I’m a Christian and FIRMLY believe gay marriage, lifestyle etc. is completely wrong. Does that make me homophobic? That term was invented BY gays to define or pigeonhole people who don’t believe as they do. Should I call gays ‘hetrophobic’ because they don’t believe as I do? I thought they were all about removing labels or sterotypes? Or is that just when I suits or benefits them? Homophobic implys I’m scared of gays. No, I just don’t agree with it. Are they scared of me because I’m straight?
[quote]dukefan4ever wrote:
I’m a Christian and FIRMLY believe gay marriage, lifestyle etc. is completely wrong. Does that make me homophobic? That term was invented BY gays to define or pigeonhole people who don’t believe as they do. Should I call gays ‘hetrophobic’ because they don’t believe as I do? I thought they were all about removing labels or sterotypes? Or is that just when I suits or benefits them? Homophobic implys I’m scared of gays. No, I just don’t agree with it. Are they scared of me because I’m straight?[/quote]
Dude, you make some good points.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Hey, I gladly accept whatever term you want to use for me that makes you more comfortable. If saying that homosexuality is deviant is homophobic, than I’m a homophobe for sure.[/quote]
So, does it feel weird or anything? Just curious.
Ugh. So you didn’t read the whole thread then? To be honest and not a smart-ass for a second, I don’t blame you. Over 500 posts. That’s a bunch. But I’ll concede this much to you, maybe you do see them as actual people, but just not normal ones. Okay fine, I’m not afraid to say that I may be wrong, it’s just that your comments were like boilerplate on the back of the homophobe application form. Sue me.
I wonder if this is actually ZEB under a different username. You two should get an apartment together or something. This was done to death in this very thread already. I will repeat so you do not have to go back and read:
Being gay is not having sex with children, dead bodies (new one there actually), animals, inanimate objects, or Janet Reno. Lump them together in your mind if you wish, but that won’t change what is the actual truth. Sorry.
When a queer kisses another queer it is not an affront to God. See 100meters rather lucid (for once) proof of this in the past couple of pages.
And yet, despite the efforts of people who think just like you to condemn homosexuality, it continues to flourish… even though it would be impossible for them to reproduce. Hmmm… Maybe YOU didn’t think this through, huh sport? If there is a constant but small flow of animals (yes even animals besides the human can be gay) that continue to express this natural trait, then it must be a normal part of nature. So by your reckoning, God must have made a mistake. I guess that’s why he had to create homophobes, too, huh? You guys are like God’s “white-out” on his term paper.
[quote]The fact is sport, that in evolutionary theory, homosexuality would be weeded out as a genetic defect because it would not support survival of the species. (you know, same sex can’t produce children, duh!)
So no matter how you slice it, from a religious or scientific perspective, homosexuality IS deviant.
[/quote]
I love it when you call me sport. It makes you sound all wise and everything. I especially like how you don’t have even an elementary grasp of natural selection and genetic heritance. This is not your fault, so I will not talk down to you in the condescending manner in which you write to me, but I would ask you to crack a science textbook which breezes over what DNA is, and how traits and preferences such as homosexuality or your favorite flavor of ice cream are influenced by a number of factors, inborn and otherwise.
By your reasoning, a species as old as ours (300,000 to 100,000 years old) would have selected out all genetic diseases by now… and yet here I am, helping to diagnose new cases of Cystic Fibrosis on occasion. These people typically don’t live long enough to reproduce, and yet… here they are!
Take care,
Sport
[quote]dukefan4ever wrote:
I’m a Christian and FIRMLY believe gay marriage, lifestyle etc. is completely wrong. Does that make me homophobic? That term was invented BY gays to define or pigeonhole people who don’t believe as they do. Should I call gays ‘hetrophobic’ because they don’t believe as I do? I thought they were all about removing labels or sterotypes? Or is that just when I suits or benefits them? Homophobic implys I’m scared of gays. No, I just don’t agree with it. Are they scared of me because I’m straight?[/quote]
We’ve also done this to death already, and you guys are new, so you don’t know about the joy of labelling that me and my good friend ZEB have gone through. I shall regurge a little of my post from page one of this thread, and maybe you’ll understand why I use the term “homophobe”:
[quote]I wrote:
ZEB: To set the record straight, the word “homophobe” is popularly known to mean “disgust and intolerance of homosexuality”. Maybe you are right about the label, and it should be changed to “homorepugnant” (here we go again… geez!!) as the “homophobe” label infers a kind of irrational fear like one to spiders or snakes which would lead to running away or shrieking in fright or whatever.
It could be argued, however, that a great deal of “homorepugnant” people have this disgust as a result of their own psychological/sexual hangups and inability to view a homosexual person as real person and more of an irrational symbol of something horrible or terrible. That’s when we transcend simple disgust like taking a number two, wiping, and accidentally getting poo on our hands, and enter the land of psychological self-projection.
