Anti-Gay Idiocy

[Tigranes]

I'm pro-gay, though not gay myself, and while anti-gay people irritate me a bit, I say, believe what you believe, and leave them alone. But then I came across something so idiotic I had to share; either you'll agree on its stupidity, or at least laugh at it.

 

http://www.tencommandments.org/homosexual

 

I got the link from Chief Censor report of NZ.. apparently this country couldnt censor the site because of some random faulty law. Anyway, it's absolutely disgusting. Read this:

 

Thus God ... requires that they [homosexuals]be put to death by every government under which they reside

 

So, genocide with homosexuals? I fail to see how this is less "injurious to the public good", as the censor puts it, than child porn.

 

This tells us that homosexuality is at least equal to the heinousness of murder. All homosexuals should be regarded by every society to be just as much criminals as are cold-blooded murderers.

Maybe I should purge you from this earth for extreme retardedness.

 

When a person commits the crime of murder, he may not murder but one person and may never commit the crime again. Or even if he murders 10 or a 100 people, at some point his murders stop. But homosexuals often remain such their entire lives and they may commit the act hundreds of time. They may also spread the AIDs virus to many innocent people who may die from the AIDs.

 

Do you know what the most infectious disease in the human world is? Stupidity. And you're one of the causes.

 

 

I'm perfectly fine with Christians, or people who think homosexuality is unnatural, etc, etc. But what the hell? This guy doesn't even sound Christian, just another bastard using the bible to further his own fanatic "arguments". Ugh.

[Aurora]

Eh, nothing there really surprised me, though I just skimmed. Was amused by the claim that the US government "supports" and "encourages" homosexuality. Hee.

[Iolo]

People who use the Bible for interpreting modern society are just ridiculous. Why should something more than 2000 years old (and much older than that in the Old Testament) be used for judging today's society?

[roshan]

well what can you say about these religious nuts? they should be sent back to their filthy bible belt!!!

[Volourn]

And, the bigotry begins...

[Ronald]

Eh, nothing there really surprised me, though I just skimmed. Was amused by the claim that the US government "supports" and "encourages" homosexuality. Hee.

Well, there's nothing in the New Testament admonishing homosexuality.

 

There's nothing admonishing homosexuality in the Old Testament either, when taken in a socio-historical context.

 

I do appreciate the irony in this thread, however.

[Slammy1]

So is this one of those threads where we pat ourselves on the back for being advanced social beings and welcoming the gay community into our bosoms? Nothing against anyone and their sexual preferences, it's just that's how these threads tend to turn out.

[Karzak]

I look forward to the day when advances in genetic engineering will cause the gay situation to go away forever.

 

Gay activists are quite annoying.

[Shadowstrider]

Eh, nothing there really surprised me, though I just skimmed. Was amused by the claim that the US government "supports" and "encourages" homosexuality. Hee.

Well, there's nothing in the New Testament admonishing homosexuality.

 

There's nothing admonishing homosexuality in the Old Testament either, when taken in a socio-historical context.

 

I do appreciate the irony in this thread, however.

Have you ever read the bible? Specifically Leviticus?

[Fionavar]

Fwiiw the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus is also the same as eating pork and being with a woman during her menstrual cycle (to mention only a few). Furthermore, most of those prohibitions were not hierachical in nature. To move beyond the text as a socio-historical document, however, and apply a literal interpretation in fact is fraught with an extreme level of circular and contradictory logic.

[Shadowstrider]

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Fionavar]

Fwiiw - the sanction in Romans was a clear poltical attack against those who had begun to see the Way as a potential threat. Moreover, as the Way became identified no longer as a part of the Jewish faith system, the Christian community was under more pressure - political and financial - to conform to the Roman adherence of the Pax Deorum. When it became obvious that the Way and the early church was not going to submit in the manner most others had, the early Apologists began to attack the State in a manner that was consistent with the inference of Leviticus. Historically speaking, however, it is not until the use in the NT that the sanction receives a special status and it must also be noted that these letters in Romans are in themselves a human response of a community under attack, and in each prohibition there actually is no reference from the Prophet to deny and/or validate the sanction.

[Shadowstrider]

Out of curiosity, Fionavar, what does that really prove in regards to the fact that the new testament, and old testament both admonish homosexuality?

 

The fact is that Ronald's statement:

Well, there's nothing in the New Testament admonishing homosexuality.

 

There's nothing admonishing homosexuality in the Old Testament either, when taken in a socio-historical context.

 

I do appreciate the irony in this thread, however.

 

Is absolutely incorrect. Romans is new testament text, and admonishes homosexuality. Leviticus is old testament text, and admonishes homosexuality.

 

You can sit back and analyze the social climate which brought about the "word of god" until you're blue in the face(or mor green, in your case?), it doesn't change the fact that they are included.

