Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Rei writes:

quote:

---

What, is this particular issue bothering to you because it's from the government?

---

Um, thetruth.com is a government site? Hmmm...from what I can find, it's funded by the American Legacy Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, through money acquired in the settlement agreement.Is this enough to claim that it is a "government" group?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rei writes:

quote:

---

Also, I would be interested in some more things being explained.

​

1) The major statistical difference in finger lengths in the gay community, especially in lesbians. I can also get into other biological differences if you'd like - there are a good number of them (ranging from the extremely high ratio of left-handedness to the sizes of components of the brain)
2) The presence of intersex babies. If there are intersex bodies, why not intersex minds?

---

Um, this is just a speculation, but it would seem that the latter is not connected to the former, necessarily.That is, males are more likely to be left-handed than females. If gay men are more likely to be left-handed, then it would appear that gay men are more masculine, not less.We still don't have a good handle on the etiology of sexual orientation. There does appear to be a biological component, but what that means is still very much up in the air.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Joralex writes:

quote:

---

Anyone old enough to remember when AIDS first hit the scene knows that AIDS was directly associated with homosexual male-to-male practice.

---

Only in the West.There's a much bigger world out there beyond Europe and the US.Question: How many cases of HIV infection exist, worldwide?Question: How many cases of HIV infection exist in the US and Europe?Question: What is the percentage of HIV infection in the US and Europe compared to the world?Question: Where did HIV first appear in the world that we can tell?You will notice that this indicates that HIV is and always has been a disease primarily transmitted by heterosexual sex. It is only in the US and Europe that it managed to show up first in men who have sex with men. As time has passed, we find that it is becoming like the rest of the world: A disease primarily transmitted by heterosexual sex.

quote:

---

You shouldn't try to alter/cover up history so as to justify what is unacceptable to God.

---

I thought bearing false witness was one of the things that god commanded against. You would do well to take your own words to heart. You are altering and covering up history so as to justify what is unacceptable to god.Or is lying for Jesus not a sin?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

And unfortunately patient 0 for America was a swinging (I think Canadian) airline steward who traveled all over, spreading the virus specifically to other swinging gays.

---

Just to be picky:We have no idea who "Patient Zero" was for bringing HIV into the US. Yes, early in the investigation of AIDS in the US, a population study was conducted that resulted in Gaetan Dugas being the infection vector for that population study...the "patient zero." However, he was not the vector for the entire epidemic in the US. There were a few hundred cases that were known at the time and only 40 were traceable back to Dugas.And while I'm reluctant to even recognize Joralex's comments, I should point out that gay men have a lower incidence of molestation of children than heterosexuals.In fact, given the fact that most molestations of children occur at the hands of relatives and friends, your child is safer in a group of gay male strangers than with your brother-in-law.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

The natural use of reproductive organs are to reproduce.

---

So why do males also use their reproductive organs for waste elimination? In case you hadn't noticed, the urethra in males empties into the penis.

quote:

---

It has the teleological edge of meaning what purpose does it serve in natural life.

---

The problem is that it ignores the obivious actual use.

quote:

---

Ultimately its purpose is for reproduction.

---

Except in males where if we look at its most common function, it is waste elimination. It would seem that using it for reproduction is the unnatural use.

quote:

---

In humans that is male-female sex to make babies.

---

So why do men urinate through their penises? Why is it that the most common use of the penis is to urinate?

quote:

---

Thus the natural use of sex and their organs, in humans, is reproductive male-female sex.

---

That's one use. There are more.Are your hands only for eating? Or do their "natural use" include other possibilities?Basically, you're arguing the claim of "it's an exit, not an entrance." Strange how many times we seem to put things in the anus such as medical suppositories. Does this make medicine "unnatural"?The natural use of sex organs, in humans, is sex.Why must it necessarily be reproduction? Humans have sex all the time without any intent to reproduce. In fact, most sexual activity is done in the hopes that reproduction won't take place. And if we believe the studies, the most common form of sex cannot lead to reproduction.How strange that people don't blink an eye over the concept that males use a waste elimination organ for sexual pleasure in one case but have a conniption fit over the use of another waste elimination organ for sexual pleasure.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why do males also use their reproductive organs for waste elimination?