In that case, “homophobe” is more appropriate I think.[/quote]
So maybe you guys don’t really fit the label. I just like being a smart-ass sometimes… especially when I get to throw around a “homophobe” here and there – just for old time’s sake.
lothario:
I have been restricting my comments to the individual whom I was debating. However, since you felt compelled to mention my name…
I have one screen name, it’s Zeb! Have you noticed that I’m unafraid to speak on a variety of issues? Are you actually surprised that others would share some of my view points regarding homosexual marraige? That is shocking in light of the latest polling data.
You are going to have to come to the realization that the majority of Americans, 68% do not want Gays to be married:
“When asked whether they thought same-sex “marriages” should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.”
Are all of these people “homophobic?” I think not. I think rather that they recognize a 5000 year old tradition that should not be changed in order for homosexuals to reap financial rewards from their sexual relationships with people of the same gender.
Since you want to recant what has been written allow me: the term “homophobe” was created by the powerful Gay Lobby in order to crush any opposition to their agenda. No one wants to be called “homophobic” because it denotes “fear.” Hence, less people speak out against things like homosexuals getting married.
No one, including you knows for sure whether this is genetic, a conscious choice, or something that went terribly wrong in childhood. No one knows this so stop pretending that you do!
The following are just a few sites where you can read some of the damaging effects of homosexuality. You will naturally attack the writers of the information as that is what is always done when the actual information cannot be attacked:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
As far as your misinformation regarding the Bible I suggest that you reread the above post regarding 1Corinthians 6: 9 & 10. It’s obvious that homosexuality is indeed a sin relative to the Bible. However, God does not “hate” homosexuals (we agree on that at least). However, he does in fact “hate” the sin. And yes, you can separate the sin from the sinner. If you have children then you know what I mean.
I am actually surprised that you would mention the Bible in this thread as I am well aware of how you look down upon the Bible and God.
I know this blows a hole in the typical narrow minded stereo types that social liberals embrace, but I do not look down upon homosexuals!
I think that they have every right to live together and have all of the homosexual sex that they can handle. I will not discriminate against them in any way. In fact, I have hired homosexuals to work at my company. It matters not to me, as long as they do a good job.
Furthermore, I would not hesitate to defend a homosexual who was being attacked either verbally or physically. How do we ever show love and compassion by abuse?
If you walk away with nothing else from this thread, please understand that just because some of us are against homosexuals marrying does not mean that we are hateful, ignorant or narrow minded. It simply means that we want to protect an age old institution which in our opinion should be kept for one man and one woman!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
dcb wrote:
Even though I disagree with Zeb about the issue of gay marriage, I think he’s right about what the word “know” means in the context of the chapters you two are discussing.
However, 100meters brings up a great question here:
100meters wrote:
Wouldn’t the logical assumption be he didn’t like rape?
It makes a lot more sense to me that the verses in question comdemn gang rape in general. Would it have been okay with God if the mob had wanted to “know” some females instead? I can’t imagine that under those circumstances it would have been okay.
Anyway, thank you Zeb and 100meters for your discussion. It’s been interesting and has prompted me to crack my Bible for the first time in many years.
dcb:
Out of all of the acts that could have been shown in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the Bible shows the story of Lot.
I think that is interesting as it shows that a gang of men surrounded a house and demanded homosexual sex. Do you think this was the first time that the act of same gender sex took place in Sodom?
[/quote]
Now, now…You know it’s not men surrounding the house Zeb—It’s the entire town men, women, and children—you have to drop your biased word homosexual. Readers IT IS THE WHOLE TOWN! Zeb–even you can read the KJV–don’t mislead.
There is still not a single passage in the bible that condemns consensual homosexual sex! NOT ONE passage refers to a gay lesbian couple living togeather and loving togeather! There are several refrences to perhaps gay couples (JONATHAN AND DAVID)—none of them condemned!
Convenient for you to put in a recent biased translation. The dead giveaway–you’ve inserted the recently invented term homosexual into the scripture!
At no point does it. Perhaps the opposite.
Actually the word mistranslated “homosexual” was traditionally translated MALE PROSTITUE! who traditionally slept with female clients–again even if they were bisexual temple prostitutes this has no bearing whatsoever on a gay couple!
In ancient Greek there is no noun to express homosexuality, only verbs-none of which appear in this passage! Suprise God doesn’t like temple prostitution! What a disgusting misrepresentation!
