Heard these ideas somewhere before...

[Crackpot]

there is an inherent belief within those who condemn homosexuals on religious grounds, that their belief has more moral authority as they believe it comes from god(s). Therefore they have the right to say that homosexuals are "wrong", and that they (in some belief systems) should be /will be punished. Not only that, but some (not all) believe that this belief of theirs gives them moral authority to condemn, persecute, vilify and what to an outsider seems, take an overly obsessive view of gay sex lives.

There are those who act the same tward believers.

THere's no shortage of assholes in this world

[Econoline]

But to help you Econo (jus' the faks ma'am; jus' the faks):

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Some have interpreted "due penalty" as a reference to HIV but I think not. In context it's far more likely Paul was speaking of separation from God in common with all us sinners but in particular the condition of those who deny God and worship created things. Such sinners have chosen their own penalty is what he's saying

Meade

Late response, but...

BTW, the supposed prohibition of homosexuality in the OT mentions only men and makes NO mention whatsoever of women or lesbian sex.

...is what I said, and I looked for Paul's Epistle to the Romans in the Old Testament and it was nowhere to be found. One sentence in one book (one letter by Paul, containing none of the words of Jesus, only the words of Paul) doesn't strike me as authoritatively divine. If the Gospels don't call it sinful and the Torah (not even Leviticus, which lists more sins than most Christians have ever heard of) doesn't call it sinful, well...that's all I'm sayin'.

[dgs49]

Christians are not against "homosexuals," but rather certain sinful behaviors which everyone is free to do or not do as they choose.

The Bible's condemnation of homosexual sodomy is (a) consistent with the vast majority of other religious traditions, and (b) consistent with human biology.

One who labels himself as a "homosexual" not only engages in sinful behavior but implicitly denies that it is sinful, or engages in it for no other reason than he finds it satisfying. Just like a thief or a bully or a child molester.

Gob, the problem with relying on your own "internal reasoning and personal experience," is that just about any behavior can be justified if you take a few minutes and cogitate about it, and you end up like a typical liberal, defining terms as whatever you want them to mean. If "right" and "wrong" are a matter of concern to you, then it makes more sense to look at traditions that are supported by a couple thousand years of history, rather than what you figured out based on your very limited intelligence and scope of experience.

Like left-handedness, the perverse attraction to same-sex partners is something that appears to be persistent throughout history. But you could say the same thing about a lot of pathologies and personal traits. There is no evidence whatsoever that "homosexuality" is a genetic trait, despite the fervent wishes of many thousands of homosexuals who would love to discover the ellusive "gay gene."

There is no constitutional or natural right to copulate with whomever or whatever you are attracted to, even if they are a willing partner. The moral obligations of a "homosexual" are analogous and essentially identical to the moral obligations of any single adult.

[Big RR]

There is no constitutional or natural right to copulate with whomever or whatever you are attracted to, even if they are a willing partner

I won't venture an opinion on natiural law, but if both parties are consenting adults there is clearly a Consitutional recognized to do exactly that. Or perhaps you can point to some points where such a right was viewed not to exist.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Econo - yes you are correct I did not properly catch that you restricted your sentence to the OT. My fault.

However, the argument doesn't change. The entire Bible is God's inspired word including the New Testament. The fact that Jesus himself is not mentioned by name in the OT doesn't invalidate his teachings either.

Plus logic dictates that because the OT describes marriage as one man and one woman (Genesis) and prohibits adultery (Exodus etc), fornication and so on it certainly takes a dim view of two guys or two gals getting it on. And marriage is out.

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

One who labels himself as a "homosexual" not only engages in sinful behavior but implicitly denies that it is sinful, or engages in it for no other reason than he finds it satisfying. Just like a thief or a bully or a child molester.

The key difference, that you apparently can not grasp, is that unlike a thief, bully, or child molester, what a homosexual does is between two consenting adults. Try again.

There is no evidence whatsoever that "homosexuality" is a genetic trait, despite the fervent wishes of many thousands of homosexuals who would love to discover the ellusive "gay gene."

There's no "left handed" gene either, yet we don't have laws preventing left handed people from marrying each other.

Plus logic dictates that because the OT describes marriage as one man and one woman (Genesis) and prohibits adultery (Exodus etc), fornication and so on it certainly takes a dim view of two guys or two gals getting it on. And marriage is out.

