I’m not even gay, I’m what anti-gay rights people call a hypocrite; because I am heterosexual and will not ever be gay, it means I find gay to be wrong and so by supporting the rights of people to live and love in a legally supported way, I am a hypocrite :)
Islam, Christianity and Judaism are called Abrahamic religions, lets look at Abraham; He married his sister and then would pimp her out to rich and powerful leaders. “Oh but it was a different time” exactly :)
The only real gay story in the Bible comes from Sodom, where gay rape gangs roamed the city looking for vulnerable strangers, and Lot offered his daughters up to the rape gang in order to save a stranger.
Other mentions for consideration was Greek Hedonism at those times, so any anti-gay laws were more related to foreign culture, not gay love.
Academics have looked at the instances, especially where Paul says “It is detestable to God for a man to lay down with a man the way he lays with a woman” (paraphrased) Academics have suggested this is a literal confusion of interpretation; Back then, the wife would be buried with the husband, at their appropriate times, but if a wife remarried and died, she now has two husbands and is unsure which to be buried with. The law was saying it has to be one or the other, not both.
(EDIT: I will add a disclaimer, do not accept these interpretations as absolute fact, I am one person who does not declare that what I say about the Bible is all truth, but the opposite, I believe it is highly open to interpretation)
Same note; a man could remarry yet it is okay for his two (or more) wives to be buried with him. Just sayn…there is not as much evidence for gay persecution in the Bible as we are lead to believe.
But I will say; The Bible does have a lot of points for the argument that Marriage is between a man and a woman, granted it may not have been foreseen that it was an issue, but in this case; why are legal/secular definitions a problem with the religious?
It is not changing the Bible at all and Jesus in the Bible does say “Pay Caesars things to Caesar, pay God’s things to God” and he also says “My Kingdom is not of this Earth…” (etc.) so whatever the Kingdoms of man do are ultimately irrelevant to true Christianity.
“Sodomy Is A Sin!” we hear this a lot, but in my studies this quote does not actually feature in the Bible, and if it did, let us have a look at it…
Sodomy comes from the name of the city, Sodom, in the Bible, so Sodomy is related to the Sodom story of…Male Rape Gangs that target Men, so Sodomy is the act of RAPING A MAN. There is quite a significant difference between consensual gay sex and Rape, just syn…
yeah man when you see shit like this…
i get sooo fucked off….
@billmasterson098, The sad thing is that people are forced by their situation to do things they would not really want to do, and then other people treat them like shit because of it. People generally do not want to be prostitutes, they may like sex and they may need money, but it doesn’t mean they want to be prostitutes. It is just an opportunity and really it is society that that makes life like that.
To want to be gay and have heaps of sex is a choice, but prostitution isn’t, the fact we do not have a decent life as standard means that we have to do things to build a decent life, we have some choice as to what we are willing to do to build it but ultimately we have no choice, we have to build it one way or another.
Very long one, but some good nuggets, I think :)
One of the key points about most religions is the discipline over desire argument, this is a topic that is very open to personal interpretation. The idea is that if you indulge desires your rational thoughts can be affected, but since when do Theocratic institutions want their people to think rationally?
But this is a good point, it is not just for sexual desire (lust) but it encompasses a number of the other sins also, greed, envy, gluttony and sloth. Lust being predominantly about sex, over indulge and you find it harder to resist inappropriate situations, like adultery and even rape.
As with greed being taking an excessive amount of wealth, especially that you leave others in horrible situations in life so you can have that wealth. Envy is linked to the “Do not covert your neighbours property” commandment, that when you acquire a liking for objects you become tempted to steal them or behave in ways unbecoming in order to get them.
Gluttony being the desire to eat or drink too much, covering food and addiction, like drugs and alcohol. While sloth is pretty much just being lazy, but can cross over into hygiene and a number of issues that are not pleasant.
Wrath and pride are a bit different, wrath is related to fear, anger and hate, Pride can be in disgust or prejudice, superiority, competitive aggression, etc.
Basically these things are how we can lack control over ourselves and they can result in a number of problems for us and others, so the idea is discipline or self control over these compulsions. But each of us will inevitably have our own threshold as to how much is acceptable and where we should apply it.
Basically I think that any situation that could harm others because of our desire or fear, this is when we have to be wary of disciplining them, but this is not always easy to know, so others may have a stricter policy of controlling yourself as much as you can. But I tend to think that denying yourself certain pleasures can be as dangerous as overindulging them.
You may get horny and behave inappropriately toward someone, when you denied yourself a wank, but then indulging masturbation too much may cause you to be aroused more often, so it is a balance thing as well as discipline.
People make this argument about gays, they should control their desire and not have sex, but it isn’t that bad really. We all have to observe this self control, know when we can indulge and when it is becoming inappropriate, but none of us have to be monks either. You cannot force gays to be monks in matters of love and consent because ultimately you yourself do not have to be a monk, you have your own standards.
I think there are social standards, like not allowing your fears and desire to hurt others or to control others in issues that have no real threat of hurting anyone. There is a line, when harm is caused is the line, but until then we really have our own judgement and discipline to depend on, we shouldn’t be controlled by others just because we may do something wrong, that we cannot be trusted to behave appropriately, that is insane.
So we have our duty to society, our responsibility to our own wellbeing and behaviour, but we should also have a fair liability for when we fail in those duties and responsibilities. But that is on each of us, what society can do is help us grow in understanding of how we control ourselves, where and why it is appropriate, rather than not allowing us to make those determinations from our own senses.
|Light Minus 1|
@trek79, Well,,,, you certainly brought the topic in to play. I see all the replys and see some amount of singularity in the batch as a whole. All predictable and all replays of past discusssions. It’s not that “I don’t care” is said so much but I think it is a misrepresentation of thought is general. I suggest that the term should be– ” i am aware at this point but can’t or choose not to enter into a movement to change the outcome of said debate” Everybody does “care” because they should know that every change WILL affect their world in some way no matter how small.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.