Homosexuality

[Kaldayen]

What? You think that homosexual raptists are more innocent than heterosexual rapists? Is that what you were attempting to convey? Hello?
Or is it that you are trying to point out that man boy love is not rape, nor homosexuality? Guess what sir, the law thinks very different. So do the people of the land. No sympathy here.

Hm.. I didn't say anything close to that... Rape is unacceptable. So are pedophiles. Those people are sick and should be treated. As I said in my previous post : "it's awful". Don't make me say things I didn't say.

The priest raping a young boy may be ALSO gay (that's far from being automatic), but it would be equally disguting with a young girl...

Now can we leave pedophilia out of this thread? We're speaking of homosexuality which is, a MAN in love with another MAN, or a woman in love with another woman. Both being of legal age and able to decide of their own acts.
___
Kal

 

[Quahom1]

Hm.. I didn't say anything close to that... Rape is unacceptable. So are pedophiles. Those people are sick and should be treated. As I said in my previous post : "it's awful". Don't make me say things I didn't say.

The priest raping a young boy may be ALSO gay (that's far from being automatic), but it would be equally disguting with a young girl...

Now can we leave pedophilia out of this thread? We're speaking of homosexuality which is, a MAN in love with another MAN, or a woman in love with another woman. Both being of legal age and able to decide of their own acts.
___
Kal

"A man commiting pedophilia isn't gay. He likes young people. Whatever sex they may be. That's awful and it has nothing to do with gays. That's the best proof that people don't understand homosexuality... "

You sir said this, I did not. Don't even think to begin putting this on me. I will not accept nor tolerate it. You deal with your own words, just like everyone else here.

Q

 

[Kaldayen]

Even if I reread, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean... i said that pedophilia and homosexuality are 2 distinct things. Do you not agree?
___
Kal

 

[ISFP]

If one of my children is gay...I will cry for a time, then get on with life. If he ever attempts to introduce his "friend" as his lover or anything else that implies such, I will kick both their butts off my property. Why? Because my sons know how I feel already. To attempt to get me to accept personally a certain status when I already laid down the rules...is disrespect towards me. End of statement. End of statement.

you know.... i once heard a quote by Judy Shepard (the mother of Matthew Shepard) that said "I can't understand parents who reject their children on the basis of homosexuality or homosexual relationships. my feeling is that when you agree to bring a child into world, as their parent, you are agreeing to love them unconditionally for who they are, not for whom you want them or wish them to be."

i think i'll side with Judy on this one.

 

[Kaldayen]

On further thought, I think I understand where might be the misunderstanding. We need to define the vocabulary. On its strictest meaning, homosexuality is the act of having sexual relationship with someone of the same sex.

If that's the only meaning there is to it, a priest raping a young boy is both a pedophile and an homosexual. A priest raping a young girl is a pedophile and an heterosexual. Both have been seen and both are disgusting. I know we agree on this.

The thing is, my relationship with a guy isn't only about sex. That's only a little part of our life. Thus what I live isn't only homosexuality, it's something bigger than this. Should I invent a new word for it? If it already exists, I don't know it. So for the purpose of this thread, I'll use the word gay.

So as I said earlier, A man commiting pedophilia isn't gay.

Dunno if it's more clear now. Keep in mind english isn't my first language please... so if my words had hidden meanings, they weren't meant to be.

Don't even think to begin putting this on me. I will not accept nor tolerate it.

I am not attacking you...
___
Kal

 

[Dor]

read that preamble of the Constitution again and then explain how you can deny the same rights to someone and still believe that you adhere to the values stated therein that proclaim, amongst others, that "All men are created Equal and are endowned with certain inalienable rights."

The Preamble to the Constitution : We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




​

part of the Decleration of Independence : We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,



​

personally I dont see marriage listed in either one of them...however it is not just homosexuals that are not allowed "legal" marriages, brother/sister, parent/child, first cousins, polygamy all are also legislated.

teaching my children that there is some being up in the sky watching them is tantamount to pyschological terror... they are being watched by an invisible being that sees all they do and will judge them for it. if that's your belief, fine and dandy, don't go trying to teach my kids that it's normal or even healthy.

Sounds like Santa Claus and I bet your kids get alot more of that in their school then they do God or Jesus.

it also equals, amongst others, abused children, sexually assaulted wives and children, alcoholicism, divorced and broken families and all manner of other things.

Can you show me any stats that show this does not occur in homosexuals relations.

let me introduce you to the wonderful world of in-vitro fertilization. indeed, a homosexual woman can give birth to a child. so.. there goes that argument.

Um still take a sperm and an egg so the 2 women still did not have a baby. They had to have help from a man in that.


So I will stick with the fact that it is not natural. Now if one of my kids comes to me some day and tells me she is gay, Im gonna give her a big hug and treat her like I always have.

