All Comments (75)

free downloads t mobile ringtones
http://idisk.mac.com/ringtonesforyou/Public/index.html

Since when is homosexuality rational, considering that human physiology is designed for heterosexual contact? Unless of course you place your faith in some sort of irrational Hegelian synthesis. The acceptance of homosexuality=the abolition of logic or reason.
Support of homosexuality = ratiophobia.

Emmanuel Kant rejected homosexuality as being contrary to reason, as did practically everyone in the "Enlightenment."

Homosexuality cannot be justified morally apart from the invocation of emotion, which is profoundly irrational.

Logical fallacy #1) appeal to emotion. ex. "How can you judge someone if they love another person just because they happen to be of the same sex.

Logical fallacy #2)appeal to pity. ex."Homosexuals commit suicide more than heterosexuals because of prejudice, therefore society should approve of homosexuality."
This is disproven by the fact studies have shown equivalent numbers of suicides in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is more accepted than in the United States.

Logical fallacy #3) argumentum ad hominem. ex."You are a narrow-minded, homophobic bigot, You are intolerant."

Logical fallacy #4) post hoc ergo propter hoc ex. People oppose homosexuality because they are latent homosexual. A corrolary would be atheists don't believe in God because they worry they might be latent theists.

I could go on...

Concerned wrote:

"With respect to Matthew 15: 1-20, most of these passages were analyzed by Professor JD Crossan in his book, The Historical Jesus. He concluded most were not said by Jesus (i.e. they were later embellishments by the scribes). "

This is Mr. Crossan's theory, not fact.

Surely not all believers are against gays. Surely there are atheists who are homophobic. .... and what is it with some straight non-beliveing and believing men who would happily watch lesbian porn but balked at Brokeback Mountain?

And what is it with some men who engage in not only verbal but physical bashing against?

Whether believers or atheists, when it comes to gays and gay sex/union, it is defined by one's personal orientation of sex, and one's personal reactions on them. The invoking of religious injunctions and interpretations as well as formulation of secular laws for or against gay rights are the test of how we treat fellow humans and on their rights, even when we think they did wrong.

Once the personal becomes public, the public will react - for or against. Once the personal becomes the political, it will be politicised - for or against. Like everthing else in the public square and the marketplace of ideas.

Once there is a supreme court chief justice who is a black, blind Muslim lesbian, that would be progress of rights.

Hi, Chip, I'm with you on this: "wonder[ing] how anyone can conclude what the "historical" Jesus did or didn't say,..."

I suppose if we were biblical scholars, we might notice some patterns. Also, if we were biblical scholars, it would be a fun scholarly exercise - getting together with our colleagues, discussing the latest hot thing in the field, scouting for grant money, writing a book or two.

No offense to scholars or to biblical scholars in particular. I've very much appreciated their work. But of course it is a business for them and I think they think their enterprise requires a flesh-and-blood Jesus.

Thanks for the link, Concerned. I'll give it a browse. I have to wonder how anyone can conclude what the "historical" Jesus did or didn't say, since there's so little convincing evidence in the historical record that he ever actually existed, and even if he did, there's nothing but hearsay. While some of the things ascribed to him are certainly wise, justifying bigotry by his words, or by the bible itself is akin to beating someone up then when asked why explaining that you found a piece of paper laying in the street that said you should. Between believing something that's filled with barbarism, for which there's no supporting evidence (and a wealth of evidence that contradicts it) and exercising love for another human being who happens to be of the same sex, I'm sure you can guess which one I consider the abomination.

With respect to Matthew 15: 1-20, most of these passages were analyzed by Professor JD Crossan in his book, The Historical Jesus. He concluded most were not said by Jesus (i.e. they were later embellishments by the scribes). e.g. Matthew 15:1-2 ( Unwashed Hands- not said by the historic Jesus): (1a) Mark 7:1-5 = Matt 15:1-2, (1b) Luke 11:37-38;)

See also http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb234.html which includes an analysis by Professor Marcus Borg, another On Faith panelist.

Matthew 15:3-6, Commandment and Tradition - not said by the historic Jesus: (1a) Mark 7:8-13 = Matt 15:3-6, (1b) Gos. Naz. 12;

The major problem is the belief by some that the OT and NT are somehow the words of God. If they were the words of God there would be only one NT gospel not four and note the lack of attestation amongst the four Gospels of the NT.

