-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Homosexuality
- Thread starter jjfun
- Start date
- Status
Praising saints does not equate to disbelief in Christ. Someone has apparently been drinking a little too much Falwell-flavored Cool-Aid. And your question still stands as completely irrelevant, unless we're serving up some good ol' fashioned witch-hunting today.
Right, I never said it did... I said the main focus should be on God, but it's not most of the time in the Catholic Church...Those were examples showing that the primary focus wasn't on God. But we digress; way too much if you ask me, but these types of things usually come to something like this eventually... So anyway, back on topic...
Literal translations do not always carry the meaning of the original over.
However, I'm not an expert on how the bible was translated (also seeing that both sides provide sources for opposing views, my personal view is that it was translated too many times through too many different time periods to be highly accurate).
As is stands, even if the Bible was 100% correct in regards to the "original", that would still not make it an adequate argument against homosexuality.
However, I'm not an expert on how the bible was translated (also seeing that both sides provide sources for opposing views, my personal view is that it was translated too many times through too many different time periods to be highly accurate).
As is stands, even if the Bible was 100% correct in regards to the "original", that would still not make it an adequate argument against homosexuality.
You left off verses 4-5:
Strife, evil surmisings, and perverse disputings come from those who claim to be teachers of the truth, but in actuality differ from the word of Jesus. Godliness with contentment may certainly be gain, but gain is not inherently godly, and I would definitely say that the conflict between perceived offense to the religious and the right to make your own choices counts as strife. I'm not going to claim that I know enough about the Bible to make a claim as to what the phrase "perverse disputings" actually means, but I'd definitely say that the enforcement of your religious views on other people is definitely perverse insofar as it is inherently wrong and should not be done. This is merely my attempting to justify the right of people to make their own choices. Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't even things people have the luxury of choosing, it makes just as little sense to persecute people for having straight sex as it does to have gay sex.1 Timothy 6:4-5 said:
Moreover, the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, and it's difficult enough to even come to a consensus on what any part of the Bible means, which I think limits its use as something that is ineffable and should be taken literally. Most importantly, you've ignored my point, restated by Tangerine, and probably many others, that you have no right to say that homosexuality is wrong by any Biblical standard, because you are just as far in the wrong, and if you fail to acknowledge that, you are actually hypocritical. If you notice that the word hypocrite is used so often, there just might be a reason for it.
On top of all of this, why would you think that you have any right to persecute homosexuality because it goes aganist your belief system? I believe that murder is wrong and that people should give up eating animals or plants that require the death of the organism. Does this mean that, since McDonalds is obviously offending me, that we should ban it, teach people in schools that McDonalds is wrong, stop people from eating it, and do everything possible to limit those people who make the choice to eat McDonalds? What if instead of me being a vegetarian, which I admit is a choice, I was any religious extremist that considered Christianity offensive and disgusting? Suddenly it's ok for Christians to decide what is offensive and attempt to pass laws against it, but other religions don't? On top of this, being Christian is STILL A CHOICE. At least you have a way out of that sort of persecution. If I extend this even further and say that I hate all women and that they should be persecuted, and that it should be socially unacceptable for people to be women, all those women who are born are forced to choose between admitting their femininity and being socially ostracised, or living the rest of their life in hiding, pretending to be male. The fact that being gay might go against Christianity is undeniable, I won't even argue on that point. If you personally want to say that you find homosexuality disgusting, then go ahead and say that. But there is no reason at all where such attitude should ever translate to a secular government in any form. In any system that has any claim to being consistent or fair, persecution on basis of sexual orientation is just as, if not more, wrong than persecution on the basis of the choice of religion.
EDIT:
The Quran is the ineffable, inerrant, literal word of God. I know this because it says so in the Quran. In Quran 4:157, it says that Jesus actually wasn't crucified!
Arguing from the Bible is circular and meaningless; I could argue from the sacred text I wrote twenty minutes ago with just as much validity.
First of all, I do hope that you are not defending "biblical inerrancy" but simply a congruity of message. Inerrancy qua inerrancy is an incredibly easy position to demolish; compare Matthew's geneology to the one in I Chronicles, for instance. Azariah/Uzziah is the son of Jehoram/Joram in Matthew, skipping 4 generations: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt. 1:9; I Chron. 3:11-12;&version=31;
That aside, this is a topic that rather interests me so I can provide you with the names of several books, if you'd like. Some more accessible sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#New_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism_(Biblical_studies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaction_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece#Accuracy_of_the_New_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
http://webulite.com/thebiblegeek
I could go on, but this should suffice.