Someone said it is not a choice its the way you were made. Well I was made a heterosexual and that wasnt a choice...now going in the bedroom with some girl I just met, my girlfriend, my live-in etc that is a choice I choose to make. And it is a sin. So being homosexual may not be a choice but acting on it is. But as far as judging anyone over it no thats not my place at all, I love them just as much as the next person.

 

[Dor]

The thing is, my relationship with a guy isn't only about sex. That's only a little part of our life. Thus what I live isn't only homosexuality, it's something bigger than this. Should I invent a new word for it? If it already exists, I don't know it. So for the purpose of this thread, I'll use the word gay

I do not think many of us here think it is wrong who anyone loves. I think the few of us that seem to have a problem. Has the problem with the cram it down everyones throat mentality that some (may be the minority) have, and we get bombarded with everyday.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

This verse shows its not the who we love its the way it is shown, be it man/man, woman/woman, male/female sex outside of marriage is a sin no matter who it is. So my sin is no smaller than yours is.

 

[Vajradhara]

Bon jour Quahom,

thank you for the post.

Vaj, Good day.

First off, if you read my bio, you'd note that I save lives for a living, not threaten them.

i'm responding to the words and the implied threat therein. actually, i've not read your bio, though i will now that you've suggested it.

I do not not have to accept anyone's way of life, especially when it is proven that a particular way of living is shown to be destructive. Gay living has been shown statistically to be rather destructive, albeit more so than any other life style. I did not make up the statistics.

sorry, Quahom. proof is only a property of a formal system like maths and logic. what we have when we are not in such a formal system is evidence.

so, if you have some evidence to bring forth, please do so. by the same token, i can bring forth volumes of evidence that equally point to heteros having just as much difficulities in their relationships.

statistics are the victory of the quantive method. the victory of the quantive method is a victory of sterility and death. ~ H. Belloc.

what, on earth, is "gay living" is that like living only happier?

Your problem with christianity is not mine.

'natch, being as you are a Christian.

I do not attempt to convince you or your children to convert. The gay agenda is manifest, and as such can be read for all the world on the web pages that espouse Gay life. If I must, I will find you a series of specific links that state the same.

ah. so, it is your view that the "gay agenda" is really trying to convince you and your children to be gay? that is an odd view to maintain and doesn't seem to be based in any factual data.

my issue with Christianity isn't that you folks try to convert me... you have no choice, you have to try. my issue is that you think it's normal and try to present this view as normal, in essence, trying to convince my children that your view is normal and ours is not.

other than the subject, how is my view different than yours?

No churches you say? The Anglican church and the Episcopalian church are in an absolute uproar about the Gay issue. The Catholic church is realing from allegations (and proof), of pedephilia between priests and kids (read that as gay man and male child Vaj...). where have you been?

indeed. i'm singularly unaware of any gay person demanding that a Church marry them in a religious ceremony.

so now you are equivocating pedephilia with homosexuality? how's that happen? there are way more heterosexual men that abuse children then there are homosexual men that do.

how have you concluded that the corrupted priests were gay? that seems to be a selective interepetation of a much more complex and difficult problem to resolve.

The 613 Mitzvot do not apply to Christians Vaj, They apply to the people of the law (The Jews). Christians only have two laws, Love neighbors, and Love God. (The two laws are all encompassing but do not mean we must accept errant behavior).

if this is so, then being homosexual is not a problem since it is not covered in your New Covenant. if, however, when the moral component is brought into play, there is nothing to be said against them in the NT that cannot be said of any being that has lust.

who determins what is "errant" behavior? i can think of all manner of things that may be "errant" to some but not "errant" to others.

Let me introduce you to the wonder world of natural order. Man, is made physically a certain way, and woman is made physically a certain way, and by God, they fit together!, Naturally!!! And it is good!

God is not natural. if God were natural, we could detect, measure, quantify and test God. i'm presuming that you feel that we cannot do this with God. God is "super" natural, somewhat above and beyond nature.

There is nothing natural about being gay, except the fact that one person may (possibly), have strong feelings for another, yet they can't really be together physically, in a natural way.

other than God making them that way, right? or do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice? if you believe it is a choice, can you choose to be gay? why or why not?

So they can be very close in feelings, but they don't have to express their feelings sexually. Or if they do, they can keep it quiet!

just like a white woman and a black man can be married as long as they don't flaunt it, eh? i really see little difference between these civil rights issues. as an immigrant to America, it is a very strange thing to see that some Americans don't view others as equal to themselves in the eyes of the law. i must confess that i'm constantly surprised by it.

