Leviticus and Homosexuality

[Mycroft]

This is indeed the beginning of the disappointment for those who would prefer there to be something responsible and out of their controls to blame their sexuality on rather then just accepting that we are what we are. The clump of genes I refer to is cutting edge technology.

There's no point having a debate with you. You're not here to debate, clearly. You've found a theory that satisfied your personal homophobia and are sticking to it.

Off you go, now. There's nothing for you left in this thread.

 

[firedragon]

The bible does not condemn same sex marriage or the love of one Man to another. The scriptures in the old and knew testament both condemn anal sex. Some homosexuals never have anal sex. But that is what the Scriptures condemn, and rightly so. It is unnatural whether it is man on woman or man on man. God sees it as an abomination and if I were to write a detailed account of what happens during anal sex then there would be but a few who would not be disgusted. None of my homosexual friend indulge in such activities and I think I can say the same about my heterosexual friends.

Brother. It does not talk about anal sex. If so, where?

 

[Agnostic75]

This is why we study epigenetics as a possible cause now and not genetics. Perhaps if you made any effort to remain current in your study of this, rather than simply settling for an answer you find satisfactory, you'd be with the rest of us in the 21st Century.

This is indeed the beginning of the disappointment for those who would prefer there to be something responsible and out of their control to blame their sexuality on rather then just accepting that we are what we are.

Genetic, and epigenetic factors, both of which are significant, are obviously out of the control of homosexuals as far as their sexual identity is concerned. An article at Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality discusses homosexuality, and epigenetics.

A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual.

The article that you mentioned did not say, or imply that 60% of the factors that influence homosexuality can be controlled by anyone, and the article implied that a good deal more than 40% of the factors that influence homosexuality cannot be controlled by anyone, epigenetics factors before, and after birth being some good examples.

Dr. Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.

Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds - Telegraph[/QUOTE]

That is fine as long as you understand that homosexuals do not have any control over a good deal more than 40% of the factors that influence their sexual identity, and that Dr. Bailey has never said that anywhere near 60% of the factors that influence homosexual sexual identity can be controlled by anyone.

For a better understanding of what Dr. Bailey believes about homosexuality, please read an article at J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., psychology. Dr. Throckmorton is a college professor, and is a widely acknowledged expert on homosexuality, and has communicated with Dr. Bailey. Anyone who is familiar with Dr. Bailey's research knows that while he readily admits that there is still a lot to learn about homosexuality, he believes that genetics, and epigenetics are very important influences on homosexuality. The article that I mentioned shows that.

 

[Serenity7855]

Genetic, and epigenetic factors, both of which are significant, are obviously out of the control of homosexuals as far as their sexual identity is concerned. An article at Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality discusses homosexuality, and epigenetics.



The article that you mentioned did not say, or imply that 60% of the factors that influence homosexuality can be controlled by anyone, and the article implied that a good deal more than 40% of the factors that influence homosexuality cannot be controlled by anyone, epigenetics factors before, and after birth being some good examples.



Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds - Telegraph

That is fine as long as you understand that homosexuals do not have any control over a good deal more than 40% of the factors that influence their sexual identity, and that Dr. Bailey has never said that anywhere near 60% of the factors that influence homosexual sexual identity can be controlled by anyone.

For a better understanding of what Dr. Bailey believes about homosexuality, please read an article at J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., psychology. Dr. Throckmorton is a college professor, and is a widely acknowledged expert on homosexuality, and has communicated with Dr. Bailey. Anyone who is familiar with Dr. Bailey's research knows that while he readily admits that there is still a lot to learn about homosexuality, he believes that genetics, and epigenetics are very important influences on homosexuality. The article that I mentioned shows that.

You misunderstand me. I do not believe that homosexuals are in anyway responsible for there sexually. But I also do not believe that genetics, on there own, are responsible. If you want to use the blaming tool then you need to ask why it is necessary to act upon those tendency. A far better question then who is to blame. Just because you enjoy boxing does not mean you should punch everyone in the face.

 

[CMike]

How is that grasping at straws?

Because it's not the topic of this thread.

 

[Serenity7855]

Brother. It does not talk about anal sex. If so, where?

Three scripture that detail anal sex. If you read it correctly man lying with mankind as though with woman kind can only be anal sex. There is no other available orifice.

Liviticus 18

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20

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.

Romans 1

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[Serenity7855]

There's no point having a debate with you. You're not here to debate, clearly. You've found a theory that satisfied your personal homophobia and are sticking to it.

Off you go, now. There's nothing for you left in this thread.

No, I will stick around for a bit to have my say, but thanks for your interest.

 

[McBell]

Three scripture that detail anal sex. If you read it correctly man lying with mankind as though with woman kind can only be anal sex. There is no other available orifice.

Liviticus 18

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20

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.

Romans 1

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Ah, so you think it is natural to for a penis to enter an anus, but only if that anus is attached to a woman?

Other wise the "lie with a man as you would a woman" makes no sense since men do not have vaginas.

 

[Agnostic75]

You misunderstand me. I do not believe that homosexuals are in anyway responsible for there sexuality. But I also do not believe that genetics, on their own, are responsible. If you want to use the blaming tool then you need to ask why it is necessary to act upon those tendencies.

Obviously, for the same reason that heterosexuals act upon their tendency, which is because it feels natural for heterosexuals to engage in opposite-sex behavior. Also, it feels natural for homosexuals to engage in same-sex behavior.

A far better question than who is to blame. Just because you enjoy boxing does not mean you should punch everyone in the face.

I do not understand what you mean since you said that you do not oppose homosexuals loving each other, and having sex with each other. If you are referring to anal sex, a medical article at Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns says that anal sex can be risky, and that "even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur."

Based upon the article, I think that anal sex is risky enough that people who engage in it should seriously consider the risks, and should never engage in it unless they are reasonably certain that their partner does not have any STDs.

 

[Serenity7855]

Obviously, for the same reason that heterosexuals act upon their tendency, which is because it feels natural for heterosexuals to engage in opposite-sex behavior. Also, it feels natural for homosexuals to engage in same-sex behavior.



I do not understand what you mean since you said that you do not oppose homosexuals loving each other, and having sex with each other. If you are referring to anal sex, a medical article at Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns says that anal sex can be risky, and that "even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur."

Based upon the article, I think that anal sex is risky enough that people who engage in it should seriously consider the risks, and should never engage in it unless they are reasonably certain that their partner does not have any STDs.

You think that STDs are the only thing to worry about? If that were true then the answer is to use protection. It is not true. Many gays use poppers, amyl nitrite, to aid anal sex. Poppers have recently been linked to eye damage. They also reduce CD4+ cells, T-helper cells, that point to infections.

The anus has one layer of skin that protects it from cross contamination. The vagina has three protective layers of skin and is lined with antibacterial fluid. It is rare that all three layers of skin are torn during interiors, but in almost all anal sex penetrations the skin is torn cause contaminate egress into the blood stream. Raw swage is introduced to the blood stream. CD4+ cells have already been compromised by poppers so the body does not deal as effectively as it should and causes illnesses.

The force required for an erect penis to penetrative the anus can damage the air tight seal that prevents feces from escaping causing incontinence in latter life.

Most gays that indulge in anal sex also indulge in recreational drugs and copious amounts of alcohol. The majority, of course, do not, but they usually do not have anal sex either because it is so dangerous with the possibility of serious health repercussions.

All this without going into the mess and smells involved in putting your penis into a sewer.

 

[Serenity7855]

Ah, so you think it is natural to for a penis to enter an anus, but only if that anus is attached to a woman

Where on earth did you get that from. Are you winding me up. (goes without saying) It is not natural to insert an erect penis into an anus.

Other wise the "lie with a man as you would a woman" makes no sense since men do not have vaginas.

You would have thought that because a man does not have a vigina that the closest orifice to it is the anus, so, for a man to lie with a man as with a woman it is saying that the man lies on top of another man, as he would a woman, and the closest orifice to facilitate the act of sex, as with a woman, is an anus. Hence, God has condemned anal sex. It is not rocket science and is really beyond your usual twisting of my post. It is common sense, intuition.

 

[Agnostic75]

You think that STDs are the only thing to worry about?

Obviously not since the medical article that I mentioned also discussed other risks.

If that were true then the answer is to use protection. It is not true. Many gays use poppers, amyl nitrite, to aid anal sex. Poppers have recently been linked to eye damage. They also reduce CD4+ cells, T-helper cells, that point to infections.

But I do not approve of any kind of unsafe sex that frequently has serious consequences, or has high risks. Apparently, some homosexuals who have practiced anal sex for years have not had any serious medical problems, but I still think that homosexuals should make an effort not to have anal sex.

 

[Serenity7855]

Obviously not since the medical article that I mentioned also discussed other risks.



But I do not approve of any kind of unsafe sex that frequently has serious consequences, or has high risks. Apparently, some homosexuals who have practiced anal sex for years have not had any serious medical problems, but I still think that homosexuals should make an effort not to have anal sex.

Then we are in agreement. To discuss this requires one of us to have an opposing opinion. Which one of us has it.

Obviously, for the same reason that heterosexuals act upon their tendency, which is because it feels natural for heterosexuals to engage in opposite-sex behavior. Also, it feels natural for homosexuals to engage in same-sex behavior.