A (rather long) lecture further explaining this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJluEnIqTVk#t=4m11s
I highly suggest you find Bart D. Ehrman's book Lost Christianities at a library/Amazon and read it; it may help improve your woefully inadequate historical knowledge of the period.
Um.
In my opinion homosexuality is gross. One can not simply be born "gay". It is a choice. It is instinctive for all organism that reproduce to be "naturally" attracted to the opposite gender(including humans). But we humans have freedom of choice and of reason and tend to misuse it.
It is not reasonable to say that homosexuals can't help it. Cause they can!! It's not like you can be "destined to be gay". The whole destiny and predestination thing is bull crap anyway.
We don't even have to bring God into this. Homosexuality is unnatural. Sex (in all species that reproduce) is used for the sole purpose of reproduction. (what human does this??) A male can't reproduce with another male; or a female reproduce with another female for they have the same reproductive organs.
Of course homosexuals are going to defend themselves with lame excuses and off the wall explanations, but this doesn't mean that others have to believe it. It takes twisted mind to try to justify someone wanting to jump inside another man's ass.
Eating animals is natural. Ever heard of carnivores?? How can that be wrong?? I've never heard of homovores. Animals that only like their same sex. I'll eat animals to my heart collapses Jenigmat.
And by the bible homosexuality is WRONG. SO is a lot of other shiznit that people do all the time. But everyone here is NOT a Christian. So why even start on that topic??
In my opinion homosexuality is gross. One can not simply be born "gay". It is a choice. It is instinctive for all organism that reproduce to be "naturally" attracted to the opposite gender(including humans). But we humans have freedom of choice and of reason and tend to misuse it.
It is not reasonable to say that homosexuals can't help it. Cause they can!! It's not like you can be "destined to be gay". The whole destiny and predestination thing is bull crap anyway.
We don't even have to bring God into this. Homosexuality is unnatural. Sex (in all species that reproduce) is used for the sole purpose of reproduction. (what human does this??) A male can't reproduce with another male; or a female reproduce with another female for they have the same reproductive organs.
Of course homosexuals are going to defend themselves with lame excuses and off the wall explanations, but this doesn't mean that others have to believe it. It takes twisted mind to try to justify someone wanting to jump inside another man's ass.
Eating animals is natural. Ever heard of carnivores?? How can that be wrong?? I've never heard of homovores. Animals that only like their same sex. I'll eat animals to my heart collapses Jenigmat.
And by the bible homosexuality is WRONG. SO is a lot of other shiznit that people do all the time. But everyone here is NOT a Christian. So why even start on that topic??
You obviously didn't read the whole thread, there were several examples of animals that were homosexual.
Do you think that people would willingly be homosexual given the amount of idiotic prejudice (i.e. you) against them?
Edit: lol, luduan posted the EXACT same thing I did =P
Kindly explain how homosexuality is unnatural given that huge numbers of species engage in homosexual activity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals. Also kindly explain why someone would choose to be a member of a persecuted sexual minority. It has as much to do with "predestination" as one's natural hair color does.
Actually there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in nature.
Even primates engage in homosexual sex, hell, EVERY SINGLE GREAT APE has reported homosexuality. There are many cases of animals having sex for non-procreative reasons.
And your argument seems to be this:
1. Homosexuality isn't natural
2. Things that are unnatural are bad
Therefore, homosexuality is bad. Unless I completely misinterpreted your post, this is what I understand you to have meant. My only response can be that using a computer, modern medicine, any sort of technology, etc., are all unnatural, and therefore "gross".
Being much smarter then an idiot (and probably you), and absolutely straight, I agree that people "can" be willingly homosexual. You're arguing that people who cannot chose NOT to be homosexual don't exist, and 3 people have posted practically the same response, which you promptly ignored.
What extreme examples? Lizards? Monkeys?
I will say, though, it kinda annoys me that, in concern of LGBT, it's always Religion v. Sexual Orientation. I'm not going to say that there aren't people who are homophobic for religious reasons (that'd be impossible to defend in any way), but there are plenty who are who don't even bring religion into it. I know some non-religious people who disapprove of homosexuality, so it's not always about the Bible. I also kinda hate it because I'm bisexual and I actually do believe in God, but the whole debate makes it seem like this is an impossibility. I dunno.
Oh, and a few pages back people mentioned the whole, "Gays are gross but lesbians are awesome," attitude people have, and I find it sickening as well. However, I wouldn't say lesbians are glorified--to me it seems that most of the people who think lesbians are awesome only do so because its hot. Not because they support gay rights, not because they feel lesbians are the same as everyone else, but because they can get their rocks off to them in Naughty Nurses Nine. They just expect hot women to make out with one another for their own enjoyment. How many of these assholes, I wonder, would be saying how cool lesbians were if it was two fat women, or if they were less than photogenic, or if they knew they didn't have hot, steamy, kinky sex all the time?
Oh, and a few pages back people mentioned the whole, "Gays are gross but lesbians are awesome," attitude people have, and I find it sickening as well. However, I wouldn't say lesbians are glorified--to me it seems that most of the people who think lesbians are awesome only do so because its hot. Not because they support gay rights, not because they feel lesbians are the same as everyone else, but because they can get their rocks off to them in Naughty Nurses Nine. They just expect hot women to make out with one another for their own enjoyment. How many of these assholes, I wonder, would be saying how cool lesbians were if it was two fat women, or if they were less than photogenic, or if they knew they didn't have hot, steamy, kinky sex all the time?
You are the core of what is wrong in the world, your mindless, bigoted, uneducated BULLSHIT makes me want to find you and beat you to a pulp.
I would have been pissed if you'd just said it was a choice, my post indicates that it clearly isn't (Come on who the fuck wants to be hated unless they enjoy being different). If you even stop and think about it for a second it's clearly not a choice. Assuming you have/have had a girlfriend, I assume you found contact etc with them enjoyable, and the thought of any such contact with your own gender repulsive. Homosexuals feel the same way but in reverse, that's obvious.
But then, you go off on a huge rant about how repulsive and disgusting it is, while clearly not understanding it at all. It's very easy for you to say how "unnatural" it is to "jump into a man's ass" but you haven't felt that way (Nor have I before you get any ideas). Ever had a crush on someone? Spent every moment in their company feeling really happy? Spent a load of time thinking about them? What if I came up to you and told you that thinking like that was disgusting, and that you were a horrible perversion, how would you feel? Annoyed? Hard done by? So what gives you the right to do the same to other people, just because they happens to love someone with the same gender. Just because it's homosexual love doesn't mean it's not love, think about that.
I see nothing wrong with being 'gay'. Heck, I'll even admit, I'm bi sexual, but, I'm most slipping to the 'gay' side of things. To each his/her own. We should have the right to like who we please, and nothing should stand in the way of it. We only have one life to live, and we should live it how we want. Weither it be homosexual, hertrosexual, bisexual, or asexual.
Hang on. I'm going to respond with the collective thoughts of everyone with the exception of DK and that one moron who made a stupid post a page ago:
"What?"
In addition, I'd like to state that you don't have to be polite or respectful to be correct. It just lets the people who are wrong down a little bit easier.
I see my Magical Gay Psychic Powers (TM) have done me well....
Actually to be perfectly fair, I started out with my insult (that Christians who consider homosexuality a sin because of the literal meaning of the Bible are hypocrites), and backed it with 'facts' (the Bible), as opposed to the other way around.
My two main points (that any arguments derived from Christianity are inherently limited because they are only valid if you assume Christian principles, and that homosexuality is not a choice, thus you cannot expect that gay people should suddenly become "ungay") aren't really insults. And as for the quote from Evelyn Hall, I'm not in any way taking away your right to say that homosexuality is wrong. I'm criticising your creation of an environment in which the right of homosexuals to say what they want to say is taken away because of fear of predjiduce.
Don't turn this into a mockery of liberals. You're creating this distinction between "people who agree with me" and "everyone else", thereby assuming a lot about the people you're debating with. Just because you think that people have the right to live without being prejudiced against doesn't mean you're a liberal. I think that it would be just as wrong to live in a world in which you were banned from practicing your religion, and I certainly think that you have the right to have a voice in this debate. On the other hand, I don't think that you can actually expect that this right carries over into an immunity from any sort of criticism. If you want to be able to speak, others have just as much a voice as well.
Yes, they most certainly have, in this case.
I am aware of that; I accidentally left those two words in my quote box. My response was to your claims about pagans and conversion.
Who insulted whom? To what are you referring? Homophobia should be treated just as any other bigoted, dehumanizing worldview: with scornful contempt. Defending someone's right to free expression does not entail kindness or sympathy for an inane, antifactual, hateful worldview. I have no more mutual respect for a homophobe than I do for a white supremacist. I am intolerant of intolerance. Please show where insult has been substituted for substance in "liberals' posts" in this thread. Compared with, e.g., Deck Knight's maligning rhetoric, you will find that a myriad of sources and arguments have been marshalled in defending homosexuality and attacking discrimination. I am still confused by your post.
- Status