The bible and homosexuality

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.

If the next time you answer with the same attitude, I will ignore you completely. First of all, I have already shown you there are other texts in Leviticus that teaches things that are rediculous to our standards today. Don't tell me that you are going around burning people because they've violated these rules.If you are not doing what Leviticus tells you to do, how is that different than picking and choosing what you want to see? Quite frankly, I hate google searches. I've done something else even better. I have taken a class on the subject.And frankly, your teaching style is very questionable. You seem to teach to kids what to think not how. This is the 21st freaking century. We try not to brainwash kids anymore. Either provide references or go away.What success? That you've brainwashed your children? Like I said, back up your claims or go away. Again, back up your claims or go away. Nice try in changing the subject.Why don't you find the part in the bible where god approves of you driving a car? What about the part where god specifically said it's ok to use a freaking computer?Either answer each one of these questions or go away. I save my patience for people that deserve it. You are not one of those people.

---

The Laminator

​

Good to see you back in fighting form as ever, Rrhain. Well, I only said to Loudmouth, "why not become christian". It was hardly a full out - attack of preaching. However, you are right, God doesn't need me to preach, yet if there is a chance you may believe I have to take that chance to preach. You don't really have to be so cynical about me. Well, I am in a position to tell people about the bible and what it says, it is infact and is - how you pointed out, there - and exists of itself without my intervention. But - the bible I read is infact a book - in the natural, not the supernatural. It says that Christ is the truth, I only testify that I also believe that and preaching isn't a crime you know. Anyway, I heeded Loudmouth and backed off. I never preach after people have stated dis-interest.

Unseul responds to me:

quote:

---

Erm, anal intercourse is thought to be more risky as far as transmitting AIDS is concerned.

---

Perhaps. That doesn't respond to the point, though:HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex.Shooting yourself in the head with a dozen bullets may be more dangerous than shooting yourself in the head with only three, but you're still shooting yourself in the head.

quote:

---

Statistics your using for HIV being primarily transmitted by heterosexual intercourse are probably extremely biased.

---

They come from the World Health Organization. You know...the folks that wiped smallpox off the face of the earth.What possible benefit could there be in distorting the data?

quote:

---

Because as far as i am aware homosexuals are still in the minority (by a large degree) so obviously once HIV enters the heterosexual pool then its going to cause more cases, simply through larger number.

---

But you've got the direction backwards. HIV did not spread from the gay population to the straight population. It spread from the straight population to the gay population.You really need to get over this attitude that the US is the center of the universe. There are some 40 million people with HIV/AIDS in the world. Guess how many are in the United States? That's right...only about a million.Now, do you seriously think that the epidemic in the rest of the world is going to be identical to the epidemic in one particular country?Here's a good quote from WHO Report on Global Surveillance of Epidemic-prone Infectious Diseases in 2000. In 2002, 14,439 new cases of HIV were reported in Western Europe:44% of infections occurred through heterosexual contact.
26% were in men who have sex with men.

quote:

---

Of course not just homosexuals engage in anal sex (if they do), however it still stands that the anus, whilst being capable of taking a penis, still does take damage.

---

You are defining "damage" so broadly that by the same token, I shouldn't scratch that itch on the end of my nose since that causes "damage" to my skin.Again, simple observation shows you to be wrong. Millions of people engage in anal sex with no ill effects every single day. If it were "damaging," then we would see problems. Since we don't, it must not be.

quote:

---

One last thing, even tho you appear to be an extremely regular poster,you seem to be not taking much notice of the rules by being slightl insulting to Mike, "Keep my big mouth shut" could easily have been put better.

---

No, it couldn't. As a newbie, you don't know mike very well.And believe me, that's not "being insulting." You'll know when I'm being insulting.

quote:

---

Plus as mike said, as far as hes concerned he might not want to do that, but its what his diety says he should do.

---

That's not what the Bible says. It is very explicit that one should not make a show of one's religion before others like the Pharisees since they only do it to gain the glory of men.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

Enter a gerbil, and the theme takes on the bizarre, perversion at its ultimate.