This word is a reference to character–again horribly mangled with bias by modern translators. It does mean soft (gee that’s exactly how it is translated elsewhere in the bible) but it literally means spineless, so here perhaps coward works best something like that----Funnier for hundreds of years this passage was used to condemn masturbation–now it’s anti-gay, But how did the early christian church translate it? “soft morals” since they were closer to the actual time the passage was written we can assume they may have understood the usage better than say Zeb and I.
It’s almost funny now (Readers note: This passage has nothing to do with homosexuals at all)
and yet still you preach a different gospel and reference twisted translations instead of referring to the original text? If they wanted to say what you’re having them say—they could have written it—They never did!
And so you do—but you could stop, reread the gospels and try to square with your politics and your bias against gays—Both of which would meet strongly with Christ’s disapproval—if you care about that kind of thing.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
lothario:
I have been restricting my comments to the individual whom I was debating. However, since you felt compelled to mention my name…
I have one screen name, it’s Zeb! Have you noticed that I’m unafraid to speak on a variety of issues? Are you actually surprised that others would share some of my view points regarding homosexual marraige? That is shocking in light of the latest polling data.
You are going to have to come to the realization that the majority of Americans, 68% do not want Gays to be married:
“When asked whether they thought same-sex “marriages” should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.”
Are all of these people “homophobic?” I think not. I think rather that they recognize a 5000 year old tradition that should not be changed in order for homosexuals to reap financial rewards from their sexual relationships with people of the same gender.
Since you want to recant what has been written allow me: the term “homophobe” was created by the powerful Gay Lobby in order to crush any opposition to their agenda. No one wants to be called “homophobic” because it denotes “fear.” Hence, less people speak out against things like homosexuals getting married.
No one, including you knows for sure whether this is genetic, a conscious choice, or something that went terribly wrong in childhood. No one knows this so stop pretending that you do!
The following are just a few sites where you can read some of the damaging effects of homosexuality. You will naturally attack the writers of the information as that is what is always done when the actual information cannot be attacked:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet3.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
As far as your misinformation regarding the Bible I suggest that you reread the above post regarding 1Corinthians 6: 9 & 10. It’s obvious that homosexuality is indeed a sin relative to the Bible. However, God does not “hate” homosexuals (we agree on that at least). However, he does in fact “hate” the sin. And yes, you can separate the sin from the sinner. If you have children then you know what I mean.
I am actually surprised that you would mention the Bible in this thread as I am well aware of how you look down upon the Bible and God.
I know this blows a hole in the typical narrow minded stereo types that social liberals embrace, but I do not look down upon homosexuals!
I think that they have every right to live together and have all of the homosexual sex that they can handle. I will not discriminate against them in any way. In fact, I have hired homosexuals to work at my company. It matters not to me, as long as they do a good job.
Furthermore, I would not hesitate to defend a homosexual who was being attacked either verbally or physically. How do we ever show love and compassion by abuse?
If you walk away with nothing else from this thread, please understand that just because some of us are against homosexuals marrying does not mean that we are hateful, ignorant or narrow minded. It simply means that we want to protect an age old institution which in our opinion should be kept for one man and one woman!
[/quote]
He certainly doesn’t hate the “sin” of homosexuality! The scripture clearly lists sins that god hates—gayness is just not there—but sins the rest of us have are there!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Hey, I gladly accept whatever term you want to use for me that makes you more comfortable. If saying that homosexuality is deviant is homophobic, than I’m a homophobe for sure.
So, does it feel weird or anything? Just curious.
[/quote]
Standing up for your beliefs may feel weird to you, but it feels just fine to me. Thanks for asking.
Really my uninformed one? Then explain why the gay lobby is trying to get the age of statutory rape reduced to age 15yrs?
Also, the idea is not that gay is like _____, whatever. The idea is that all those things in the list are deviant and destructive to a functioning society. Just look at France.
Great logic! The traits of Downs syndrome continue to express as a “natural trait” in humans as well, but I don’t see anyone saying that that trait is “normal”. Nice try bud, but you’ve got nothing to conteract the Darwin defect argument.
You have just proved that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is bogus. Congratulations! And now all you have to do is prove that being gay is genetic and not a choice. Go ahead, take your time…
What you need to admit is that all you know, or think you know about gaydome is not science but hype.
Do you know, Sport (I know you like that term), that prior to the 1970’s homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the DSM and by the APA (if you are so smart you know what those terms mean)? It was taken out as an illness by the APA due to pressure from the gay lobby. So now, thanks to people like you, gays cannot get treatment for their ilness. No, instead they get “congratulation, you now have AIDS”. You must be so proud.
You see sport, I don’t hate gays. I think that just like any illness, they need treatment. And because of people like you they will never get it and are dying as a result of their own behavior.
100meters:
I will be glad to resume our debate on the Bibles strong condemnation of homosexuality. However, I am going to continue to refrain from personal attacks and the use of sarcasm.