There is also no archeological evidence that the Moses of the OT ever existed. The scribes who wrote the OT, embellished many old Jewish tales/legends/myths to fit their concept of Monad and to keep the general tribal communities in line with oral tradition/guilt. The trails/trials of Noah, Abraham, Job and Moses were concepts for tribal nomads/peasants/shepherds/ordinary folk living in the age of illiteracy, short life spans, hardships, diseases, and "dirt poor" living conditions. Mankind has advanced and these concepts although wise for the ages, are not historical.

The Bible also relies on itself for authenication. “I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

SOK7, thank you for the explanation, but that still leaves you with slavery. The argument was made earlier that the slavery practiced in the bible was a "different kind of slavery" but, since Jesus made no effort to declare it immoral, and his apostles condone it, you can't use the argument you did in your last post to reconcile it. Don't you find it in the least bit strange that Jesus would worry about not eating the meat from strangled animals but uttered not a word about slavery? I certainly do.

In Matthew 15 Jesus is chastised by the pharisees because his disciples didn't wash their hands before eating, and he retorts by calling them hypocrites for not killing children who curse their parents according to god's law.

15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

So, did Jesus overturn god's commandment to kill disobedient children or not?

Chip: Paul Harvey made a career telling ‘The Rest of the Story” and I will try to do the same concerning your notions about Leviticus.

Acts Chapter 15 tells of a controversy within the early Church where many members thought that in order to become a Christian, you must first become a Jew: that is that you must first be circumcised and follow the whole of the Jewish Law.

Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Acts 15:5
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses”.

The sixth verse tells us that the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to consider this question. Specifically mentioned were: Peter, Paul, James – brother of Jesus, Barnabus, and Simon. The question was as simple as it was profound - Can a Gentile be a Christian, or must he first become a Jew (by submitting to the law of Moses) in order to be considered a Christian?

The short answer given in Acts is ‘No’ – you do not have to follow the entire law of Moses in order to be a Christian and receive God’s salvation (see verses 19 and 20). So what parts of the laws of Moses are gentile Christians expected to uphold?

Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

I suppose the final question is – ‘Can man change God’s law and thus allow others to receive God’s salvation? Normally my answer would be no, but God gave remarkable power and authority to his apostles.

John 20:23
(Jesus speaking to his apostles) If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.

So - If the Apostles say that gentiles do not have to follow all parts of Jewish law in order to receive the salvation of Jesus Christ AND Jesus says that if the Apostles forgive a man then he is forgiven in God’s eyes…

…then I do not have to offer burnt sacrifices.
…nor am I required to stone children who curse.
…but I am expected to abstain from sexual immorality.

SOK7, I don't think I'm the one missing the point, which is that the morality in the Bible isn't exactly moral. It's barbaric. If you honestly don't believe that modern standards of morality are an improvement, allow me to jog your memory a bit. Since Leviticus is the only place in the bible where homosexuality is mentioned at all then it's fair to wonder why you don't advocate the rest of god's proclamations in that horrific chapter...

The entire first section of Leviticus gives detailed instructions on how to offer burnt sacrifices to god. Do you practice animal sacrifice? If not, why not?

"7:36 Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations."

Seems pretty explicit that these offerings are to be given forever throughout the generations. Why don't you?

Do you have any children? And if so, did you bring a lamb and a dove to the tabernacle and give a burnt offering and sin offering? Leviticus 12-1 through 12-8 demands it. If you didn't do so, why?

Do you condone the execution of adulterers? Leviticus 20:10 does. In fact Leviticus 20 is full of things that people must be put to death for, including children who curse their parents. Do you believe that's justified? Surely you must if you accept that homosexuality is against god's law, unless that is you follow a more evolved code of conduct than that represented in much of the bible.

I could go on and on since Leviticus is so ripe for ridicule, but the point is that you already pick and choose what parts of the bible you adhere to and which you do not, because a great many parts are considered barbaric and laughable by modern standards of conduct. Jesus didn't let you off the hook for any of it either, as he clearly states in Matthew 5:18 that "till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

So tell us, why is it that you feel comfortable using Leviticus to condone bigotry, but summarily ignore the rest of it? Not that your justifications would matter. The fact that you don't follow Leviticus to the letter already proves my point. You're selectively ignoring far more than a jot and a tittle, so why not also ignore the bit that condones your bigotry against gays? The inquisition didn't end in some parts of the world until the mid 1800's so maybe in another thousand years some of you will join us in modernity and renounce the rest of your backward ways. Bigotry against homosexuals should go the way of animal sacrifices and be thrown onto the pile of discarded ancient superstitious nonsense. You've made a good start already.

