Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I know this thread is a long one, but I already posted the fact that homosexuality was taken off the DSM over 30 years ago. I didn’t know that the APA did that because of pressure from the gay lobby. By the way, which gay lobby are you talking about? I did a Google search and only game up with The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. When you click on their annual reports it only goes back to the year 2000, so you must be talking about some other lobby.

I was only a year old at the time, but it sounds a little far fetched that any gay lobby in 1970 was powerful enough to pressure the APA to change the DSM. Maybe you could provide some proof of your statement.

Of course it might be the case that the APA, after analyzing the research in the area, decided that homosexuality is not a mental illness.

542

[quote]dcb wrote:
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.

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]

Zeb,
You’re totally missing the point of orientation. Homosexuality IS orientation. It is NOT anal sex. It is not rape, and it is not a man who sleeps with a man as he sleeps with a woman. Gays don’t have to have anal sex, Lesbians don’t have anal sex, Gays don’t rape each other, and gays don’t sleep with both genders, just the same gender. Gays aren’t prostitutes either. Homosexuals are just people of one gender who love others of the same gender. There is no negative reference to this behavior in the bible (only positive). And you know it. Instead of admitting it you fall prey to stretch 6 passages to fall into your bias, none of them have anything to do with homosexuality (which by definintion is an issue of orientation not an issue of any “act”)

543

100meters:

I’m afraid that your attempt to change the meaning of the word “arsenokoitai” into “masturbators” falls short of a reasonable reply!

One more time so that the reader is not deceived:

Why do you think that every single credible interpretation of the word “arsenokoitai” 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: HOMOSEXUAL!

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!

There really is no legitimate debate regarding the meaning of this word!

All one has to do is simply find a credible ancient Greek dictionary and look it up.

You argue that there are other words that “they used to condemn homosexuality.” Well we can agree on this! There are plenty of words that can mean someone involved in homosexual acts, just as there are today: “Gay, homosexual, queer, fag, etc.” Some of them are not flattering and I only post them to point out the various words. However, they all mean pretty much the same thing.

You don’t like the word “arsenokoitai” and if they used another word you wouldn’t like that one either. You want badly for homosexuality to be fine relative to the Bible, but it is not and that one single word (in addition to many other indications) blows a hole in your theory.

Please don’t continue to deny the meaning of a word. It’s only too easy to get an ancient Greek dictionary (as I did) look it up and even cross reference it with other sources.

What you are currently doing is ridiculous.

Furthermore, your logic is substandard. You expect the readers to believe that the Bible teaches that while masturbation is prohibited placing your penis inside of another mans rectum is fully allowed. Is bestiality also allowed by your thinking? The only time it’s mentioned is in Leviticus. How about sex with children…Jesus never said a word about that either…It’s not one of the 10 commandments so it must be okay, right?

I hope everyone can see the sorts of word games played by the Gay Internet Web sites. I was well aware what 100meters was going to come back with regarding this passage as that is exactly what these sorts of sites have been promoting. It is utter nonsense!

Simply go by the written word of the Bible and it’s meaning. The ancient text definition is listed above and all legitimate interpreters of both the early church and right on through to today agree!

While the Gay Internet web sites want to rewrite the Bible, that does not make it the truth. DO NOT BE DECEIVED!

Stop the games they are beneath you.

544

[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters:

I’m afraid that your attempt to change the meaning of the word “arsenokoitai” into “masturbators” falls short of a reasonable reply!
[/quote]
Oh the antics here. I’m not saying it means masturbation, YOUR CHURCH DID! Sheesh.

This didn’t happen till oh say…1949 or so? And still you have to get past that the people of the day including church leaders totally disagree with you and translated it temple prostitutes!!! Were they insane? Possessed? part of gay lobby? Or are you still dead wrong?

Yes it does literally mean “male bed” hmmm…male bed, male prostitute…hmmmm

except that in the relevant time period everytime they referred to a male prostitute he was referred to as arsenokoites!!!You’re just totally wrong! Gay is homophilia

This borders on just making stuff up. Homophilia was the “word of the day”
NO NOUN IN ANCIENT GREEK refers to homosexuality! Arsenokoites doesn’t mean homosexual! C’mom Zeb, please stop.

It’s odd that the ancients would utterly disagree with you and confirm everything I’ve said IN WRITING!

