Lets discuss: Homophobia

Flying Pig · Jun 18, 2011

askthepizzaguy said:
1) You "read that story as" means there's openings for different interpretations. Why is my interpretation invalid?

It's not! I'm just telling you how I see it; what I think it means.

2) If back then, hospitality was more important than not betraying your daughter's innocence to a mob of rapists, and these are the people we're turning to as role models, surely we can do better.

Times were different back then. As I said, he realised that someone was going to get raped, and so thought it better that it be his daughters (whom Jewish law would force the rapists to marry) than his guests. I'm not saying for a minute that we should have the same views on the father/daughter relationship at all.

Problems with using this book as a basis for the moral code of our society is when we allow ourselves to ignore most of it as outdated and ludicrous, but other parts cannot be questioned. You can't call it God's perfect law, believe that it is so, and cross out most of it and just read the parts you like. And if it's not God's perfect law, people must stop using it to beat gay people over the head when we're all just as guilty of violating God's perfect law.

We know that God's intention is the perfect law. We also know that the Bible is an attempt to write that down. Bits of it are corrupted, bits of it are outdated, and bits are just plain made up, but parts of it are about as close to a direct message from God as you can get. That said nobody should use it to beat anyone about the head, unless they're forgetting the part about planks and splinters.

Either be consistent and true to The Word, or we should not act like we represent The Word. In other words, these "family values" people need to stop thinking that they are God, and stop casting stones at gays.

See above. We're all trying to act as God wants, but it's very difficult indeed to find a consensus on what that means.

El_Machinae · Jun 18, 2011

Flying Pig said:
I always thought the problem with the Sodomites was that they raped (or tried to; can't remember offhand if they managed) Abraham's people, not that they chose men as their victims. Says something about our former attitudes as a society, I think.

Yeah, that's the story that everyone knows, with Lot offering his daughters to be raped instead. Every participant (except the daughters) comes out of that story looking like a monster.

Luckily, the Bible explicitly tells us what the 'sins of sodom' were.

Ezekial 16:49-50 said:
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].

The emphasis there is certainly pride, being fed (and idle), and not helping the poor. I'm sure that in those days, like these days, the poor died horrid suffering deaths, and thus the sin of ignoring them is morally obvious.

Now, the homosexist might notice the word 'abomination' there, and ignore the direct lambasting of being full while there are poor people needing help. And that word, 'abomination' (tow`ebah) is one of the strongest (if not THE strongest) condemnation in the OT.

The OT reserves it for specific things (none of this 'wearing two threads' business): if you follow the link, you'll see that it includes: the sexual crimes (adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality ... no mention of rape or pedophilia, though) (Lev 18); finding profit in recycling goods devoted to other gods or allowing them into your homes (Deut 7); worshiping false gods (Deut 13); eating lobster, shrimp, etc. (Deut 14); wearing clothes of the wrong gender (Deut 20); worshiping improperly (Deut 17); or remarrying a divorced wife (Deut 24).

So, we don't know which specific sins Sodom did (probably all of them). Insisting that it was only the sexual crimes when it could have been: getting profit from the worship of false gods, eating the forbidden (but tasty!) foods, women wearing pants, and worshiping false gods (or improperly) ... is a pretty big stretch. That's the non-specific part of the 'sins of Sodom'. The specific part was idleness and fulness instead of helping the poor.

A woman wearing pants while watching Lost is being a sodomite. Having pork tenderloin at a fancy restaurant is being a sodomite. Idleness or fullness while committing those abominations is sodomy. Sure, butt-sex is in there, it seems. But it's only a teeny portion of what sodomy is.

The gay doctor working in Kenya is much less the sodomite is than the man watching tv while feeding pork-based treats to his dog (Deu 14:8)

edit Aw, dammit, wrong thread.

wcbarney · Jun 18, 2011

useless said:
Why is it still seen to be socially acceptable to be homophobic? ...

First of all, I am one of those who don't like the word "homophobic." It is a made-up word which literally means an "irrational fear of homosexuals," as has been discussed in depth in the "Is the word "homophobe" a leftist conspiracy?" thread.

I do not fear homosexuals; I am simply disgusted by them.

I also resent the homosexuals' misappropriation of the word "gay." It used to be a perfectly fine word, as in " ... and we'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home," the "Gay Nineties" (1890s), "Don we now our gay apparel," etc.

