Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

That is not logically valid. Everyone is a human, yet the word "human" means something does it not? We are all mammals, yet the word "mammal" means something does it not? We are all descendants, yet the word "descendant" means something does it not? So now you can speak for God and judge iano? Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm answering your last two replies to me in this post... Well I've already stated something similar. Though a Xian can point out that X is a sin to their God, they cannot say how God feels about any particular sinner. Then again, I don't think it takes much to understand from God's statements in Lev and Deu that he thinks these things are bad. We've been over this before. Yes, we both know and agree that the concept of homosexuality is modern and unknown in those times. There was no word for it. However the act of people having sex with others of the same sex was. It was described. Additional commentary was used to make it refer to ritual aspects. You are missing the point. Iano is not reading anything but an english language version. Most Xians know only that. I agree you have a valid point that the english translation might differ in meaning from the original text. But that does not change the fact that a person born and raised on the english version, and believing in the existence of THAT God, and THAT rulebook, can cite the passages rather clearly. First of all, there are more than ten references to it throughout the Bible. Excluding references to Sodom and the like (which I agree may not be related to sex), there are still more than ten negative references so you must have one very large mutant hand. One quick way to check this is to go to skepticsannotatedbible dot com. They have a breakdown list of references.But more importantly, you only need one to make something clear. Assuming less than 4, if all of these statements by God are negative, or indicate they are negative aspects of human life, there isn't much more you need to show. When do straights get a pass? It was only by great effort within the last century that sex outside of marriage was allowed by law, and if most fundies had their way those laws would return. It was only with great effort within the last 30 years that people could discuss sex legally in an explicit positive way (entertainment), and if fundies have their way that would also be reversed. Prostitution is still illegal in most states, and if fundies had their way would end it completely...You have a very selective program running. They've been digging in their heels on sex for centuries and homosexuality is simply the latest issue where laws are being overturned, thus it is getting the most hype right now. To portray them as focusing on homosexuality alone is like I said, rather selective.But let's turn that around. If people are supposed to be adopting a pro sex attitude, why are we not lifting all sexual condemnations, instead of just focusing on gays? Unlike your false accusation of what Xians are doing, it is true that gay rights orgs (and most lib ones) are only giving a pass to gays, while combating remaining minorities. That's an assertion on your part, as well as BS. Man I cannot believe you are trying to equate that with evolutionary theory. He has an interesting idea, but very scant evidence, and there are plausible alternative explanations for the ceremony described which do not amount to homosexual marriage. You claimed it was done recently, not me. I was disputing that claim as well as pointing out that it wasn't commonly practiced, even according to the author putting his theory forward. An uncommon ceremony would not suggest attitudes were different in the past.And if we want to discuss past attitudes toward gay marriage, not even homosexual positive cultures had marriage ceremonies in the past. That's one of the reasons Boswell's theory doesn't hold a lot of water. They had brotherhood-type ceremonies in the past and that's what it looked like. I'm sorry, but your original statement was that if everyone is a sinner than sinner doesn't mean anything... that it explains nothing. I was correct in pointing out that that statement is wrong.If you meant to make the above claim, that's another bundle of problems altogether. To start with the claim is not everything is X and nothing is Y. The claim is that all humans are X, as none fill the criteria for Y. While you are correct that in a practical sense it means there's nothing anyone can do to avoid being a sinner, that does not end its explanatory value nor what they have to do since they are sinners.All humans are air-breathers as they fulfill the criteria for that category and do not fulfill the criteria for being water-breathers. While they might never be capable of changing that fact, it does have explanatory value, and allows for instruction for what they ought to do around... or when entering... water. Yeah, but it gets into a circular problem for yourself given your line of argument against him. Edited by Silent H, : +prostitution