There is nothing "fun" about this post.

v/r

Q

i disagree. the "fun" in the post is how this argument can be applied to any ideology that one does not agree with. in my case, i turned the argument to Christianity. we could turn it to chocolate iced cream and it would still be applicable.

perhaps "fun" isn't the correct term. hmm... i'll have to check my thesaurus for a better term...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Dor,

thank you for the post.

part of the Decleration of Independence : We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
​

​

thank you for the correction. it's been a long time since i took my citizenship test


​

personally I dont see marriage listed in either one of them...however it is not just homosexuals that are not allowed "legal" marriages, brother/sister, parent/child, first cousins, polygamy all are also legislated.

since marriage isn't listed, then i suppose that heterosexual couples can't be married either?

black people and white people didn't used to be able to marry in America either. that was wrong then, and it was corrected. denial of civil rights to homosexuals is wrong now and should be corrected.

Sounds like Santa Claus and I bet your kids get alot more of that in their school then they do God or Jesus.

actually, no, they don't. we don't teach Santa Claus to our children nor G!D or Jesus since these are conceptions and values which are not ours. but, you are right... the descriptions seem pretty much the same

Can you show me any stats that show this does not occur in homosexuals relations.

ah.. nice parry. here's my ripost.

all you have to do is present evidence to support the contention that these things do not happen to heterosexual couples and then i'll present evidence that homosexuals are regular people to, as such, a homosexual woman or man could have a penchant for minors or robbery or any thing that a heterosexual person does.

Um still take a sperm and an egg so the 2 women still did not have a baby. They had to have help from a man in that.

so... is it your view that a hemaphrodite should simply be not allowed to exist since they can't have children? it seems to always come back to the ability to breed.

So I will stick with the fact that it is not natural.

what fact? depending on your religious views, G!D made all things and declared them "good". of course, humans seemingly have no problems knowing what G!D "really" meant.

Now if one of my kids comes to me some day and tells me she is gay, Im gonna give her a big hug and treat her like I always have.

is this level of compassion reserved for your own biological offspring or do you feel compassion for others?

Someone said it is not a choice its the way you were made. Well I was made a heterosexual and that wasnt a choice...

ok..

now going in the bedroom with some girl I just met, my girlfriend, my live-in etc that is a choice I choose to make. And it is a sin.

really? just going into a bedroom with a person of the opposite sex is a sin? what religious path do you follow?

So being homosexual may not be a choice but acting on it is.

so. what you are really saying is this.

you can do what you'd like regarding sex however, homosexuals cannot. that's no kind of equality. but, then again, i don't know if you think that equality is actually a worthwhile thing. some beings do not.

But as far as judging anyone over it no thats not my place at all, I love them just as much as the next person.

i'm not sure that's the question. i think the question is more to the legal rights and responsibilities that a couple in a comitted relationship are granted by the system of law that America follows.

let's be clear. nobody is saying that a religious group needs to change their views and support homosexuals or even to consider them as human. what we are saying is that a nation which purports to view all humans as created equal is obligated to actually enforce equal civil rights for all the humans that live within it's jurisdiction.

further, nobody is saying that anybody on a personal level needs to accept the decisions of homosexual people, what is being said is that equal rights means just that, equal rights. not some are more equal than others.

 

[Quahom1]

Bon jour Quahom,

thank you for the post.


i'm responding to the words and the implied threat therein. actually, i've not read your bio, though i will now that you've suggested it.


sorry, Quahom. proof is only a property of a formal system like maths and logic. what we have when we are not in such a formal system is evidence.

so, if you have some evidence to bring forth, please do so. by the same token, i can bring forth volumes of evidence that equally point to heteros having just as much difficulities in their relationships.

statistics are the victory of the quantive method. the victory of the quantive method is a victory of sterility and death. ~ H. Belloc.

what, on earth, is "gay living" is that like living only happier?


'natch, being as you are a Christian.


ah. so, it is your view that the "gay agenda" is really trying to convince you and your children to be gay? that is an odd view to maintain and doesn't seem to be based in any factual data.

my issue with Christianity isn't that you folks try to convert me... you have no choice, you have to try. my issue is that you think it's normal and try to present this view as normal, in essence, trying to convince my children that your view is normal and ours is not.

other than the subject, how is my view different than yours?


indeed. i'm singularly unaware of any gay person demanding that a Church marry them in a religious ceremony.

so now you are equivocating pedephilia with homosexuality? how's that happen? there are way more heterosexual men that abuse children then there are homosexual men that do.

how have you concluded that the corrupted priests were gay? that seems to be a selective interepetation of a much more complex and difficult problem to resolve.


if this is so, then being homosexual is not a problem since it is not covered in your New Covenant. if, however, when the moral component is brought into play, there is nothing to be said against them in the NT that cannot be said of any being that has lust.

who determins what is "errant" behavior? i can think of all manner of things that may be "errant" to some but not "errant" to others.