---

​

Burning more strawmen?

---

Not at all. You said that reproductive organs are for reproduction. To quote you directly: But in human males, they are primarily used for waste elimination. It would seem that the natural use of the reproductive organ for human males is urination. Reproduction is a secondary effect.You will note that the female urethra, while close to the vagina, is not routed through it.There's an old joke that god surely was a civil engineer as who else would put a sewer line through a recreational area.

quote:

---

When the penis is properly functioning in its reproductive capacity urine is not expelled, nor capable of being expelled without quite a bit of exertion.

​

When the penis is properly functioning in its waste removal capacity sperm is never ejaculated.

---

What does this have to do with anything?Are you agreeing that the penis has two uses? One of which has absolutely nothing to do with sex?The question of whether or not sperm of urine comes out of the penis has a lot to do with timing. Urinate right after having sex, and there will be sperm in the urine. Have sex right after urinating, and there will be urine in the ejaculate.

quote:

---

Coming from an evolutionary standpoint, that is the only reason they are there.

---

Non sequitur. This sentence no verb.From an evolutionary standpoint, there is no such thing as a "reason." Biology doesn't care what anything gets used for.Sex feels good. And one way sexual pleasure can be derived in the human male is prostate stimulation. And one of the best ways to stimulate the prostate is rectally. So where is the evolutionary "no-no" that means you're not supposed to do that? What on earth does biology care?

quote:

---

Of course that isn't the only way you can use them, and pleasure is a pretty dandy way to use them as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention the only reason people choose to use them is the pleasure involved. But that does not diminish the end all reason they are there (on a sexually reproducing organism).

---

Most animals when they have sex, including humans, are not thinking about reproduction. Instead, they are thinking about pleasure. It's just that biology has managed to make one of the most pleasurable things an organism's body can do make it likely for reproduction to take place.Most sex does not result in reproduction. In fact, in humans, most sex has no hope of reproduction since oral sex isn't very good at that.The end all reason the sex organs exist is to have sex. It just so happens that one of the ways to have sex results in reproduction.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange how many times we seem to put things in the anus such as medical suppositories. Does this make medicine "unnatural"?

---

​

That's a good question but has no bearing on the argument at hand.

---

It has everything to do with the argument as hand. The question is: What are body parts "supposed" to be used for.If the urethra can be used for sex, why can't the anus? If we have no qualms with the rectum being used for medical activities, what is the big deal with using it for sexual activities?

quote:

---

So if one decides to narrow the definition of Natural use to "ultimate biological reason for its existence in that organism", rather than "how an organism can use them (or generally do)" there's nothing wrong with that logically.

---

No, it is quite illogical. It presumes that there is one and only one reason. That's what "ultimate" means. Therefore, the penis is either for urine or for sperm, not both. One of those uses is an aberration.If we allow that there can be two "reasons for its existence," then we have no justification to deny any body part being used for anything.

quote:

---

Such a narrow definition would make suppositories "unnatural".

---

Bingo.So if suppositories are nothing to be concerned over, what's the big deal over anal sex?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why must it necessarily be reproduction? Humans have sex all the time without any intent to reproduce. In fact, most sexual activity is done in the hopes that reproduction won't take place. And if we believe the studies, the most common form of sex cannot lead to reproduction.

---

​

You realize that this doesn't mean anything? People kill people all the time but that doesn't make killing right to those whose moral formulas proscibe killing.

---

Um, you just stumbled upon the meaning:There is a difference between biology and morality.If somebody finds anal sex immoral, la dee da. He can justify it any way he wants except to say that it is "biologically unnatural." There is no such thing as "biologically unnatural."

quote:

---

All you just said (to someone who has the narrow definition of natural use), that most people don't use sex for its intended purpose and hope that it doesn't.