---

And could you please provide a single instance of "gerbiling" anywhere? Strange how nobody has been able to provide any direct evidence. It's always, "My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate saw the X-ray!"You'd think that finding a gerbil in someone's rectum would be noted somewhere in some medical journal but alas, it seems the doctors, who have no problem reporting other bizarre things removed from people's anal cavities, are just skittish about reporting gerbils.And notice the other evidence that it's an urban myth: The person who did this is usually in California and the animal in question is almost always a gerbil.But there's a problem: You can't get gerbils in California. They're considered an agricultural hazard and are illegal.

quote:

---

When, where, how, by whom, etc., disease is transmitted

---

You're the one who brought it up. If you can't handle the fact that your argument actually shows that heterosexuality is more dangerous than homosexuality (remember...lesbians have the lowest rate of STDs of all sexually active groups), then perhaps you should reconsider your argument.

quote:

---

Therefore, the discussion is mostly about did God mean what he said, does he mean what he says....."perverted sex is unhealthy

---

That may be.Where was it decided that same-sex sex was perverted? After all, it isn't unhealthy. It's healthier than opposite-sex sex. So if perverted sex is unhealthy and homosexual sex is healthier than heterosexual sex, then it follows that if one of these is perverted, it's the straights, not the gays.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

God disapproves of homosexuality. If his warning/advice/command had been heeded........well, do you think there would be HIV today or other STD's promoted through practice of practicing multiple partners....and so on?

---

Obviously it would since HIV is primarily transmitted through heterosexual sex.If god disapproves of homosexuality by visiting disease, why do lesbians have the lowest rates of STDs?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, I only said to Loudmouth, "why not become christian". It was hardly a full out - attack of preaching.

---

Did you make reference to god?Then it's preaching.It really is that simple. If someone wants to know about your opinion, he'll ask you for it.

quote:

---

However, you are right, God doesn't need me to preach, yet if there is a chance you may believe I have to take that chance to preach.

---

You just contradicted yourself.God doesn't need you to preach. In fact, that Bible of yours you claim to follow specifically instructs you not to preach. Do not make a show of your religion among men like the Pharisees for they only do it to win the glory of men.So why are you? It is not up to you. It is not your job. If god wants someone, god will come for him. Since you are not god and are absolutely incapable of speaking for him, where do you get off trying to tell others about what god wants?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Keep my big mouth shut. Have the respect to understand that I am not in any position to tell anybody else about the supernatural

---

​

Well, I am in a position to tell people about the bible and what it says

---

Um, how did we shift from the supernatural to the Bible? Seems that your god isn't actually god but rather a book.If you want to talk about a book, that's fine. To pretend that the book is god is something very different.

quote:

---

It says that Christ is the truth

---

And as you well know, that means nothing since it is illogical to use a circular argument. The Bible is true because it says it is.Fine. I'm god. I'm god because I say I am and I say I am because I am.Now, why is it you seem to believe your book and not me?

quote:

---

I only testify that I also believe that and preaching isn't a crime you know.

---

Never said it was.It is, however, obnoxious and rude and simply unacceptable in polite society.

quote:

---

I never preach after people have stated dis-interest.

---

Hah!Why do you still preach to me? You know I don't want to hear it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