God is not natural. if God were natural, we could detect, measure, quantify and test God. i'm presuming that you feel that we cannot do this with God. God is "super" natural, somewhat above and beyond nature.


other than God making them that way, right? or do you believe that sexual orientation is a choice? if you believe it is a choice, can you choose to be gay? why or why not?


just like a white woman and a black man can be married as long as they don't flaunt it, eh? i really see little difference between these civil rights issues. as an immigrant to America, it is a very strange thing to see that some Americans don't view others as equal to themselves in the eyes of the law. i must confess that i'm constantly surprised by it.


i disagree. the "fun" in the post is how this argument can be applied to any ideology that one does not agree with. in my case, i turned the argument to Christianity. we could turn it to chocolate iced cream and it would still be applicable.

perhaps "fun" isn't the correct term. hmm... i'll have to check my thesaurus for a better term...

Bon Soir Vaj,

The term "extreme predjudice" does not automatically imply violence (physical or otherwise). It simply means without reserving or holding back, or not letting up.

Here is evidence that I submit towards backing my concerns about the ulterior motives of the Gay and Lesbian agenda:

Statistics You Should Know: It's Not Just Holding Hands

• 65% of all reported AIDS cases among males in the United States since 1981 have been men engaged in homosexual behavior. (Center for Disease Control HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Vol. 9, No. 2, May, 1998)
• Homosexuals account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of cases of Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B. (JAMA, 1986)
• 40% report they have had more than 40 partners; 24% report they have had more than 100 partners. (genre Magazine, 10/96)
• 52% report they have had sex in a public park; 46% report they have had sex in a public bathroom. (genre Magazine, 10/96)
• 32% report they had "tied each other up" during sex, a form of sadomasochism. (genre Magazine, 10/96)

Seven DEMANDS of the Homosexual Agenda:

Set forth and distributed at the "Gay Pride" March on Washington, D.C., April 25, 1993

1. Demand the repeal of all sodomy laws and legalization of all forms of sexual expression. (Including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with youth.)
2. Demand defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses, and taxpayer funding of sex change operations.
3. Demand the legalization of same sex marriages, and legalization of adoption, custody, and foster care within these structures.
4. Demand the full inclusion of lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and trans-genders in education and childcare.
5. Demand that contraceptives and abortion services be made available to all persons, regardless of age.
6. Demand taxpayer funding for artificial insemination of lesbians and bisexuals. Forbid religious based concerns regarding homosexuality from being expressed [as is already the case on radio & TV in Canada].
7. Demand that organizations, such as Boy Scouts, be required to accept homosexual scoutmasters.

The Deceptive Portrayal

In their blueprint for homosexual activism, After the Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen teach that activists must "desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flow of gay-related advertising." They advocate that the portrayal of homosexuals should be positive and non-threatening, "First you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible. Then, and only then—when your one little difference is finally accepted—can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one."

Homosexual Deception

"In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay-rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First, let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!"

Marshall Kirk, Erastes Pill,
The Overhauling of Straight America

Forced Acceptance

When a diversity consultant in 1994 asked whether some employees might be reluctant to undergo sensitivity training on homosexuality, openly homosexual U.S. Patents and Trademark Commissioner Bruce Lehmen replied: It's got to be forced down their throats. If they want to be bigots, they can go work for someone else's department.

Washington Times, 9/8/94

Free Speech – Outlawed!

Last year the California Legislature voted to allow citizens to use public, taxpayer money to sue Christian organizations (like radio stations or schools) that refer to homosexuality as a sin. (You know, like in the Bible?) This bill, AB257, actually passed in both Houses, only to be vetoed by outgoing Governor Pete Wilson. Another bill, AB310, would have put churches under state regulation, so they would be forced to hire homosexuals.

Homosexuality, Mental Illness, and the American Psychiatric Association

In 1973, the APA removed Homosexuality from its diagnostic category of mental illnesses. This action came not as a result of new research and findings, but was ultimately brought about by militant protest staged by activists at the APA annual convention. In other words, intimidation was a key motivation. In fact, only 16% of the entire APA membership actually voted in favor of the radical change. Homosexuality, Dr. James Mallory, Head of Psychiatric unit – Rapha Center, Atlanta, Ga.; Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (N.Y.: Basic Books, 1981), 101-54; Wm. Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Fran.: Ignatius Press, 1989), 24-39.

Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right

The assertion that homosexuals are a true minority group is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court Based on three criteria:

1. Economic Deprivation – NO! Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals, and higher household incomes. (W.S. Journal, 2/10/89; N.Y. Times, 8/22/90).
2. Political Powerlessness – NO! Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The Human Rights Campaign Fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs. (The Economist, 4/24/93) Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable. (Turn your TV on!)
3. Immutable Characteristics – NO! Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior!

I didn't make this stuff up. it is out there for anyone to find, if they wish to.