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

First of all, there are plenty of other groups picked on by Xians for nonsexual issues, so what is your hangup with just sexual proscriptions?Second, you keep re-asserting that straights get a pass, which is simply not true. If one looks at Lev and Deu, one might notice a whole mess of straight sex that gets nixed, before we ever get to homosexuality.This is all very simple. God is looking at individuals, not categories of people. With your genitals you are capable of enjoying yourself in all sorts of ways. Apparently God wants to exclude all sexual acts for all individuals, except the one case where a penis and vagina meet in such a way to facilitate reproduction, and even then only after an arcane ritual has been conducted between the two reproducers.I'm not sure where you are seeing heteros getting a break. There is only one group getting a break... devout, prudish monogamists. And as it is there were even some groups, like the Shakers, who felt even procreative sex was out. Celibacy is the model behavior, if one fails at that, then chastity and prudism. Your claim was that heteros get a pass, and asked why homosexuality was picked on. I began listing sexual issues showing that homosexuality is only the most recent legal issue in repealing sexual laws which is why it gets so much airplay right now. Heteros clearly were reigned in with earlier laws and continue to be with current laws. Save me from your rationalizations. I note you didn't even address the fact that uncommon practices do not indicate public attitudes were different on that subject. But let's cut to the chase. You say Boswell's claims are as solid as evolutionary theory, please present the data, and links to support it.We both know you are making bald assertions on something which is limited in scope at best, and totally inaccurate at worst. He might be lauded for opening debate and interest in a practice unknown to most in the Church. But the debate has not been settled. Here you attempt to attack me personally. I never made such an effort or argument. It is you and Boswell seeking justifications for a modern movement which appear to be seeing what you want wherever you go. I am open to whatever conclusions can be reached on the subject given evidence.All I said is that in the ongoing debate, there are alternatives for the ceremonies discussed. They do mirror other brotherhood-type rights, which is why they might better be explained as being such. I saw no mention of sex within the ceremony, or any attributions to sexual rights in such ceremony. I assume that will be within the evidence you provide next. We are reaching the end on this. Sin is defined, and one can be categorized as sinful. That everyone does end up fulfilling such a category (fitting the definition) does not erase its meaning.You do a silly tap dance away from the "air-breather" example, ignoring the others I gave. Clearly then you are just arguing to argue.Yes, if sin were an indication of "specialness" (which is defined as something different than everyone else), then like in the incredibles movie, if everyone had sin no one would be special. Too bad for you that sin is not defined as being different or distinguished from others. Just as if all people were bi-peds, that would not mean no people were bi-peds.You have made a logical error, and you simply refuse to admit it. It must be clear to anyone reading this, and so I'm not going to deal with that point any more.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm not sure what I said which you took to be ad hominem, however I apologize for writing anything which might have seemed a personal insult. I guess I did not make my question clear enough. You were arguing that Xians are blasting homosexuals as sinful in a way that suggests this was the only sin they were concentrating on. I was pointing out there are other groups slated for reproach and so asking why you have a hangup with homosexuals getting the slam over any other group?Appealing to the topic of this thread does not explain the nature of the argument you were making. And I would add that the question posed in the thread OP does beg the question why should homosexuality be of any greater concern than any other group? I did respond to that assertion on your part. Straights are told they are sinning when they have sex. All sex is sin. There is a mystical right which allows one type of act alone to be given a temporary reprieve for atonement, and that is based on its ability to produce offspring.If a straight couple is unmarried they are in sin. If they engage in any of the sexual acts that gays inherently employ (oral/anal/digital), they are in sin. If they wear protection, they are in sin. If they masturbate while thinking of a member of the opposite sex they are in sin.Ironically gays can and have engaged in the very sanctified act of which I speak in order to have offspring and so did not commit sin at that time. On the other hand, many if not most straights commit as many acts outside the bounds of scripture and so are just as sinful as gays sexually.Perhaps its easiest to put it this way, sex for pleasure is a sin, rather than sex alone being sinful. Of course even sex for reproduction is not inherently free of sin, it needs the mystical right to cleanse the act, and so it is somewhat easier to catch the full breadth of the laws by saying sex is sinful.Once again, I feel the point is rather clear to anyone reading our posts. If all you have to give is yet another repetition on your original assertion and refuse to address what I've said, I will not reply.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