The OT also allows for slavery, but I don't see anybody seriously trying to bring that back.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Almost all societies at the time of writing of the OT (and into NT times for that matter) featured various forms of slavery. It was not a feature peculiar to the Jewish state nor yet to Greeks and Romans. The Bible did not "allow" for it - it records the fact of it. The Bible also records that only wooden boats with sails and/or oars were used for travel to foreign lands back then - I don't see anyone suggesting we ban iron ships and aeroplanes either. Your argument is without significance as is the facile mention of left-handedness (which is not a sin).

People voluntarily commit sin - at least I do and I've no idea of anyone who does not. The fact that I consent to allow myself to sin does not absolve me of responsibility for it. If two people consent to sin together, that also does not alter whether or not the behaviour is sinful. Adultery is an activity usually conducted between consenting adults. It's still sin. Another bankrupt argument

Homosexuality is either a sin against God or it is not. If it is not, then it doesn't need any spurious defences about consent. In that case my belief is wrong and that's all there is to it. If it is a sin against God, then no such defences are valid. Whatever the case, government has no business intruding into such private activities.

Meade

[Big RR]

Come on Meade, the bible, old and new testament, is replete with a large number of guidelines on how slaves should be treated (presumably to make it acceptable to god) and there are many stories of how god's chosen people conquered lands and took the residents as slaves. Do you really deny that this is an endorsement of slavery? When god (or religious leaders) saw things going on that they did not like, prohibitions were enacted; people could not eat meat from certain animals, lest they offend god, but they could enslave, beat, even rape slaves and avoid any condemnation. That seems to me that if something as inconsequential of what meat to eat or how to purify oneself in ritual baths was described in detail, then slavery would have clearly been prohibited had it been seen as wrong. Instead, even after the preachings of jesus as to the equality of all men and how all are loved by god, we get paul giving detailed instructions on how people may hold, punish, mark, and control slaves. Far more than "just recording the fact of it.

[Scooter]

There is no evidence whatsoever that "homosexuality" is a genetic trait, despite the fervent wishes of many thousands of homosexuals who would love to discover the ellusive "gay gene."

There's no "left handed" gene either, yet we don't have laws preventing left handed people from marrying each other.

Actually there is evidence of a genetic component to both, just as there is evidence of an environmental (in utero and in infancy) component to both.

And comparisons to theft, adultery, etc. are cheap and intellectually lazy. If the term "sin" has any meaning other an arbitrary and changing* "because God says so", then it can only be defined as something that brings harm and denies love, whether to and for others, the world around us, or oneself. And to put people who are doing nothing but expressing love for each other in the same category as rapists and murderers says a hell of a lot more about the people doing the categoorizing than the people who are doing the loving. It tells me that such people are incapable of understanding what love is, because they clearly haven't experienced real love themselves, and so cannot recognize it in others. In essence, they are soulless.


*because there is not nor has there ever been any religious body in existence that has not changed its mind about what is or is not a sin over the course of its history

[Crackpot]

Meade May I remind you that the Pharasies (sp?) Thought it was quite clear that work should not be done on the Sabbath.

We often get so hung up with the "what" we miss the "why". And in this case the Why eludes me.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR. What of it? We've had this discussion b4. Slavery was a fact of how the world worked. It was not peculiar to Hebrews - who were themselves slaves in Egypt. Hebrews put themselves into slavery voluntarily (under economic exigency to be sure) and that was (I believe) limited to a maximum of seven years. There were many different forms of servitude - salt mines, galleys, kitchen, cleaning up horse dung, bookkeeping, medical assistants and so on. It was preferable to most conquered peoples that they should be kept alive rather than killed out of hand. The Bible nowhere says that slavery is a permanent, God-desired state of being. In fact as the Bible works through it provides the basis for declaring slavery to be inconsistent with Christ. I'm not getting where Paul gives all these instructions - can you clarify?

CP - and the Pharisees and the Sabbath have what to do with anything? We know why they regarded the Sabbath as a day for no work - Orthodox Jews still do. So did Jesus - he was careful to distinguish between God's ordinance and the over-zealous multiplication of rabbinic regulation. Besides which the Pharisees were the popular liberal section of Judaism - odd ain't it?

