The bible and homosexuality

Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

...the rectal lining is a bit more delicate than the vaginal lining, but not by that much.

---

And even that depends on how conditioned (for lack of a better word) the vaginal lining is in relation to the anal lining to which it is being compared. I read about this many years ago - I think C. Everett Koop was surgeon general at the time - and if I remember correctly a virginal vagina might carry a higher risk of HIV reception than would a non-virginal anus. Other factors, like penis size, vagina size and anus size also matter when it comes to this risk. Therefore the claim that vaginal sex is safer would only be true in terms of averages.I could be wrong about this since it's been so long, but it does make sense when you consider that HIV virus almost requires direct access to the bloodstream in order to infect.

But what does any of that have to do with the Bible and Homosexuality?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Good point, but it's a fact that every topic with 'homosexuality' in the title is going to wander a bit. Every single one I've seen so far has, so I've come to expect it.

jar writes:

quote:

---

But what does any of that have to do with the Bible and Homosexuality?

---

Because the claim is that god prohibited same-sex sex because it was unhealthy and as proof of that, just look at HIV, intimating that it is a gay disease and that vaginal sex is barely a risk whereas anal sex is almost a guarantee of transmission.But looking at HIV, we find that it's actually heterosexual sex that is the primary culprit. Too, while anal sex does seem to be a better vector than vaginal sex, that is only a relative statement, not an absolute one. Vaginal sex is a pretty good vector for transmission, too, as seen by the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who contracted HIV got it from heterosexual sex as well as the fact that most people who contracted HIV are women.Therefore, if god is going to be condemning certain sexual practices as sin due to their being "unhealthy," then penis-vagina sex has to go.Remember what PecosGeorge wrote in Message 28: As I said in my reply: Quit beating around the bush. He's talking about HIV and AIDS.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I am looking forward to being ignored. Thank you, and I hope you know how to keep a promise.

You don't see it? you don't see it! Is that o.k.? Yes, that is o.k.?

Kofh asks, "Does unregulated, independent personal, and individual sexual freedom have an negative effect on the society as a whole, ultimately tied to if not creditrd with the fall of empire?"Absolutely not. If anything, the opposite could be said to be true. For example, the British Empire. Victorian England was anything but sexually "free"."At its peak, the British Empire was the largest formal empire that the world had ever known." (http://www.britishempire.co.uk/intro/intro.htm)Queen Victoria ruled from 1837-1901."She ruled over 1/4 of the earth's land surface. Built up over centuries the empire was dissolved in decades." (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/haywardlad/)In the early 1800's, protestant sexual mores had spread across Britain creating a society of little, if any, sexual openness.I believe we can put that sexual hypothesis to bed once and for all, Mr. Kofh.

I still can't believe people have nothing to say about this subject except "the bible is against homosexuality... I don't know where it says that but you should do your own research..." For one thing, you don't try to convince the jury members in a court that the defendant is guilty by saying "he's guilty, but I'm not going to tell you why because you should do your own research."Someone pointed out through email that fundamentalists that are against homosexuality often can't back up their claims when confronted with the request "Please site some references from the freaking bible."Really folks, I was absolutely certain before I started this thread that there were at least some of you that know of something from the bible that makes you homophobic or anti-homo, especially after reading this thread.I don't even know why people believe what they believe if they can't even support their belief with the "good book." Goodness sake, don't you people have anything to say except making unsupported claims? In fact, I found something in Romans that implied the sinfulness of homosexuality when I was reading the bible the other day, and I don't read the bible regularly. Surely, some of you anti-homo bible bashers could find tons stuff in the bible that condemns homosexuality.By the way, for Christians that are on good terms with homosexulity, this post doesn't apply to you.

---

The Laminator

​

A "special report" on AIDS in India in the most recent Science says that 85% of AIDS there is transmitted heterosexually, with needles apparently in second place. And it's spreading fast there, too.