sok7, here's the point you are missing:

There is no modern standard of morality in people wanting to be like Paris Hilton or Snoop Dawg. Those people DO NOT THINK ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

Try arguing with a utilitarian, deontologist, virtue ethicist, or any other philosopher of ethics. You are attacking a culture that doesn't even think about morality. How is not thinking about morality a kind of ethical system? There are plenty of people in the modern era who do not prescribe to that culture. Like, hmm, how about all of the people posting on this board?! Try presenting some real ideas instead of beating up straw men.

The same trolls are here doing the same copy and paste job they do on other threads. Do they think we intelligent people read them or pay any attention?

Chip,

You miss the point completely. Your ‘modern standard of morality’ is based upon the selfish notion that if it feels good it must be good. Wrong does not become right because you feel you can reduce your consequences to zero or hide the injury under a bush.

And as for slavery: you say “we’ve learned (only recently, sadly) that [slavery is] immoral and inhumane. We now view it as barbaric”. “Our morality has evolved.”

Your modern morality is a shell game designed to hide what no one wants to see. There are over 12 million slaves in the world today. (An outrageously conservative number if you ask me). People are bought and sold everyday. Children are forced into prostitution and sold into sweatshops every day and on every continent. There’s a good chance the tennis shoes on your feet or the coffee mug in your hand was made by a child who spends 12-hours of every day ‘earning a living’ – that’s the modern euphemism for slavery isn’t it? If we support slave labor through our dollars can we still pretend we’ve evolved?

So what moral evolution are you talking about - the evolution of appearance over substance? Perhaps you are referring to the evolution of a society that would rather grow up to be like Paris Hilton or Snoop Dawg than George Washington or Martin Luther King.

It will take more than a fresh marketing campaign from Madison Avenue and a video on MTV to convince me that modern morality is an improvement over what’s in the Bible.

The biology connection to homosexuality cannot be overlooked with respect to how religion judges homosexuality.

See Medline for an update. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd

Nice to see the usual Homophobic morons and fantasist bigots are here in force.

Nice article. I too wonder why Gays want anything to do with man-made (NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SUPPOSED GOD!) organised religion.
It's like Jews wanting to join The Nazis.

Have a faith in a God all you want if you are Gay...just don't have anything to do with organised, man-made, man-run, man-controlled, man-corrupted organised religions!!

Religion (NOT faith...they are two completely different things) is your enemy if you are Gay.
Don't give the bigotted scumbags the time of day (or help build up their numbers!).

Thank you Susan. I've often wondered why so many seek approval from religionists who's views are consistently against their very humanity.

Anonynmous wrote"
"Just because it occurs does not mean it is natural. Many things can occur because of chemical imbalances of one type or another. Does that mean it should be considered a norm? And you can't deny the fact that for many, a homosexual lifestyle IS a choice."

I don't really care if you want to call homosexuality "natural" or not. It's a fact of nature (Does than make it God's fault? I think that's just more proof that belief in God does not make sense). The important point is that homosexuality is not a choice (I don't know if this applies to *all* homosexuals, but there is lots of evidence that sexual orientation is almost never a choice).

Of course a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. What you do sexually is a choice, but if the Bible said that heterosexuality was a sin, could you/would you choose to be homosexual? I know I couldn't. Could you make that choice? It's no different for homosexuals, and life without love, companionship or sex would be pretty awful.

The poor confused homosexuals who are brainwashed by religion have pretty sorry lives trying to pretend that they are something that they are not.

Anonymous also wrote:
"As for persecution and hatred, in this thread I see much more of that shown toward the Christians than the other way around..."

To paraphrase a Christian slogan: love the deluded, hate the delusion. :-) It doesn't have quite the flow of the usual one.

The atheists who have been persecuted by the religious are a vocal minority. They aren't particularly representative of us. Unfortunately the evangelical Christians who denigrate atheists are much more abundant.

Hello Jenn - I suggest you do some fact-checking and before condemning other's facts and opinions.

Please consider that just because homosexuality doesn't seem natural to you, doesn't necessarily mean it's not natural - but simply rare in nature.

There are plenty of heterosexuals who can't have children - do you think they're unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to have sex or marry? If people find out after marriage that they can't have children, should they be forced to divorce? What about people who don't want children or who want marry late in life when they know children aren't possible? Should they be allowed to marry?