When heterosexuals engage in sex they use parts of their anatomy the naturally fit together. It does not take a Nobel prize winner to know that that is not the case with anal sex and it takes great effort to penetrative a orifices sealed with muscles intended to allow waste out and to resist anything trying to penetrative it. We have rapidly turned into a people who just do what ever we want instead of what we ought. Just because you are gay does not mean that you should engage in anal sex. I have a friend who I esteem as one of the wisest elderly man that I know. He is 82 and gay. He does not engage in anal sex. He is one of those people who belongs to be gay. It is just right that he is. The Bible do not, cannot condemn us for loving.

 

[firedragon]

I truly cant believe why you should discuss anal sex in a thread about Leviticus and Homosexuality when the verses in concern dont have anything to do with it. Its true blindness.

 

[Serenity7855]

I truly cant believe why you should discuss anal sex in a thread about Leviticus and Homosexuality when the verses in concern dont have anything to do with it. Its true blindness.

But that is exactly what Leviticus is saying. I have had to give greater detail because it wasn't fully understood how it related to anal sex.

 

[Sonofason]

"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:24-27)

I wonder what processes God uses when He gives someone up to vile affections. Does he make changes to the DNA, changes to the brain chemistry? What does it mean when God gives you up to uncleanness?

It's as if these individuals rejected the Word of God, and so God gave them up to their own lusts, as if they can't go back. They're given up on, with no hope of return. No going back.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry to hear that. You see, so far we've been talking about the sin of homosexuality. God's plan of salvation has not been discussed here.

While it is a fact that human beings are sinful and deserved of condemnation, God has a plan of salvation from condemnation that can be found through his Son.

I am a sinner
Homosexuals are sinners
We are all sinners in need of salvation and God's grace

Maybe one day you can focus on that aspect of the Christian faith.

Interesting conclusion. Could you elucidate how you've come to that conclusion? I mean, outside of the belief that all human beings are sinners, and since those who identify as homosexual are human, they are sinners?

But, of course, if that's the argument, there's no real need to qualify the sinner-humans as "homosexual," since they'd be sinners regardless of their professed sexual preferences. You could have just said, "all human beings are sinners."

Apparently, that's not the message you intend to convey. I *think* you intend to convey that those who identify as homosexual are sinners by virtue of something other than the fact that they are human. Could you outline what that cause is? And can you point conclusively to the source of that belief, providing adequate support for why that source is irrefutably correct to the extent that you're willing to condemn fellow human beings because of said evidence?

 

[sojourner]

Well, I believe such things are a perversion of God's intentions. If you'd like to call it sin, I'm okay with that.

Where do you come by that belief? Can you point to a credible source for such a belief?

 

[columbus]

I wonder what processes God uses when He gives someone up to vile affections. Does he make changes to the DNA, changes to the brain chemistry? What does it mean when God gives you up to uncleanness?

It's as if these individuals rejected the Word of God, and so God gave them up to their own lusts, as if they can't go back. They're given up on, with no hope of return. No going back.

Boy. You do a good job of making your religion look nasty.

God tweaks our DNA to make us worse? No going back? I don't understand how anybody could prefer to believe in this sort of thing. I certainly can't. It is just not possible for me.

Tom

 

[sojourner]

The point here, as with any religion, is that you change your lifestyle and beliefs to conform to the religion, not changing the religion to fit the lifestyle.

That's a generally-accepted precept, but I'm not sure that it's absolute -- or even particularly true. The religion obviously changed when the preponderance of Xtianity moved from a Jewish population to a Greek population. Suddenly, circumcision was no longer necessary. As Xy moved westward into Europe, we find a MAJOR shift in how worship is conceptualized, since there is irrefutable archaeological evidence showing that the Eucharist (which is the orthodox form of worship in both East and West) derives directly from the Roman symposium. The bucolic Jews of Galilee would have had no such custom in the beginning.

Religion changes all the time to stay relevant to the population it serves.

Both perspectives show that Yahweh does not like gays...to put it mildly.

I don't think it does that at all. I think you're drawing that conclusion based upon a shallow misinterpretation of what the texts actually mean. And I think the misinterpretation is in two basic places: 1) the texts only show the biases of their authors; not "what God doesn't like," and 2) You're conflating a cultural bias which is based upon ignorance, against what is considered, through that ignorance, to be an "immoral act" with what we now know to be, not just a "lust," but an orientation, and an identity. The texts do not either explicitly or implicitly preclude a given sexual orientation or identity.

Should I try to misinterpret that because I don't like it?

Of course not, but you also shouldn't try to misinterpret it because you're too lazy to actually exegete the texts through the use of cultural, contextual, historical, and theological criticism.