As far as trying to convert anyone to Christianity...I don't go looking, and I don't tell them I'm right and they are wrong. I state what works for me, and will discuss (at their request only), my faith, as well as listen to theirs.

As far as pedophilia and homsexuality, Vaj, let me ask you - when two people are of the same gender and engage in sexual relations, is that or is that not described as a homosexual act? If you answer yes it is a homosexual act or behavior, then I answer yes to the fact that pedophilia can in certain instances (as describe above for example), be called, among other things, a homosexual act or behavior.

Yes Vaj, the corrupted priests were/are homosexual (for the most part) and pedophiles.

Yes Vaj, I think Homosexuality is a choice, not a disease. On occasion I'm certain some people are hardwired differently, or have a serious mixup in the genetic design. But not most. I don't know why, perhaps it is exciting, perhaps they were hurt, or I don't know. Forbidden fruit comes to mind. Perhaps they really like someone as a person, and over time, feelings evolve for that person that may want to express in a physical/sexual fashion. Perhaps it is merely thrill seeking, or an addictive behavior. Perhaps it is simply lust.

I do not know what you mean by blacks and whites, or two different ethnic groups marrying and having families, but keeping quiet, since that is evident and quite accepted in my own family. The kids produced are pretty handsome by all standards I have to tell you.

But mixed ethnicity is not the same as homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not foreign to my family either. the people are accepted, but the behavior is not.

Someone else (Blue I think), pointed out that Jesus, never brought up any issue pertaining to homsexuality. I have to agree. And I believe that homosexuality is no more or less a sin than say, an adulterous relationship between heterosexuals (I take exception to pedophiles...that is a grevious sin, and in fact Jesus was VERY specific on suffering the little ones from coming to the path of righteousness, or stripping them of their innocence). That Vaj, is a mistake that Jesus did/does not tolerate by any stretch of the imagination.

Now in the OT, God the Father called homosexual behavior an abomination.
Abomination
1. n.

The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing; as, he holds tobacco in abomination.​

2. n.

That which is abominable; anything hateful, wicked, or shamefully vile; an object or state that excites disgust and hatred; a hateful or shameful vice; pollution.​

3. n.

A cause of pollution or wickedness.​

4.

an action that is vicious or vile; an action that arouses disgust or abhorence; "his treatment of the children is an abomination"​

See Vaj, I didn't make this up either. It was spoken of several thousand years ago, according to certain scriptures.

My loss of "fun" in this thread began when children and their lost innocence by adults, was brought to the fore front, and in my opinion, callously so.

Nameste Vaj, and my you be having a pleasant day.

v/r

Q

 

[Kaldayen]

I did a netsearch on google to find out where you had taken your "statistics".

Here's the result : http://www.ifca.org/News/homosexuality.htm

I'm not surprised to see that IFCA stands for Independent Fundamental Churches of America (I.F.C.A.).
"IFCA International began in 1930 as an association of Bible believing, independent fundamental churches, organizations and individuals. It has since served as a source of cooperative efforts in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ and in the teaching of believers."

That's an all-you-need-to-demonize-homosexuality webpage... You won't convince anyone with that...

1. Demand the repeal of all sodomy laws and legalization of all forms of sexual expression. (Including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with youth.)

If you truly believe that gays demand the legalization of pedophilia, you don't deserve my attention... I give up.
___
Kal

 

[Quahom1]

I did a netsearch on google to find out where you had taken your "statistics".

Here's the result : http://www.ifca.org/News/homosexuality.htm

I'm not surprised to see that IFCA stands for Independent Fundamental Churches of America (I.F.C.A.).
"IFCA International began in 1930 as an association of Bible believing, independent fundamental churches, organizations and individuals. It has since served as a source of cooperative efforts in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ and in the teaching of believers."

That's an all-you-need-to-demonize-homosexuality webpage... You won't convince anyone with that...

[/list][/font]
If you truly believe that gays demand the legalization of pedophilia, you don't deserve my attention... I give up.
___
Kal

Please take a second look at exactly where the information was gathered from Kal. Not from Christian fundementalists, but rather standard media type groups, established science and medical centers, acccepted laurettes and thinkers, outspoken gay rights advocates, Gay Pride Magazine, and state legistlation...not Christian fundementalist groups.

 

[bananabrain]

The original hebrew word translated "as to sin" in the bible actually meant "to miss the mark," the way an arrow misses its target.

actually, there are several words that can be translated as sin and they all have subtly different meanings; for example, sins of doing what you shouldn't and sins of not doing what you should are different from each other.

What is normal is judged by the society and culture of the day, so who has the right to say that homosexuality is wrong?

that's not how religious law works, at least not jewish law. although there is some flexibility made possible by the passage of time, the principle cannot be changed. thus, we are still commanded to destroy amalek, although the definition of amalek has changed from a distinct group of people to an intangible concept.

now, since people are so keen to drag the Torah into this as a source of authority, why don't we look at how it *really* works in practice?