---

Yes...but you're not following it through to the end. If that isn't "unnatural," then what makes any other sex act "unnatural"? What is so special about one form of non-reproductive sex that makes it OK while other forms of non-reproductive sex are anathema?

quote:

---

Isn't that the very description Romans uses for the people God walked away from? God says people can do it, he just says it is against the natural purpose (by his definition).

---

But you made the argument from biology, not morality.If you want to make a moral argument, go right ahead, but where in biology do we find "unnatural"? There are a lot of people who say that the anus was not "designed" for sex. If that were truly the case, then you couldn't have sex with it. Amazing how so many people, gay and straight alike, who manage to have anal sex without any trouble at all. If the anus were not "designed" to accept a penis, then you wouldn't be able to get a penis in there.

quote:

---

I don't get what is happening here. Why does everyone feel the need to attack a definition, rather than just excepting the definition (for purposes of argument) and rejecting the moral formula which uses it?

---

Because you switched arguments in the middle of your claim. Biology is not the same as morality. If sex organs are only supposed to be used for sex, then a penis is "unnatural" because it is used for both sex and waste elimination.There is no such thing as "biologically unnatural." Biology is part of nature and if it were "unnatural," then you wouldn't be able to do it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Speel-yi writes:

quote:

---

It also might explain why homosexuals are less likely to molest children than heterosexuals, they are wired to help rear children with the sex drive being switched off.

---

That isn't borne out. The sex drive in homosexuals is just as strong as it is in heterosexuals. Of course, if you believe in some people's comments, gay men want to do nothing but have sex...and that's why you can't leave children alone with them...they are so oversexed they'll screw anything available.Studies of pedophiles find that they are attracted to the androgynous appearance of the child. That's why male pedophiles who molest boys are usually not gay: The boy is not seen as "male" because he is not sexually mature. A six-year-old boy looks very much like a six-year-old girl.Are there biological reasons for why gays are less likely to molest children? I don't know. I'm sure there are cultural reasons: For example, gay people are less likely to have children and molestation of children usually takes place at the hands of relatives. There is less access to children for gays (for lots of reasons) and thus, less opportunity.One study of pedophiles found that while girls are more likely to be victims of all forms of sexual molestation by strangers, boys are more likely to be victims of sexual molestation that involves some sort of touching. Our cultural attitude has a lot to do with this: People are much more likely to let their sons be alone with an adult than their daughters. We worry more about our daughters being molested than we do our boys. Thus, boys are more accessible.On the other hand, gay people are fighting so hard against the stereotype that they are child molesters, many do everything they can to make sure there isn't even the slightest hint of impropriety.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I am severely disappointed rrhain.

---

And I am severely disappointed in you, too.This makes two separate threads where you have cut around the essential issue at hand, run away from direct questions, and essentially avoid any attempt to engage you to carry your claims out to their logical conclusion.This is all very simple and should not be hard to understand. It is not about you being free from examination and criticism. I understand your definition perfectly and am merely showing where it leads.In both threads, the question comes down to consistency and in both cases, you are arguing that inconsistency can somehow be accepted.

quote:

---

To the Xtian God, the "natural use" for sex is reproduction.

---

Then we should describe all other uses as "unnatural," yes? It's a matter of consistency. You're very close, holmes. Can you think of any religious strictures regarding sexual behaviour such that when sex is carried out, it can only be done in a way that actively encourages reproduction?

quote:

---

The PENIS is a dual function "limb".

---

Why? Why is the penis "dual function" but not other parts of the body like, say, the anus?

quote:

---

this does not in any way mean the waste removal and reproductive systems are one and the same.

---

I never said they were. What I said was that the penis used for both. And if there is no problem with using an organ that is involved in waste removal for something else, like sex, then there should be no problem with other organs being used for multiple purposes.It's a question of consistency.

quote:

---

According to your argument then, the lungs are part of the digestive tract since the stomach and lungs share a mouth and trachea. This is simply ridiculous.