Scooter - I don't like the murderers and rapists analogy either but in discussing "sin" one is forced to conclude that all sin is equally objectionable in that it all has the same effect of dividing humankind from its Creator. I do not accept that the Christian faith has ever downgraded sins to "acceptable". That some churches have done so is true.

Certainly if "sin" is indeed not an offence against God then the entire argument is moot. We are left then with true arbitrariness in which the changing fashions and norms of society are the only arbiter of morality. If that is so, then numbers alone rule

Meade

[Scooter]

don't like the murderers and rapists analogy either but in discussing "sin" one is forced to conclude that all sin is equally objectionable in that it all has the same effect of dividing humankind from its Creator.

Except that no one has ever attempted to explain how the gender of whom one loves could possible do that.

I do not accept that the Christian faith has ever downgraded sins to "acceptable". That some churches have done so is true.

ALL churches have done it. Which makes what you say a distinction without a difference.

Certainly if "sin" is indeed not an offence against God then the entire argument is moot.

Certainly God is offended for a reason more profound than "because I said so". Otherwise it is God (or, more accurately, the God that some have created in their image) who is being arbitrary.

We are left then with true arbitrariness in which the changing fashions and norms of society are the only arbiter of morality.

No, we are left with the concept that something that cannot conceivably result in any harm cannot be immoral. Such a standard could only change if previously undiscovered harms are discovered, or if previously perceived harms no longer exist. And that is in no way dependent on any sort of popular will, much as you never fail to introduce this straw man into the discussion to avoid addressing what people are actually posting. And you wonder why I grow tired of responding to your bile. My mistaking for trying again this time.

[Crackpot]

Meade

I was replying directly to this:

I think that God's word is clear in saying that homosexuality is an offense against Him.

We know why they regarded the Sabbath as a day for no work - Orthodox Jews still do. So did Jesus - he was careful to distinguish between God's ordinance and the over-zealous multiplication of rabbinic regulation. Besides which the Pharisees were the popular liberal section of Judaism - odd ain't it?

still Jesus taught to the why of the rule rather than the leter of the rule even to go as for to openly flaunt the letter of the law to prove this point.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Except that no one has ever attempted to explain how the gender of whom one loves could possible do that.

I think one can love both men and women genuinely, but that is not at issue. The Bible declares what God regards as sin. It is not up to humans to argue that He is wrong (although it does make for interesting debate).

ALL churches have done it (changed the definition of sin).

OK I disagree - churches which hold to the Bible as the inspired word of God are not free to dismiss x or y as non-sins and not all have done so. Many have, I agree.

Certainly God is offended for a reason more profound than "because I said so". Otherwise it is God (or, more accurately, the God that some have created in their image) who is being arbitrary

Of course God as the original creator is and must be "arbitrary" in the sense that no rules existed before Him. He created the rules according to what pleased Him and comported with His justice and character. The fact that they do not change indicates that arbitrariness is not a characteristic.

No, we are left with the concept that something that cannot conceivably result in any harm cannot be immoral

That is indeed a concept. Its failings are to be found in the word 'conceivably'. First what you conceive is in your view(surely you must regard it so) more "right" than what anyone else conceives - unless they agree with you. Second, neither you nor I have exhaustive knowledge of the future results of any action. A secondary failing is that your statement is made without argumentation, proof or evidence. It is arbitrary

I regret that disagreement such as ours should be characterised as 'bile' on my part. All it would take for it to be non-bile is for me say "you are quite right Scooter - sorry for having been wrong all these years".

Meade

[Scooter]

No, it wouldn't. All it would it be for you to stop the passive aggressive bullshit you engage in. But as I said about dogs who lick themselves...

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, it wouldn't. All it would it be for you to stop the passive aggressive bullshit you engage in. But as I said about dogs who lick themselves...

deleted an offensive remark

What do you mean by "passive aggressive" (bullshit I get) ?

I suppose that is as opposed to simply offensive as you are or what?

Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--try Ephesians 6:5 and 1 Timothy 6:1 as a start. Saves owe a duty to submit to their masters, including punishment (especially if the master is a christian--hence saying christianity is not inconsistent with slavery). I agree about the teachings of jesus being generally inconsistent with the ownership of other human beings (although jesus apparently made references to slavery in some alliterations without condemning it, I don't see that as an endorsement--just using a reference to something the hearers understand), but then the religious authorities were much more practical and strived to keep the status quo in many cases.