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

leaving aside the translation difficulties here, which are considerable, it occurs to me that it is possible that this verse could be easily "disarmed" simply by saying "it's impossible to 'lie with a male' as one 'lies with a female'", for the simple reason that the acts concerned are anatomically different. nobody ever tries that particular approach. unfortunately, i don't actually think that the text will really support that, although it would be nice if it did.

the way i approach this admittedly difficult issue is this: halacha (jewish law) at least in its basic written form in the Torah prescribes the death penalty for almost everything, including gathering sticks on Shabbat. what you have to understand is the way that capital punishment works in practice in a halachic framework, which is this: it is virtually impossible to secure a conviction in a capital case, for the reason that the standard of proof requires would a) require two witnesses to warn the about-to-act-homosexually couple that their action was punishable by death and b) for the couple to respond immediately by saying "we know and we don't care and we're going to do it anyway" and then c) *immediately* proceed to carry out the forbidden act, which is in any case restricted to refer to anal sex alone.

the next restriction would be that there would have to be a religious court that was a) authorised to try capital cases (which has not existed since the destruction of the Temple and won't until the Messiah comes) and b) had not passed a death sentence within the last SEVENTY years. now, when you consider the number of things that technically qualify for a death sentence, the chances of getting this to trial would be effectively nil.

finally, even in the unlikely event of having a suitable court and a suitable sinner, there is another safeguard, which is the "eye for an eye" mechanism whereby if a blind man knocks out another man's eye, there's no way the court can penalise him accordingly, because he hasn't got another eye. from this, the rabbis deduced that a fine must be allowable instead and they then extended this to cover many other cases. by this logic, even if convicted, the most you would get would be a fine.

returning to the question of equivalence, the way the halacha works is that acts that are *equivalently penalised* are seen as spiritually equivalent. therefore, if breaking Shabbat is punishable by death, then it's logically "just as bad" as homosexuality. this equivalence means that it is halachically indefensible to sanction homosexuality *if you do not ALSO sanction Shabbat violation.* and i don't see many jewish communal bodies that check up on whether you keep Shabbat, much less inspect what you get up to in your own bedroom. what is more, to *discriminate* against or otherwise mistreat someone verbally, physically or otherwise, on the basis of the *status* of "homosexual" (as opposed to for an actual act that you witnessed) is even *worse* than what they are supposed to have done in the first place. therefore, people who are more concerned with gays than Shabbat are guilty of imposing their own priorities on the Divine, which is really, really bad. at no point that i am aware of, do the sages start banging on about what is natural and what is unnatural, or about how sex is only for procreation (which they don't believe) - they simply confine themselves to what is permitted and what is not.

incidentally, none of this applies to lesbianism, btw - although it is obviously not approved of, it's not actually explicitly forbidden and you can be an active lesbian without breaking any law as far as i know (although i am not a halachic expert).

hopefully, i have outlined why it's not as simple as "G!D hates gays". i am not trying to brush this under the carpet, obviously the halachic solution falls far short of complete sanction for and acceptance of homosexuality, but you are (or at least should be) effectively protected against discrimination even if you're disapproved of and that's more than can be said of most other ways of addressing this issue. consequently i feel no conflict between my religious principles and my many friendships with gay people whether jewish or not (and, while i'm at it, the Torah is only addressing us, like i keep saying, so actually this is only a problem for jews, as i think Q has pointed out) - in fact, by not being homophobic and fighting homophobia, i consider it to be a religious duty. so there we are.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Visitor]

Quote
Who are you to say or decide that killing another person is not normal, just because you strongly agree with something doesn’t necessarily make it right, how do we define normal?

I guess the obvious answer would be ‘the majority’, I agree it would make sense, but lets create another scenario, in fact lets create a parallel universe for the purpose of discussion; we live in a world where murder is considered the norm, the reason for this is because the vast majority of humans (including respected professionals) enjoy killing, it gives them a sense of joy on par with say eating chocolate (in our universe), is murder then acceptable or considered right?
Quote

I guess the concept that majority rules is something of a hangover from our idea that democracy is what it claims to be. I don't think that just because the majority says it is okay that makes something right, "Sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" (Captain Kirk i believe). Even if you were in a situation where the majority of people found murder to be desirable and even "right" it would not logically follow that it was. Masses have been know to be wrong from time to time (think Hitler and Nazi Germany; George Bush jr and Republican America; John Howard and Liberal Australia for example).

You also mention that what with everything else going on in the world what two people do with their own sexuality is beside the point. I think God i sconcerned to the utmost about what each person does with their lives. It's not as if because of 'bigger problems' we can slip under God's radar about what He desires from us (radar is a terrible expression but all I could think of for now).

 

[Kaldayen]

Quahom,

If that "homosexual agenda" is real (I haven't found the source on the net), don't expect me to believe they had written the little text in parenthesis about pedophila. That is, for sure, an addition from the fundamentalist webpage.

I repeat it again : pedophilia is NOT a form of sexual expression. it was NEVER asked to be legalized. it has NOTHING to do with being gay.
___
Kal

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Quahom,

thank you for the post.

Bon Soir Vaj,

The term "extreme predjudice" does not automatically imply violence (physical or otherwise). It simply means without reserving or holding back, or not letting up.

really?? i've never heard it used in a context other than violence. predjudice is, well... predjudice, extreme or otherwise.

it is quite possible that i don't understand all the nuances of the term.

my dictonary defines it thusly:

1. injury or damage resulting from some judgement or action fo another in regards to ones' rights; esp: detrimental to ones' legal rights or claims. 2. preconceived judgement or opinion, a) an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge, b) an instance of such judgement or opinion, c) an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

hopefully, you can see how such a statement of yours can be, at the least, ambigous.

Here is evidence that I submit towards backing my concerns about the ulterior motives of the Gay and Lesbian agenda:

i would ask for the source of this information, though i note the Kal has already done so. i would tend to be skeptical of a fundamentalist Christian source for this information, given it's penchant for intolerance and so forth.

I didn't make this stuff up. it is out there for anyone to find, if they wish to.

i hope that you don't think that i think that you made it up. i do not.

As far as pedophilia and homsexuality, Vaj, let me ask you - when two people are of the same gender and engage in sexual relations, is that or is that not described as a homosexual act? If you answer yes it is a homosexual act or behavior, then I answer yes to the fact that pedophilia can in certain instances (as describe above for example), be called, among other things, a homosexual act or behavior.

then pedophilia can also be called a hetero sexual act. however, pedophilia is not a "part" of either sexual orientiation, hetero or homo, per se. it is an abnormal behavior that is not limited to any specific group, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

here's the problem with equivocating these two... what you are really implying is that homosexuality is a felony criminal act. it most definately is not. yet, pedophilia is. pedophilia is a distinct act of abbhorance seperate and apart from ones choice of sex partners.

Yes Vaj, the corrupted priests were/are homosexual (for the most part) and pedophiles.

ok.. how do you *know* that? have they told this information to you? or are you inferring it from their actions?

Yes Vaj, I think Homosexuality is a choice, not a disease. On occasion I'm certain some people are hardwired differently, or have a serious mixup in the genetic design.

if homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. could you, personally, *choose* to be gay? if not, why not? if it really is just a matter of preference, then you should be able to change your perference as well, yes?

how is it mixed up? do you support Evolution as the mechanism by which the species became diversified?

But not most.

again... how do *you* know this?

I don't know why, perhaps it is exciting, perhaps they were hurt, or I don't know.

oh... well, if you don't know why i am having a real hard time understanding how you can continue to maintain the position that you have on this issue.

Forbidden fruit comes to mind. Perhaps they really like someone as a person, and over time, feelings evolve for that person that may want to express in a physical/sexual fashion. Perhaps it is merely thrill seeking, or an addictive behavior. Perhaps it is simply lust.

perhaps G!D just made them that way? did you consider this? of course, you may not be a being that believes in special creation, so this may not be an appropriate concern on your behalf.

I do not know what you mean by blacks and whites, or two different ethnic groups marrying and having families, but keeping quiet, since that is evident and quite accepted in my own family. The kids produced are pretty handsome by all standards I have to tell you.

oh.. my point is that until quite recently, black and white were not permitted to marry in America. some said it was not "biblical" and all manner of other things. our society, however, did not support that view and eventually, overturned those rules and laws.

this was discrimination based on ethnicity to deny legal rights to a comitted couple. this is the same discrimination that homosexual couples are going through now. our society deemed it more important for black and white couples to be legally bound and obligated to each other, than it did for perserving segregation. our society is in the process of determining if it is more worthwhile for homosexual couples to have the same legal duties and obligations as the rest of the married folks in the country.

thus far, i have seen no compelling reason to deny these equal rights to homosexuals. it seems that the argument cuts along religious lines and views, more than anything else.

But mixed ethnicity is not the same as homosexuality.

didn't say it was, just that society decided that discrimination for mixed ethnicity couples was not correct and that same discrimination exists, today, for homosexual couples.

