gsa
Well-Known Member
This brings to mind another evil found in that text: Genocidal ethnocentrism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY
- Thread starter Monk Of Reason
- Start date
This brings to mind another evil found in that text: Genocidal ethnocentrism.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
If those laws are no longer applicable, why do many Christians still quote from them to denounce homosexuality? You can't have it both ways.
gsa
Well-Known Member
I agree. It is highly unlikely that the passage refers to lesbianism, as neither the rabbinic tradition nor the early church fathers appear to believe lesbianism is discussed or prohibited in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. This is a very modern interpretation of the text.
i started to reply but remembered that this is not the topic under discussion.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
It seems only for me and occasionally Shadow. Of course if you weren't going to reply to me, you failed in that endeavor. You know, with this comment I'm replying to and all.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You're just being rude if you keep insisting even though someone has said they're not interested.
You know, I could repeat what others have reiterated time and time again here to debunk the homophobic rhetoric that certain people have been forcefully clinging to. It would bear repetition, no doubt, but by no means would it add anything new to the discussion, so I will just leave this here instead:
Once again proving that Christopher Hitchens was more humane, decent, and compassionate than all of the authors of the Bible combined.
Once again proving that Christopher Hitchens was more humane, decent, and compassionate than all of the authors of the Bible combined.
You know, I could repeat what others have reiterated time and time again here to debunk the homophobic rhetoric that certain people have been forcefully clinging to. It would bear repetition, no doubt, but by no means would it add anything new to the discussion, so I will just leave this here instead:
Once again proving that Christopher Hitchens was more humane, decent, and compassionate than all of the authors of the Bible combined.
That's saying something, too, because he could be a real jerk sometimes. lol
I've got no issue with homosexuality or same-same marriage. As long as both partners agree and no harm is done to any other individual, let them be together. I think the Wiccan Rede had it right, "an' ye harm none, do what thou wilt."
(If there are any Wiccans who believe that I somehow have misapplied the Rede, don't hesitate to jump on me.)
(If there are any Wiccans who believe that I somehow have misapplied the Rede, don't hesitate to jump on me.)
Last edited:
Completely dishonest. I agree.
chevron1
Active Member
Maybe you mean it is a different context, but "become" isn't; homosexuals do become homosexual, if someone starts out so it would be a rarity and not the rule. It is just very early in development.
That would only be a reasonable assumption if they made it a law (or some other sanctions however indirect) that all married people had to have children during some time limit. Or banned infertile people and menopausal women from marriage, since that union cannot hope to procreate. But old people routinely get married, simply because they place value in the ceremony, or because their culture views it as important. Since there are no laws that I know of that speak of mandatory children (perhaps it's different where you live?) secular marriage doesn't care about the "nuclear" family. In fact it doesn't give a damn about family in general.
I can waltz right into any court with some random (provided they were the opposite sex) off the street and get legally married. I do not have to answer any questions about whether or not I can or want to have children, there's no religious test, there's not even a test to ensure our relationship is without abuse. All I have to do is get someone 18 or over to give their fully informed consent and stand in front of a judge. Bam! Married.Is that marriage viewed as a holy union in my religion? Nope. But it's still recognized by law all the same.
Does this encourage the "Nuclear Family" within our relationship's future? Nope. One, I come from a background that does not really put much stock in the Nuclear model anyway. Two there's no inherent incentive in marriage to even have kids, unless you include parenting instinct but that does not need marriage to kick in. (And many gay people still have that instinct and do in fact adopt and raise kids all the time.) Three, where exactly is the incentive for copying the Nuclear family model exactly? Because the married couple lives together? They don't need marriage to do that. Because the married couple wants to have kids? Again they don't need marriage to do that.
The whole "Nuclear family" model is a purely Western phenomenon anyway, other cultures have differing family models and still manage to survive just fine with their marriages and set ups. And they have done for thousands of years.
Last edited:
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I remember the day I became heterosexual. It was a rainy Tuesday and I was home sick from school. We only got 3 channels on TV back then and nothing was on but soap operas so I decided to go and and choose my sexual orientation. My parents had been harassing me about it for a few weeks, so I decided what the heck. I decided to go with straight female because I like long hair and don't look good in plaid (I'm short an it tends to wear me). All things considered, it's worked out for me fairly well.
Perhaps, but only in the same vain as part of fetal development, the fetus "becomes" male from the rush of androgens present instead of remaining as the default female sex.
Which in the grand scheme of things in regards to how we value human beings as capable of marriage, doesn't really amount to much more than cultural attribution.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Only if your willing to state that people become heterosexual.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
When people use the word become when talking about sexuality, it implies choice.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I can remember when I use to really beat myself up for having sexual attractions and curiosities toward men. I haven't been with a man, but I don't put myself down anymore over the desire either.