OK, the statistics you've used later on in your quote with percentages of how HIV occured does just go to show my point. It doesnt make any adjustments for numbers, and there are about half as many occurences through homosexual behaviour as heterosexual. Now im willing to bet that there arent one homosexual couple for every two heterosexual couples. Suggesting that it is transmitted more easily, and more often in contention to the population sizes. It is transmitted more through heterosexual sex, as i agreed, but because theres a lot more heterosexuals.OK, my statement did indeed give the impression that i believed that it started in the homosexual population. I know that this isnt true. But it is associated more often with homosexuals, because of its more rapid spread.Right im defining damage as causing cuts, any open wound. Not very large ones, nothing dangerous, that wont heal, they probably arent even noticed, but still an open wound. To get aids you need to have your bloodstream exposed to the virus, the virus however is carried in most the body secretions, but in the highest concentration in the blood. So anything which is a lot more likely to causes an open wound is a lot more risky.OK, the thing thats been annoying me so far is somehow you have become convinced that i believe the USA is the centre of the world. I do not live in the US, i live in England, OK, and England is most definitly the centre of the universe. Also i suspect that 40 million is quite a low figure for the total number. I have been to Africa where its a real problem, seen the effects, its not pleasent. So no, i dont think particularly highly of the US in many ways. No perhaps you can stop using your fixation of the US on me.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

Trying to head back within sight of the topic title, so far the only real contention that the Bible opposes homosexuality are some old testament cites.Just one question for all Christians who may still think that the Bible or Christianity are anti-homosexual, would it change your mind if the Christian Church firmly said it was NOT opposed to Homosexuality?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which one? No, because I have reasons to believe that homophobia and anti-homosexual tendencies come from personal prejudice, sexual insecurity, and ignorance and not necessarily because of what the bible says.Look at slavery. Although many Christian denominations at the time condemned slavery, you still had slavery going on in the backyards of the most Christian fundamentalists at the time. This is where the slogan "work as slaves and you will go to heaven..." comes in.So no, even if the pope proclaims himself to be gay and says that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality (and we all know the pope is infallible ) the majority of catholics out there would still be anti-homosexual.

---

The Laminator

​

Unseul jabbers:

quote:

---

Right im defining damage as causing cuts, any open wound. Not very large ones, nothing dangerous, that wont heal, they probably arent even noticed, but still an open wound.

---

If this sort of thing upsets God then what they hell are sports all about? Most sports carry significant risk of open wounds; cuts and blood are in fact concomitant to most popular sports. Not very large ones, usually nothing dangerous that won't heal, etc.

quote:

---

I have been to Africa where its a real problem, seen the effects, its not pleasent.

---

Then why do you insist that AIDS is related to homosexuality? As Rrhain keeps telling you and you keep ignoring, it is primarily a heterosexual disease. All STDs affect all sexualities; if there is any exception at all to this rule it would be lesbianism. Is lesbianism more pleasing to God than heterosexuality? By your silly standard it would seem so.

What? i never said that cuts etc upset god. Im an athiest! I was just offering Rrhian a definition of damage in the way i was using it in a previous post.Im not saying aids is related to homosexuality, i accepted that a previous statement of mine seemed like i believed that it started in homosexuals, but i realise that it didnt. It is primarily a heterosexual disease yes, im not arguing with this point, but it spreads more easily with anal sex. Now although i am not aware of how many male homosexual couples have anal sex, it is one of the easiest ways for aids to be passed on, in both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Damage can be easily caused, if semen is then introduced to the open wound aids can be passed (obviously assuming that whoever is producing the semen is HIV positive.)I dont believe in god, i have stated this very often, in many of my posts. So i dont believe that any sexuality is more pleasing to god. I dont have a problem with people sexual attitudes, im just stating that anal intercourse is a lot riskier.I get the feeling that some people may have got the impression that i am against homosexuals (so far they have managed to get the impression that im american and that i believe in a god also) Can i just state for the record that i am not homophobic, heterophobic, sexist, racist or almost any other sort of ist or phobic that someone may come up with. I admit that i get annoyed at some people, but thats just an incompatibility of attitudes nothing else.

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

Sorry, I didn't go back and read through the entire thread before responding, which I should have done. I mentioned near the top of this thread that this subject has been beaten to death on this forum. I've tried to stay away from this thread because I don't want to get into another heated exchange like the one about Lot and the city of Sodom. I came in here, read the last dozen or so posts, and off I went. My bad.At any rate, you DID at least seem to aver that AIDS is primarily a gay disease. I think the case has been adequately made that it is not. If all you are now trying to say is that anal sex carries increased risk of AIDS transmission then there's nothing to argue about. Is that indeed all you're trying to say?