We can take this verse one word at a time so that it can be plain to see that the Bible does in fact condemn hommosexuality as a sin!
[quote]100meters wrote:
There is still not a single passage in the bible that condemns consensual homosexual sex! NOT ONE passage refers to a gay lesbian couple living togeather and loving togeather! There are several refrences to perhaps gay couples (JONATHAN AND DAVID)—none of them condemned![/quote]
There are in fact many passages which condemn homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6-9 is a very good example of that. I think you are “reaching” when you state that it does not condemn “a gay couple living together and loving together.” You are making a very dangerous assumption that attaching “love” to sin makes a difference. I think this is the main problem with your attempt to remove sin from homosexuality. Love when attached to sin does not make it acceptable according to the Bible.
You want to make an exception because you claim that there is no scripture that addresses “Two homosexuals who love each other.” Where does the Bible ever give a free pass because the sinner really loves the sin? How ridiculous!
For example there is not one instance in the Bible of anyone “loving” the act of stealing. Do you think that the Bible then by that omission condones stealing if someone really loves it? “Hey wait I can steal the Bible never mentions those of us who really love to steal.” That may sound foolish however that is exactly what you are attempting to claim with homosexuality.
There is no “love” exemption for any sin if you look closely. What about the married man who really loves his mistress? Do you think that there is a “sin exemption” there as well? Of course not! “But we love each other and when we are together we feel soooo good.” Matters not, it’s still sin…but I’m sure it does feel good, at least for now…
Homosexuality is sin, matters not if the two men (or women) are “in love” as you state. The fact is sex between two people of the same gender is sin according to the Bible, regardless of their current emotional state. The Bible never creates an exemption for someones emotional state. If an act is sin, it’s sin no matter how much two men really want to have sex together!
You must know this!
1Corinthians 6:9 & 10 are very clear as to the Bibles view on homosexuality:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor HOMOSEXUALS (ancient word “arsenokoitai”), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
I was very clear that the word “homosexual” was not in the original version. How could an english word be in the original version? However, the word “arsenokoitai” is in the original text and that word means: “One who lies with another man as he does with a female.” “One who defiles himself with another man.” You are the one who seems to want to rewrite these historical documents.
One only needs to look at any of the common translations to see that many well educated interpreters all agree with me!(in the interest of time and space I list only 20 of the most trusted versions):
- New American Standard
- New International Version
- New Amplified Version
- New Living Translation
- New Century Version
- King James Version
- Revised Standard Version
- Christian Standard Bible
- English Standard Version
- Contemporary English Version
- Good News Translation
- Miles Coverdale Bible
- New Life Bible
- New King James Version
- Strong Version
- Hebrew Names Version
- The Webster Bible
- The Geneva Bible (1587)
- Bishops Bible (1568)
- International Standard Version
All of the above translations have translated the ancient word “arsenokoitai” as meaning sex with someone of the same gender! Some say “homosexual” others say “men lying with men” some even use the outdated term “Bugger” (Geneva Bible 1587). However, to be sure ALL of them, are quite clear as to the definition of the word “Arsenokoitai.” It means men having sex with other men!
Any attempt to change the definition of “arsenokoitai” to mean anything but same gender sex is an obvious attempt change the original meaning of the word.
It’s clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality and all of it’s variations.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Out of all of the acts that could have been shown in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the Bible shows the story of Lot.
[/quote]
I see your point and the same thought occurred to me as well. Based on what I know of the Bible, which is not nearly as much as you, I wouldn’t look for support for homosexuality in it. So I concede this point to you.
I also agree with your point in other posts that it’s very possible to oppose gay marriage, think that homosexuality is a sin, but not be homophobic. You seem to be a great example of that attitude. I may disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.
But there are still a lot of people in this world who really are homophobic. I know people who cannot look past a person’s sexual orientation. If they know someone is gay, they simply don’t like them and get really uncomfortable in the presence of any homosexuals. Also, there IS research that suggests that homophobia comes from suppressed homosexual urges. Ready? Here it is:
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
Now Zeb, I found this link on Medline, and it comes from the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. I looked at the FRC links you posted, but come on Man, there’s 0 chance that they will objectively analyze the research that’s been done in this area. Clearly they choose to present only the information that backs their position even when there’s other research that might contradict it. Now why did I post the abstract above? Because if I remember correctly, I’ve seen some posts (not by you necessarily) that said that homophobia is not caused by repressed homosexual urges. But actually in some cases it just might be the cause.
Way back when the debate centered around the origins of sexual orientation, I posted a link from psychology site that gave an equal amount of space to the arguments for both sides of the nature/nurture debate. I don’t know maybe it’s just me, but you have to at least make an attempt to post some unbiased material. I would never post anything that I found on a gay and lesbian rights site to back up my arguments on this thread.