LucyDuke · Jun 18, 2011

wcbarney said:
First of all, I am one of those who don't like the word "homophobic." It is a made-up word which literally means an "irrational fear of homosexuals," as has been discussed in depth in the "Is the word "homophobe" a leftist conspiracy?" thread.

wcbarney said:
I do not fear homosexuals; I am simply disgusted by them.

Why?

wcbarney said:
I also resent the homosexuals' misappropriation of the word "gay." It used to be a perfectly fine word, as in " ... and we'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home," the "Gay Nineties" (1890s), "Don we now our gay apparel," etc.

Yeah, you can't blame the homosexuals for that.

Tee Kay · Jun 18, 2011

wcbarney said:
First of all, I am one of those who don't like the word "homophobic." It is a made-up word which literally means an "irrational fear of homosexuals," as has been discussed in depth in the "Is the word "homophobe" a leftist conspiracy?" thread.

Give me a word that's not "made-up". Oh right, you can't, because words are just arbitrary sounds which we use to represent things that change their meanings through time.

I also resent the homosexuals' misappropriation of the word "gay." It used to be a perfectly fine word, as in " ... and we'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home," the "Gay Nineties" (1890s), "Don we now our gay apparel," etc.

Yeah, the homosexuals' misappropriation... when the same word is widely used as derogatorily by the non-LBGT majority.

Mango Elephant · Jun 18, 2011

Johan511 said:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding Gods Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of Gods Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why cant I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I dont agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldnt we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I sent it to my mother who is a devout christian and she wrote back to me saying...

Yep, it is all there, in the "OLD TESTAMENT"...thank the Lord, we don't live under the law after Jesus died...so none of those rules apply anymore. Unless you are Jewish I guess and don't believe in the New Testament..lol
Everyone is so convinced that God is only a loving God and he is a loving God just like a father who really loves his child would snatch him up by the arm and break it if he was trying to get him out of the way of an oncoming truck. Even the commandments were not given to punish people, but to protect them. They were wondering around out there in desesert gettin all crazy having sex with this one and that one and getting diseases and suffering, losing their ever loving minds like a bunch of crazy kids, so God said ...ok everybody out of the pool, until you can prove you can act like a responsible adults, I am going to give you some rules to follow..if you follow them you want be in trouble all the time and you will be happier. Funny isn't it...even today we still don't get it. Thank goodness His mercies endureth forever.

Oh, I do like that, a lot. I'm going to bring that to my church one day. Thank you for sharing.

Hitti-Litti · Jun 18, 2011

wcbarney said:
I do not fear homosexuals; I am simply disgusted by them.

What a coincidence. I do not fear homophobes; I am simply disgusted by them. At least there's a rational reason to hate homophobes, such narrowminded and conceited people are a threat to the freedom of minorities. Hatred against homosexuals, now there's a phenomenon that can't be rationally justified.

CELTICEMPIRE · Jun 18, 2011

Hitti-Litti said:
What a coincidence. I do not fear homophobes; I am simply disgusted by them. At least there's a rational reason to hate homophobes, such narrowminded and conceited people are a threat to the freedom of minorities. Hatred against homosexuals, now there's a phenomenon that can't be rationally justified.

No one on this forum hates homosexuals, I just think that their behavior is immoral for many reasons.
And I don't support discrimination. You may say that opposing gay marriage is like opposing Interracial marriage. But it is not. Interracial couples can produce offspring, homo couples can not.

Mango Elephant · Jun 18, 2011

CELTICEMPIRE said:
And I don't support discrimination. You may say that opposing gay marriage is like opposing Interracial marriage. But it is not. Interracial couples can produce offspring, homo couples can not.

I understand you're young, but this reason has been exhausted so many times. Infertile couples can't produce children either, and neither can older couples, and yet they can marry.

CELTICEMPIRE · Jun 18, 2011

Mango Elephant said:
I understand you're young, but this reason has been exhausted so many times. Infertile couples can't produce children either, and neither can older couples, and yet they can marry.

It's the type of sex that matters. Anyway, homosexuals can have children, but not with each other, every child that has ever been born has been born to hetero parents.

LucyDuke · Jun 18, 2011

There are absolutely people on this forum that hate homosexuals, even if they're not you.

Many reasons, I'm curious about that.