LAMThe two passages in the other thread are both from Paul.And in those, Paul is frankly pissed and jumping on his congregations. In both of those cites, there is little about the communities that Paul doesn't castigate. Those were both simple dope-slaps from the teacher and a straighten up and fly right message. To single out any Biblical angst or prohibition about homosexuality from them is a really long stretch.As in the case of Evolution, the Age of the Universe, the Literalness of the Bible, when asked to defend it, none of the fundamentalists ever come through. It simply cannot be done and hence, they cut and run or resort to trying to wear the opposition down by repeating unfound, unsupported statements again and again. Their most original tactic is to say, "Nuh-Uh!"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lam,I haven't read the Bible fully myself, so I can't vouch for it, but I believe the main passages from the Bible used to condemn homosexuality can be found here. I came upon this site while doing a debate paper on the issue of Bush's proposed marriage amendment (which I personally am strongly opposed to). Note that the site also refutes most of the arguments, though a lot of it is based on translation arguments that fundamentalists would probably resist fiercely.If it's correct, the following passages are responsible for the biblical argument:Genesis 18-19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Already pretty much refuted in earlier discussion.Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." This was one of the ones that can be interpreted to be in reference to temple prostitution.Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Happy book, isn't it? Same as above.Deuteronomy 23:17 - "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." This contains the whole qadesh(ah) translation issue that was brought up in the other topic, if I'm not mistaken.Judges 19; I think berberry already laid waste to this argument in another thread, though I might be mixing up names.I Kings 14:24 - "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites." Already corrected in the only translation I had time to find, but I believe it was simply another homosexual/male prostitute mixup.I Kings 15:12 - "He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made." Same as above.Romans 1:26-27 - "(26)Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27)In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." I don't know much about it, I haven't looked into this one that much, but I'd suspect it's taken out of context.I Corinthians 6:9 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders." This one, if I recall, was another iffy translation - it could be interpreted in several ways.I Timothy 1:9-10 - "(9)Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10)For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine..." Still not exactly clear on how this could be used, but closest thing to the *mistranslation* cited on the website that I could find.Jude 1:7 (sorry if I cited that the wrong way; you get the idea) - "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." or in KJV: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Still rather unclear what strange flesh means; anyway, if Sodom and Gomorrah/Gomorrha are refuted, it seems that there's nothing at all in this passage to link it to the issue.***(Note that all passages come from the Bible Search feature at Bible Gateway except Deutoronomy 23:17, which was more correctly translated there. Thought I should use the mistranslation, since it's the one often used in arguments. Also, I Timothy 1:9-10 is under the King James Version rather than the default New International Version)I just want to re-emphasize that I am strongly against denying gays their rights on a religious basis. Whether the Bible condemns it or not, I don't think the Bible should dictate American legislation - but then, that's a discussion for another topic, I'd say. Just thought I'd bring up those passages since you asked.

MorteBefore you turn in that paper, take the time to read Leviticus.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Morte writes:

quote:

---

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." This was one of the ones that can be interpreted to be in reference to temple prostitution.

---

It is helpful also to view this and the other Leviticus quote in light of the totality of Leviticus. Just a few passages earlier it is made quite clear that one is not to view the nakedness of any other member of one's family. Thus, when one's infant granchild comes to visit, one must never bath the child or change its diaper. To do so would be to commit an abomination and we wouldn't want that now would we?

quote:

---

Judges 19; I think berberry already laid waste to this argument in another thread, though I might be mixing up names.

---

It was the Sodom story, not this one. Easy mistake to make, though, since the situation is almost identical. In this case, it is a concubine that is offered up for rape and torture. She dies and her body is cut up by the Lot character (unnamed in this version, I believe) into twelve pieces. A piece of her is sent to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.See how neatly it all fits together and leads to the unmistakable conclusion that homosexuality is immoral?

quote:

---

Romans 1:26-27

---

The reference is clearly to an orgy. It is also quite clear that it involves otherwise straight men and women burning in lust toward one another. This has nothing to do with people who never were straight to begin with, nor does it have anything to do with committed, homosexual relationships.

quote:

---

I Corinthians 6:9

---

As you aver, the translation is highly questionable. The one you give is a newer version compiled by fundies. Fundies are not known for their intellect, therefore it is not surprising that they do an execrable job of translating scripture.That's all I have for now. You've done a fine job with this compilation. I hope we'll be seeing more of you here at evc.

Thanks for the advice. I actually already turned it in quite a while ago without the Bible passages due to the length (there was a limit). I didn't find them as important to the overall issue as other arguments; one of my main assertions was that religion should not be the only basis for legislation anyway, especially that which limits freedom. Therefore, the biblical arguments seemed rather out of place, and I eliminated them before I had a chance to do further research into them. I will look into it for future reference now that you've mentioned it, though.

Here is a link to an online version if that will help

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion