|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 14, 2004 19:15:45 GMT -5
I hate them sooooooo much...
Especially zealots (not just religious): those people who hate a specific group of people for literally no reason. Oh, and also people who wish to take civil rights away from specific groups, simply because they're ignorant and stupid and haven't ever even fricking met a member of the group they are trying to take the rights from. Or, better yet, they have met them and even upon finding they are exactly the same as themselves, they still find stupid-ass reasons to not like them.
I read a letter to the editor in the Lititz Record on Friday... I was so pissed that such a homophobic fuckhead had the balls to piss all over himself by writing such drivel and trying to pass it as an intelligent letter. And seriously folks, who gives a flying fuck what some bigot who doesn't even live here thinks about our town? What right does he have to spew shit like that around in our local paper?
For those of you who have read the letter, and remember his reference to how parents of teens would feel about a gay teacher or whatever... Speaking for my parents, and I know for a fact they would agree with me, they would much rather that I have a gay teacher than someone such as the asshole who wrote that article.
Since I know a few of the people on these forums are openly homophobic if not outright bigots as far as homosexuals are concerned, I'll ask that you keep your ignorance and stupidity to yourselves. I'm sick of hearing BS about gays from people who can't even tie their own shoes (I'm talking highschoolers) or from people who are so conservative that they practically piss oil and shit the same stuff that comes out of Bush's mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Mar 14, 2004 20:23:32 GMT -5
i agreed with all of that, but please, don't refer to shaeffer as a conservative, because I am (sort of), and it makes me look bad.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 14, 2004 20:30:16 GMT -5
Sorry, I'll be more careful in my distinctions. (btw, good job on knowing exactly who I was talking about )
|
|
|
Post by desertfox on Mar 15, 2004 18:44:57 GMT -5
I thought that homos like assholes?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 15, 2004 23:11:58 GMT -5
If that was an attempt at a joke, it was a very poor one; instead, it was quite offensive. And, I believe, only further proves Colliohn's point, which I completely agree with.
I've always found it equally interesting as it is confounding that one could hold such a bias and hatred against a group of people, without even meeting or knowing anything first-hand about a member of that group. Not that meeting someone is justifiable means for hating that person's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.--but, it's at least a bit less confounding, if still grossly prejudicial. It is amazing, and I have seen this first-hand, how people can hold hatred against homosexuals, and at the same time have such a complete lack of knowledge and twisted view of us (which, I suppose, is the "reason" they have such prejudice). Indeed, much of it comes from a certain interpretation of the Bible--and, how that interpretation is spread to a large group of people. And, since due to the intense hatred toward homosexuals in many areas, there are rarely few if any open homosexuals in those areas, leading to the propagation of those myths. Yet, I have met people who believe quite strongly in the Bible (and believe that homosexual activity is a sin), yet still accept homosexuals and would NEVER insult or tread upon our rights. However, I digress. One of the key issues I feel to fix such misconceptions about homosexuality, and to help those who ARE homosexual not to develop internalized homophobia, is to HAVE a gay role model (i.e. a teacher) in public schools (specifically, an openly gay teacher, who would not be at risk of being fired).
The argument that homosexuality is a sin, as already stated, stems from a certain interpretation of the Bible. However, religion has no place in public schools (or anywhere in our government, for that matter). And, the whole "argument" that a gay teacher would “come onto” their students of the same sex is ridiculous. There's as much of a chance of a heterosexual teacher “coming onto” their students of the opposite sex. I have yet to hear a good and solid argument against an openly gay teacher, besides irrational fear (which isn't a good and solid argument, either).
In fact, I'd welcome any good and solid arguments against homosexuality--not stemming from the Bible (as, frankly, that is not a good and solid argument). Specifically, I'd be interested to hear from those--and, from what Colliohn said, they do seem to exist on the forum--who are homophobic as to your reasons why. Is it merely based in a belief of the Bible? Have you ever met a gay person? What is it about homosexuality that scares you? Please, enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 16, 2004 11:03:45 GMT -5
Bravo, Mike. *claps*
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 16, 2004 21:43:54 GMT -5
im going to challenge the "certain interpretation" note you made. can you show me a certain interpretation of the bible that doesnt call homosexuality a sin? Because im positive the origional greek/hebrew version calls it a sin, in fact im sure there is not any interpretation of the bible (that is a crdible one) that calls homosexuality okay
maybe im wrong, if i am please correct me
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 16, 2004 21:47:47 GMT -5
i would like some explaination about this conservative thing
|
|
|
Post by Aislinne on Mar 17, 2004 9:40:49 GMT -5
I do not know enough about Western religion to bring down this bigoted notion it supposedly documents as homosexuality being a "sin," but I do however know history... The Bible, at its core is a historical document written by a limited number of people at certain points of history. It most definitely is a reflection of ideals, values, and knowledge of *that time*. Back at that time, people held the belief that men's sperm literally held little human beings. For them, a mans emission was a spilling of tiny, living people just waiting to be "planted" in a female. So you can understand their horror and disgust at a male who would drop his little "babies" in places other than a female... Also, during the era of the plague, having close relations such as sex was very risky. However, Christianity and Catholicism could most assuredly not tell their followers not to have sex, for that would reduce their growth as a group. This is the basis for their dictate that sex should only be between a man and a woman and *only* for procreation. If you discect any religion you will find at their heart health issues. In times when health care was quite limited, it makes sense that their beliefs and practices try to control behaviors that might lead to more illness. They should not however be taken as lofty ideals that were carefully thought out for the moral future of humans, but rather as a reaction to the situation they were in....situations that no longer apply. Their religious edicts are a reflection of this scientific ignorance. The problem now is that people accept it as infallible and not to be questionned. But with all we know of sexuality, anatomy, and human nature, it angers me that people still cling to these old views rather than taking the more intelligent road and questionning that which is fed to them and actually form their *own* thoughts, not thoughts that a bunch of men from several thousand years ago had...
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 17, 2004 15:24:35 GMT -5
im going to challenge the "certain interpretation" note you made. can you show me a certain interpretation of the bible that doesnt call homosexuality a sin? Because im positive the origional greek/hebrew version calls it a sin, in fact im sure there is not any interpretation of the bible (that is a crdible one) that calls homosexuality okay maybe im wrong, if i am please correct me I have done quite a bit of research into the "alternate" interpretation of the Bible wherein homosexuality is not condemned. From my research, I am quite sure that the original Greek/Hebrew version does not refer to homosexual orientation as a sin (in fact, the majority of evidence against homosexuality appears in the King James version of the Bible, which is mistranslated). The paragraphs below will hopefully shed light on how the Bible has been used to condemn homosexuality, and hopefully show that the "alternate" interpretation is quite valid and credible. I have summarized, and in some instances directly quoted, from the following source: www.whosoever.org/bible/. www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm is also quite helpful. You may find more detailed explanations of the passages at either of the above websites. ------------ One of the passages include Gen. 19:1-29, which is the attempted gang rape in Sodom. It is believed that because they are treated "like women", and thus demasculinized, that it is a passage against homosexuality. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with consenting love expressed between two people. Also, though the Church has "chosen" that the reason God destroyed Sodom was because they were engaged in homosexual acts, at least two passages of the Bible contradict that interpretation. Both in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. In Ezekeiel 16:48-50, God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of the pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered, and worshiped many idols; sexual activity is not even mentioned. Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes. Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution. The above passages are also part of the Jewish Holiness Code, which is explained in a bit of detail at the websites mentioned. Churches no longer follow the Holiness Code, yet still strangely condemn homosexuality. Another passage, Deut. 23:17-18, deals with a heterosexual prostitute (i.e. engaged in sexual intercourse with women). The King James Bible incorrectly identifies the individual as a "sodomite"; the correct translation would be a prostitute. The passage has nothing to do with homosexuality. Judges 19 is a similar event like Sodom. However, the passages appear to condemn abusive treatment of visitors; they say nothing about homosexuality. However, even if it is a reference to homosexual activity, then it condemns homosexual rape, it says nothing about a consensual homosexual relationship. I Kings 14:24 and 15:12 again refer to temple prostitution. The original word qadesh is mistranslated as sodomite (homosexual) in the King James Version, but as male prostitute, male cult prostitutes, and male shrine prostitutes in more accurate versions. As mentioned before, there is little evidence that homosexuality was involved. Again, the text has nothing to say about consentual homosexual relationships. Romans 1:26-27, at first glance, appears to condemn gay and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition--however, in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality were regarded as a natural activity for some people. Therefore, Paul may have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities, or he might not have been referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all. I Cor 6:9 Paul lists many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One has been variously translated as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute (as in the verses from the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament described above). The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation. More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each translator seems to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse. 1 Tim 1:9 again refers to malakoi arsenokoitai which has been variously translated as homosexuals, sexual perverts, etc. Again, the original meaning of the text has been lost. Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". Strange flesh has been variously translated as perverted sensuality, unnatural lust, lust of men for other men, and perversion. Again, it is unclear what is being referred to here. Some biblical scholars interpret this as referring to an ancient Jewish legend that the women of Sodom engaged in sexual intercourse with angels. In conclusion: There are two Biblical same-sex relationships reported in the Bible in a positive light (though, it is unclear if these refer to sexually active relationships). These are Ruth 1:16,2:10-11 between Ruth and Naomi, and 1 Samuel 18:1-4, 1 Samuel 20:41-42, and 2 Samuel 1:25-26 between David and Jonathan. It has been the subject of endless debate whether St. Paul's prohibition of some homosexual acts was meant during the 1st Century CE, or for all people (forever). However, given the importance of fertility at that time, it is likely to conclude that it no longer is relevant in our time, when lack of fertility is not a problem. A more detailed conclusion may be found at the websites mentioned above. ------------ It seems to me, as it does to many others, that the cultural and societal bias against gays has a negative influence in the interpretations and translations of the Bible. Passages are twisted and shifted to appear as outright condemnation against homosexual orientation and all homosexual acts, which is not only extremely prejudicial, but an attack upon the very core of the Bible and the integrity it is meant to represent.
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Mar 17, 2004 17:12:42 GMT -5
Mike and Aislinne: Bravo, I've read both of your arguements and they are excellent. I have a feeling this will do little (if anything) to affect any Christian mind, however, because to them, these are not arguements. They are "the words of Satan" trying to get you to buy into "worldly values". It does not matter how logical the arguements are. @joel: It's necessary for me to say that isn't true for every Christian mind, and I know you're not that thick. There are, however, many that are. I hope that you may at some point convince them to look at issues such as these ones rationally.
|
|
|
Post by Aislinne on Mar 17, 2004 18:12:06 GMT -5
LOL. Wow, Thanks for the compliment ...it isnt often I get called worldly since I come from one of the most rural friggin' states in the entire country... And WooHoo! for "satanic" ways if it means intelligence and human acceptance
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 17, 2004 18:16:25 GMT -5
Aislinne, The bible no where in any form says that sexual relations is only for the purpose of procreation, i assure you , the bible does not condemn condoms as the catholic church does. The reason sex is fun is because God wants us to enjoy it. If it was only for the purpose of shild baring then there would be no point to making it fun. Now I agree with you that the Bible holds many things that were aplicable to that day. In the Old Testiment we find references on how to clense yourself from certain things and one i remember is how to remove mold. Yes there were reasons the jews were not allowed to eat pork that go streight to the point that they were unable to cook such animals at the time. However as for sexual relations between a man and another man, you are wrong. God created man and he was alone, he created woman to be the company of man. God commands man to reproduce with this woman. Later God gives laws to the people and it is absolutly clear that he forbode homosexuality. Not for health reasons, but for purity. Purity of ther mind and purity of the soul.
Now to get into this study of homosexuality i assume were are going to stay in the New Testiment, if not please correct me...
So to study this i look in my New International Version of the Bible(Which by the way was created by sinfull men and therefore has errors. I am confident however that the painstaking amount of work that went into translating the Bible to this version has left it very very close to what was origionally intended.). I look up homosexuality and turn to Romans 1:18-32. Halfway through the passage it says "In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with woman and were inflamed with lust for one another. men commited indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for there perversion" This verse makes it very clear what God thinks about homosexuality. If this is not enough then i turn the pages on my Bible back to the old testiment chapter of Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22. This entire chapter is on laws about sexual relations. This verse is vertually the same in the NIV and the KJV of the Bible. For this I will be reading from my King James Version of the bible, which by the way is also a direct translation from the origional language. I read the verse and it says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is(italicised) abomination." Now since this obviously is not enough for you i go and pull my "Strong's Exhaustive Concordanance of the Bible"(which is a reference book that lists every single word in the king james version of the bible and matches it up with the word in the origional hebrew/greek text. It assignes that word a number and you can look it up in the back where there is a hebrew/greek dictionary with the defenition of each word.......its a very thick book, and very handy for studying the bible) off my shelf and flip to the word "lie". This word, in the hewbrew is "Shakab" which means to lay down to rest, as in a bed, it often carries a sexual reference. Surely that is not enough for you so i look up the word mankind and find the hebrew word "zakar" which means the male species. I will skip the word womankind unless you have an objection and go right to abomination. I find the hebrew word "towebah" or "toebah" which means disgusting, abhorrence, idolatry. Im sure this is not good enough for you but i cant please everyone. I assure you that whoever wrote that page about homosexuality in the Bible went into the study WANTING to find homosexuality being a sin. This person is absolutly wrong and it is clear. 95% of all people who study hebrew and greek will read the origional writings and will say without a doubt homosexuality is a sin. That 95% says something. I challenge you to look into the matter deeper and look without a bias because then you will find the true answer. If i wanted to find a paper writin on how the bible says its okay to kill your parents, i could find one. And they would back themselves up by sounding smart and using words i do not understand.
Everyone has a choice as to how they want to live. If they want to be a homosexual then they can go right ahead and do that. The Bible makes it very clear that this is a sin.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 17, 2004 19:09:45 GMT -5
Thanks, H-Zence, for the compliment. Unfortunately, you may indeed be right--that it will have little affect on those who believe strongly that homosexuality is a sin. I read in an editorial today that there are three types of people when presenting an argument: the group that already agrees with you, the group that will never agree with you, and the group (which is by far the smallest) that you might convince to agree with you. It would seem to me, Joel, that you are in the middle group (though, it has been my hope you would be the last group). Since your post basically seems to ignore all the points I made in my previous post, I am not going to even bother rehashing what I said. You mentioned a few different passages, all of which I clearly refuted (and there is even more detail on the websites). So, instead of repeating myself, I ask you to re-read what I said and visit the websites, if you haven't already. You keep on stating that the Bible "clearly" says homosexuality is a sin, yet seem to offer no evidence toward that ("evidence", that is, that I haven't already debunked). As for your comment regarding the author of the website (by the way, the second website I listed is written by a professor of biblical interpretation, who I certaintly would consider an expert on the subject). Obviously, the goal was to find that the Bible does not state that homosexual orientation is sinful. I could easily twist your "accusation" around and say that you went into these posts WANTING to find the Bible condemning homosexuality. You say that this person is "absolutely wrong" and that it is "clear"; I ask you, where is this clarity you speak of? I have not seen anything you've said that shows that the person is wrong, let alone "clearly" wrong. Also, I am curious as to where this 95% figure comes from? It would seem that is an opinion you hold, not a fact. (Which, by the way, seems to be a tactic used by many conservatives--stating opinion as fact.) If you have a recent scientific survey that backs up your claim, then please, direct me towards it. Otherwise, you have no right to conclusively say that 95% of people believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Now, you go onto saying that you could find a paper that is written on how the Bible says it's okay to kill your parents, and they could back it up by "sounding smart and using words [you] do not understand." If you cannot understand the rebuttle against homosexuality being condemned in the Bible, then perhaps you should research further to gain understanding, before unequivocally saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality? No offense, but it seems to me that is THE problem behind this entire issue--you back up a view without fully understanding the opposing view (or even your own view, for that matter). If you will take note, I investigated both views, and I found "in favor" of the view that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible. Perhaps you should do the same, before "clearly" reaching a conclusion either way.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 17, 2004 21:57:47 GMT -5
If god gave us sex so that we could be happy, why would he tell certain people that if they didn't like sex one way, they would go to hell for doing it in a way that would make them happy?
|
|