The topic is Xianity v gays. That does not explain statements suggesting that homosexuality is the only remaining thing Xians care about sin wise, and so they give heteros some free pass.The exhortation to "be fruitful and multiply" does not remove the sin of sex by heterosexuals. Again, the best that would theoretically remove condemnation of is vaginal sex, which not all heteros enjoy as their main sexual outlet. However, it doesn't remove the stain from that act either. Any and all vaginal sex must have been consecrated beforehand by a joining of the two people in front of God. Mr. Peeper needs to bless them, before they have vaginal sex, so that they can have children.If you want to discuss conflicting statements within the Bible (i.e. the song of solomon), that is another topic altogether.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

What does polygamy have to do with proscriptions on sexuality? You can consistently allow a person many wives, and yet maintain that sex with any of them is illegitimate (sinful) without being married.I'm not going to get into a debate regarding proscriptions on the mechanics. This will devolve, or collapse, into the same issue which is inconsistency (or differing interpretations) of biblical passages. Neither of our positions are helped by the existence of such passages.As it is I did not raise the issue of inconsistency to support my position. I'm not sure how you can point to your own evidence as proof I raised the issue to support my position.That all sex outside of marriage is proscribed, does mean that heterosexuality is not inherently given a free pass. That many Xians maintain that nonvaginal sex is proscribed, means that for them heterosexuality is not given a free pass inside marriage.As you have repeatedly pointed out over the years, there was no concept of homosexuality at that time. Hence it seems odd to suggest that the Bible gives heteros any free ride. Unless they could conceive of one but not the other? What was proscribed was sex outside of marriage. And as many believe, within marriage, only potentially procreative acts allowed.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You are not understanding what I am saying. Polygamy is a descriptor for how many people one can have sex with, not a word for sex itself. Thus it does not matter how many, if the sex with all of them must be cleansed through ritual. No. I agreed my initial statement was over broad several posts ago. It's amazing that you cannot notice when someone agrees with a criticism and so changes the wording they initially used. Whether you believe this or not, heterosexual does not mean a person enjoys vaginal sex. It means enjoying sex with someone of the opposite gender. There are plenty of heteros that prefer nonvaginal sex. Sometimes it even becomes an issue within a marriage.If you need a reference frame, I am sure you must have met gay and bi men that find anal or oral sex disgusting or undesirable.Thus, with a proscription on nonvaginal sex, heteros are hit as well. The only people getting a pass, are those who enjoy or are practicing vaginal intercourse. Gay men can and have done so in order to have children. So have straight men for the same reason, though they would have preferred something else.That is why many heteros got clapped with all sorts of punishments throughout the ages. If vaginal sex was all it took to be hetero, then they could have easily avoided said punishments. Ok. So what are we discussing, the Bible or Xians. While you might have a valid point about the meaning of the Onan passage, many Xians believe it has a different meaning.On a point of information, wasn't it thought that the brother had the same right to the wife, through the marriage ritual? I thought that was an artifact of those times. It doesn't say that anywhere, remember, it never discusses Xians? I said as many believe. You think I meant as many Bibles believe?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello Rrhain, You are not a collective. And although it is errant to point out poor spelling, I certainly don't hit 100%, it is funny to see you misspell intelligence in that instance.I was being totally honest with my statement on polygamy. I have no idea what that has to do with the topic of heterosexuality, or the sinfulness of the sexual act. You are now beginning your m.o. of quote-mining, and pretense that a person has not only admitted an error, but has admitted to changing a position. Why you engage in this, I have no clue.I did originally state that all sex is sin. I did say, and still maintain, that celibacy is the model behavior, and failing that then chastity and prudism. This is because the highest figures in Xianity are generally celibate, and often required to be such. They are the ideals. For the rest of the people falling beneath priest and sainthood, chastity and prudism is the goal.To your correction, I then stated that I should have said sex for pleasure is a sin. There is a reply to that very comment by another poster. So you can pretend I never said it, but as you point out it is all written here for people to read. What you are doing is rather obvious, even if the reason for doing so is opaque. No, that would be several groups having different interpretations. Pretending to know does not quite capture the reality of this situation. And in any case, it would then be judging the word of god, not judging someone else... which was YOUR original case.I am now stepping off this merry-go-round. You may have the last word if you feel you have something to add.Thank you for your time.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard