Homosexuality

Hell... I though Odysseus was married to Penelope... or were they just shacking up?:brow:

Of course they are fictive characters, but one would assume that they are based upon reality.

There are also any number of references to marriage, husbands and wives in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) that predates Christ by quite some time in many instances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

It goes to show how civilisation such as the greeks who exceeded in art and architect and yet manage to drop a bomb on their own cultured self by running aroung naked in arenas without a care in the world. So much knowledge and wealth and nothing to show for it or at leat in the clothing department. One would feel for very sorry for those fashionistas who would have spend hours on end trying to execute artistic designs to impress their rulers only to find out it was wasted on these nude wannabe fit.

---

This all quite confusing, but hilariously so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

there are no records of marriage certificates but there are thousands of books and literary material dating back to the pharoahs even.

---

So, is marriage a "fairly newish" concept or not? At one point you say it wasn't around until after Christ, and now you're saying it existed during the existence of the Pharoahs. Which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

He also reportedly died at a weeding feast.

---

*utterly shocked*

Not at a weeding feast! I wonder what Paul's neighbourly allotment group would say about that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

It goes to show how civilisation such as the greeks who exceeded in art and architect and yet manage to drop a bomb on their own cultured self by running aroung naked in arenas without a care in the world. So much knowledge and wealth and nothing to show for it or at leat in the clothing department. One would feel for very sorry for those fashionistas who would have spend hours on end trying to execute artistic designs to impress their rulers only to find out it was wasted on these nude wannabe fit.

---

What does this mean? What were you attempting to convey here?

The Greeks dominated much of the mediterranean world, conquering the greatest empire of antiquity - the persian. They left a literature that baffles in all areas - drama, philosophy, history, poetry. Their culture was in many ways picked up and expanded upon by the Romans. The Greeks formed many of the central pillars of Western culture, without that land's existence and action throughout history our culture would be unrecognizable. They took beauty and knowledge and war-making and showed that part of the world how they were done.

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

[QUOTE=tonywalt;1158125]

Quote:

---

Damn, should I stop working out nude?

---

That is not a trend I would want to suffer myself, so no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

So, is marriage a "fairly newish" concept or not? At one point you say it wasn't around until after Christ, and now you're saying it existed during the existence of the Pharoahs. Which is it?

---

The concept of marriage has morphed throughout history. Today Christianity still reigns as the supreme religion in popular/political culture. So in the context of today's structure and system of marriage then yes it wasn't around until after the church.

Remember Jesus did not construct christian marriage, nor did Jesus really do much of anything other then radical and less radical political and social demonstrations. With of course a little bit of religion thrown into the mix.

But as it appears in text, Jesus is more or less a knock off of Horas.

I don't think Jesus's name should be brought up into the concept of Marriage anyhow, as it was the people who structured, maintained and created the religiously imposed law. The church has always had a great deal of say in cultural rule sets. Just as it does today with religion being implemented into election propaganda.

However, that isn't to say that before Christianity was a full on religion, that there weren't other forms of marriage.

Religion is only one aspect of influence on marriage. Without political worth, there would be no such thing.

With that being said the assumption that marriage has a universal set of rules is inaccurate. As other cultures, other religions and of course politics have decide relative generalized morality and importance of marriage and similar relationships throughout the ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

---

I don't think she was insulting them, it seems that she was saying that to be a nude bisexual doesn't preclude being brilliant. Just saying that a culture has a tendancy towards nudity and bisexuality isn't an insult.

She's incorrect about marriage though, of course it's been around since before the new testament. Actually the new testament barely mentions marriage in any form, nothing about it's "sanctity" or anything of the sort, the only place where it's talked about is when Jesus turned water into wine during a wedding feast (seriously, that's it). It does call homosexuals "unclean" and "abominations" though.

The other day I was casually strolling around wikipedia and discovered something that would be of interest to the thread. In ancient Rome, starting during the late republic and lasting until the majority rise of christianity, gay male couples would get married. This was a marriage which from a religious perspective was deemed recognizable but from a legal perspective was not recognized. This is because roman culture was uber-patrirchal, yet this sexual stoicness was severely undermined by the conquest of greece which brought along with art and culture many other tendencies of the greeks. So male roman couples could get married with all the religious rites and priests, but under roman law they would not be married because a true roman would never take it up the ***.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helga

Oh and about the bible, what about that missing part they found in 'Red Dwarf' that explains a lot.

---

Hahaha I blummin love Red Dwarf and this is one of my favorite bits.

There is a new series coming soon, can't wait :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

This all quite confusing, but hilariously so.

---

glad you found a glimer of hilariousness in it we can't be bearing seriousness all the time.

Quote:

---

So, is marriage a "fairly newish" concept or not? At one point you say it wasn't around until after Christ, and now you're saying it existed during the existence of the Pharoahs. Which is it?

---

I said that marriage to me must be a fairly newish concept only established itself with the coming of the bible. Christianity and Islam introduced marriage as a sacrilege act in the sight of god because it meant it would
be the ticket to entering heaven. Marriage is one the pillar of Islam. Before these two main religions there was no concept of heaven and hell but there was, as in the time of the Pharoahs ,the concept of the afterlife which did not demand marriage to achieve it. As we have seen it the Pharoahs had instead with their burials offerings and the idea of gifts to the Gods meant that they would reach the afterlife after they had passed away.
For this very reason I do not believe marriage was around before that.
You do not have to believe it but this is my own interpretation of an institution such as marriage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

What does this mean? What were you attempting to convey here?

The Greeks dominated much of the mediterranean world, conquering the greatest empire of antiquity - the persian. They left a literature that baffles in all areas - drama, philosophy, history, poetry. Their culture was in many ways picked up and expanded upon by the Romans. The Greeks formed many of the central pillars of Western culture, without that land's existence and action throughout history our culture would be unrecognizable. They took beauty and knowledge and war-making and showed that part of the world how they were done.

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

---

Ah. I never said bisexuals I said ''wannabe fit'' sexuality has nothing to do with it. I am not trying to convey anything. I am stating something I feel need to be said. If someone going to expose themselves in this way then there will be comments made by others who view this kind of behaviour as unacceptable.
Running naked is normally an act of maddness and as far as I know that's what mad people do. I speak from experience I have come close a couple of people who went unfortunatly mad and in their first sign of maddness they had taken to the street naked . That is the truth and such a shocking one I could never forget it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

glad you found a glimer of hilariousness in it we can't be bearing seriousness all the time.

I said that marriage to me must be a fairly newish concept only established itself with the coming of the bible.Christianity and Islam introduced marriage as a sacrilege act in the sight of god because it meant it would
be the ticket to enter heaven. Marriage is one the pillar in Islam. Before these two main religions there was no such a concept as heaven or hell but there was as in the time of the Pharoahs the concept of the afterlife which did not demand marriage to ener it.
For this very reason I do not believe marriage was around before that.



Ah. I never said bisexuals I said ''wannabe fit'' sexuality has nothing to do with it. I am not trying to convey anything. I am stating something I feel need to be said. If someone going to expose themselves in this way then there will be comments made by others who view this kind of behaviour as unacceptable.
Running naked is normally an act of maddness and as far as I know that's what mad people do. I speak from experience I have come close a couple of people who went unfortunatly mad and in their first sign of maddness they had taken to the street naked . That is the truth and such a shocking one I could never forget it.

---

Sure, why not, I agree with everything you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

glad you found a glimer of hilariousness in it we can't be bearing seriousness all the time.

I said that marriage to me must be a fairly newish concept only established itself with the coming of the bible. Christianity and Islam introduced marriage as a sacrilege act in the sight of god because it meant it would
be the ticket to entering heaven. Marriage is one the pillar of Islam. Before these two main religions there was no concept of heaven and hell but there was, as in the time of the Pharoahs ,the concept of the afterlife which did not demand marriage to achieve it. As we have seen it the Pharoahs had instead with their burials offerings and the idea of gifts to the Gods meant that they would reach the afterlife after they had passed away.
For this very reason I do not believe marriage was around before that.
You do not have to believe it but this is my own interpretation of an institution such as marriage



Ah. I never said bisexuals I said ''wannabe fit'' sexuality has nothing to do with it. I am not trying to convey anything. I am stating something I feel need to be said. If someone going to expose themselves in this way then there will be comments made by others who view this kind of behaviour as unacceptable.
Running naked is normally an act of maddness and as far as I know that's what mad people do. I speak from experience I have come close a couple of people who went unfortunatly mad and in their first sign of maddness they had taken to the street naked . That is the truth and such a shocking one I could never forget it.

---

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/atta...4&d=1324510645

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/atta...4&d=1324510645

---

Oh come on Scher, why does he get to post his funny picture and I don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Sure, why not, I agree with everything you said.

---

Agree? who asked you to agree this is an open forum I am merely adding my views on the topic agreeing or not is not the point.
Freedom and speech and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/atta...4&d=1324510645

---

:D LOL I give you that this is too funny :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shea

Some of you began discussing the differences on what many Christians believe about the Bible. I just wanted to reiterate, many other Christians have an adjenda. If they come across something that they personally disagree with or thing they have a "better" idea on, they'll either ignore the passage completely or find some other way to "explain" it so that they can continue on with what they believe. I don't do this. If I don't understand something in the Bible, I study it deeper. I'll even look up the meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words if I have to. I don't change the Bible to fit me. I try to change me to fit the Bible.

---

Since I was very small I was taught (not by my parents though) that heteros = good (heaven) and homos = bad (hell). I became friends at school with people who were homosexual and I felt very conflicted about the whole business at times. Here I had some awesome friends, who are good people, but the only thing was, that they were gay, which was obviously wrong.

It was a process… First I thought that, fine, homosexuality is a sin, but I’m also a sinner, so I can’t judge. They are not actually hurting anyone and their life choices are theirs to makes, etc etc.

Then after a time I started believing that they were all borne that way. In the beginning this was difficult for me, because I was taught homosexuality was a sin, so why would God create homosexuals? I’ve known some of my gay friends since we were little. You could tell even then, even when none of us knew about sexuality of any sort. They have all said that they’ve always been like that…ever since they can remember. I truly believe that. I saw it.

So if they were borne that way I was presented with a different problem. God created them that way. Now, some people I know have argued that people can become gay because of satanic or demonic influences they were exposed to as babies, in the mother’s womb (because of Free Masonry in the family and all that or other similar jazz) and so on. I don’t have evidence to prove otherwise but I honestly disagree with that notion. I couldn’t see any more bad in my friends than I did in myself.

So basically I felt that if God created them and they were most probably NOT possessed, then maybe he made them homosexual because that is part of their set of challenges they get in life. Mine’s just different.

Then I started doing research about the passages that reference homosexuality. I also looked at the Greek and Hebrew meanings and structure of the words as well as the historical context (like some have mentioned) as well as other people’s opinions (lay and ‘expert’) on the subject. Turns out all of those passages can be and have been interpreted in all kinds of ways. My point is all the interpretations are a bit fuzzy and none of us can really be sure about the original meaning of those passages or words. You chose to believe something and I chose to believe something different.

So, to get back to your comments, I don’t personally disagree with the Bible, I disagree with the interpretation of it, or parts of it. I don’t have an agenda other than wanting to know all the facts, so to speak. I 'believe' in the Bible as much as you…just not in the same way.

You do get people who obviously misquote or twist the interpretation to suit them, but I just want you to understand that not everyone who disagrees with certain interpretations have those intentions. So some of us who challenge or disagree with your beliefs don't necessarily try to change the Bible to fit our beliefs, but some of us also try to fit ourselves to the Bible (to use your words).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

What does this mean? What were you attempting to convey here?

The Greeks dominated much of the mediterranean world, conquering the greatest empire of antiquity - the persian. They left a literature that baffles in all areas - drama, philosophy, history, poetry. Their culture was in many ways picked up and expanded upon by the Romans. The Greeks formed many of the central pillars of Western culture, without that land's existence and action throughout history our culture would be unrecognizable. They took beauty and knowledge and war-making and showed that part of the world how they were done.

So to insult them as a bunch of nude bisexuals is quite frankly inane.

---

Can I just politely add this for another piece of information regarding the Greeks made to gymnast in the nude.
Just so you now that these greek ''bisexuals' with all due respects to them, were made to gymnast/exrcise in the nude. They did not have a choice over the matter.
It is a bit like the nazis with the Jews there was forced nudity in the camps.
The same recurrant awful treatment.

Please don't equate culturally appropriate nudity in a gymnasium with forced nudity in a concentration camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Can I just politely add this for another piece of information regarding the Greeks made to gymnast in the nude.
Just so you now that these greek ''bisexuals' with all due respects to them, were made to gymnast/exrcise in the nude. They did not have a choice over the matter.
Let's say it is a bit like the nazis with the Jews.
The jews were made to strip naked ( in the nude) whilst in the concentration camps.
The same idea the same attitude.
One is Greek and another is a nazi.
A bit like one is a roman and another is a Greek.

---

^ This isn't Sparta. This is MADNESS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Please don't equate culturally appropriate nudity in a gymnasium with forced nudity in a concentration camp.

---

Please do not misread heavily into what I wrote.
Nudity in a gymnasium is nothing to do with Culture.
It is quite dangerous and might get everyone involded very hurt.
Running nude and exercising is against health and safety hence sporst wear and gears to protect from possible dangers.
An example to explain what I mean is the gladiatores. They were slaves then forced to prepare for gladiatory life and thrown into the arenas with animals.
A gladiatory life was not a choice but a forced upon way of life for the romans ruling class to entertain their hunger for blood and sacrifices.
The same applies to the gymnasts who were made to train and exercise in the nude whilst the rulingclass sat and watched as an entertainment, to pass the time, and then often got engaged in other degrading activities afterwards with the gymnasts if these lattest did not perform to their best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

^ This isn't Sparta. This is MADNESS!

---

Spartacus from Sparta and mad from madness? Two very different things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

The same applies to the gymansts who were made to train and exercise in the nude whilst the ruling class sat watch and often engaged in other degrading activities afterwards. It was a kind of entertainment by the ruling class for the ruling clasee.

---

No, in Ancient Greece only those in the privileged ruling class had access to the gymnasiums, they were a public space supported by the government usually (like a park would be today). Sport is a leisure activity, poor people didn't get to throw balls around and wrestle to pass away the day.

The Academy, where Plato taught philosophy, was a gymnasium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

A gladiatory life was not a choice but a forced upon way of life for the romans ruling class to entertain their hunger for blood and sacrifices.

---

Actually just to clarify, this is a common misconception. The gladiatorial games were mainly an event for the plebeians, the masses, the people. Not to say the aristocracy did not enjoy them, well at least some of them enjoyed it, most of the senators with their philosophy and literature and morals and education did not like it, but tolerated it for one simple reason; to wit, the masses loved the games. Whenever in Rome a war was going badly or the economy was failing, badabing badaboom huge games were held. They would distract the people and keep them happy, it would make the masses docile and bade off unrest.

Think of it like this, imagine if Mitt Romney happened to own the Yankees, or if David Cameron owned Chelsea; that would do wonders for them with the people, and in fact the shrewd populist Berlusconi knew this very well and made constant references to his owning and loving A.C Milan during all his elections. And it undoubtedly swayed the Italian masses to elect a pedophile and sexual maniac on a neronian scale to the highest office of power in Italy.


Augustus, the first real roman emperor realized this very well. Rome had just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, and he knew the senatorial aristocracy would not tolerate to live under a tyrant after a long tradition of freedom. But what Augustus did know and learn from Caesar; is that as long as a man had the support and love of the masses the aristocracy could do little to harm him. What was one of the first things he did when Emperor? He hosted a massive celebration with gladiatorial games and ensured that the stadium would be filled with the common men, ensuring the poor were all given free tickets. He won their simple-minded love and gained enough time due to the bulwark he had created with the common man, to win over the aristocracy to his side and ensure the cementation of his power.

In short, no the gladiatorial games were not to entertain the elite, they mainly existed because the masses loved their blood and violence and the aristocracy realized how useful the games were to manipulate and control them.


Also while most Gladiators were indeed slaves, many which reached a certain level of fame would earn their freedom and become wealthy men, The son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus famously was the first and last emperor to take part himself in the games as a gladiator. Slavery in Ancient Rome is a very hard thing to define for a modern reader, one must always remember that slaves were on one had often killed if they displeased their owner and on the other hand that Terence and Trimalchio were both ex-slaves. So very complicated and not that relatable to the more recent forms of slavery such as seen in the 19th century in North America with their African slaves.


Just wanted to clarify that historical mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Spartacus from Sparta and mad from madness? Two very different things?

---

Actually Spartacus was a Thracian. And currently I am as stoned as a Scythian, so sorry if my previous post was a bit illegible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Actually just to clarify, this is a common misconception. The gladiatorial games were mainly an event for the plebeians, the masses, the people. Not to say the aristocracy did not enjoy them, well at least some of them enjoyed it, most of the senators with their philosophy and literature and morals and education did not like it, but tolerated it for one simple reason; to wit, the masses loved the games. Whenever in Rome a war was going badly or the economy was failing, badabing badaboom huge games were held. They would distract the people and keep them happy, it would make the masses docile and bade off unrest.

Think of it like this, imagine if Mitt Romney happened to own the Yankees, or if David Cameron owned Chelsea; that would do wonders for them with the people, and in fact the shrewd populist Berlusconi knew this very well and made constant references to his owning and loving A.C Milan during all his elections. And it undoubtedly swayed the Italian masses to elect a pedophile and sexual maniac on a neronian scale to the highest office of power in Italy.


Augustus, the first real roman emperor realized this very well. Rome had just transitioned from a Republic to an Empire, and he knew the senatorial aristocracy would not tolerate to live under a tyrant after a long tradition of freedom. But what Augustus did know and learn from Caesar; is that as long as a man had the support and love of the masses the aristocracy could do little to harm him. What was one of the first things he did when Emperor? He hosted a massive celebration with gladiatorial games and ensured that the stadium would be filled with the common men, ensuring the poor were all given free tickets. He won their simple-minded love and gained enough time due to the bulwark he had created with the common man, to win over the aristocracy to his side and ensure the cementation of his power.

In short, no the gladiatorial games were not to entertain the elite, they mainly existed because the masses loved their blood and violence and the aristocracy realized how useful the games were to manipulate and control them.


Also while most Gladiators were indeed slaves, many which reached a certain level of fame would earn their freedom and become wealthy men, The son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus famously was the first and last emperor to take part himself in the games as a gladiator. Slavery in Ancient Rome is a very hard thing to define for a modern reader, one must always remember that slaves were on one had often killed if they displeased their owner and on the other hand that Terence and Trimalchio were both ex-slaves. So very complicated and not that relatable to the more recent forms of slavery such as seen in the 19th century in North America with their African slaves.


Just wanted to clarify that historical mistake.

---

Quote:

---

ActuallySpartacus was a Thracian. And currently I am as stoned as a Scythian, so sorry if my previous post was a bit illegible.

---

I see that is all interesting. I Never heard of Thracia until now.
I suppose I just went with the movie.

About Scythia I found this I quote:

''In a broader sense, the name "Scythian" has also been used to refer to various peoples seen as similar to the Scythians, or who lived anywhere in the area known as Scythia''

Is this suggesting that Scythians from Scythia are not Scythian?!!:confused:

You guys and your mythology era. Regardless of what was mainstream acceptable. I can bet you they had just as much homosexuality in "both" sexes as we do now.

The same way women had to hide their sexual activities through little clubs and other behind the scenes secret sex societies.

Sex is a funny thing, there are no real rules for it. And the stranger the sex (as long as it is not violating) the better the sex. It's not a new concept, it's just a bit more open now. But even today we have people being killed for being gay, and some of them are just suspected of being gay.

^ Just wait until the Call of Duty kids grow up, yikes.

My wife came across a satirical rebuttal of biblical condemnation of homosexuality which she laughed at and shared with me.

It's well worth a look.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Parody%2...ToDrLaura.html

Awesome, Paul. Going on FB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Awesome, Paul. Going on FB.

---

Oops I nearly read that as FBI. I was wondering where the I got to. :smilewinkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revolte

You guys and your mythology era. Regardless of what was mainstream acceptable. I can bet you they had just as much homosexuality in "both" sexes as we do now.

The same way women had to hide their sexual activities through little clubs and other behind the scenes secret sex societies.

Sex is a funny thing, there are no real rules for it. And the stranger the sex (as long as it is not violating) the better the sex. It's not a new concept, it's just a bit more open now. But even today we have people being killed for being gay, and some of them are just suspected of being gay.

^ Just wait until the Call of Duty kids grow up, yikes.

---

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monamy

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

---

Hi Monamy I guess it all depends onwhat would one define pleasure.
I am guessing those who cannot, for reasons other then theirs, comprehend or realise/achieve pleasure as a result condem and abuse.
There is french saying Moliere in fact
''qui se send morveux se mouche''
What I mean is when one does not comprehend then one condemns. Anger which manifests itself in overpowering others is often mislead for strength when it is in fact the complete lack of it all.
The less one have from what others naturally have the more one want to curse and accuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monamy

Most cultures look at non-straight sexual orientation being equal to crime or sin, their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure.

---

What do you mean by most? It may be interesting to look at which societies look at it this way, and which don't, and then look at the cultural basis for this.

their debate on the subject is that sex is supposed to be a reproductive process for humanity and not a thing of pleasure

The problem with this is that it is not the experience of humans that it is merely a reproductive act.

Okay, I still don't have time to respond to everything (it doesn't help that I was "glutened" a few days ago). I just wanted to say Turquoise, I agree with you that not everyone has an adjenda and I apologize if I sounded "all or nothing."

My bottom line is, I'm not a biggot because I believe that homosexual acts are a sin. If I was biggoted against sinners, then I'd probably commit suicide because I'm a sinner too. I don't get angry if people don't share my opinions, but I don't like when people put words in my mouth because I believe a certain way. I'm not out to take rights away from anyone.

I do want to address this statement though:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revolte

Wait, what? I think if you think you can choose to be gay, then you're in the closet. No offense though, I just think that's the logical application for that statement.

---

If you'd notice, I also said that I don't have the urge to get drunk. I have about as much chance of being gay as I do of being an alcoholic.

It is a form of love like any other, and for that reason alone deserves to be respected.

R e m i n d e r

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RicMisc

Homosexuality, a term that usually stirs things up quite a bit. I personally think that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. I think it to be as normal as heterosexuality. Someone doesn't choose the gender one is attracted to. I know a lot of people have different opinion about this and I know that even within Western Civilization it is quite a difficult topic.

In The Netherlands we have had gay marriage since 2001 and were one of the first in the world to legalize that and I think it's ridiculous that there are countries that don't allow gay couples to get married. They are just two people in love, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.

I was raised to be very accepting of homosexuality which has led to my current views. I have first hand experience with homosexuality because my grandma is lesbian and has been since a few years before I was born. She was previously married to my grandpa (obviously) but after the divorce she had several relationships with women. And right now she's been married for about six years if I'm correct.

So, what this all comes down to. I am very accepting of homosexuality and think that it shouldn't even be a point of discussion wether they should be able to get married. And I think it's horrible that there are openly gay people everywhere that are mistreated because of their sexuality. How do you guys feel about homosexuality and gay marriage?

---

Off-topic posts have been and will be removed without further notice.

Okay, so as to not go off topic in the alcohol thread, I want to address this here.

Juniper has been accusing me of not answering her questions. So, here we go…

Quote:

---

where is the logic behind being anti-homosexual (or, if you want the faux-lighthearted rhetoric, "against the homosexual lifestyle")?

---

Here are a few things I said throughout the thread…

Quote:

---

I don't hate people who are gay.

---

Quote:

---

I've seen more hate coming from the gay supporters.

---

Quote:

---

I will reiterate, I don't hate someone because of their "sexual orientation"

---

Quote:

---

First of all I'm not "anti-gay", I think I've made my stance on this quite plain.

---

And since you brought up the “lifestyle” issue too…

Quote:

---

I make the choice not to get drunk. I've zero desire to get drunk and I never have. Getting drunk happens to be a popular and accepted activity but I don't agree with that lifestyle. But I also don't go shoving my Bible under people's noses and say "You shouldn't get drunk."

I'm also wondering if you guys think that I'm completely anti-gay marriage? Honestly, I really don't care if it's accepted in this country or not. I don't fight for it, and I don't fight against it. People can do what they want. Just DON'T call me a bigot!

---

Quote:

---

I believe that (maybe it will be easier if I say it this way) homosexual acts are a sin. I believe that a heterosexual couple living together as married but are not (which is a lifestyle), is a sin. I believe it is a sin to get drunk (which can be a lifestyle). BUT I WILL NOT TELL ANYONE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIFE.

---

After quoting all that, how can I answer your question if it doesn’t apply to me?

You also said…

Quote:

---

They're not hurting anyone.

---

I agree, which is why I said I will not tell anyone how to live their life.

You also said…

Quote:

---

Also, why is it immoral for me to vocalize my strong disagreement?

---

I never said it was immoral for you to vocalize your disagreement, but you don’t seem to get where I’m coming from. You are extremely presumptive and are borderline bigoted yourself (I’m thinking of your inaccurate and persistent accusation of me being a Fox News viewer). I honestly gave up because I was getting tired of repeating myself.

Quote:

---

How much harm does opposing homophobia cause? No where near as much as your "belief" which I'm supposed to respect without question for some reason. You did choose this belief you know, and so I hold you accountable for it.

---

Again, this doesn’t apply to me, because I’m not homophobic.

I’m a busy stay-at-home mother. Can you maybe now see why I didn’t want to bother if you were just going to ignore what I said anyway?

You're really good at avoiding the primary issue and grinding on selfish defensive details that no one cares about. Address this, if you please:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

You value a few passages in an obviously convoluted old book more than you do the physical and mental health of your fellow human beings (and just so that we don't have to waste a few posts clearing up this particular subtext: the belief that homosexuals are at the very least "unclean" or "abominations" and at worst will literally burn for all eternity because of the way they are, and the casual malice inherent in and violence inspired by that belief, obviously causes very much suffering).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

But not agreeing with something and calling it a sin are two separate things. Saying you don't agree with something can at least acknowledge that the opposing view has some legitimacy, but you will not partake in it. Labeling it a "sin" is judging it from a superior position and condemning someone as inferior - and this is where, as Juniper alluded to, the line of promoting hate comes from. I don't know if you are very vocal about the matter or not, that is irrelevant. If you want to stay completely out of the matter at least accept that you are just following your own belief and don't judge those who don't share your belief. Part of the right-wing conservative hate stems from the fact that people don't realize the impact of their words, how even just the word sin carries with it a connotation that they may not mean.

---

In saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (which you did and there's no denying that, so this definately applies to you) you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect. Discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

You're really good at avoiding the primary issue and grinding on pointless details.

---

Actually, I'd have to say the same about you.

I will be happy to dissect your quotes. But if that's what you want, you'll have to be patient. Tony is first in line after my kids. :)

Sure. Stay on topic this time though, we're all aware that you don't want to be labeled a "bigot" and that you were simply raised by Fox news viewers and that you don't tell anyone how to live their lives. See? I'm re-iterating, I read your posts thoroughly, so you don't have to repeat these details for a fouth time. Let's move forward with the conversation. Once more, the topic is:

Quote:

---

In saying that homosexuality is a "sin" (which you did and there's no denying that, so this definately applies to you) you're doing your small part to incite beatings, murder, depression, self-loating, suicide ect. Discuss.

---

Well, I don't think that's really the topic at hand as specified by the OP.

In all fairness, I don't think a belief that homosexuality alone contributes to their oppression. I have plenty of beliefs about things that I keep to myself . . . okay, maybe that's not true, but I know other people do. A belief is only dangerous when it brings about some sort of action, and is Shea is telling the truth (and, really, we have no grounds to believe otherwise), this is what she does. She has said she thinks being gay is a sin, but doesn't admonish people for being gay, vote based on issues of homosexuality, etc.

So I'm going to say no, she does not contribute to the oppression, violent or otherwise, of gay people. I kind of think Shea is being lambasted here. She's been nothing but friendly, and you're making some pretty heavy accusations--inciting murder, depression, self-loathing, and suicide? Come on. I don't care what people believe. It's how they express their beliefs that's the problem. It doesn't sound like Shea is being hateful.

I think calling homosexuality a sin can contribute to depression and suicide. I am a Christian. If I were gay and told that this made me sinful the amount of self-loathing I would experience would be immense. When I sin I really regret it and pray for forgiveness. For someone's sexual orientation to be regarded as something worth asking God for forgiveness for....that is an incredibly negative, self-esteem-damaging thing. Gay people get enough hate from the non-religious world that religion would be a good place for them to turn to for support and guidance, but then the religious leaders, the people who should be showing them love and support, instead cast aspersions upon them, calling them sinful. I think the real reason many religious people fight against same-sex marriage is because if the homosexual love act were committed between two married persons then it would no longer be lust, as lust is often defined as sex outside marriage. I think there are a lot of bisexual or homosexual Christians who have wives and families who are able to keep down their same sex desire by calling it mere lust.

I personally think that religion should have never got involved in pointing the fingers at anyone. Religion should have remained neutral and kept to itself the way it keeps priest hibernating in celibacy behind closed doors.
Had it kept words such as sin and homosxuality out of its texts the world would have paid a bit more attention to what it is that it preaches.
I do not think it is anyone's fault to feel that something is a sin if religion had it not been clearly hammerd in as the word of sanctity. For a god to feel so much hatred remains to be proven.
At the end of the day naming and shaming individuals in this way is almost like saying religons were solely designed to target certain individuals rather preach stability and harmony.
I cannot make sense of any religion that harbors hatred and discrimination towards anyone.
Now modernisation of religion is duly required and so it should live up to antidiscrimination acts and politically correct itself if wants to survive.
Everyone else's has to abide by the rules of free speech/free information act political correction discrimination and democracy socially politically and in the work place.
Religion is no different.
Should Brussels press on with it too?
I should think so.
Case closed.

Forgive me if I've brought this up before....

There seems to be a big argument in the States about whether homosexuality is a) in-born, genetic or b) an option and ultimately a choice. The pro-gay lobby tends to say it's (a) and the anti-gay lobby tend to say it's (b).

But I don't see why it matters.


Question to those whose who are are anti-gay and believe homosexuality's a choice: So what if it's a choice? Why is it not one that people should be permitted to make?

Question to those who are pro-gay and believe homosexuality's genetic: So what if it's genetic? Just because a behaviour is genetically imprinted, doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

The point, though, is not to elicit answers to those questions. It's more to suggest that, surely, why people are gay is completely irrelevant to the question of their rights to be so. In order to inhibit those rights, you'd have to come up wirth some objection to the effect of doing it, not the cause of doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Well, I don't think that's really the topic at hand as specified by the OP.

In all fairness, I don't think a belief that homosexuality alone contributes to their oppression. I have plenty of beliefs about things that I keep to myself . . . okay, maybe that's not true, but I know other people do. A belief is only dangerous when it brings about some sort of action, and is Shea is telling the truth (and, really, we have no grounds to believe otherwise), this is what she does. She has said she thinks being gay is a sin, but doesn't admonish people for being gay, vote based on issues of homosexuality, etc.

So I'm going to say no, she does not contribute to the oppression, violent or otherwise, of gay people. I kind of think Shea is being lambasted here. She's been nothing but friendly, and you're making some pretty heavy accusations--inciting murder, depression, self-loathing, and suicide? Come on. I don't care what people believe. It's how they express their beliefs that's the problem. It doesn't sound like Shea is being hateful.

---

If we're talking about good and bad intentions here, I 100% agree. The truth is, if I wanted to, I could find solid reason to despise almost anyone I know people have views that I disagree with.....that's diverse societies for you. As far as I know (the extent of these boards) Shea is a wonderful person, and the fat that I have ideological differences does not change that.

However, I stand by my claim that the link between homosexuality and "sin" needs to be severed: because as good intentions and accepting as someone may claim to be, this notion contributes to a world of hate, particularly for children.

If someone today told me I was a sinner and I'm going to hell, I would say "cool" and then start quoting Milton.

Growing up, I was told (in so many words) that I was useless and would amount to nothing (for entirely separate reasons): I equate this with the secular version of "you're going to Hell." This had a very harmful impact.

So even if you claim that you are accepting, you promote the idea that homosexuality is a sin, and you allow this idea to spread, one day your kid tells another kid he is going to hell because he is gay, or that gays all go to hell, that kid commits suicide.....I no longer care about your intentions.