Maury beck: You missed it! Man's reason, in the name of religion. got us into this mess. Charlie Manson believed he was Jesus. Are you going to impugn Jesus because Charlie was a cold blooded murderer? I dop not buy that religion did this and that...man did it in his foolishness. God bless you

Ms. Jacoby,

You start off by saying, "As an atheist and a freethinker, I cannot offer any contribution to the dialogue between people of faith about the position of gays within their religious traditions."

If that was true, you should have had a real short post. But then you turn around and offer your contribution anyway.

Oops, Jenn, um, your ignorance is showing. And a little hipocrysy too! First you say that homosexuality is not natural with no facts to support your assertion, just some golden insight into "anatomical correctness," as if there was an objective standard for what was anatomically correct. (In fact, homosexuality occurs with statistical regularity across all boundaries of time and culture. It even occurs regularly in other sexual animals, including chimpanzees, penguins, and others. So how is it "not natural"?)

Second, what I wrote about the genesis of Christianity is all fact, merely expressed concisely. Read "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. Christianity is made by men for men. There is nothing infallible or divine about it.

Jenn: what is more important, allowing people to live their lives peacefully and happily as they wish or holding to your definition of "natural" and the judgements that definition allows you to feel are just? One the one hand I have people, on the other your word "natural". You do the math.

And by the way, I'm not even Christian, but all I have seen is closed minded bashing from other people on this board against Christianity. Many of you don't even know anything about the religion and you make ignorant, close-minded remarks that are geared towards hurting people of that religion instead of stating facts to support your opinions. I think that makes me even more sick than religious fanatics. For example,

"Christianity is nothing more than the exaltation of the values that a particular group of ancient men held dear. It is a religion made in man's own image! Yahweh is a god made in man's image! How can you condemn men to continue to mold this god in their own image?"

All opinion based on no more facts than the Christian has to say that their beliefs are true, and all it's good for is hurting the other side. Obviously many of us haven't grown up at all or learned how to express our opinions in a manner that is respectful to other peoples beliefs.

Anonymous wrote, "The slavery that is "condoned" in the bible is completely different than the slavery that is part of the history of the U.S., or the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt in Moses' times. A history lesson would be helpful."

I wonder what would happen to you if you practiced the type of slavery condoned in the bible?

Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery?

Yes. The situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).

Whom does God say should be enslaved?

The people of other tribes living around them "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).

What effect does God say warfare has on slavery?

Whereas the men in any community invaded must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).

The above quotes are from http://www.landoverbaptist.org

I don't believe that it is natural to be a homosexual. I think that if you believe in science or religion in any form you will see that it is not anotomically correct for two men or two woman to be together. Even when referring to the facts of evolution if that's what you believe, you will see that sex was created (by God or nature, whatever you choose to believe) as a means for reproduction. I think it's pretty obvious that two men will not reproduce. I'm sure that there are some men and woman that have chemical imbalances, but I do believe that a large majority of teenagers are choosing to become homosexuality because it is becoming increasingly popular. I have heard it said on this board that that wouldn't be the case because it's too hard to be homosexual in this world, but that is just not true. I am a college student who runs cross country and plays softball, and I can't tell you how many girls came to school straight and now claim to be lesbians because it does make you more popular in the athletic group. You truly feel out of place if you are not heterosexual. At least that has been my experience.

franco,

"Look where man's reason brought us? In a world of sickness, famine, hate, wars! About time to try God's reason, won't you think?"

I think there is more evidence that religion has brought us a world of sickness, famine, hate, wars, and stupidity than reason has.

Again, inviting civil, and I will add objective and serious, commentary on the following question:

What is meant by the scripture Romans 1:27?

I would even like to invite Ms. Jacoby to comment.

Thank you

sok7: "It is not the place of any man-of-the-cloth to remake Christianity in his own image."

Sir, you are speaking of a religion that was made by an ignorant and oppressed group of Jewish men in order to transcend the impositions placed on them by their self-righteous brethren.

Those Jewish men had themselves been making religion according to their own ideas for generations. Yahweh is a pagan god whose followers decided that they were sick and tired of competing with the worshippers of other gods, so they killed all their neighbours.

Christianity is nothing more than the exaltation of the values that a particular group of ancient men held dear. It is a religion made in man's own image! Yahweh is a god made in man's image! How can you condemn men to continue to mold this god in their own image?