I don’t care that temple prostitutes are in the scripture, its just not relevant to a discussion on homosexuality in the bible, the fact that Paul took pains to say temple prostitute, and not refer to those who love the same gender or use any of the relevant language of the day that refers to gays (uhmmm like homophilia) and the fact that contemporaries of paul translated this passage as either temple prostitutes or those of soft morals would in a logical debate blow a hole in your theory.

Well, you are badly misleading readers, arsenokoites was not the word of the day for homosexuals—and you know it. But it was the word of the day for temple prostitutes. Homophilia was the word of the day for gays.

My logic is if god doesn’t care about homosexual relations in the bible–he doesn’t care about David and Jonathan, and if he never mentions homosexuality–why would you think it is a sin? You wouldn’t. It isn’t.

545

Hey ZEB, NARTH is a discredited group of anti-gay ideologues who will grasp at any straw to put gays and lesbians’ status in American society back to the way it was in McCarthy’s 1950’s.

Here is another link that might give you and your friends in “homo-repugnance” an overall balanced view of the issue:

http://www.soulforce.org/main/evidence.shtml

546

[quote]dcb wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
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.

I know this thread is a long one, but I already posted the fact that homosexuality was taken off the DSM over 30 years ago. I didn’t know that the APA did that because of pressure from the gay lobby. By the way, which gay lobby are you talking about? I did a Google search and only game up with The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. When you click on their annual reports it only goes back to the year 2000, so you must be talking about some other lobby.

I was only a year old at the time, but it sounds a little far fetched that any gay lobby in 1970 was powerful enough to pressure the APA to change the DSM. Maybe you could provide some proof of your statement.

Of course it might be the case that the APA, after analyzing the research in the area, decided that homosexuality is not a mental illness. [/quote]

Sounds like I’m somewhat older than you are, but I remember reading this information many years ago. I confess that I don’t think I can find it anymore. As far as the gay lobby, do a search about what they demanding when they did they march on Washington about 10-12 years ago. It’s during that march when they wanted to lower the age of statutory rape. Check it out.

547

[quote]Bellegueule wrote:
Hey ZEB, NARTH is a discredited group of anti-gay ideologues who will grasp at any straw to put gays and lesbians’ status in American society back to the way it was in McCarthy’s 1950’s.

Here is another link that might give you and your friends in “homo-repugnance” an overall balanced view of the issue:

http://www.soulforce.org/main/evidence.shtml[/quote]

Hey Bellegueule, why do we need to give any group “status in American society” that is based purely on their sexual practices? Why do we need to accept someones sexual practices. Why can’t they just keep it to themselves?

548

[quote]Bellegueule wrote:
Hey ZEB, NARTH is a discredited group of anti-gay ideologues who will grasp at any straw to put gays and lesbians’ status in American society back to the way it was in McCarthy’s 1950’s.

Here is another link that might give you and your friends in “homo-repugnance” an overall balanced view of the issue:

http://www.soulforce.org/main/evidence.shtml[/quote]

Thank you, but I have already mentioned the many pro Gay web sites that want to play the word twist game.

549

100meters:

You are quoting the pro homosexual based web sites to the letter. Unfortunately, for you, they are completely wrong and very misleading!

If Paul wanted to use the word of the day for “prostitute” he would have used “porne” (por-nay). That specific word is in fact used to describe prostitutes in the New Testament:

1Corinthians 6:15 & 16

Hebrews 11:31

James 2: 22

If Paul were describing prostitutes then why didn’t he use the word “porne” as he in fact used when addressing this subject matter a few verses after condemning homosexuality, in Corinthians 6:15?

I know why and so do the readers at this point! He was not describing “prostitutes” he was describing homosexuals! When describing homosexuals he used the word of the day for that as well: “arsenokoitai”!

I do not deny that there were other words used to describe homosexuals and their activity. However, as I have already proven to the readers the word “arsenokoitai” does in fact mean “homosexual.”

You have in fact at least tried to define part of the word in your most recent post: “to lie with” (as in not alone). You actually defined the second half of the word. I call that progress on your part.

Now why don’t you look up the first half of the word “arsen” which is from “arrhen” meaning “males.” Now all you will have to do is put it together and you will have the proper meaning, just as the tens of thousands of well educated Bible scholars have done through the ages:

  1. “Men lying with men.”

  2. “To defile one’s self with mankind.”

  3. " To lie with a man as one would lie with a woman."