---

Indeed, it is ridiculous...which is why it isn't my argument.According to my argument, then, the mouth is used for both respiration and mastication. You've got the arrow going the wrong way.

quote:

---

The reproductive system has no waste removal organs (such as the bladder).

---

What do you think the urethra is?

quote:

---

Yes, pleasure is why people have sex. But the importance of reproduction to the life cycle is why pleasure is there.

---

Yes, but very few people are thinking about reproduction when they have sex. Compare this to other urges where the direct point is more closely related.

quote:

---

But this is not about impressing our own definition but understanding what the Bible's is.

---

But if that definition is inconsistent, what good is it?

quote:

---

We can't argue with a Book to say ours is better terminology,

---

We most certainly can. If the definition is of no use, if it cannot be carried out in any logical fashion, then it is worthless and is to be discarded for a better one.

quote:

---

It was also disengenuous to say that God's definition using biology as its basis

---

But that was your argument.

quote:

---

God has clearly defined "natural use" not based on what is possible, but what is primarily intended.

---

But that definition is inconsistent and therefore worthless.

quote:

---

When a penis is up its primary function (using the narrow definition) is reproduction

---

That isn't true. Only rarely when the penis is erect is it being used for reproduction or even possibly being considered for reproduction. Between the erections that happen when you sleep, the erections from sitting in the right way, etc., an erection is primarily a reflex action. One of the triggers is sexual, yes, but it is not the typical cause.

quote:

---

Pretending the definition doesn't exist

---

I don't.I do what you claim I cannot do:Judge it as worthless.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Speel-yi responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

For example, gay people are less likely to have children

---

​

There are lots of homosexuals that get married and have children

---

Yes, but how many of them are there compared to all the others? That was the point of my statement. I didn't say gay people don't have children. I said they are less likely to have children.You will notice that I did not mention anything about how they go about having children. I simply stated that they are less likely to have them.

quote:

---

Then you have unmarried homosexuals that are in positions that require care of children.

---

Compare this to the straights who are in such positions. One of the big motivations for entering these professions is having children of your own. Your Boy Scout example is right in line: A big reason women become Den Mothers and men become Scout Masters is because their son is in Scouting and the parents get involved.Gay people, being less likely to have children, are less likely to wind up in those positions. It isn't that there aren't any (gay people who were Scouts as children and still find the organization fun, for example), but you've reduced a major source of interest: Having your own children.

quote:

---

I'm wondering what a gay person looks like anyway. Do you have any idea?

---

They're the ones having sex with people of the same sex.But think about it: Why would an unmarried man want to be around a bunch of kids? That was one of the big claims made against Michael Jackson. He simply had to be a molester because why on earth would a 40-year-old, unmarried man surround himself with children?

quote:

---

he don't look like a homo either.

---

Excuse me?"A homo"?Yeah, he didn't look like a nigger/kike/spic/wop/hooknose/wetback/beaner/faggot, either.

quote:

---

Maybe I'm handicapped in that way, is there some special sense that people have in detecting homosexuals?

---

It's called "gaydar."But one of the things that makes people suspect others of being gay is never having been married, never being seen going out on a date with somebody of the opposite sex, and being a man who is interested in children.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then we should describe all other uses as "unnatural," yes? It's a matter of consistency

---

​

Yes, and so? What is your point?

---

That if we find that we don't describe those other uses as "unnatural," then our argument is inconsistent.Since inconsistent arguments are useless, we necessarily discard them. If someone says that homosexual sex is "unnatural" and gives a reason for that "unnaturalness" that does not get applied in other, identical cases, then the claim of "unnatural" is inconsistent and therefore useless and is to be discarded.

quote:

---

Nothing can reverse the fact that God is using a different definition of "natural" than you or I use.

---

But that definition needs to be consistent.If it isn't, then it is useless.

quote:

---

But the one thing that cannot be done is to reject that a person even holds the position.

---

I don't.What I reject is that they have any logical basis for holding that position. You do understand the difference between having an opinion and having a justified opinion, yes?

quote:

---

And just because anal pleasure can be had, does not make it a part of the reproductive SYSTEM.

---

Nobody said it did.Instead, I pointed out to you that sex is not the same as reproduction. In fact, most sex is incapable of starting reproduction. So if having sex for sex's sake is not "unnatural," then on what basis is some forms of non-procreative sex "unnatural"?Consistency, holmes. We have to maintain consistency.Neither the mouth nor the hands are part of the reproductive system, but most forms of sex use them. Therefore, the idea of using something that isn't part of the reproductive system for sex is not such a bizarre notion and is not considered "unnatural."Thus, we are left wondering why one form of non-procreative sex is "unnatural" while others are not.Consistency. We have to maintain consistency.

quote:

---

one can just as easily say that God is talking about the testes. You will not engage the testes and vas deferens for anything except reproductive purposes.

---

So having a nocturnal emission is a sin? God's commandment for males is to have vaginal intercourse every day in order to make sure that no sperm goes wasted?Consistency, holmes. We have to maintain consistency.And as to the rest of your post's whining, well, I'll just let it go...Well, maybe I'll say one thing:How interesting that you feel no qualms about providing critique about my posting style but suddenly get quite defensive when the tables are turned.Oh, but that goes back to the base problem you have:Consistency.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

BarlowGirl writes:

quote:

---

If man and man, or woman and woman were meant to be together, why have two seperate genders?

---

Why not?You seem to be saying that sex is only for reproduction. Considering that the vast majority of all sex acts taken by humans have no hope of ever resulting in conception, this obviously can't be the reason.

quote:

---

Human bodies weren't made for the same gender to be together

---

Says who? You?Gay people don't seem to have any trouble having sex, so your claim is obviously incorrect.

quote:

---

but I'm sure most Christians would agree that man & man, or woman & woman isn't a good combination.

---

But the question is why do they think that.Do they think that because the Bible actually says that or do they think that because they were told that the Bible says that even though it doesn't?

quote:

---

So has it been decided yet why people feel more attracted to the other sex?

---

Does it matter?

quote:

---

Is it something in the head, or a personal choice??

---

All the evidence seems to indicate that it is not a choice but again, does it matter?

quote:

---

I'm not entirely against it; I just strong discourage it.

---

Why do you even care? Do you obsess this much over what people eat? Whether or not they sleep on their sides or back or stomach? If they prefer wallpaper or paint?There is a difference between "I don't like this" and "You shouldn't like this, either."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

Lev 20vs13
And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.

---

No, it doesn't say that. "Abomination" is a mistranslation of "to'evah."

quote:

---

Ofcourse, no scholars to date have been able to decipher this mystic message. Freaky.

---

Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

So many types of homosexuality.

---

Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite.The Ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality.

quote:

---

OR does he make it blatantly obvious what the deed is ?

---

No, he doesn't. How could he when the Ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality and no words to describe it?And in the end, falling in love with someone of the same sex couldn't possibly be a horrible thing because David fell in love with Johnathan.

quote:

---

Hmm sexual immorality... We saw a couple of those in Lev didn't we ?

---

Yes, but nothing about homosexuality. There isn't anything in the Bible that resembles anything that we would call "homosexuality."As the joke goes...there are over 300 admonitions about heterosexual sex and only half a dozen admonitions about homosexual sex. That doesn't mean god loves straights less than gays...just that they need more supervision.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it doesn't say that. "Abomination" is a mistranslation of "to'evah."

---

​

Love the way, you can cling onto 'not an abomination' and ignore the rest

---

Who's ignoring the rest? I never denied the punishment. What I denied is that the passage applies to all acts of same-sex sexual activity. There are lots of admonitions against opposite-sex sexual activity in Leviticus and surely you are not going to claim that this means that all opposite-sex sexual activity are to be punished, are you?

quote:

---

Abomination is not 'really' THAT bad

---

Incorrect. Please learn to read for content.What you are misunderstanding is that your definition of "abomination" is not the same thing as the Jewish definition of "to'evah." It is a reference to ritualistic practices and must be understood in that sense. The passage is in reference to a ritualistic sex practice, not to the mere concept of sex between people of the same sex.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.