Basically yeah. However i admit that i may have gone slightly ott on the homosexual thing to try and make my point to Rrhain who seemed/seems to not see this at all.I can understand why people would try and steer clear of this topic. But i try to think to myself as long as i feel what i am writing is justified (not emotionally, but physically (probably a better word, but im too tired to think of it)) then its safe to tread as such.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

Unseul responds to me:

quote:

---

OK, the statistics you've used later on in your quote with percentages of how HIV occured does just go to show my point.

---

Incorrect. Let's try this again:With three-quarters of HIV transmissions from heterosexual sex and another 20% or so from IV drug use, as well as mother-child transmission, transfusions, etc., we're left with less than 1% of HIV cases from homosexual sex worldwide.So even if we go with the unreasonable claim that only 1-2% of the population is gay (which, for the US, means that every single gay person lives in New York and Los Angeles leaving such gay meccas as San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, Boston etc. completely free) that still means that gay people are not disproportionately represented in HIV transmission.

quote:

---

It doesnt make any adjustments for numbers

---

Incorrect. It does precisely that by making note of how HIV is transmitted. Homosexual sex is such a minor cause of HIV transmission worldwide that the claim that somehow gay people gave it to straights is laughable on the face. HIV is and alwas has been transmitted primarily by heterosexual sex.

quote:

---

and there are about half as many occurences through homosexual behaviour as heterosexual.

---

Incorrect. For every case of HIV from same-sex sex, there are more than 30 cases from opposite-sex sex.

quote:

---

But it is associated more often with homosexuals

---

No, it isn't. You need to stop thinking that the West is equivalent to the world. Yes, HIV has a high occurrence in men who have sex with men in the West (by the way...less than half of new infections are among MSM's in the West these days), but the West is an anomaly in HIV infection compared to the worldwide trend.The original argument was that homosexuality is bad for "health" reasons (which was just a euphemism for HIV). But if that were the case, then HIV should be mostly prevalent in gay people around the world and it isn't. It's mostly prevalent in straight people. And then IV drug users. And then children who got it from their mothers in the womb. By the time you get to gay men, you've got practically none left.

quote:

---

Right im defining damage as causing cuts, any open wound.

---

Then by that definition, vaginal sex is just as damaging as anal sex.Why do you think that more than half of all cases of HIV are in women?

quote:

---

So anything which is a lot more likely to causes an open wound is a lot more risky.

---

Like vaginal sex.Most cases of HIV are in heterosexuals and most cases of HIV are in women.

quote:

---

OK, the thing thats been annoying me so far is somehow you have become convinced that i believe the USA is the centre of the world. I do not live in the US, i live in England, OK, and England is most definitly the centre of the universe.

---

No matter. You have confused your personal experience with a worldwide trend. Yes, HIV first became known in the West among gay men. But it didn't stay that way. In the UK, heterosexual cases became the most common mode of transmission in 1999. Where have you been for the past five years?In fact, in 2002, for the UK, 1,691 cases of HIV were transmitted via men who have sex with men. 3,305 cases were transmitted through heterosexual sex. Nearly twice as many straights as gays.

quote:

---

Also i suspect that 40 million is quite a low figure for the total number.

---

You realize that only reinforces my point. There are only about 2 million cases of HIV total in the US and Europe. Only about half to two-thirds of those cases can be traced to MSMs.With the rest of the world so heavily biased toward heterosexual transmission, having a million out of 40 million means only about 2.5% of all cases of HIV transmission could possibly be traced to gay men. If the actual number of HIV cases is higher, then the percentage from MSMs is even smaller.We're left with the original conclusion: HIV is transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex and there is no "health" issue regarding same-sex sex.And you still haven't responded to my direct question:If the argument against homosexual sex is "health" in general and HIV in particular, then why prevent lesbian sex since they have the lowest rate of STDs among all sexually active groups?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!