You don't support discrimination, except when you do? Opposing gay marriage is discrimination, whether or not anyone wants to admit it.

Since when is marriage about offspring? If that's all it is, why do we let infertile people marry?

Damn crosspost.

And no, there are plenty of homosexual parents. You don't have to have sex to make a baby, you know. And having sex to make a baby doesn't make a gay straight anyway.

Mango Elephant · Jun 18, 2011

CELTICEMPIRE said:
It's the type of sex that matters.

Why does it matter?

Anyway, homosexuals can have children, but not with each other,

Yes they can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_egg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sperm

I know you might argue that these aren't natural methods, but neither are C-sections or painkillers and I hope you don't have a problem with them.

every child that has ever been born has been born to hetero parents.

Yeah, no, they haven't. Being a heterosexual guy does not mean you have sex with women, it means you're attracted to women, and likewise being gay means you're attracted to the same sex, but you could still have sex with the opposite. Gay guys have had sex with women before, and lesbians have had sex with men before. In the middle ages most people who was openly gay was burned at the stake, or at least killed, so you would be forced to marry the opposite gender, whether or not you're attracted to them, and of course they had children.

CELTICEMPIRE · Jun 18, 2011

"Many reasons, I'm curious about that."
tendency to spread diseases, tendency to be obese, etc.
also I like to play Civ, if someone else hates Civ they can do it with out hating me, because its a choice.

Hitti-Litti · Jun 18, 2011

CELTICEMPIRE said:
It's the type of sex that matters. Anyway, homosexuals can have children, but not with each other, every child that has ever been born has been born to hetero parents.

Actually no. The history of mankind is full of homosexuals living in heterosexual marriages because they weren't able to express their true sexual orientation because of the society of their time. So technically, a huge number of homosexuals have had children. Not with other homosexuals, true, but in my opinion a homosexual dad isn't a heterosexual parent

No one on this forum hates homosexuals, I just think that their behavior is immoral for many reasons.

I find the behaviour of EDL members immoral, but I'm not preventing them from getting married. Although I'd like if they didn't produce any offspring, but that's just my personal opinion.

And I don't support discrimination. You may say that opposing gay marriage is like opposing Interracial marriage.

I'd say that opposing gay marriage is like opposing heterosexual marriage. Comparing homosexuality with another sexual orientation makes much more sense than comparing it with something completely different.

tendency to spread diseases, tendency to be obese, etc.

Sounds like the average slutty US teenager.

CELTICEMPIRE · Jun 18, 2011

The point is, that there are differences between men and women. Men were not designed to have sex with men, and the same goes for women.

Hitti-Litti · Jun 18, 2011

CELTICEMPIRE said:
The point is, that there are differences between men and women. Men were not designed to have sex with men, and the same goes for women.

In that case why do men get so much pleasure from stimulation of the prostate, aka anal sex? Is god a pervert?

CELTICEMPIRE · Jun 18, 2011

Hitti-Litti said:
In that case why do men get so much pleasure from stimulation of the prostate, aka anal sex? Is god a pervert?

no, man has perverted what God created.

LucyDuke · Jun 18, 2011

CELTICEMPIRE said:
"Many reasons, I'm curious about that."
tendency to spread diseases, tendency to be obese, etc.
also I like to play Civ, if someone else hates Civ they can do it with out hating me, because its a choice.

There's absolutely nothing to corroborate that.

Hitti-Litti · Jun 18, 2011

CELTICEMPIRE said:
no, man has perverted what God created.

So why didn't you just say that homosexuals disgust you because of religious reasons, but instead you tried to rationally explain it? I mean, man "perverting divine creations" isn't a good rational explanation.

Mango Elephant · Jun 18, 2011

CELTICEMPIRE said:
no, man has perverted what God created.

See, now you're just being selective to meet your own ends. God created vaginas and that's supposed to be for men to have sex with, but when God creates prostates that's a perversion and you're not supposed to have sex with that? That doesn't make any sense.

Lets discuss: Homophobia

Utrinque Paratus

Colour vision since 2018

Know-it-all

staring at the clock

Three days sober

Deity

Deity

Zulu Conqueror

Deity

Zulu Conqueror

staring at the clock

Deity

Zulu Conqueror

Deity

Zulu Conqueror

Deity

Zulu Conqueror

staring at the clock

Deity

Deity

Similar threads