Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[1robin]

Not necessarily true. Many homosexuals have stated that they knew they were gay from a very young age. Even as young children, they were attracted to those of the same sex. Most realized that their attractions were not looked upon favorably, so they tried to hide what they knew to be true. It's not that being gay suddenly "showed up" later in their lives. The only thing that changed is that these people felt they no longer needed to hide their true feelings, or that they simply couldn't fake it any more.

Unless they can remember their sexual preferences at birth my point remains intact.

My nephew is gay. We knew that he was gay long before he ever said anything to us. When he finally "came out" and told me that he was gay when he was in his mid-20s, it was pretty much a non-event...I had known it for a very long time.

We are talking about at birth not adolescence

Likewise, I remember as a young girl in the second grade being very attracted to Felix, who was in my class. Our teacher used to have us line up in two lines to go out to recess--boys in one line and girls in the other, and we were supposed to hold hands with the person in the line next to us. Oh, how I hoped that I would end up beside Felix!! I think my nephew would have wanted to be beside Felix as well.

Again we are talking about birth. Actually months prior to birth. I am not arguing against our ability to have a preference as young adults. Actually we are talking about more than just orientation at birth, we were talking about God making someone a certain way. My argument is that even if that was true we couldn't possibly know it. even as Christians we simply can't know that. IOW claims about being born gay have no persuasive power.

What ever happen to Felix?

 

[1robin]

I am on topic.

Your statement was even about homosexuality one way or the other.

It was a correction, as is this. You do not necessarily have to respond, the proper action is to correct one's behavior.

Nuts!!!! Bet you can't tell me where I got that response.

That is as gross of an over simplification as claiming that being black causes AIDS would be. Perhaps you should think deeper about this. Also if AIDS is a problem then you should be pro-gay marriage. I should not have to explain this to you, but one of the reason that gay men have been very promiscuous in the past is because they have had no reason to make life long relationships. Those behaviors are not going to change over night. If there was the same social pressure for gay men to marry and settle down is there is for heterosexual people you will see promiscuity go down over time.

It was specifically meant to be a simplification. They linked new aids cases with homosexuality, case closed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not comparing two texts in a vacuum and selecting the best sounding pone. I am rejecting covenants that no longer apply and accepting the rules and regulation of the covenant that does apply. The reason we say the "OLD" testament is because it isn't current. However if we simply go with whatever gratifies our preferences we have no defense of what we are doing.

When Christians do this by themselves they tend to form highly prejudicial beliefs that are not shared with anyone. In other words it is a case of every other Christian being wrong or you. The odds are hugely against you. And that is after making the huge assumption that Christianity is correct. Perhaps you should look at your views of sex. You almost sound like Paul and there is little doubt that he was severely mentally ill with regards to that topic.

 

[1robin]

If you have no idea what I am talking about then you are in no position to do a cost benefit analysis.

The cost benefit analysis doesn't have anything to do with you, it was my claim and I understood it perfectly. Get back to the topic.

So you are admitting that you are wrong.

I am admitting your statement does not merit a response.

You know it is true. I can quote where you made that admission earlier. Would you like me to do it again? And the reason that I keep responding to you is simple. You have not been able to learn from your errors.

Of the two of us I am the only one qualified to know what I think is true. Your telling tales out of school again. Is there ever going to be more than color commentary from you? The reason I am responding is that I am stuck at work and need to kill some serious time but your barely even qualifying for even that. Keep up the rhetoric and I can't even justify this as has happened several times concerning you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless they can remember their sexual preferences at birth my point remains intact.

This is anon-sequitur. At best you are making an argument from ignorance. There are observable physical differences, on the average, between straight people and homosexual people.

We are talking about at birth not adolescence

Again we are talking about birth. Actually months prior to birth. I am not arguing against our ability to have a preference as young adults. Actually we are talking about more than just orientation at birth, we were talking about God making someone a certain way. My argument is that even if that was true we couldn't possibly know it. even as Christians we simply can't know that. IOW claims about being born gay have no persuasive power.

Why assume that God did it? Why can't man simply have natural variation?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

No, lets go back again.

1. Homosexuality kills people and costs billions and has nothing by which it justifies this cost.

Homosexuality doesn't contribute to over population and exhausting the earth's resources. Many homosexuals adopt the unwanted results of heterosexual procreation, which is a definite benefit. And for whatever reason, many homosexuals are by far the most creative people on the planet, which is also a definite benefit to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

2. Heterosexuality kills people and costs billions but is required to perpetuate the human race and sustain a traditional family unit.

The human race has been very much OVER perpetuated, which results in massive poverty, illness and destruction of earth's resources. Traditional families are almost an anomaly what with rampant divorce and unmarried mothers trying to raise multiple children from multiple fathers with few resources to do so, while heterosexual males "procreate" with abandon...and subsequent abandonment of their mates (not necessarily wives) and children.

One is justifiable where as the other isn't.

Both are justifiable, and looking at all of the problems caused by the rampant proclivity to "procreate" by so many heterosexuals, I would say that homosexuals win the justifiable contest hands down.

 

[1robin]

When Christians do this by themselves they tend to form highly prejudicial beliefs that are not shared with anyone. In other words it is a case of every other Christian being wrong or you. The odds are hugely against you. And that is after making the huge assumption that Christianity is correct. Perhaps you should look at your views of sex. You almost sound like Paul and there is little doubt that he was severely mentally ill with regards to that topic.

So far you have posted 18 responses today and this is the first one on topic. I need to kill time but your wearing me out.

Most humans throughout human history have agreed with me concerning texts so as usual your using flawed conclusions.

 

[1robin]

This is anon-sequitur. At best you are making an argument from ignorance. There are observable physical differences, on the average, between straight people and homosexual people.

I thought you were the grammar police. What is anon-sequitur? This is also technically a genetic fallacy.

Why assume that God did it? Why can't man simply have natural variation?

I didn't, it was sojourner that made that assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The cost benefit analysis doesn't have anything to do with you, it was my claim and I understood it perfectly. Get back to the topic.

Since I am not gay it does not have much to do with me, but it does have a lot to do with people that I know. And you clearly do not understand your claim because you do not understand how to calculate benefits. You can't do a cost benefit analysis without understanding the benefits.

I am admitting your statement does not merit a response.

And yet you contradicted yourself by making one. You in effect said that you were wrong again.

Of the two of us I am the only one qualified to know what I think is true. Your telling tales out of school again. Is there ever going to be more than color commentary from you? The reason I am responding is that I am stuck at work and need to kill some serious time but your barely even qualifying for even that. Keep up the rhetoric and I can't even justify this as has happened several times concerning you.

<sigh> It does not matter what you think is true. It is what you can show to be true. You are always very short on supplying evidence. I on the other hand will always supply evidence if asked politely and properly and sometimes even if I am not. And please, I am not the one spouting rhetoric. That would be you with your rather hate filled posts.

Why do you hate gay people so much? Your hatred is obvious from your posts, I could even quote phrases of yours that support me. Like it or not sex is a fact of life. It is for much more than reproduction. You seem to realize that it can bring a married heterosexual couple together, don't you think it would have the same effect on two homosexual people?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far you have posted 18 responses today and this is the first one on topic. I need to kill time but your wearing me out.

Most humans throughout human history have agreed with me concerning texts so as usual your using flawed conclusions.

Most people in the world have agreed on all sorts of wrong ideas. That does not help you at all. This is another logical fallacy of yours. An argument ad populum is a rather desperate one.

And though you do not seem to understand it all of my posts have been at least as on topic as yours or even more so. Let's try to leave out personal attacks and see if you can discuss this without attacking others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought you were the grammar police. What is anon-sequitur? This is also technically a genetic fallacy.

No, not even close. That was clearly a typo. And not a genetic fallacy. You are not quite ready for those yet.

I didn't, it was sojourner that made that assumption.

You seemed to have done that in the post that I quoted. In fact you said this:

" Actually we are talking about more than just orientation at birth, we were talking about God making someone a certain way."

I think that you misunderstood @sojourner 's point.

 

[Skwim]

So, today's Bibles are telling Christian readers that the opinions and prejudices of the translators are the modern-day "word of God" because THEY object to homosexuality and THEY believe that homosexuals should be sentenced to death.

No, I believe the "original" sources contained just such homosexual prejudice. That homosexual relations, or words to that effect---are wrong; from being an abomination to being worthy of a death sentence--- were in the original sources.

Not a very convincing argument, in my opinion.

Okay.

Perhaps YOU should prove that homosexuality was what was regularly being practiced back when those scriptures were written and that they had absolutely nothing to do with what we know was going on with heterosexuals engaging in sexual relations with other heterosexuals--both with young boys and with temple prostitutes.

Why? Do you really think you're someone I feel obligated to prove anything to? Really?

Full blown homosexuality or heterosexual dabbling in it, god detested it. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:" So maybe god does lump the dabblers in with the true homosexuals in his condemnation. He certainly doesn't qualify his hatred, does he. A lot of homosexuality or a tiny bit of hetero-homosexuality seems to be all that's necessary to qualify as an abomination.

We know for a fact that many ancient cultures engaged in pederasty, but you are ignoring that and stating unequivocally that any scriptures condemning same-sex relations refers solely to homosexuality.

Because that is thee principle form of homosexuality: adults with adults, that and the fact that Leviticus 18:22 says,

22 Thou[speaking to adult males] shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.​

and that

Leviticus 20:13
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
​

and says absolutely nothing about your silly pederastic straw man.

So, prove that homosexuality (true homosexuality) was so rampant that scriptures needed to be written specifically condemning homosexuality while ignoring the heterosexual/heterosexual relations that have been so widely reported in history.

I don't have to prove anything. You're the one who is trying to establish this unstated, unimplied qualification so as to save god's plainly stated wrath against homosexuality.

You do realize, do you not, that this is exactly what you have been doing? You ignore anything that doesn't support your prejudice and hatred of homosexuality, and insist that "God" hates homosexuals.

This is so sophomoric. Just because the Bible says god hates homosexuality, and I don't try to candy-coat it or bury it under ridiculous apologetics doesn't mean I hate or even dislike homosexuals. In fact, I sympathize with your plight, but not to the extent that I'm going to pretend that one of its principle enemies doesn't exist.

.

 

[1robin]

Homosexuality doesn't contribute to over population and exhausting the earth's resources.

Wow, if true death is the hero in your plot and we should all sterilize each other. The world is not over populated and procreation is still necessary.

Many homosexuals adopt the unwanted results of heterosexual procreation, which is a definite benefit.

What?

And for whatever reason, many homosexuals are by far the most creative people on the planet, which is also a definite benefit to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Any look at histories greatest painters, sculptors, and thinkers is packed full of heterosexuals. This is the weirds defense of homosexuality I have ever seen.

The human race has been very much OVER perpetuated, which results in massive poverty, illness and destruction of earth's resources. Traditional families are almost an anomaly what with rampant divorce and unmarried mothers trying to raise multiple children from multiple fathers with few resources to do so, while heterosexual males "procreate" with abandon...and subsequent abandonment of their mates (not necessarily wives) and children.

Every one on earth can fit in a single county of Florida. Unless you want to volunteer you and your family to be sterilized this line of thought is going no where. The world is not over overpopulated not is homosexuality necessary to make sure it doesn't become so.

Both are justifiable, and looking at all of the problems caused by the rampant proclivity to "procreate" by so many heterosexuals, I would say that homosexuals win the justifiable contest hands down.

They are not both justifiable because only one of them can create life.

It is remarkable how much energy a liberal will exhaust to defend death.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Unless they can remember their sexual preferences at birth my point remains intact.

We are talking about at birth not adolescence

Again we are talking about birth. Actually months prior to birth. I am not arguing against our ability to have a preference as young adults. Actually we are talking about more than just orientation at birth, we were talking about God making someone a certain way. My argument is that even if that was true we couldn't possibly know it. even as Christians we simply can't know that. IOW claims about being born gay have no persuasive power.

What ever happen to Felix?

Are you claiming that you were aware of YOUR sexual preference at birth? I highly doubt that anyone was thinking about sexual attraction as they emerged from the womb. And many homosexuals have recalled feeling an attraction to someone of the same sex from a very young age.

Would you please tell us exactly when YOU made a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex? You seem to be implying that homosexuals make a choice to be gay at some point. So, when did you choose?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Your question is misstated. I could only answer yes, but.......My claims were simple benefit versus cost equations.

Your alleged cost/benefit is highly skewed.

 

[sojourner]

It is not my burden to investigate. You made a claim to certain knowledge therefor it's your burden to prove. As stated this will be very hard to do, so good luck

Read. A. Book. This is like saying that it would be hard to prove that Martin Luther didn’t post his theses on the church door.

Science comes down on both sides about nature and nurture

And they still can’t decide if white people are born that way, or just fade out over time...

No what I said was dangerous and destructive is factually undeniable. I was even told this by several corpsmen and two Navy doctors plus there are mountains of statistics that show what I said was true. I even posted one such CDC study

Fine. Completely ignore my point about there not being any strictly homosexual acts, which is what you claim to be against, and not homosexuality itself. Would you mind addressing the fact that you wish to deny full sexual expression to a segment of the population, which constitutes dehumanization, which constitutes violence, which goes against Jesus’ teachings?

That is not what those CDC statistics showed. If you will ever deal with those statistic I can supply plenty more that say the same things

I’ll trump your CDC “statistics” and Navy doctors with the findings of the psychiatric community, as published in the DSMIV over 20 years ago.

What the heck? I have not done violence of any kind to anyone

See above. You wish to deny full inclusion in sexual expression of a defined segment of the population whom YOU *believe* to be sinful. That is, indeed, violence, my friend.

I did not quote it to introduce a law, I quoted it to exhibit God's condemnation of homosexuality. God's moral stance can't change over time, but how they translate into moral duties does at times. However I did say that if the NT contains references to the OT then those laws apply and the NT does reference homosexuality

And the dance continues. I thought you had no theological problem with homosexuals. That’s what you said earlier, yet here you’re running them down using clobber texts you say you don’t even embrace any longer, justifying it by saying that there’s some sort of fabled “attestation.” Condemnation of homosexuality. So you do have a problem with homosexuals, but you’re justifying that prejudice by *claiming* that you’re only against anal penetration— which the NT Never. Even. Mentions. But you’ve never perpetrated violence of any kind.

 

[sojourner]

As I previously stated, in many Middle Eastern countries, pre-marital sex is forbidden. Therefore, heterosexual men frequently engage in sexual relations with boys or young adult males--most of whom are also heterosexual.

Thanks!

 

[sojourner]

I am not comparing two texts in a vacuum and selecting the best sounding pone. I am rejecting covenants that no longer apply and accepting the rules and regulation of the covenant that does apply. The reason we say the "OLD" testament is because it isn't current. However if we simply go with whatever gratifies our preferences we have no defense of what we are doing.

Oh, I see. That’s why you quote Leviticus as having some kind of currency in the issue. Seems like you ARE “going with whatever gratifies your preferences.” And... it’s ok, you can say it: “I have no defense of what l’m doing.”

 

[sojourner]

Again we are talking about birth. Actually months prior to birth. I am not arguing against our ability to have a preference as young adults. Actually we are talking about more than just orientation at birth, we were talking about God making someone a certain way. My argument is that even if that was true we couldn't possibly know it. even as Christians we simply can't know that. IOW claims about being born gay have no persuasive power

I thought it wasn’t homosexuality you were against. If that’s the case. Why are you arguing this particular point? Could it be that you really are against homosexuality?

 

[sojourner]

The reason I am responding is that I am stuck at work and need to kill some serious time but your barely even qualifying for even that. Keep up the rhetoric and I can't even justify this as has happened several times concerning you.

This is known in the second grade as the “I’m gonna pick up my marbles and go home” ploy.