You don’t have to inject your belief system upon the facts. Simply go to any credible ancient Greek dictionary and look it up. It is a fact! Your argument is foolish. It’s almost like you are trying to debate the meaning of the word “is.” You really need to stop the word games.

Gay based web sites twist a 2000 year old language to raise doubts in the minds of those who are truly seeking the truth. This is reprehensible! Not simply because it’s the Bible, but because the well chosen words of those written in antiquity deserve our respect.

100meters has been deceived and he now attempts (with a good heart I am sure)to pass on this deception as fact. He is trying desperately to place a doubt in your mind.

Do not be deceived!

550

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zeb,
You’re totally missing the point of orientation. Homosexuality IS orientation. It is NOT anal sex. It is not rape, and it is not a man who sleeps with a man as he sleeps with a woman. Gays don’t have to have anal sex, Lesbians don’t have anal sex, Gays don’t rape each other, and gays don’t sleep with both genders, just the same gender. Gays aren’t prostitutes either. Homosexuals are just people of one gender who love others of the same gender. There is no negative reference to this behavior in the bible (only positive). And you know it. Instead of admitting it you fall prey to stretch 6 passages to fall into your bias, none of them have anything to do with homosexuality (which by definintion is an issue of orientation not an issue of any “act”)[/quote]

100meters:

I usually like to avoid “side debates” however I will make an exception so that none of the readers are deceived on this point.

I understand what homosexuals want the rest of us to believe about “orientation.” Now let’s take a look at what the Bible states regarding this lifestyle, and what “orientation” really is!

Let’s look closely at Paul’s view of sin: In Romans 5 and 7 Paul speaks of sin as an innate impulse operating in the human body, transmitted by an ancestor, and never entirely within the control of human will. This seems to be pretty much what the current clamor about “orientation” is today. Things have not changed all that much huh? Hence, Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality is in fact pertinent today, just as it was 2000 years ago.

Paul is basically stating that innate impulses are not necessarily moral simply because they are innate, or you seem to be “oriented” to one particular behavior.

Romans 7:15 “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.”

We do fight against these “impulses” on a daily basis, just as Paul did in the above passage. The impulse may be to steal, or cheat for some. Others engage in homosexual actions. Sin is sin in Gods view. We must turn from sin and repent. That is the message of the New Testament. Yes God loves us all, but we are not to take advantage of that love by flaunting our sin and claiming we are “orientated” to this or that particular sin.

Have any of us ever wanted badly to do an act (or commit a sin) that we were not “orientated” to do? Of course not! Does this mean that it’s not sin because we really wanted to do it and we feel that it is natural for us to do it? No!

For example, those who are married but who are overly attracted to the opposite sex and cannot contain themselves might commit adultery. Should their excuse be “I was orientated to lust after women more than most males.” Of course you were! However, it is still sin. It also does not help to claim “I loved her.” Still sin! There is no “love exemption.” Obviously, as how can one “love” to commit sin and expect the love they have for that sin will in fact give them an exemption? That would be convoluted logic. The exact logic which the various homosexual web sites promote!

I know that we live in politically correct times and it is very outdated to question anyone who engages in homosexual activity. However, if we are to debate what the Bible has to say about lust, adultery, perversion, homosexuality etc. then we must be honest, as the Bible does not change (as much as the homosexual web sites want it to).

Those innate impulses are not necessarily moral simply because they are innate, or one seems “oriented” to one particular sin.

551

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sounds like I’m somewhat older than you are, but I remember reading this information many years ago. I confess that I don’t think I can find it anymore. As far as the gay lobby, do a search about what they demanding when they did they march on Washington about 10-12 years ago. It’s during that march when they wanted to lower the age of statutory rape. Check it out.
[/quote]
So you don’t THINK you can find your information anymore? Did you even try?

Also, where in my post did I mention statutory rape? If you want someone to know about the demands of the gay lobby, why don’t you provide some proof yourself? Most others who are participating on both sides of this debate have taken the time to do so. If not, just offer your opinion and make it clear that they’re just your own thoughts.

552

Hi Zeb,

I completely agree with you that, “I wanted to” or “I always feel like doing this” are not adequate bases for sin or wrong-doing. Actions need to be weighed on their moral component as it relates to other’s well-being and (if Catholic) on whether it achieves or reduces your state of Grace, and (if other) on whatever moral test your religion calls for. “I felt like it” is not an adequate response.

