The bible and homosexuality

No, he did.

quote:

---

1 Samuel 18:3 - Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.

---

And moreover, the fact that there's one famous hetero couple in the Bible can hardly mean that everybody is supposed to play that way, especially when you factor in the well-supported hereditary basis for homosexuality. That's like saying "one guy in the Bible really liked vanilla ice cream, so now nobody can ever eat pistachio."The only prohibitions against homosexuality are all references to the practice of religious prostitution. Well, I don't see too much of that going on these days.

Oh, for God's sake. There's no such thing as gerbiling.How on Earth do you expect to carry on a rational argument about homosexuality when the only thing you know about homosexuals comes from horsing around in the locker room?

Yeah, but he also disapproves of wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. You might want to check your tags.It's funny that you say God disapproves of gay people when God's the one making them gay.

They can, though. Plenty of them have. All they have to do is have sex with someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people.Did you think being gay makes you infertile, or something?

It means that gay people aren't infertile. If you take a gay man's sperm and a lesbian's egg, you'll wind up with a viable embryo.This is contrary to your allegation that gay people are infertile. Obviously, they are not. Who mentioned polygamy? The only way homosexuals can reproduce is the only way heterosexuals can reproduce - having sex with someone of the opposite sex. Why do you think it would be different for gay people?That's like saying that, since I like vanilla ice cream, and you like chocolate, spoons don't work the same way for both of us. It's just stupid. Gay people are just as fertile as straight people, and moreover, they're fertile in the exact same way - they can only conceive through the union of sperm and egg.

No, there's a very simple solution in sight - let gay people have the same rights as straight people, and stop tying them up to fences and beating them to death.It's pretty frickin' simple. We don't want to turn all Christians into gay people. We just want you guys to leave gay people the hell alone.

Did I stutter?Look, all our side wants is for Christians to stop nosing into behaviors that have no discernable effect on anybody and to stop standing in the way of affording all couples the same rights that are currently afforded only to some.It's not rocket science, PG. It's compromise. You think gay sex is wrong? Fine, don't have it. You'll notice that none of us are asking you to have sex with another man. But plenty of other people have a differing opinion about how suitable homosexuality is for themselves, and all we want people like you to do is stop standing in the way of their right to excerise their sexuality in any way that pleases and is sufficiently safe for the participants involved.It's not clear to me what part of that you don't understand.

If one of them was your wife, would it still be wrong?Surely there must be some context where those feelings could be an appropriate expression of love, or you wouldn't have them, right?Well, so why is it that there's an appropriate expression of your feelings for women, but another man can't ever have an appropriate expression of his exact same feelings for another man, under any circumstances?None of us are asking folks to validate every single homsexual relationship. We just want it to be possible that a homosexual relationship could be considered valid, given that it's based on the same feelings and biology that lead to valid heterosexual relationships.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-10-2004 10:52 PM

You don't have to live it, that's fine.But what about everybody who doesn't believe in your God? Why are they supposed to play by your religion's rules?After all, nobody expects you to stop eating hamburgers just because the Hindus believe its wrong.

No, we actually have constitutional principles that protect the minority against a tyrannical majority. That's how we got rid of slavery; that's how we allowed for interracial marriage when most people were against it.Morever, homosexuals as a group tend to be bright, professional individuals. Doctors, engineers, thinkers of every stripe. You really want our brightest minds running off to Canada? Do you think that's going to be good for our country? You don't think you have a right in this country to practice your religion and customs as you see fit, in the country of your birth, assuming that you intend or cause harm to nobody?How can you even think that's American?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-11-2004 10:57 PM

See if you can spot the circular argument:1) Homosexuality is a sinful relationship because it happens outside of marriage.2) Homosexuals can't be allowed to marry because their relationships are sinful.PG and HD, does this more or less summarize your position?

Ok, well, here's something from the apparently anti-homosexual National Liberty Journal:

quote:

---

To the contrary, the homosexual community maintains an economic advantage over the heterosexual community. In 1991, the Wall Street Journal published information from the Simmons Market Research Bureau and the United States Census data based on figures from 1988. The survey showed that the average annual income for homosexuals was over $55,430 compared to the national average of $32,144. Simmons Market Research Bureau's first survey was released in 1989. Their second survey, which was released in 1996, produced similar findings. The 1996 study found that 28% of gays earned more than $50,000, while 21% of gay households had incomes over $100,000. A gay research group known as Overlooked Opinions reported similar findings following a survey released in 1993. One internet census reported that 22% of gays and 20% of lesbians had an income of between $70,000 and $100,000, while 29% of gays and 16% of lesbians had incomes in excess of $100,000. This survey was based upon 2001 statistics of 6,351 individuals who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or transgender.

---

(from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.lc.org/radiotv/nlj/nlj1002.htmalthough I guess there's some controversy about the "Overlooked Opinions" information.Then again, here's an interesting article that purports to debunk the "myth" that gay people are more affluent: Page not found – NOGLSTP is Out to InnovateI'm very glad you asked. The subject is considerably less clear than I had thought. It appears there's every possibility you're correct - presumptions of gay affluence may very well be conservative propaganda.AbE: On the other hand, though, do you think it's more or less likely that, out of the homosexuals that do decide to leave the country, it'll tend to be homosexuals with the affluence to afford that sort of flexibility? And that therefore a homosexual exodus would tend to constitute a "brain drain" situation?I just bring it up because I know that, around the Minneapolis area, one of the complaints of a lot of businesses is that Minnesota's DOMA acts and other legislation make it hard to attract professionals, especially homosexual ones.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-13-2004 04:10 AM

No, there's actually not.Oh, there's plenty of people who were convinced that all their problems would go away if they just bit the bullet and had sex with folks they weren't remotely attracted to, but as it turns out, not a one of them stopped being homosexual - i.e. stopped being sexually attracted to folks of the same sex.And why would they? Why would we expect sexual orientation to be so fluid in most cases that you could just flip-flop? HD, tell us - what would it take to flip your sexual orientation? What would it take to get you to stop being attracted to women and start enjoying sex with men?

You might want to be careful not to speak for folks that actually have vaginas. Not that I can either, but it's been my experience that the vagina is more often used for the expulsion of the endometrial lining and blood, as well as a constant trickle of mucus, than it is for the introduction of sperm.I guess I'd consider it pretty insulting if I had a vagina and someone tried to tell me that its primary function was the admission of semen. Presumably, the function where the anus admits the penis for the purpose of sexual stimulation.

Says who? You?Well, that's fine, but then you need to realize that "admitting the penis for the purpose of depositing sperm" is not something that all women consider to be a function of their vaginas. We call those women "lesbians," and so, by the same logic you used above, you need to rescind your statement than sperm collection is a function of the vagina. Hoo-boy, that's a regular fuckin' raging epidemic you've uncovered, Custard.