By the way, I’m not saying that there’s conclusive evidence either way about the causes of homophobia or homosexuality. Psychology as a science is still in the f’n stone age compared to other fields of research so I don’t think we’ll know for sure for quite a while. One day, we’ll be able to look at brain physiology (now known as psychology) and we’ll be able to answer these questions.
I apologize for this tangent, but when I was writing the previous paragraph the thought occurred to me that if sexual orientation is genetic/biological, one day we may be able to choose the sexual orientation of our children. That will be an interesting time as I’m sure many of us will choose to make sure that our children are heterosexual.
My wife and I have many gay friends, but having seen the things they’ve had to go through in life, if I had a choice, I’d choose to make sure my children didn’t have to endure that.
On the other hand if we are able to make that choice one day, will many more gay people choose to have children? Just a thought.
dcb:
Hate can masquerade in many forms. Any way you look at it it’s still wrong!
Sin is a strange thing. We are all in fact sinners, does that mean that a person should pick and choose which particular sin he should hate? How foolish! Hate them all, but love everyone of the sinners. Isn’t that what Christ preached?
I would trust a homosexual more than the guy who is out cheating on his wife every Saturday night. The sad part is it is sometimes those very people who show the most hate for homosexuals. As if their particular sin is any better.
It’s a strange world indeed and none of us are perfect. What I get out of the Bible however is that you must at least make serious attempts to “flee from temptation.” Repentence is about turning your back on sin and trying not to do it again, not flaunting it simply because it feels good.
As far as the word “orientation” is concerned, I think it’s well over used. Naturally the sinner would have an “orientation” toward what ever sin that he may act out. Do you think that the thief “hates” to steal? Does the womanizer not “love” his many affairs when he cheats on his wife? Is he not “orientated” to multiple relationships?
Why would any of us sin if we did not claim an “orientation” in that direction?
ZEB: Thank you for your post. You and I know quite well what each other’s take on this issue is. You also already know that I am not surprised to find out that a majority of people in this country do not want gay marriage. And I will restate yet again for the millionth time that I feel this country is not ready for gay marriage. And that is a shame.
As for you having two screen names, that was a joke. It’s like when Jeffy calls 100meters “lumpy”. Only I don’t use three exclamation points all the time!!! 
The dude who is calling me sport because he thinks it annoys me just basically reposted some stuff that you said before, so I noticed and made a wisecrack. I’m sorry if I offended you by comparing you to the choad.
I would venture a guess and say that you aren’t a homophobe, you’re just a well-intentioned guy who’s a little misguided. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Standing up for your beliefs may feel weird to you, but it feels just fine to me. Thanks for asking.[/quote]
I’m glad you like it. BTW standing up for your beliefs is fun, but standing up for your prejudices is even more entertaining… you should try it sometime. Oh wait, nevermind.
[quote]Really my uninformed one? Then explain why the gay lobby is trying to get the age of statutory rape reduced to age 15yrs?
Also, the idea is not that gay is like _____, whatever. The idea is that all those things in the list are deviant and destructive to a functioning society. Just look at France.[/quote]
That’s interesting, actually. I didn’t realize that there was only one “gay lobby”. And I also didn’t realize that this worldwide evil organization was wasting their efforts trying to change legislation that has nothing to do with their platform. Please provide some kind of link to this one “gay lobby” somehow that makes your point here something more than just wild conjecture.
And, yes you were lumping gayness in with child molestation, bestiality, and necrophilia:
[quote]you wrote:
After all, wanting to have sex with children, dead bodies, donkeys, whatever… is all acceptable since we are all so open-minded and PC, right? You must be so proud![/quote]
You made something called a “straw man” argument. That’s when you build up an image of your debate opponent that isn’t what he was saying, and then knock down the your own false argument. At no point did I say it was acceptable to have sex with children, dead bodies, donkeys, or Janet Reno. If you want to debate me, then debate ME… not some preposterous idea of my side of the issue that you have created yourself. Gay marriage advocates like myself absolutely DO NOT support child sex, animal sex, or former Attorney General sex.
[quote]Great logic! The traits of Downs syndrome continue to express as a “natural trait” in humans as well, but I don’t see anyone saying that that trait is “normal”. Nice try bud, but you’ve got nothing to conteract the Darwin defect argument.