Someone else (Blue I think), pointed out that Jesus, never brought up any issue pertaining to homsexuality. I have to agree. And I believe that homosexuality is no more or less a sin than say, an adulterous relationship between heterosexuals (I take exception to pedophiles...that is a grevious sin, and in fact Jesus was VERY specific on suffering the little ones from coming to the path of righteousness, or stripping them of their innocence). That Vaj, is a mistake that Jesus did/does not tolerate by any stretch of the imagination.

hopefully you now clearly understand that equivocating homosexuality with pedophilia is a rhetorical tactice that doesn't have any actual bearing on the issue. pedophilia is a crime and criminals should have to provide restitution for their crimes. nobody is arguing differently.

i will argue, however, that to equate homosexuality with pedophilia is dangerously wrong.

Now in the OT, God the Father called homosexual behavior an abomination.
Abomination

See Vaj, I didn't make this up either. It was spoken of several thousand years ago, according to certain scriptures.

see.. the problem is, Quahom, is that you dont' follow the rest of the Laws, why would you choose this one to follow? i submit that this is chosen because it conforms to your political agenda in this regard, not that it is actually a teaching that you uphold.

My loss of "fun" in this thread began when children and their lost innocence by adults, was brought to the fore front, and in my opinion, callously so.

Nameste Vaj, and my you be having a pleasant day.

Q

i don't follow? it seems that you are asserting that only homosexual men or women commit crimes against children. if this is what you are saying, then it's just plain nonesense.

 

[Quahom1]

I will say this as succinctly as I can.

The act of pedophilia is a sexual act with a minor child. That in and of it self is the horrendous part. If the pedophile has sexual relations with a child of the same gender, that is a homosexual act. If the pedophile has sexual relations with a child of the opposite gender, then it not a homosexual act.

So when the question is posed is pedophilia a homosexual act, and I answer yes, it can be, perhaps I should expound by stating the obvious..."If the pedophile has sexual relations with a child of the same gender, that is a homosexual act."

Is sexual intercourse (either heterosexual or homosexual) illegal? No, unless it is done with a child under the age of consent.

Now Kal, as far as your insistance that the Christian fundementalists put a bad spin on the demands alleged by homosexual rights groups (in general), and no intention is out there to change the laws concerning pedophilia I am going to provide you with a few of links. After you review one or two of them (I don't think you could stomach much more than that, I know I couldn't), ask yourself if it was the Christian fundementalists who made a false claim, or if maybe, just maybe you didn't realize the extremeness of the agenda of some advocate groups, just how many there are...

I will side with you that there are extremist groups in every walk of life, including Christianty claimers and homosexual rights groups, as well as a million others.

Here you go:
Moderator edit: Links removed (the list of organizations below certainly suffice for the point without a need to link to any one of them)


[Admin edit - by request, list of paedophile groups removed]

 

[bruceg]

Quahom, I think you miss the point. The point is not that pedophilia exists, nor that there are groups interested in the legalization/promotion of it. The discussion was about homosexuality - *not* pedophilia. The two are quite separate.

To conflate the two together is incorrect and offensive - as offensive (and as incorrect) as saying that because there are some terrorists with black hair, all black haired people are terrorists, and should not have the legal right to open a bank account.

I will also point out to *all* posters that this discussion is bordering on the verge of crossing the line into graphic imagery not permitted under the Code of Conduct. (In fact, Quahom, I have edited your post to remove the links to keep within the guidelines as they link to material not suitable for a family-friendly site, and your point is reasonably made with the list of organizations without the links)

 

[Quahom1]

Quahom, I think you miss the point. The point is not that pedophilia exists, nor that there are groups interested in the legalization/promotion of it. The discussion was about homosexuality - *not* pedophilia. The two are quite separate.

To conflate the two together is incorrect and offensive - as offensive (and as incorrect) as saying that because there are some terrorists with black hair, all black haired people are terrorists, and should not have the legal right to open a bank account.

I will also point out to *all* posters that this discussion is bordering on the verge of crossing the line into graphic imagery not permitted under the Code of Conduct. (In fact, Quahom, I have edited your post to remove the links to keep within the guidelines as they link to material not suitable for a family-friendly site, and your point is reasonably made with the list of organizations without the links)

I did not want to go down this road at all. I never went after anyone, but simply answered a question, and intended to move on with the rest of the posts, but my answer obviously threw a great many people into unrest. The links were intended declarations, discussions, not stories or pictographs (I assure you I do not post porn). Should I have ignored it. Yes.

I don't know if an apology is in order, but if so then I offer it for my part in letting this post run amok.

v/r

Q

 

[Kaldayen]

Quahom1,

Ok well.. you obviously made up your point. There are indeed some groups who ask for the legalization of pedophilia... That is simply disgusting... You know I agree with you on this.

That said, I'm sure many of those groups ask for heterosexual pedophilia legalization... (I don't want to go check, as you said, I don't want to see those websites).

I'm not sure why you're posting over and over speaking about pedophilia on this thread... I think we clearly showed there was no link between the two. Do you try to show the readers there is one in order to disgust them of homosexuality?
___
Kal