Why is Islam, Christianity etc homophobic?

[fallingblood]

Cause Mohamed and Paul were homophobic.

And how do you come up with that?

 

[Sleeppy]

As for God making male and female; God also make gays and lesbians. So your argument fails. Because if what God makes is what is right, homosexuality (something God created) should be no problem. As for it having no benefit, that simply is false. Gays and lesbians can and do procreate. They do raise productive members of society. They do become doctors, and lawyers, and entertainers, and teachers, etc. They donate blood that saves lives. They help take care of their families. If that is no benefit, then humans in general are no benefit. Not to mention, God also creates people who are sterile, who can not, whatsoever, have kids. Your argument simply fails.

I don't believe God created homosexuality, at all (perhaps in special cases). He created Adam and Eve. There's a clue there, that isn't sufficient for an increasing number of people.. He put the female with the male. He didn't ask Adam whether he wanted a female. Adam awoke and there she was. The female sufficiently complimented the male, as far as God decided. We can get into the dynamics of the entire Adam and Eve story later.

But aside from that.. I'm really not for an argumentative discussion. It often solves very little if anything at all. I want to remove that from the forefront and get to understanding first. So, I'll ask a question. What is homosexuality? Do your absolute best to explain it for me. Why does it occur?

As for homosexuals being people, like the rest of us, capable of doing deeds on both ends of the spectrum.. I have no disagreement whatsoever. However, what is innate in me or you, may not always be what is right. I am able to look at the faults I may, or may not have, been born with and recognize them as faults. I also recognize that some may not even have that ability. The discussion about homosexuality extends beyond sexuality, and perhaps we'll get into that as well.

 

[fallingblood]

It's illogical to think that they simply all just had a Stranger fetish. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that they refused the Virgin Daughters because their preference was for the males. Preference for males over females =....? So basically, you're trying to say that your "Stranger Fetish" argument is more logical? Apparently all that time the Virgin daughters never aroused them enough to pound on Lot's door and demand them to be handed over?

How is that reasonable? We can be confident that some of those men (probably most of them) had wives. There is no suggestion they didn't, and that is what one would expect.

We aren't talking about a stranger fetish. We are talking about a group of people who are being inhospitable (which is one of the common explanations for the story).

And we have no suggestion there is lust in the story, or that these individuals are looking for pleasure. Instead, we see individuals looking to rape and subjugate strangers. Instead of showing hospitality, which was something needed in those time for strangers, they went against that basic need.

To assume that these individuals were all gay, ignores the context of the story, and then replaces that with only what one wants to see. We don't assume that men in jail, who rape other men are gay (and the vast majority aren't). We shouldn't assume that here either.

Do I have permission to make a thread about this? You're probably the only person I've met to say such a thing. No matter how you define it, "Power" or "Domination" or whatever, it boils down to the "Conquest mentality" of Physical passion.

Sure.

I would bet many dollars to donuts that the context of "Detestable things" when it was written to the intended audience was about the specific nature of their rapaciousness, and that back then there was no question that it was in fact referring to what we may call "homosexuality" today whether it was rape or not. There's a reason all the men in the village were wanting to be with Male Angels. Did they all just get bi-curious and all become rapacious? They outright refused the Virgin daughters for all that time until then. So you're just trying to see Stranger Fetishism. The King James version was calling "Male Cult Prostitutes" "Sodomites" Centuries before anyone today. 1 Kings 15:12. 1 Kings 15:12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.

I'm not trying to see stranger fetishism here. I'm seeing inhospitality. Also, just because a man rapes another man, that doesn't mean they are gay or bisexual or bi-curious. We see this over and over again in prison, where a straight man with rape another man. To assume that they are gay really is insulting.

As for the term sodomy, what does it even mean? Basically, it means anything that is not penile-vaginal intercourse. It can also refer to sex with an animal. It has also referred to protected sex, as well as sex between a white woman and black man. To assume it means homosexuality only shows a bias.

As for Male Cult Prostitutes, that does not equal homosexuality. Especially considering that many of these individuals also had sex with women.

Basically, you're seeing homosexuality here because you want to.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the town was already targeted for destruction, this is only one example of what was going on, and if the Virgin daughters were intact by the time the town's iniquity was ripe for destruction, what does that tell you? Is it logical to conclude that the text only implies they were rapacious if they had already committed abominations enough to be destroyed.

It may have been targeted for destruction, but one of the points of the angels going there was to see if they could find any righteous, so that the town could be saved. And Ezekiel tells us what there sins were anyway, and never does it mention homosexuality.

And for Xenophobia, I believe the word "Xenos" inarguably means foreigner from another state and culture. In the ascribed logic above, you are accusing the Sodomites of having Xenofetishism. Well there's a reason why the word "Sodomy" has been applied to consenting adults for quite a few centuries, so I'm obviously not the only person whose interpreted it that way.

Xenos can simply mean strangers (and can be translated friend as well). And I was using the term in order to show how not all words (specifically words ending with phobia) are true to their roots.

As for the word sodomy, it doesn't refer to homosexuality. It refers to anything that isn't penile-vaginal sex. And yes, it can refer to rape.

 

[idav]

And how do you come up with that?

Their writing. Those two sure didn't encourage the act. Homesexuality is executable according to the quran. And Paul spoke so strongly against it to the point that I think he was closeted himself.

 

[fallingblood]

Their writing. Those two sure didn't encourage the act. Homesexuality is executable according to the quran. And Paul spoke so strongly against it to the point that I think he was closeted himself.

How did Paul speak strongly against it? He mentions it only twice (or what has been commonly thought as to him mentioning homosexuality). And in both instances, he hardly focuses on it. In fact, both times, it is in a list of vices. And right after, he states that we are all guilty of some of those vices, and we shouldn't judge others.

It's not like he spends a lot of time on the subject at all, and never singles it out.

 

[idav]

How did Paul speak strongly against it? He mentions it only twice (or what has been commonly thought as to him mentioning homosexuality). And in both instances, he hardly focuses on it. In fact, both times, it is in a list of vices. And right after, he states that we are all guilty of some of those vices, and we shouldn't judge others.

It's not like he spends a lot of time on the subject at all, and never singles it out.

It gets special mention and is a bit singled out in this passage. Not until he made this special mention does he then lump the rest of "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity", which is apparently is practiced by most every polytheistic/atheistic Roman gay.

Romans 1
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[fallingblood]

It gets special mention and is a bit singled out in this passage. Not until he made this special mention does he then lump the rest of "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity", which is apparently is practiced by most every polytheistic/atheistic Roman gay.

First, it doesn't state all practice these things. Second, keep reading further. It states that the people who he is talking to are also guilty. Basically Paul was setting up an argument by using a generic vice list, which he could then flip over on his audience. It is a common technique. And the message is basically, don't judge others, because you're guilty as well.

 

[sojourner]

What term should the common, natural "ick" factor be called?

"Bigotry" leaps to mind.

 

[sojourner]

Because the term isn't being used to slander and smear people at this point when its used in the "professional world" Those terms may be used with disgust by those find the concepts disgusting, but those terms are not being used to smear and characterize anyone who has a dissenting opinion against the Liberal Humanistic perspective in this regard of which there's plenty of people who don't agree with its usage. Any time the word "Homophobic" is used, it usually is to deride the person's opinions and beliefs altogether. It is funny that they adopted two words to identify themselves with that were nonetheless totally pejoratives, can't they find something more original?

maybe you'd prefer the term "bigot?" That's the term normally used for people who are "icked out" or have a dissenting opinion against blacks and Hispanics.

 

[Shermana]

How is that reasonable? We can be confident that some of those men (probably most of them) had wives. There is no suggestion they didn't, and that is what one would expect.

Now it's about what one would expect? If a bunch of people are turned on by Male Angels to the point they all want to ravish him but they all refuse the Virgin daughters, whether they have wives or not, that would be an indication they weren't interested in the daughters. I fail to see why your answer is more reasonable.