[dgs49]

Big RR. Bob, my next door neighbor wants to copulate with his sister, a consenting adult. OK with you? How about his mother? OK with you?

I want to copulate with my neighbor's wife, who shares my desire. OK with you?

Though I am married, I want to copulate with the girl in the bikini at the swimming pool next door. She's willing. OK with you?

Most civilized humans would say that I don't have an absolute right to copulate with anyone I want, who happens to be willing. Apparently you disagree.

Part of the wisdom of the Bible is the concept that this can be "wrong" even if no measurable harm ensues. It is wrong to "covet" your neighbor's stuff. No harm whatsoever. It is wrong to be a glutton or a drunk or a drug abuser. No harm. It is wrong to prostitute yourself or to patronize a prostitute, although no one is visibly harmed. It is wrong to cheat on your spouse, even with a willing partner and if no one ever finds out. It is wrong to lie even if there is no apparent harm.

Defining wrong as only those things that cause a visible or measurable harm shows a lack of character. It is that attitude that makes people OK with cheating on their taxes or fudging an insurance claim, or lying to "prove" a political point or lying to further the interests of your "client," whoever that might be.

Most of the people who post here deny the very concept of "right" and "wrong," independent of harm, so it is pointless to argue with them. If there is something they want, e.g., abortion, it can always be justified and rationalized, even if you have to deny the humanity of the creature that is being killed.

So bugger away if it makes you feel good. It's just a manifestation of Christian love, right?

[Scooter]

It is wrong to "covet" your neighbor's stuff. No harm whatsoever.

Of course there is harm. An unhealthy obsession with what others possess distracts you from what is important in your own life

It is wrong to be a glutton or a drunk or a drug abuser. No harm.

Of course there is harm. Excessive eating or use of substances will damage your body.

It is wrong to prostitute yourself or to patronize a prostitute, although no one is visibly harmed.

Prostitution is very clearly condoned in the Bible, so not sure what you are on about.

It is wrong to cheat on your spouse, even with a willing partner and if no one ever finds out.

Of course there is harm. By doing something you need to keep from your spouse, you have damaged your relationship with him/her.

It is wrong to lie even if there is no apparent harm.

Of course there is harm. A lie is always at someone else's expense. It causes them to think/say/react differently than they would have had you told the truth. Plus, a person who gets in the habit of lying is also going to be prone to be dishonest in other ways.

Defining wrong as only those things that cause a visible or measurable harm shows a lack of character.

I never said the harm had to be "visible or measurable". Complete moving of the goalposts, because you are incapable of refuting what I actually said and so must pretend I said something else.

It is that attitude that makes people OK with cheating on their taxes or fudging an insurance claim, or lying to "prove" a political point or lying to further the interests of your "client," whoever that might be.

No, it cannot possibly lead to any of those things, because all of those cause harms, regardless of whether someone knows you did it or not.

Most of the people who post here deny the very concept of "right" and "wrong," independent of harm, so it is pointless to argue with them.

Are you taking a page out of loca's book now, inventing things out of whole cloth to ascribe to other posters? No other arrows left in your quiver, I guess.

So bugger away if it makes you feel good. It's just a manifestation of Christian love, right?

What could you possibly know about love?

[Big RR]

[quote]Big RR. Bob, my next door neighbor wants to copulate with his sister, a consenting adult. OK with you? How about his mother? OK with you?

I want to copulate with my neighbor's wife, who shares my desire. OK with you?

Though I am married, I want to copulate with the girl in the bikini at the swimming pool next door. She's willing. OK with you?

Most civilized humans would say that I don't have an absolute right to copulate with anyone I want, who happens to be willing. Apparently you disagree.
/quote]

Every one of those is OK with me because it is frankly none of my business; whether I consider it right or wrong is a different question, but I have no more power to impose my concepts of morality (or anyone else for that matter) on you than you do on me. And I would bet most civilized humans would agree with that point.

And hat's the point, much behavior (as Scooter has shown) has harm on us, but the law has no business protecting us from the accepted consequences of our own actions. And come on, comparing that with cheating on taxes or fudging an insurance claim is utter nonsense; if I don't pay my taxes someone else has to pay more; if I cheat on an insurance clam my fraud affects all of the policyholders whose premiums have to pay for it. you realy can't see the difference?

And if that demonstrates a lack of character, so be it.