​

That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.

---

​

Orthodox Judaism

---

(*sigh*)I knew you were going to bring this up. That's why the first time you asked me this question, I answered as I did. From People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage), Message 138: So yes, Zealot, I am quite aware that Orthodox Judaism thinks that homosexuality is a sin. But Reformed and Conservative Judaism, which make up a much larger population, don't share their opinion about it.And I notice you have taken an extremely abbreviated view of each major sect (though why you included Reconstructionist and not Humanistic escapes me). That is, yes, Conservative Judaism is not nearly as accepting of homosexuality as Reformed. However, your brief description makes it look as if they're a bit antagonistic and that is not the case. It is a breaking of mitzvot, but mostly along the lines of breaking any of the other mitzvot.

quote:

---

I'm not sure all Jews appreciate you speaking on their behalf Rrhain.

---

I never said I was.But by the by...what makes you think I'm not Jewish?

quote:

---

PS: Which do you belong to ?

---

What makes you think I am Jewish?Hint: Does it matter?

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

Seeing as the text is pretty specific for which heterosexual activities were abominations, there is no need for punishment for those that aren't sins.

---

Same thing for homosexual activities.There is no mention of intimate relationships between people of the same sex...only mention of ritual sex.

quote:

---

I am using the Jewish version "to'evah".

---

No, you're not.It really is as simple as that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I knew you were going to bring this up. That's why the first time you asked me this question, I answered as I did. From People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage), Message 138:

---

​

Yet in this thread you seem to have little difficulty stating as a matter of fact:

​

"Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.
That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin."

---

That's because I had expected you to be able to read for content, Zealot, and would know that since I made a point of referring to sects of Judaism, pointing out that the most common sects don't have a problem, that later references would be in that same context.Amazing thing about relgion is that there is always somebody who disagrees. While the official position of Reformed Judaism may be one thing, I'm sure there is at least one person who identifies as a Reformed Jew who disagrees. So when we talk about "Reformed Judaism," does it make sense to note those people? And if one acknowledges their existence, must one always do so when talking about "Reformed Judaism"? One cannot say, "Reformed Judaism," but rather, "the official position of Reformed Judaism which individual members may not agree with"?Grow up, Zealot.

quote:

---

So Conservative and Orthodox indeed do seem to have a problem with homosexuality.

---

No.Orthodox, definitely.Conservative only sorta. F'rinstance, the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality.

quote:

---

Unusual considering "there is nothing in the Old Testament even remotely resembling homosexuality."

---

Yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But by the by...what makes you think I'm not Jewish?

---

​

Shall we try actually stating what we are then ?

---

Nope.You tell me why it matters and then I'll tell you what I am. Until then, you'll just have to live with disappointment.

quote:

---

You seem pretty obtuse regarding your background.

---

For very specific reasons. I have found that when people categorize others, they no longer listen to the argument but rather react to the category: "Of course you would say that. You're thus-and-so." "How can you say that? You're such-and-such!" We can see this on almost any subject. So in order to keep discussion on topic, I refuse to reveal those aspects of myself. It can be frustrating, I know. So much of what passes for argument is really just stabs at a person's perceived characteristic rather than the actual argument being made.Of course, it means that people put me in the "obnoxious jerk" category, but I don't really care about that. It usually means they don't respond at all and I can ignore them.

quote:

---

When I asked you about your Hebrew, you answered with an indirect question regarding whether it was possible that you had gone to Rabbinic school. Was that an attempt to make yourself sound more knowlegeable about Judaism ?

---

It was an attempt to make you rethink why you asked the question. More specifically:Does it matter?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!