upon them. My experiences in this way are not at all unique, in fact they are probably shared with the majority of heterosexuals. So it is because of my biological attraction toward women that I am drawn to this sin, but that does not seem sufficent to declare hetrosexuality to be a sin.

As for the idea of a homosexual lifestyle, well that's already been addressed. But generally there is no more a homosexual lifestyle than there is a 5'9"-tall lifestyle. Gay people probably have sex. And 5'9" people probably have sex. And there are plenty more arbitary groups I can make-up about which I can draw the same conclusions.

Not yet mentioned is the idea of the 'gay agenda' which, besides being told there is a book about it, no one has clearly elaborated to me, but the closest I have come was a comment of a CF thread that said homosexuals want to achieve moral equivilency between hetrosexuality and homosexuality -- which based on my reasoning above, I think is already the case.

If Sex == Bad then *sexuality = Bad;
If Sex == Good then *sexuality = Good;
I don't see any justification to seperate specific predispositions.

[viscousmemories]

All three of these are somewhere in the category of sexual attraction. One of them is purely a biological response, and non-volitional, and my volitional responses are totally different. One of them involves some amount of volition, and is at least potentially in the category of "moral actions", but so far as I can tell, isn't particularly "lust". One of them is definitely volitional and a moral choice, and whether or not my handling of it was good is questionable; I think at least sometimes it hasn't been.
I think I've been following your reasoning and it makes sense to me, but so far I haven't seen your definition of lust so there's still some ambiguity. Plus I'm not sure how useful the notion of "entertaining thoughts" is without context.

I think "entertaining [sexual] thoughts" is more accurately labeled 'fantasizing'. So can we say the non-volitional response is 'arousal', which may or may not give way to a fantasy spectrum that has "entertaining the idea" on the low end and 'lusting' on the high end?

The problem is conflating these. More specifically, the problem is a tendency to conflate these when it's same-sex attraction, while recognizing these very real distinctions in opposite-sex attraction.
I definitely see this conflation happening. I'm less sure it doesn't happen both ways though.

[seebs]

I think I've been following your reasoning and it makes sense to me, but so far I haven't seen your definition of lust so there's still some ambiguity. Plus I'm not sure how useful the notion of "entertaining thoughts" is without context.

A lot of people have an intermediate state between intent and total innocence, of "entertaining thoughts". As you note, I think it's similar to fantasizing, although I tend to leave it a step short of that, at mere consideration.

I think "entertaining [sexual] thoughts" is more accurately labeled 'fantasizing'. So can we say the non-volitional response is 'arousal', which may or may not give way to a fantasy spectrum that has "entertaining the idea" on the low end and 'lusting' on the high end?

Hmm. Something like that, anyway. Thinking "huh, I wonder if she's still interested in me" is probably entertaining thoughts, but not lust.

I definitely see this conflation happening. I'm less sure it doesn't happen both ways though.

Could you expand on that?

Anyway, to clarify about lust... Lust is to desire what the sin of Pride is to self-esteem, roughly. My soundbite definition is that lust is what happens if desire for a body overrides consideration for the person whose body it is.

[viscousmemories]

I definitely see this conflation happening. I'm less sure it doesn't happen both ways though.

Could you expand on that?
I just meant that among Christians, conflating curiosity, interest and lust seems to be as common when thinking about heterosexual interactions as homosexual. That's just my largely uninformed opinion, though.

Anyway, to clarify about lust... Lust is to desire what the sin of Pride is to self-esteem, roughly. My soundbite definition is that lust is what happens if desire for a body overrides consideration for the person whose body it is.
Isn't desire, at whatever intensity, wholly non-volitional?

[seebs]

I just meant that among Christians, conflating curiosity, interest and lust seems to be as common when thinking about heterosexual interactions as homosexual. That's just my largely uninformed opinion, though.

The difference is, most Christians will grant that at least some heterosexual desire is "just natural". They will acknowledge it as a non-volitional part of living in a body.

Isn't desire, at whatever intensity, wholly non-volitional?

Desire is non-volitional (mostly; I think you have some long-term control over it, in some ways), but whether or not you let it override consideration for a person as a person (as opposed to a conveniently-shaped piece of meat) is mostly volitional.

[viscousmemories]

The difference is, most Christians will grant that at least some heterosexual desire is "just natural". They will acknowledge it as a non-volitional part of living in a body.
I guess I'm just taking my observation that people in general are coming around to the realization that homosexual inclination is non-volitional and extrapolating that to Christians in general. Wouldn't you agree that more Christians are open to the idea today than 20 years ago?

Desire is non-volitional (mostly; I think you have some long-term control over it, in some ways), but whether or not you let it override consideration for a person as a person (as opposed to a conveniently-shaped piece of meat) is mostly volitional.
That's an interesting take. I agree that we have some long-term control over our desires (that 'thoughtcrimes' thread somewhere around here touches on that, I think) but I don't see that anyone ever 'lets' a desire override consideration of anything.