Phaedrus:
Well I learn something every day. Now the next step in the usual arguement is whether there is a New Testament statement against left-handedness. One of the rationalizations brought to bear on an embarassing situation such as this, is to say that the Old testament is an old convenant based on law and has essentially been updated (truth 2.0) by the New testament. This is an essential tool that is installed upon indoctrination to help people navigate the rocky road of biblical "truth".

Actually, there are reportedly (I did not count them personally) more than 100 positive references to the "right hand" in the Bible, and more than 25 negative ones regarding the left hand. This was actually the source of the Christian association of the "sinister" (left handedness) with the devil.

Seems so ridiculous to modern ears though.

Phaedrus: The analogy of left-handedness doesn't convince the fundamentalists because that wasn't derived from the bible. Such reasoning about its biological basis or any other evidence-based argument will be overruled by the holy spirit factor which many Christians summon to solve these critical problems. It's the magic wand in their rational schema.

Rev. Spears
"Many realize the failure of the church to properly understand scripture, the church holds an antiquated understanding of the six segments of scripture that have been used to condemn, and punish the non-heterosexual. "

The belief that other people just aren't reading their bible "properly" represents the I'm right, your wrong mentality that continues to cause trouble. There is no "right" or "proper" interpretation, to think so is misguided. This mentality holds that the truth is in the book, the meaning is in the book, and our job is to extract that meaning "properly". Language is not a container of meaning - meaning is something that happens in brains.

Wiccan:

Well, anonymous already pointed out that the slavery condoned in the Bible is different from the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt, so that's besides the point. I don't know enough about slavery in Babylon to comment on it.

However, my essential point is that slavery as it was understood in the Bible seems to be generally different from slavery as practiced in the United States (and, in fact, slavery as practiced in the United States changed over time). Likewise, in different Biblical contexts, slavery was different.

This doesn't mean that any form of slavery is ever okay. Rather, it means that the Bible is interpreted differently in different times and places... the Bible is polyvocal and its listeners/readers polyaural, so different understandings are to be expected. It is rather difficult, then, to compare systems of slavery across different cultures and hundreds or thousands of years -- or, certainly, to say that they are the same. Our contexts are simply too different.

As views of slavery changed over time, and as I hope views of homosexuality will change over time, our interpretations of the Bible will change, and that's perfectly normal. The stories will be told and retold to speak to this people in this place at this time, just as they have been for generations.

I realize I'm not fully fleshing out my thoughts here but, y'know, don't want to get too epic.

Thanks again Susan, for a clear and sane post. Perhaps what is needed to sort out the actual character of religion-driven prohibitions on homosexuality, is to think back to another of history's lessons:

Is it not true that people who were left handed were once looked at askance by the church, in fact, being labeled "sinister?" Was not the thinking that left-handedness was a sign of the devil? In light of this lefties were often forced to use their right hands, in essence, to "not act on" their natural tendencies towards left-handedness. This view and the practices that flowed from it, were considered to be Biblical exhortations.

Of course, now we know that handedness develops early and without any volitional component on the part of the individual. And, the church has dropped this silly idea, forced as always, by scientific progress.

It is overwhelmingly likely that sexual preference is also outside of volitional control, and that the exhortation to just "act hetero" or refuse to act on the natural homosexual impulse, is even worse than trying to make lefties be righties.

Science will continue to force this issue, but when you think about it, why should that even be necessary? What person, left entirely to their own devices, would EVER "choose" to be a homosexual in this society? What hetero person EVER remembers the moment when, faced with an eithor/or decision about which gender to find sexually appealing, made such a choice? We should not even need science to tell us that sexual preference is non-volitional, but it is nonetheless. And, as it does so, rational individuals will increasingly question the morality of discriminating against a person for what is outside their control.

So, here is the question I guess: At what point do Christians realize that the Bible is simply unjust, incorrect, and (I think) immoral on its stance towards homosexuality? Do you not think that our childrens' children will look back on Chritianity's (et al) stance on homosexuality much as we do its stance on handedness? Is it the destiny of religion to be, increasingly, on the wrong side of history?

"TDAY:

Inviting civil commentary with the following question:

What is meant by the scripture Romans 1:27?

Posted February 28, 2007 12:30 PM"

OK, I'll try....

Men are partial to fiddling with their own?

Women are for making babies only?

Men have too much time on their hands and too much testosterone?