…
You have just proved that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is bogus. [/quote]
Your ignorance of genetic science is hurting my brain. Where do I start? Hmmm…
Okay, there’s this thing called a gene, and these genes are like codes that store information about an organism. Now sometimes, an organism can carry information for traits that do not actually manifest themselves. These traits are called recessive traits. This explains how two perfectly normal and healthy parents can give birth to a baby with Cystic Fibrosis. The two parents were carriers for CF, and the child was unlucky enough to inherit a full dose of the CF genetic expression. Downs Syndrome is similar in that it is considered an inborn error, but is actually an extra piece of genetic information that gums up the normal functioning of heritable cells, and we call having that extra DNA “Trisomy 21”, because it is on the 21st chromosome that this extra DNA chunk appears.
I do not have to prove anything to you. You look down on gay people because you think they are “sinning”, correct? It’s their “poor choice” as you put it. Or is it a disease? And they need treatment, and because of people like me they won’t get it, and now they are dying? So it’s partly my fault that gays get AIDS because I encourage and support, and speak out against those who would label them as wrong? Or did I misread this last gem:
[quote]You see sport, I don’t hate gays. I think that just like any illness, they need treatment. And because of people like you they will never get it and are dying as a result of their own behavior.
[/quote]
You said I don’t know how exactly gayness happens, and you are right. I could not grab a map of your DNA and point to some spot and say “Yup. You’re a queer. Says right here on your genome that you’re a bottom. Better go shop for leather pants and some boots.” And like we got into back on page three (I think) on this thread, this is very similar to demanding “where is the chocolate ice cream gene?”
You like what you like. If I discover that I like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla, then that’s the way it is. Was it a conscious choice? Did I look at vanilla, weigh the pros and cons, and then just choose to like chocolate more?
Stop and think about this. Not everyone is like you or me. Some people like different things, and if they aren’t hurting ANYBODY, how are they going to hurt you? Why do you look down on them as “diseased”? They are just different, buddy. That’s all.
Your very good friend,
Sport
[quote]ZEB wrote:
All of the above translations have translated the ancient word “arsenokoitai” as meaning sex with someone of the same gender! Some say “homosexual” others say “men lying with men” some even use the outdated term “Bugger” (Geneva Bible 1587). However, to be sure ALL of them, are quite clear as to the definition of the word “Arsenokoitai.” It means men having sex with other men!
Any attempt to change the definition of “arsenokoitai” to mean anything but same gender sex is an obvious attempt change the original meaning of the word.
It’s clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality and all of it’s variations.
[/quote]
Again, using modern translations to make your point—only makes my point, which is bias against homosexuals(a 20th/19th century concept) has been inserted in the Bible–it is not there in the scripture. Again if the early christian church did not see this passage reflecting on homosexuals and Luther used it to condemn masturbation, isn’t it obvious that the bias has been added? For absolute proof you can refer to ancient greek realize that they only had verbs for homosexuals no nouns, none of which are used here or elsewhere. Had the author really wanted to condemn gays he would have used the clear language of the day. Instead we have basically an invented word that pretty clearly refers to temple prostitutes.
Again for the readers—the original christian teachers did not see this passage as a reflection on gays (their translations temple prostitute or soft morals). When they did use language to condemn gay behavior they did not use the word “arsenokoitai” which if Zeb is correct, they would have clearly used this reference, instead they chose other language. Also the scripture here is written in ancient greek, a language that contained only verbs to describe homosexual behavior. And worse for those using this passage against gays, even during Martin Luther’s time this passage was used to condemn masturbation. Now Zeb and misguided ministers use it to condemn something more universally disdained than masturbation–homosexuality.
There is no passage in the actual scripture that condemns homosexuality in the bible. Only the opposite.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
… So now, thanks to people like you, gays cannot get treatment for their ilness. No, instead they get “congratulation, you now have AIDS”. You must be so proud.
[/quote]
Did anyone see Peter Griffins “You have AIDS” song and dance routine on Family Guy?
So wrong, yet so funny.
100 meters, I have not read every post of the great debate.
Are you saying the Bible says masturbation is a sin and does not mention homosexuality?
lothario1132 (aka sport)
I appreciate your perspective and perhaps I have been a bit too sarcastic in our discussion. You seem to be misunderstanding me and developing your own little straw man argument in the context that I’m “looking down” on gays.
First I also need to mention that I have medical training as well and fully understand (what has been proven to date) the basic gene theory (dominant vs recessive, etc.) I’m not sure how we got on the genetic issue anyway, but perhaps it was related to the survival of the fitness concept. My point was only that gayness does not support propagation of the species. So if gays stick with that lifestyle solely they would never have children and after they die their family and gene specific line would cease to exist as well. So the point was that the gay lifestyle is not functional in terms of survival of the species. That is a fact that you cannot dispute.
As for the tendency for some people to be attracted to the same sex continuing to come up, there is no evidence that it is genetic. Again, a fact that is currently accepted by science. Could it be genetic? Neither you nor I have enough info to make that determination. In fact, science doesn’t even know enough about genetics to know why a woman with a genetic structure that supports the growth of breast cancer doesn’t develop the disease, and some without the code do. So clearly our current hypothesis (using the strict definition of the scientific method of inquiry) of how genes are utilized by the systems of the body is clearly flawed. But that is another discussion.
