The Homosexual Dilemma

[Carib Gyal]

Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.

Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.

Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.

It means something more than it has before. But the Bible clearly describes polygamy. And many religions still practice it. They certainly considreed that marriage. And then times changes.

There's no 'intrinsic' definition of marriage. There's whatever we agree marriage is, based on whatever system of rules that we choose to use. And our laws use a system of rights that are protected against violation by the state.

It means what society wants it to mean. The definition of it changes. It is now being redefined to include homosexuals.

btw, polygamy is not endorsed in the Bible.

 

[Skylar]

Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.

Laughing.....sure, Mr. 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'. Your ilk are threatening gays regularly, insisting that if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that there will be a war that 'will make hate crimes look like sunday brunch'. You can try to convince yourself that that's 'tolerance'. But very few people are buying your bullshit.

And even conservatives are coming around on gay marriage, with support for its recognition at an all time high among them. There's simply no rational nor logical reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And only so long many conservatives can try to defend an irrational position before they just stop trying to polish a turd.

Sorry, Mikey....but your personal religious beliefs aren't enough. You'll need a valid state interest and a very rational reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. And you don't have either.

Which is why your ilk have lost this debate. And why the weight of both legal and popular support falls so heavily in favor of gay marriage: it makes sense.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And what about the abomination of eating shellfish? Talk about picking and choosing...

Well, I was in Hyannis not too terribly long ago.

I am sitting within 30' of the Lobster boats,

Sat down for a monster cold water lobster, which had been harvested from the deep that very morning.

Under that DELICIOUS shell fish sat a plate full fo steaming hot clams.

Now... I know about the admonition regarding shell fish, but I love me some sea bugs... so I set aside my scientific understanding that shell fish are organisms that clean the bottom of the sea, existing on the waste output of just about everything that lives.

And as I said, they were absolutely delicious.

Of course, ad God new when he laid down the law... the bacteria common to crustaceans, is HELL on the human body. And about 5 hours after I ate those bugs... my body began the arduous task of purging itself of those deadly bacteria.

MY LORD I WAS SICK... I spent the next 8 hours caught between throwing up my guts and excreting a steady stream of projectile diarrhea.

Now THAT is 5000 years after the law was set down... 130 years after human scientific knowledge came to ANY fundamental understanding of bacteria and its deleterious affect on the human biological system.

And STILL, I paid the PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCE of eating food that lives ON SHIT!

Now of course 5000 years ago... there were no 'waste treatment' systems and most of humanity lived within 5 miles of water... where they pee'd and crapped in the water.

SOooo... eating shellfish back in THOSE DAYS and for what amounts to the ENTIRETY of human history, was the fast track to lethal doses of dysentery... therefore it was at WORST, a good idea to NEVER eat shellfish.

 

[beagle9]

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.

Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.

Isn't that the truth.

And what about the abomination of eating shellfish? Talk about picking and choosing...

HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!

All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life.

To much pork and what happens or to much of anything and what happens ? The law is there to help us, and because we are sinners, Jesus came to give us mercy and wisdom to do right by these things as best we can in life, and to not gluten ourselves with foods that can harm us or even poison us and our bodies over time.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.

Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.

Isn't that the truth.

And what about the abomination of eating shellfish? Talk about picking and choosing...

HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!

All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life.

To much pork and what happens or to much of anything and what happens ? The law is there to help us, and because we are sinners, Jesus came to give us mercy and wisdom to do right by these things as best we can in life, and to not gluten ourselves with foods that can harm us or even poison us and our bodies over time.

Agree, but Christians are not forbidden to eat them.

 

[Coyote]

Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.

Oh really?


This is where I feel duty bound to say - speak for yourself. Do not attempt to speak for me.

In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community. All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed. Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them. Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Does that bother you? They are as varied and different as you Christians.
Muslims, Christians, anyone can hate homosexuality. People are free to think what they wish. It's when they act on it that there is a problem.
Not sure why you are even bringing Islam into this but let's straighten out a few things. The Abrahamic Faiths don't like homosexuals. At this point in time - Muslims are worse in that regard. But don't pretend that everythings fine and dandy with the Christian faith when we have American mega churches down in Africa trying to criminalize homosexuality and bring about the death penalty.
What's funny is - when it comes to homosexuality, you have a far closer affinity to the Muslims you purport to hate then you will ever admit to.

 

[Skylar]

Except you base your opinions on other books you may have read, other opinions you may have heard, other criterion that you believe. Intellectually, neither is more valid than the other. He is as free to dismiss your opinion as you are to dismiss his. And yet you insist he be forced to accept your views.

I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well. The difference between me and most of the devout is I can tell you why I believe what I do, rationally and logically. Where they simply repeat what they've been told to think.

In a more rational age, the reasoned argument is more persuasive than the supernatural one. Which is why the animus against gays is so rapidly melting away. The Phelps'esque 'God Hates Fags!' just has no rational or logical basis. And is increasingly unpersuasive when people apply thought and reason to the topic.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.

Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.

Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.

It means something more than it has before. But the Bible clearly describes polygamy. And many religions still practice it. They certainly considreed that marriage. And then times changes.

There's no 'intrinsic' definition of marriage. There's whatever we agree marriage is, based on whatever system of rules that we choose to use. And our laws use a system of rights that are protected against violation by the state.