Men use sex with other men to control them? (see YALIE and SKULL & BONES for further information)

Men and tomcats come from the same god?

Men are the ones focused on the ACT of sex just for the pleasure motive?

Women are too busy staying alive after birthing too many babies and trying to feed and house them to deal with men and their sexual proclivities?

There - that should start a buzzz.....

I think its only natural to want to be accepted and understood. Which is probably why homosexuals want so very much to be accepted by the church.

I am sure that every one of us has fought long and hard to be understood and accepted by someone, somewhere. Sometimes eventually this happens, other times its like banging your head against a wall.

Some people finally realize that their head hurts more than it should and its time to give up and accept the fact of not being accepted. Realizing that accepting themself and embracing the acceptance of those who do is more important and satisfying.

Because I am not a believer I understand the point you make. It boggles my mind as well. Obviously it is easier for those of us who do not look for religion to validate our lives. To the ones who still want to hold on to the notion of a higher power, it is not so cut and dry. They will make progress or die trying. Others will come to realize they don't need that source of validation.

Whatever the cause or reason we can use all the freedom fighters we can get!

ecclesioleft-

And the Hebrews' slavery in Egypt? Or Babylon?

"Go down ,Moses,
Tell ole Pharoh
Let my people go..."

Realist,

Just because it occurs does not mean it is natural. Many things can occur because of chemical imbalances of one type or another. Does that mean it should be considered a norm? And you can't deny the fact that for many, a homosexual lifestyle IS a choice.

As for persecution and hatred, in this thread I see much more of that shown toward the Christians than the other way around...

Chip and Aaron Silver,

Cudos for your posts!

Wiccan:

Besides the fact that in neither Greek nor Hebrew culture was slavery a race based system into which one was born and which was maintained throughout the persons life? In both of these cultures slavery was a legal status from which a slave could be freed (in fact, in the OT, was required by law to be freed after seven years). In the antebellum south slavery was na ontological status from which there was no escape short of, well, actual escape to somewhere else.

Yes, Anonymous it is cut and dried,
except you are ignorant of the facts.

Homosexuality occurs in many different species. Humans being one example. I believe the best current scientific theory about why it occurs in humans is that it is due to hormonal environment while in the womb. Homosexuality is no less natural than having brown hair.

There is abundant evidence that homosexuality is not a choice or a "lifestyle". Most (if not all) homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation any more than you can.

There are numerous examples of religious people who have stupidly and in vain tried to change their own or other people's sexual orientation. All this has done was caused unnecessary suffering for the people involved. Many people have been "cured" of homosexuality several times. Just wait and see what happens when Rev Ted Haggard pops up again. See how long he remains "cured".

Persecuting homosexuals is wrong, just like stoning your children to death for disobedience is wrong. Religion has yet to catch up with reality on that point.

"Anonymous:
The slavery that is "condoned" in the bible is completely different than the slavery that is part of the history of the U.S., or the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt in Moses' times. A history lesson would be helpful."

HUH??!!

Sir or Madam, please explain to me how slavery in the Bible was different from slavery in the antebellum U.S. Or anywhere...

Ashley,

The people who have no other argument always fall back on the "hatred" stand. "gay-bashers" and haters do not speak for Christians. Stop hating Christians, or anyone else who simply doesn't agree with you!

"It amazes me--and demonstrates the continuing grip of the most irrational forms of religion--that so many gay men and women continue to seek the official approval of religious institutions that want nothing to do with them."

I suspect it's really quite simple. Religious groups usually do more than just get together once a week to teach doctrine: they provide love, support, community, and other needed things. For people who grew up in communities like this before they realized that they were gay, how easy is it really to just awlk away saying you don't care about what they think? It's hard as hell! How can one stop yearning for the approval of parents, family, extended family, mentors, friends, etc.? It's just not that easy.

To say LGBT people should just stop seeking approval of their status as human beings means giving up on the community that they are used to, and which has, probably, provided for real needs in the past. Honestly, I don't see that much of a difference between this position and saying to someone who has experienced racism in the U.S., "Stop seeking approval here, it's hopeless, just move somewhere else." The only difference is that you're saying it as an outsider, whereas the LGBT person in this case is forced to deal with it as an insider.

The bigots are really crawling out of their holes on this thread.

I said something like this on another thread, but I think it bears repeating. To all the gay-bashers: being religious isn't an excuse or a defense for your bigotry. Being religious just makes you a bigot who also believes a bunch of mythical nonsense.