In any case, the point is that maybe the gay lifestyle is a choice, and there is evidence to support that as many do change from a gay to hertero lifestyle, and maybe it is not. In either case is doesn’t support a positive healthy society as it doesn’t support renewal of life and it is plagued with the potential to spread HIV, which is predominately spread through the gay sexual practices and is fairly confined to this population as well. If you don’t believe this please review the actual CDC data on the issue of prevalence in the gay vs hertero population and it’s origin in both.
So my question to you is; why should we support a lifestyle that spreads deadly disease and doesn’t contribute to renewal of life? What is positive about it? And given these facts, why should we not see it as something that does in fact need treatment?
You say gays just think differently and they don’t hurt anyone. You know that is not true. How many children have died from AIDS? You don’t think they were hurt by the origin and spread of HIV? If gay guys would limit their sexual practices solely to other men and never stray into the female realm, I would agree with you. But as long as they do go both ways at times it puts other non-gay people at risk. So the gay lifestyle does current affect others negatively.
You say I look down on them because I think it might be a disease. Do you look down of someone with Down’s syndrome, breast cancer, mental illness, etc? I hope you don’t and I certainly don’t. So if gayness is a disease then it is no different than these others disease and DESERVES to receive care and treatment as well. You see, this is just like saying someone who is morbidly obese is just fine, “a lifestyle choice”, “just leave them alone”, etc…
So we leave them alone, tell others to just accept there destructive behavior, AND THEY DIE! They die as a result of their own destructive behavior, just like the gays do. And my point is that by not standing up and saying they need help we (you) are contributing to their misperception of their condition, which means they have no impetus to change or get help. So by this you are trying to normalize what is abnormal and destructive.
So, if you can show me the positive side of gayness and how it supports a healthy person or society than maybe I will agree with you. Until then I think you may want to rethink your position.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Again, using modern translations to make your point—only makes my point, which is bias against homosexuals(a 20th/19th century concept) has been inserted in the Bible–it is not there in the scripture.[/quote]
You seem to be all over the road with this one. When I quoted the Roman historian “Josephus” several posts back you stated that the “attack” against homosexuality was beginning. That was about 2000 years ago. Now you are claiming that the attack on homosexuals is more recent. Why don’t you simply admit that the twenty interpretations (dating back to the 1300’s), and all of the early writings at the time the Bible was written plainly state that homosexuality is a sin? By now it must be obvious to all of the readers of this thread except you!
Do the readers see any sort of pattern here? It seems that you are willing to admit that every single possible sexual act which takes place outside the bounds of marriage is a sin, but not homosexuality! I think that is very telling. Homosexuality is mentioned as a sin several times in the Bible, yet 100meters tries desperately to explain away (mostly through word games) why it’s perfectly fine for two men to have sex together based upon the Bible. Yea…but whatever you do don’t masturbate! In the world of homosexual Biblical translation that is far worse than two men having sex! WOW!
Let’s set the record straight, the word “arsenokoitai” is in the original Biblical text! The following are all of the definitions for that particular word. Simply let the readers decide:
- “Abuser of one’s self WITH mankind.”
Because a few homosexuals wanted badly for homosexuality to be good in Gods eyes they twisted the above to mean “masturbation.” However, the word “WITH” means that the person is in fact doing this act with another! The word “MANKIND” is the clincher as that means with “ANOTHER MAN.” CASE CLOSED (to all who are open minded).
- To “defile one’s self with mankind.”
The ancient interpretation of the word “Defile” is not much different than the current one: Do not "pollute, “make dirty” or “become filthy with.” Do you think the Bible is referring to two men hopping in a pile of mud together? Do you think that is what will keep them out of the kingdom of Heaven? How silly!
- To “lie with a man as one would lie with a woman.”
Um…not much explaining to do with this one. I don’t think the Bible is talking about keeping two guys out of Heaven because they took a nap together, shared an apartment etc. No…it is talking about two man having sex!
Finally, let’s examine the word “arsenokoitai.” Why do you think that every single credible interpretation of this word comes out as “homosexual?” Here’s why:
“arsen” comes from the word “arrhen” meaning “males.” The second half of this ancient word is “koitai.” This comes from the word “koite” meaning “bed chamber” or to “lie with” (not alone).
You put the ancient word together and you come up with the exact same meaning that tens of thousands of professional interpreters have come up with: HOMOSEXUALS! Men having sex with someone of the same gender!