We aren't talking about a stranger fetish. We are talking about a group of people who are being inhospitable (which is one of the common explanations for the story).

Since you seem to agree that we can include what's "expected" instead of what's in the actual text, we can assume, like I said, that they had already committed other sins by that time, that was just one example of what they did. How do we know they tried to rape others who came if that's the only example? How do we know what other "detestable practices" they were guilty of before that time which Abraham was told Sodom would be destroyed over? Was it all the same? IF so, then you would have to argue that they had stranger fetishism if they refused the virgin daughters by that time.

And we have no suggestion there is lust in the story, or that these individuals are looking for pleasure. Instead, we see individuals looking to rape and subjugate strangers. Instead of showing hospitality, which was something needed in those time for strangers, they went against that basic need.

And we have no indication that they were not Lusting, (it's very interesting to see a person who refuses to associate rape with lust...) we have no indication that this was the only and same sin they were so guilty of that warranted their destruction before this final straw.

To assume that these individuals were all gay, ignores the context of the story, and then replaces that with only what one wants to see. We don't assume that men in jail, who rape other men are gay (and the vast majority aren't). We shouldn't assume that here either.

The concept of "Gay" is a more modern idea, back then, such as in Roman times, men would be with other men (generally slaves were the receivers, a free man receiver was thought of in the lowest of terms even by the Romans), but again, the point is that they refused the Virgin daughter. So your argument is that they had Stranger Fetishism instead. If they hadn't touched the Virgin daughters by then, and they all just wanted the Male Angels, that's Stranger-rape Fetishism. And again, the text says that Sodom did "Detestable" things. How many things are actually called 'detestable"?

Sure.
I'm not trying to see stranger fetishism here. I'm seeing inhospitality. Also, just because a man rapes another man, that doesn't mean they are gay or bisexual or bi-curious. We see this over and over again in prison, where a straight man with rape another man. To assume that they are gay really is insulting.

Then I'll insult them, a prisoner who rapes another prison is queer no matter how you slice it. In Shawshank redemption, they were called the Queens for a reason. Only recently has this concept arisen that a man doesn't have to be oriented towards males to want to rape them. Again, the Romans considered it 'normal" only to be the giver, not the receiver for a free man, so they had a concept of "orientation" but still had judgments about how it was employed.

As for the term sodomy, what does it even mean? Basically, it means anything that is not penile-vaginal intercourse. It can also refer to sex with an animal. It has also referred to protected sex, as well as sex between a white woman and black man. To assume it means homosexuality only shows a bias.

For someone arguing about what words are supposed to mean like Homophobia, you don't seem to catch what I said that it's been used that way for Centuries since even before the KJV. So you want to redefine Sodomy but you expect others to accept the definition of this modern term Homophobia.

As for Male Cult Prostitutes, that does not equal homosexuality. Especially considering that many of these individuals also had sex with women.

My point was that they were singled out in this regard and called such. Why specifically say MALE temple prostitutes? Why not just say Temple prostitutes?

Basically, you're seeing homosexuality here because you want to.

That's what virtually everyone saw who translated the KJV apparently, it's quite a common view. Whether their preference was stranger-rape-fetishism, the point being is that they didn't want Virgin daughters to rape but wanted men to rape. That's an orientation even if they want to rape.

It may have been targeted for destruction, but one of the points of the angels going there was to see if they could find any righteous, so that the town could be saved. And Ezekiel tells us what there sins were anyway, and never does it mention homosexuality.
Xenos can simply mean strangers (and can be translated friend as well). And I was using the term in order to show how not all words (specifically words ending with phobia) are true to their roots.

Can you show some Greek that uses Xenos other than "Foreigner from another land"? It specifically says that they did "Detestable things". I would say it's reasonable to conclude that the author knew his intended audience would be familiar with what "Detestable things" meant, which was most often related to sexual practices. Since we only see one example of what the Sodomites did, we can not be sure what they did before that time. You'd think that with enough rapes a small army from a local king would have squashed them by that point. I believe that the Male Angels were just too much for them and put them in an insane "gotta have them" Frenzy that just simply awoke their normal passions, otherwise they would have been satisfied to receive the Virgin daughters if their "preference" was for women.

If it was an entire town who got its kicks on assaulting strangers, that's a plausible interpretation but I see it as unreasonable, I think that many of the "Detestable" things were quite consential. Also, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that many gays have been known to rape, so whether their motivation is the power of rape (and as you try to defend it as having nothing to do with lust, which I totally disagree with in most cases, I suppose it CAN be used for power, but the context is that they lusted after the Angels undoubtably), the point being is that their preference was for male strangers. You can try to redefine that to Stranger Fetishism but I won't.



As for the word sodomy, it doesn't refer to homosexuality. It refers to anything that isn't penile-vaginal sex. And yes, it can refer to rape.[/quote]

 

[Shermana]

maybe you'd prefer the term "bigot?" That's the term normally used for people who are "icked out" or have a dissenting opinion against blacks and Hispanics.

I don't have a problem with the word bigot since most people who use the term are bigger bigots. I will proudly call myself a "bigot" since by definition I have views that are intolerant of others views. Like yourself. Anyone with a view or opinion that involves opposition to another view or opinion is a bigot. Like the word "Homophobe" its definition is sacrificed (Almost always by liberals for some reason) for the sake of the shcok and smear value, but I think of it as a badge of honor since the term is so meaningless as an insult and reveals the hostile Bigotry of the one using the term. Bigotry against bigotry is still bigotry, even if you think you are on the "Right side". It's just a Slander and Smear word Liberals overwhelmingly seem to love that avoids discussing the actual views and turns it into an attempt to basically insult.I also think one who compares the natural "ick" reaction most straights have to gays that a few racists have to Blacks and Mexicans has seen neither. Are you seriously implying that the "Ick" factor a person may see from an unwanted porn pop-up is the same as a Racist seeing a Black man? If so, thanks for sharing!

 

[Shermana]

Now it's about what one would expect? If a bunch of people are turned on by Male Angels to the point they all want to ravish him but they all refuse the Virgin daughters, whether they have wives or not, that would be an indication they weren't interested in the daughters. I fail to see why your answer is more reasonable.



Since you seem to agree that we can include what's "expected" instead of what's in the actual text, we can assume, like I said, that they had already committed other sins by that time, that was just one example of what they did. How do we know they tried to rape others who came if that's the only example? How do we know what other "detestable practices" they were guilty of before that time which Abraham was told Sodom would be destroyed over? Was it all the same? IF so, then you would have to argue that they had stranger fetishism if they refused the virgin daughters by that time.


And we have no indication that they were not Lusting, (it's very interesting to see a person who refuses to associate rape with lust...) we have no indication that this was the only and same sin they were so guilty of that warranted their destruction before this final straw.



The concept of "Gay" is a more modern idea, back then, such as in Roman times, men would be with other men (generally slaves were the receivers, a free man receiver was thought of in the lowest of terms even by the Romans), but again, the point is that they refused the Virgin daughter. So your argument is that they had Stranger Fetishism instead. If they hadn't touched the Virgin daughters by then, and they all just wanted the Male Angels, that's Stranger-rape Fetishism. And again, the text says that Sodom did "Detestable" things. How many things are actually called 'detestable"?



Then I'll insult them, a prisoner who rapes another prison is queer no matter how you slice it. In Shawshank redemption, they were called the Queens for a reason. Only recently has this concept arisen that a man doesn't have to be oriented towards males to want to rape them. Again, the Romans considered it 'normal" only to be the giver, not the receiver for a free man, so they had a concept of "orientation" but still had judgments about how it was employed.



For someone arguing about what words are supposed to mean like Homophobia, you don't seem to catch what I said that it's been used that way for Centuries since even before the KJV. So you want to redefine Sodomy but you expect others to accept the definition of this modern term Homophobia.


My point was that they were singled out in this regard and called such. Why specifically say MALE temple prostitutes? Why not just say Temple prostitutes?



That's what virtually everyone saw who translated the KJV apparently, it's quite a common view. Whether their preference was stranger-rape-fetishism, the point being is that they didn't want Virgin daughters to rape but wanted men to rape. That's an orientation even if they want to rape.



Can you show some Greek that uses Xenos other than "Foreigner from another land"? It specifically says that they did "Detestable things". I would say it's reasonable to conclude that the author knew his intended audience would be familiar with what "Detestable things" meant, which was most often related to sexual practices. Since we only see one example of what the Sodomites did, we can not be sure what they did before that time. You'd think that with enough rapes a small army from a local king would have squashed them by that point. I believe that the Male Angels were just too much for them and put them in an insane "gotta have them" Frenzy that just simply awoke their normal passions, otherwise they would have been satisfied to receive the Virgin daughters if their "preference" was for women.

If it was an entire town who got its kicks on assaulting strangers, that's a plausible interpretation but I see it as unreasonable, I think that many of the "Detestable" things were quite consential. Also, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that many gays have been known to rape, so whether their motivation is the power of rape (and as you try to defend it as having nothing to do with lust, which I totally disagree with in most cases, I suppose it CAN be used for power, but the context is that they lusted after the Angels undoubtably), the point being is that their preference was for male strangers. You can try to redefine that to Stranger Fetishism but I won't.

As for the word sodomy, it doesn't refer to homosexuality. It refers to anything that isn't penile-vaginal sex. And yes, it can refer to rape.

Well you should consider ceasing t telling people who to redefine terms that have a commonly accepted definition. That's how the KJV translated it, apparently the word has currency in this definition so why should we change it? Especially if we aren't going to change other words whose definition is misemployed? As for the term "Homosexuality", what does that term mean exactly? Does it only imply the attraction and not the action?

 

[sojourner]

So basically: "Yeah, but....":ignore:
All the more reason to ignore such a religion: people can make it mean anything they want when it fits their fancy. That's the genius part of Christianity. The rest.....not so much.

Aren't you making it mean what you want by asserting this, though? Seems as if you're guilty of the crime, too.
If you're gonna live in a glass house...

 

[Shermana]

Aren't you making it mean what you want by asserting this, though? Seems as if you're guilty of the crime, too.
If you're gonna live in a glass house...

No he's just recognizing that the original did in fact say what they are accusing it of and that it's Liberal "Apologists" Who are trying to redefine the context and ignore it in favor of a watered down or modern-semantic excuses("Homosexuality" vs "Male-male relations) or symbolic interpretation as an excuse to get out of the fact that in order to take the Whole thing, one must accept the seemingly harsh and unpalatable (to a modern liberal 21st century mindset). Those who try to say it doesn't say what it plainly says in my opinion (and I'm assuming his) are guilty of engaging in gross dishonesty in a hope to cover up and redefine and revision what the original said. Revisionism at its finest.

 

[Shermana]

"Bigotry" leaps to mind.

So you're willing to say that almost all straights who have a natural "ick factor" grossed out aversion to the idea of the practices of male homosexuals are bigots. Okay, so a person who is grossed out by something is a bigot as well as someone who holds an argumentative opinion against it ? So are we supposed to NOT be grossed out by it? Are we supposed to consider ourselves immoral for wanting to vomit and avert our eyes? Are you suggesting that the gross-out factor is wrong and has been wrong this whole time and that we are wrong for not trying to not be grossed out? Heck, God Himself says that He is disgusted by it. Do you realize that God is the biggest bigot Alive by the definition of bigotry?

 

[sojourner]

So basically, you're trying to say that your "Stranger Fetish" argument is more logical? Apparently all that time the Virgin daughters never aroused them enough to pound on Lot's door and demand them to be handed over?

The daughters weren't a threat.

I would bet many dollars to donuts that the context of "Detestable things" when it was written to the intended audience was about the specific nature of their rapaciousness, and that back then there was no question that it was in fact referring to what we may call "homosexuality" today whether it was rape or not. There's a reason all the men in the village were wanting to be with Male Angels. Did they all just get bi-curious and all become rapacious? They outright refused the Virgin daughters for all that time until then. So you're just trying to see Stranger Fetishism. The King James version was calling "Male Cult Prostitutes" "Sodomites" Centuries before anyone today. 1 Kings 15:12. 1 Kings 15:12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the town was already targeted for destruction, this is only one example of what was going on, and if the Virgin daughters were intact by the time the town's iniquity was ripe for destruction, what does that tell you? Is it logical to conclude that the text only implies they were rapacious if they had already committed abominations enough to be destroyed.

look at the very beginning of the pericope for your correct answer. Who met the visitors at the city gates? (Hint: It wasn't the town elders, as was the custom. It was a visitor.) Who offered the visitors hospitality for the night? (Hint: It wasn't a town citizen, as was the custom.)

having the men drop by for a little demoralizing snack was simply the literary nail in the coffin for a town that had run notoriously afoul of hospitality laws.

The "sin of Sodom" was inhospitality. If the sin had been rape, they'd have set the story at the Castle Anthrax.

 

[idav]

First, it doesn't state all practice these things. Second, keep reading further. It states that the people who he is talking to are also guilty. Basically Paul was setting up an argument by using a generic vice list, which he could then flip over on his audience. It is a common technique. And the message is basically, don't judge others, because you're guilty as well.

It singled out homosexuality and non-belief before listing the rest of the vices, that seems to be intentional to single out someone not born of spirit.

 

[Shermana]

The daughters weren't a threat.

Ummmmm......are you even on the same page? What kind of threats would the angels be that the daughters weren't?

look at the very beginning of the pericope for your correct answer. Who met the visitors at the city gates? (Hint: It wasn't the town elders, as was the custom. It was a visitor.) Who offered the visitors hospitality for the night? (Hint: It wasn't a town citizen, as was the custom.)

Please show where it says the custom was for Town Elders to greet them. It was also late at night so we'd assume most people were asleep.

having the men drop by for a little demoralizing snack was simply the literary nail in the coffin for a town that had run notoriously afoul of hospitality laws.

Where are these Hospitality laws? So you agree that God destroyed entire towns with fire just for breaking Inhospitality laws (that happened to not have anything to do with sexual assault).

The "sin of Sodom" was inhospitality. If the sin had been rape, they'd have set the story at the Castle Anthrax

So rape is "inhospitality" in your view. Got it. Either way, like I said, it said that they were guilty of "Detestable things" long before that. The word detestable is usually reserved for Sexual sins and idolatry.

 

[Shermana]

It singled out homosexuality and non-belief before listing the rest of the vices, that seems to be intentional to single out someone not born of spirit.

Just for the record, the text arguably only singles out male-male relations and male-female relations that follow the same...ahem..."Greek practice". (This is how Augustine interpreted it as well, it's not referring to Lesbianism, which is not prohibited in the Law).

But yes, Paul is in fact referring to the practice of men who "burn in lust for each other". How is that NOT "Homosexuality"?

 

[fallingblood]

It singled out homosexuality and non-belief before listing the rest of the vices, that seems to be intentional to single out someone not born of spirit.

No, it singles out straight people practicing homosexual acts. There is no suggestion that these people are gay or lesbian. But instead, that they purposely make a decision to go against what would be natural for them. As in, they were straight, and then decided to participate in homosexual acts.

Not to mention, none of that matters, as to focus on that small passage, and ripping it from the actual message. The message isn't that gays and lesbians are sinful. Not at all. It is that we are all sinful. And because of that, we shouldn't judge anyone.

More so, even if we do rip this out of context, and focus on just that small portion, we still only have one example of Paul focusing on the subject, and it only amounts to a couple of verses. That hardly constitutes someone who is very opposed to it.