Let me put it this way: I don't let my desire for ice cream override my desire to stay thin, it just happens. The desire to eat ice cream becomes stronger - in the minute - than my desire to stay thin. In my view where I fail to exercise control is when I give in to that overwhelming desire and act.

[seebs]

I guess I'm just taking my observation that people in general are coming around to the realization that homosexual inclination is non-volitional and extrapolating that to Christians in general. Wouldn't you agree that more Christians are open to the idea today than 20 years ago?

Sure. Partially, of course, 'cuz we have 20 more years of real research on the topic.

That's an interesting take. I agree that we have some long-term control over our desires (that 'thoughtcrimes' thread somewhere around here touches on that, I think) but I don't see that anyone ever 'lets' a desire override consideration of anything.

Let me put it this way: I don't let my desire for ice cream override my desire to stay thin, it just happens. The desire to eat ice cream becomes stronger - in the minute - than my desire to stay thin. In my view where I fail to exercise control is when I give in to that overwhelming desire and act.

Oh, boy. I'm too sleepy to continue this right now, but... That's getting into an interesting question. But... Basically, the Christian theory is that sex should be expressive of love. (There may be additional requirements in some varieties, but just about no one would try to get away from this one.) If your desire to get off trumps, say, your partner's lack of interest, and you get pushy, that's lust. Or, say, if you sit around fantasizing about someone whom you know would be grossed out by it, that might be lust. You're treating someone in a bad way because you're more interested in getting off than in being respectful, kind, or whatever. (Er, this is the generic "you", not a personal accusation.)

It's a fuzzy area, which tends to come down to "I know it when I see it" -- but of course, I can only see it correctly in myself, so I have no way of knowing what it's like for other people.

One of my grave concerns about casual dismissals of a given thing as "lust" by Christians is that it's virtually impossible to tell from the outside. There's also a tendency among some groups to say that lust is allowed only within marriage, but this is an even more serious error. Not all desire is lust, but all lust is definitionally bad; if it's not bad, it's not lust. It's a term of art. (It's like the distinction between self-esteem and pride, or hunger and gluttony.)

[viscousmemories]

One of my grave concerns about casual dismissals of a given thing as "lust" by Christians is that it's virtually impossible to tell from the outside.
Isn't that true for all "sins of the heart"? (Is that what sins that take place in your mind are called?)

There's also a tendency among some groups to say that lust is allowed only within marriage, but this is an even more serious error. Not all desire is lust, but all lust is definitionally bad; if it's not bad, it's not lust. It's a term of art. (It's like the distinction between self-esteem and pride, or hunger and gluttony.)
Okay that makes sense. I can see how it would cause a lot of problems in discussions with non-religious people who don't understand the theological definition of lust too. For example on the rare occassions when I use the word lust, I mean intense sexual desire. So when someone says God condemns lust, it sounds like they're saying God condemns passion.

[seebs]

Isn't that true for all "sins of the heart"? (Is that what sins that take place in your mind are called?)

Why, yes it is.

People tend to just get lazy and make up rules. "If you do one of the following, you have lusted". Doesn't work that way.

For instance, I was once in a masturbation debate where the focus was on how, to masturbate, you had to fantasize about things, and this was necessarily lust.

First off, consider the case of, say, the married couple who are separated by some distance. Is it "lust" for them to fantasize about each other? I don't know that it is. We can't use the "it supplants normal sex" argument, though.

Secondly, why would you have to fantasize to masturbate? The notion that the physiological response could be separated from detailed fantasies about other people was apparently too innovative to be believed.

Okay that makes sense. I can see how it would cause a lot of problems in discussions with non-religious people who don't understand the theological definition of lust too. For example on the rare occassions when I use the word lust, I mean intense sexual desire. So when someone says God condemns lust, it sounds like they're saying God condemns passion.

Exactly. And, to make it worse, a lot of less-studious Christians make the same mistake, not realizing the importance of understanding theological terminology when using it. It's like having a non-computer person expect that a USB device will be able to connect to anything electronic, because, hey, it says it's "universal".

I think the notion that God condemns passion ought to qualify as the point at which we've got a proper reductio ad absurdum on the initial position; the easiest thing to kill is the notion that all desire is Lust.

I tend to try to remember to capitalize the Sins and Virtues when I can. BTW, as a side note, there's not only seven deadly sins, and seven heavenly virtues, but seven excesses, which are the corresponding extremes; for instance, "false humility". I don't remember them all, but I agree that they are theologically useful; the virtues are, after all, mostly forms of temperance, although one side of the scale seems to snag a lot more people than the other.