 

If you want to debate the social climate which brought about the rules, you'll probably find me agreeing with you(at least from what you've written thus far).

[Fionavar]

I guess it all depends on the intent of identifying what in fact the text is or is not. From whose authority does the text derive? The question, in essence, is what importance or significance does one attach to the text? Is it an example of a faith community's attempt to address problems that are not dissimilar to its modern counterpart? Or do you move beyond that into the authority of the text as Divine and over-riding the years that separate them from the present reader? If it is the lattter, then there arises a whole set of questions around authenticity, paprylogical corruption, and archeological conundrums (to mention only a few), all of which begin to outline the inherent contradictions. Furthermore, these contradictions are often only exacerbated by the lack of recognition of these sanctions from the Prophet himself. In the end, these are questions that must be answered for each person from wherever he/she is on their faith journey.

[Shadowstrider]

You could say that, Fionavar, but I'm looking at it from the far more simple "You're wrong." standpoint.

 

If we're going to engage in a debate in regards to how, why, and who brought about "the word of God" then this probably isn't the best thread, in my opinion.

[Fionavar]

I'm not really good at the "you're wrong" "I'm right" debate ... probably why I was not often in YoP I was merely trying to add some background without hopefully telling anyone the way they should or should not think. What I would say, however, is that any belief system can co-exist with the interpretation of others, as long as they do not intend harm a/o judge others. I know that is a large generalisation and open to much interpretation, but in essence the humanist and political philosopher John Stuart Mill sums up my belief well, in that we all have competing rights, but we are all permitted to express those rights as long as is does not infringe on another's well being. When this line is crossed, imo, then that is what is wrong.

[Tigranes]

I'll read up on the posts later - but just a disclaimer; I respect any opinion, or lack of it, on homosexuality, I just thought that site had a ridiculous, unfounded argument and generally intolerant and discriminative.

[Magena]

If it wasn't for the fact that the versions of the bible aren't always the same (probably something to do with copyright) and that I know (or at least have been told) that King James had it in for the homosexuals, and that was a bias when the King James version was written, then I might join in on the idea that it is a bad thing.... but I think that people being happy no matter what sexual orientation is more important, and I think that has more to do with what God was aiming for than only being able to propogate.

 

(and no that doesn't mean that I think that people who are happy killing should be allowed to kill to their hearts content)

[Slammy1]

Well it all goes back to the temple prostitutes, which was considered a pagan ritual. The prohibition against homosexuality was against the temple prostitutes (priests and priestesses who slept with parishioners, which was a good way to drum up business for the church). Translations tended to reinforce the idea against homosexuality, though the act described was both men and women "doing it". Of course, I am an atheist and I do not butter my bread on that side, so the whole point is academic.

[Judge Hades]

What's messing the whole deal is the fact that marriage is being treated as a legal and religious matter. Make it one or the other, not both. Either the U.S. government (and those following their lead) need to abolish marriage as a legality and keep it wholy a religious matter.

 

Separation of Church and State needs to be complete and total.

[Ronald]

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 

 

 

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

 

The admonishments in Leviticus were to separate their religion from the priests of Babylonians and whatnot who had lots of buttsex on the altar.

 

 

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

Oh, so I guess I was wrong about the New Testament.

 

In any case, and this may be a bit of a backpedal, should anybody really follow the "OMG FAGGITZ MUST DIE" nonsense, considering that God and Jesus never really cared about that stuff, only their disciples (Peter, for example, also supported slavery)?

[chevan]

If it wasn't for the fact that the versions of the bible aren't always the same (probably something to do with copyright) and that I know (or at least have been told) that King James had it in for the homosexuals, and that was a bias when the King James version was written, then I might join in on the idea that it is a bad thing.... but I think that people being happy no matter what sexual orientation is more important, and I think that has more to do with what God was aiming for than only being able to propogate.

 

(and no that doesn't mean that I think that people who are happy killing should be allowed to kill to their hearts content)

I think it has more to do with the fact that the books of the Bible are translated. Not sure what from, though. I think it might be Greek or Hebrew, but there's probably a couple others.

 

And I'm surprised. For once, I actually agree with Hades_One.

 

I'm not sure where I remember this from, so it might not be true, but I thought I heard somewhere that part of the anti-homosexual law was to protect the population, and to not waste "seed". (The source's word, not mine)

 

Oh, and that site is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

[neriana]

The Bible also says we should stone disobedient children, it condones slavery, and equates coveting livestock with coveting women.

 

It also says judge not lest ye be judged. Homophobes (and many others) love to selectively read the Bible to support their bigoted obsessions. What's with that, anyway? They seem to think about homosexual sex ALL THE TIME. Not that they'd ever want to do it! No! Of course not!

[Vladek]

just out of curiousity how can you be "pro-gay"? its not like a political party or anything is it

[chevan]

I'd say pro-gay basically means that you're not a homophobe.