That said, there is still no scriptual basis for homesexuality being such a clear-cut sin; the few times in the entire Bible that the issue is mentioned, it is so clouded in literary and translation issues that there is not a lot to be learned there. Especially when compared with the amount of discussion and instruction on how to treat each other, praise God, etc.

I am a devout Catholic, and gay, and while I have serious disagreements with the Catholic Church on other issues (contraception comes to mind), and this one is no exception, I AM staying a member and consider myself a part of the Church. I have thought about this, prayed, spoken with other gay Catholics, etc.–we believe we are in a state of grace with God even living as gays. We are still subject to the same rules and laws as straights, and we get no slack for being gay. If I am treating myself and my partner with love and respect, I don’t see why his gender matters; and (in all humbleness) I don’t think God cares either.

That said, this is the main reason why I so support gay marriage. It allows gays to form the same stable unions and attachements as straights, and it also helps cuts out the BS excuses that some gays use to live lives of non-stop drugs and sex. Those “lifestyle choices” wouldn’t be encouraged for straights; gays shouldn’t get a free pass.

I appreciate your scriptural reference; I agree with it. It obviously doesn’t answer the issue on “is homesexuality ok?” (not that I am saying you were claiming it did), but it does remove what some people use an excuse, “If it feels good, do it…”

553

DUDE. Way to phrase it–“lower the age of statutory rape.” How about, “Lower the age of sexual consent”?

Look at it this way–how many 17 year old boys do you think want to have sex? Let’s see–ALL of the, right? Teenage boys are horndogs, of course. Now if a 17 year old gets lucky with some 30 year old MILF, is anyone going to say anything? Complain? Arrest the woman? Hell no; people will buy him a beer for getting some.
Now–change gears. What if the 17 year old is gay? And he hooks up with a 30 year old guy? Well, if anyone finds out, the 30 year old is in jail for child molestation, statutory rape, etc.
Now of course, there needs to be some age at which we decide that children cannot make an informed choice, but whatever that age is, it needs to be enforced fairly. 18 is a pretty high age for sexual consent (how old were you when you first did it?); some states go for 16, some 14, etc. But the issue here is unequal enforcement for gays vs. straights.

554

I’m back finally! Let’s continue some good ol’ arguin’!!

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
…
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.[/quote]
Oh man, this is so full of crap I don’t know where to begin. I think that you have this affect on me, because now this is twice in as many posts on this thread I’ve slapped myself in the head and said “doh!”

Okay. Saying that being gay is damaging because of AIDS is like saying that being black is damaging because of syphillis. Honestly man… good lord. I have plenty of gay friends who have absolutely nothing to do with the AIDS epidemic. Maybe they’re contributing to the metrosexual epidemic, but that is for another discussion.

[quote]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. [/quote]
I will say this again. You need to get your head out of your hiney. Gayness is NOT “destructive behavior”. That is your fear and misunderstanding (your homophobia?) expressing itself. I am not encouraging some misperception to any “condition”, as you put it. I do not know of any other way to make this any clearer to you than to use the chocolate ice cream analogy.

Replace all of the homosexual references in your crappy argument above with “chocolate ice cream lovers”, and there you have how much sense you are making. Let go of the fear and loathing, man! The last paragraph you posted reveals all:

[quote]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]
The positive side of gayness? Oh boy.

Let me give you a very small hint:
A great number of health care workers, male and female, are gay. The next time someone pulls you out of a wrecked car, you might want to make sure that you don’t catch any of their “gay cooties”.

There are gay people in all walks of life, who produce great works of art, for example… or at least choreograph them (hehe). They are everywhere, and they are not doing anything but trying to live their lives the best that they can, just like you are. Take all of the contributions that these people have made, and take a second to wonder at just what kind of person you really are when you post crap like you did above.

Gays are people just like you and me. They want and deserve your respect, not some friggin’ TREATMENT for a “condition” that you think they have.

Someone so enlightened as you should be ashamed of himself for making such a weak post. You said earlier that you were standing up for your beliefs, but is that really what is happening here? You said it yourself that you can’t see anything good about gayness… why is that? It seems to me that you must have this weird notion that gayness is like some monster lurking somewhere in the darkness, waiting to pounce on some unsuspecting innocent person and inflict them with AIDS.

Come out from under the bed (or the closet), it’s okay… nothing’s gonna get you.

555

Lothario, I don’t dispute that there are a great number of wonderful gay people. You seem to be mixing the character of the people with sex act in your argument. I don’t know if gay sex is wrong or not, but the fact that “good” people have gay sex does not prove that gay sex is “good”.