That was the “clear language of the day” for “homosexual.” I know you don’t like it, but it simply happens to be fact.
arsenokoitai, pronounced: r-sin-oh-koy-tai is the ancient word for homosexual!
The original Christian teachers did in fact condemn homosexuality! As did early Roman historians like Josephus. It was considered a sin, it’s still considered a sin (except by Gay based Internet web sites) and it will always be a sin according to the Bible!
Well then you do admit that gay behavior was condemned. We are making some progress. Tell me what word did they use to refer to homosexuals? There is no better word than “arsenokoitai.” As previously stated that was the best word to describe two men having sex together. Sure there were other words, just like there are today. However, that one word absolutely means homosexual! It fits perfectly according to every Bible expert who has an ounce of credibility.
Please become familiar with the word “arsenokoitai.” It no more means “masturbation” than the modern version of the word “homosexual.” I am not the one who is misguided nor are the other tens of thousands of expert linguists and Biblical interpreters.
Unfortunately, you (and others) have been deceived relative to the simple meaning of one word. I can only caution you on one more phrase which is also in 1 Corinthians 6:9 “DO NOT BE DECEIVED!”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You seem to be all over the road with this one. When I quoted the Roman historian “Josephus” several posts back you stated that the “attack” against homosexuality was beginning. That was about 2000 years ago. Now you are claiming that the attack on homosexuals is more recent. Why don’t you simply admit that the twenty interpretations (dating back to the 1300’s), and all of the early writings at the time the Bible was written plainly state that homosexuality is a sin? By now it must be obvious to all of the readers of this thread except you!
[/quote]
You are always deliberately missing the point. I am not debating church teachings, The church has a bias against gays-- the bible does not. Josephus is a first century jewish historian. During this time the christian church begins twisting biblical stories (Sodom) to refer to Hellenistic activities. Direct blatant references to homosexuality have been added in more recent translations.
Ok, next.
Again missing the point, the church once used the same passage to condemn masturbation, now the same passage is used to condemn homosexuality. And you’ve yet to find a passage that condemns homosexuality. Homosexuality is not prostitution, is not rape, is not a specific act, it does not just pertain to men, is not men who sleep with women and sleep with temple prostitutes…It’s a sexual orientation!!! And as you know is NEVER MENTIONED AS A SIN in the bible. We are given 10 commandments that don’t include homosexuality, we are given a list of sins that god hates, that doesn’t include homosexuality, and one commandment by christ, that tells us to love everybody(no asterik or footnote for homos by the way)
Martin Luther was a homo? News to me. Your faith taught this for hundreds of years, not gays.
This is a heroic effort, but either you didn’t read my post, or you ignored it. In my opion the best source would be those closest to the material on timeline. Zeb, you and your recent 20th century translations are 1900 years away from it. Why on earth would all these early sources translate this as temple prostitutes? Why are they saying the EXACT same thing that I am? During this time a common practice was gifts to the various gods and goddesses of the day. A common gift was sexual activity, of course facilitated by a “temple prostitute” in male and female forms and the greek language had a word for these temple prostitutes and that word was? “arsenokoites”! When early church leaders like Clemet of Alexandria condemened homosexuality they did not use arsenokoites even in reference to this passage! Even worse for Zeb is the footnote included for the translations of these verses in the New Oxford Annotated Bible which states:
The Greek terms translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to “homosexuals,” as in inappropriate older translations; “masturbators” and male prostitutes might be a better translation.
and the nail in the coffin…
I’ve already pointed out that the greek langauge had no nouns to refer to homosexuality but they did have very clear language to describe those who recived pleasure from same gender activities, Paul would have known this word–as it was in common usage at the time and hundreds of years later—the word is “homophilia”
Zeb, like the story of Sodom you are debunked by translation, usage, history, tradition, and the scripture.
The church yes! No doubt! The scripture? Nope.
I’ve said it a million times the church doesn’t like gays. The word they used was homophilia. They NEVER USED “arsenokoites”! And when they translated arsenokoites they translated it temple prostitutes! And the recent translation with the most credibility UTTERLY disagrees with you!
that’s not my translation it was your faith’s teaching for hundreds of years, you’ll have to direct your complaints to the catholic and protestant church.
And yet you are so easily decieved by christian homophobes? Weird.
Good post Zeb. I’m not sure I fully understood the part that I left on this post though. I think my reading comprehension skills are a little slow right now though so I’ll come back to it later.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
dcb:
As far as the word “orientation” is concerned, I think it’s well over used. Naturally the sinner would have an “orientation” toward what ever sin that he may act out. Do you think that the thief “hates” to steal? Does the womanizer not “love” his many affairs when he cheats on his wife? Is he not “orientated” to multiple relationships?
Why would any of us sin if we did not claim an “orientation” in that direction?
[/quote]