Break free of your hate! You don't have to embrace the ethical standards of a tribe of ancient butchers. There are higher standards now, standards which benefit us all.

The slavery that is "condoned" in the bible is completely different than the slavery that is part of the history of the U.S., or the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt in Moses' times. A history lesson would be helpful.

SOK7, RE "An example: 150-years ago, many well-meaning priests in the southern United States argued that slavery was a blessing society as a whole, as well as a blessing to African-Americans. These priests were preaching the ‘modern standard of morality’ – and I believe they were wrong for doing so."

Sorry, that was me. I forgot to put my name on that reply.

What I quoted above is exactly my point. Slavery is condoned in the bible, both in the OT, by God, and in the NT by Peter and Paul, yet we no longer practice it. We've learned (only recently, sadly) that it's immoral and inhumane. We now view it as barbaric. Those aspects of the bible are now selectively ignored because they don't stand up to modern standards of morality. Our morality has evolved. Your citing the abolishment of slavery as an argument in favor of treating homosexuals as second class citizens is ironic.

Sex without consent at any age is unacceptable. But at what age is a person old enough to consent to have sex? Who made this rule? It wasn't too long ago that people were married very young. And many cultures still marry young girls to older men. And there are many situations where adults are having sex with children who consent, who are below the legal age of consent. Who decides what is morally acceptable? I choose to follow God's laws of morality.

I think that unfortunately American government has taken "separation of church and state" so far that is has actually become "anti-church", and thus has set about re-defining morality, and promoting "acceptance of all" for fear of alienating some. It is sad that this country has "dumbed-down" its morals in an effort to not insult anyone. In so doing, they are turning this country into an anything-goes, if-it-feels-good-do-it society of permissiveness and greed. Of course, God knew this would happen, that's why he sent his Son.

The problem, my dear, is that like all other believers, religious homosexuals suffer the same unabiding fear of afterlife consequences that other religious morons do. They're as trapped by their fear of the last moment of their life as any other Bible thumping hatemonger. To resolve them of their need for acceptance amongst the morons, you've first got to address their fear of the afterlife.

Good luck there, miss.

Anon said "What about pedophiles? I guarantee many a pedophile will argue that there's nothing wrong with their sexual lifestyle choice; they truly love children, what they're doing feels completely natural to them, and it is their sexual preference."

There's a BIG difference. That sexual relationship isn't consensual. A child cannot consent to have sex with an adult. Two grown adults CAN give consent.

So, that's a false premise for your argument.

I bet God is laughing at it and saying we got it all wrong. I bet he's playing snooker right now, smoking a cigar and drinking a beer, all the while saying how stupid we are for the way we fight over this meaningless drivel.

Anonymous: It is not the place of religion to validate the current beliefs of any society. Many attempts by lost priests to do this very thing in the past have been an embarrassment to God and his church.

An example: 150-years ago, many well-meaning priests in the southern United States argued that slavery was a blessing society as a whole, as well as a blessing to African-Americans. These priests were preaching the ‘modern standard of morality’ – and I believe they were wrong for doing so.

People’s attitudes toward sexuality (both toward homosexual and heterosexual relationships) have changed since the 1960’s. Did premarital sex stop being a sin with the invention of the birth control pill? Our ‘modern standard of morality’ says yes. Society says the elimination of consequence equals the elimination of sin. And now we can all sleep better at night.

The real question is: What do you think God thinks of this?

This one seems really very cut-and-dry to me; I really don't know why there is still so much arguing about it. Homosexuality is a "sexual orientation toward the same sex." In all of nature, this is unnatural, and because of that the bible says that it is a sin against God. A sin is anything that separates you from God. It is not a reason for hatred, and any Christian who "hates" homosexuals is not Christian-like at all.

As Aaron says above, homosexuality is a "lifestyle". There are many other lifestyles based on sexual preference; should people who follow all of these lifstyles be given legal rights given to a man and a woman who get married? Who decides which lifestyles do and which don't?

What about polygamy or bisexuality? What about pedophiles? I guarantee many a pedophile will argue that there's nothing wrong with their sexual lifestyle choice; they truly love children, what they're doing feels completely natural to them, and it is their sexual preference. Should they be given legal rights to marriage and everything else that comes with it? Who are you to decide that their sexual orientation is wrong but homosexual orientation is right?

Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, with its roots in religion, and you can't change that definition just because it doesn't happen to fit your lifestyle.