I do believe that the positive side of gay sex acts is limited to the brief pleasure it gives willing participants.

This also applies for any type of straight sex outside of procreation.

You could also say this about drinking, smoking, recreational drug use and probably more things.

These behaviors may be enjoyable, but they also have a destructive element.

I do not believe the government should take any actions that encourage promiscuity, extramarital sex or gay sex, nor do I think the government should discourage adults from any of these acts.

People should be taught the consequences of these acts and then make thier own decisions.

I have a gay friend who is HIV positive, thankfully it is under control, and even though he has had a steady live in “boyfriend” for the past 10 to 15 years he contracted HIV through promiscuous sexual behavior.

In my opinion the negatives of the gay sex act outweigh the positives in his case.

556

[quote]fatsensei wrote:
I wonder if I’m going to get to sit and watch homosexuals, adulterers, pedophiles, etc try to explain the Bible (or their interpretation of it) to God on Judgement day. I certainly hope so.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I’m perfect, I just know when I sin and I ask for forgiveness.

FatSensei[/quote]

Whenever I hear someone talk about it being against the bible and use that as an argument why gays shouldn’t be provided equal rights or protection under the law, I often ponder if these people forget that the only person with whom gays have any true accountability to under Christian belief is, matter of factly, God. Why do you care?

557

[quote]ZEB wrote:

  1. “Equal rights” are already given to Gay men. They are able to marry any female that will say yes. Isn’t that what heterosexuals have? What Gays want are extra rights. Think about it.
    [/quote]

To that same accord, this would give heterosexuals who choose to wed same sex heterosexuals could, if they so choose, marry if gay marriage was legal. What’s your point? This is merely an underhanded insult to remove any value from what they have to say.

So, when science finally proves homosexuality is not a choice, you’ll be all for gays getting married, right? Somehow, I sincerely doubt it. As a heterosexual male(I presume you are) and society were flipped 90% gay, I suppose you could choose to have sex with another man and live with him for the rest of your life… but why would you? You’d be unhappy, and probably disgusted everytime you had sex, but would do so simply because you were told it was “the natural thing.” If you could choose to be gay, why would you? Society would reject and never accept you, you’d face daily harassment, have higher likelyhood of commiting suicide under pressure, likely have your entire family turn against you, constantly have “the bible” shoved down your throat, be told for the rest of your life that you’re an abomination, experience physical violence probably several times during your life, which might very well be the end of your life, and a whole host of other problems. When are people going to wake up and realize no one chooses such a life? Why is is so hard to accept that it’s something you cannot change? What is a choice is to be public, or open about it. It is a choice to persue same sex relationships, as much as it is a choice to persue heterosexual relationships. I’m not sure why there are gay people in the world, but they have always existed, and will continue to exist. Why can’t all people be treated as equal people?

How about just bigot, instead? Oh, and it works for a lot more than just hatred of homosexuals. And, it’s already in the dictionary!

558

LOL “rising_hope” and with two entire posts to your credit…wow. (eye roll)

Okay is this 100meters? Um…which social liberal decided to switch names?

It can’t be someone brand new entering this debate and picking a post of mine from about 5 weeks ago to critique. Not buying it…

If it is I have one message for you my friend: Keep drinking the politically correct kookaide!

And whatever you do never ever have an original thought in your life! Just keep spewing the social liberal philosophy…(another eye roll)

Basically your arguments are weak and have been refuted over and over again. However, if you keep trying and improve I will step up to the plate and give it a shot.

Take care,

Zeb

559

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t know if gay sex is wrong or not, but the fact that “good” people have gay sex does not prove that gay sex is “good”.
[/quote]

I thought all sex was good, provided everybody enjoyed it? (is this T-Nation, or did I tune into one of these ‘family values’ sites by mistake?)

Of course nobody enjoys catching a case of HIV. But straight folks have to watch that caveat too.

560

You know what this all argument from tne anti-gay component proves?

It’s okay for two women to have sex with each other, as long as it isn’t anal sex…

So, unfair as it is, only male homosexuals are sinners. Female homosexuals, lesbians, are of course just fine.

Now, lets get down to taping and distributing this god blessed activity immediately!

This has been a public service announcement from the “Lesbian Sex is Blessed” foundation.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some lesbians to pervert, I mean convert, adios.