It means what society wants it to mean. The definition of it changes. It is now being redefined to include homosexuals.

btw, polygamy is not endorsed in the Bible.

If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them. With each of their devout as sure that theirs is the only true book. Most religion is mutually exclusive. It can't be both Jesus AND a Greek Pantheon of Gods. Which means that applying the reasoning of faith, and almost all religions, almost all of the devout....are wrong and deluded.

With the elephant in the livingroom being that there's nothing that mandates that any of them got it right. Given that even by the logic of religion, almost all religoin is blithering nonsense, why would I accept the subjective religious beliefs of anyone without a solid basis of reason, evidence and logic to back it up? Especially on something as profound as 'moral truth'?

I can't think of a single reason.

Which is why opposition to gays because some book says so is so utterly meaningless to me. And as the strong surge of support for same sex marriage suggests, doesn't amount to much for tends of millions of other Americans either.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.

Laughing.....sure, Mr. 'Even Jesus went on a rampage'. Your ilk are threatening gays regularly, insisting that if they don't 'sit down and shut the fuck up' that there will be a war...

LOL! That is just an axiomatic certainty. Believe it... don't believe it... such is just the nature of the war. One group pushes upon another group, things which that group is not going to accept.

That is how every war that has ever come to pass.... came to pass.

You feel that 'it can't happen here'. And maybe you're right. Of course, if you're not right, you're totally screwed.

At the moment you're the aggressor, you get to decide how ugly things get. If you start a war... you lose that option.

So, reason suggest that in light of the certainty that you've the most to lose, in that ya have no chance of prevailing... that ya find a means to sit down and shut the fuck up. And that where ya can't do so, that very action demonstrates that you're not reasonable.

And where the aggressor party is not reasonable... and the defending party is well principled, war is INEVITABLE!

AND... where war is inevitable and you've no means to prevail... yet you persist in igniting a war you ave no means to win... you're suicidal.

Now, here's the cool part, if you're keeping score. We, the Americans, have no means to compromise with those willing to die for a lost cause, but we have more than the means to get them there.

See how easy this is?

I SO wish you possessed the means to understand. It would make for a fine discussion.

So instead, we'll quarrel until your every point is refuted and your argument thoroughly discredited.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.

And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.

You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.

Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.

 

[Skylar]

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.

Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.

Isn't that the truth.

And what about the abomination of eating shellfish? Talk about picking and choosing...

HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!

All that changed when Jesus came with the new message of mercy and grace to be placed within the laws or along side of them (pray over your food before you eat it), but it's still wise that we would look at the effects of that stuff upon our bodies (i.e. I ain't a gonna eat no horse or anything that doesn't split at the hoof where as the hoof is cloven instead), because God knows best about these things he had written unto the children of Israel to follow, and these were warnings unto us all for our own good and longevity in life.

So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians still followed the OT when they wanted to. The puritians killed adulterers and gays. The foudners just gays. Modern American Christians, neither.

Did God's word change in the last 500 years? Or was that just the subjective interpretation of Christians?

Yeah, don't think to hard about that. Most theists don't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.

The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith {The Reader should remember here, that the Faith is Objective} and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians {The Reader should now note that the contributor has now shifted the appeal from the objectivity of the Faith, to the subjectivity intrinsic to the human being} still followed the OT when they wanted to.

ROFLMNAO! Classic!

It the intellectual equivalent of beatin' homos in the park.

 

[Skylar]

I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.

And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.

You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.

Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.

Oh, of course I have. So completely in fact that you've abandoned the entire argument save to occasionally whimper 'uh-uh' before tucking your tail between tender cheeks and fleeing again. Wait, I'll demonstrate yet again.

If religion is objective, how then do you account for the wild differences in practice even among the same religion, using the same holy book, using the same language....seperated by time? Puritans killed adulterers and gays. The Founders only gays. Modern Christians neither. Did your 'objective religion' change over the last 500 years? Or was it always just subjectively interpretative?

Its clearly the latter. You yourself demonstrated it for us when you gave us YOUR rationale for ignoring the passages of the OT you don't like. The Founders didn't accept this rationale. Nor did the Puritans before them. And any theist can do exactly as you did, straight up ignore any passage, commandment or word of God they don't like.....through the wondrous magic of interpretation.

Where 'must be put to death' is morphed into 'you don't actually have to do anything' based on.....well, whatever you'd like to believe. You can use *any* rationale you like. Mikey offered us his 'standing commandment' and 'specific commandment' dichotomy. Where he just made up arbitrary classifications based on whatever he wanted to believe....that conveniently granted him permission to ignore any passage of any part of the Bible. Simply by labeling it a 'specific commandment'.

And this you call 'objective"? Laughing...I don't think objective means what you think it means. Religion is inescapably, inevitably and gloriously subjective. And it means whatever you want to believe it does. Which is exactly my point.

(pssst...that's your cue to give us another excuse why you're going to abandon your claims and run)

 

[Skylar]

So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith {The Reader should remember here, that the Faith is Objective} and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians {The Reader should now note that the contributor has now shifted the appeal from the objectivity of the Faith, to the subjectivity intrinsic to the human being} still followed the OT when they wanted to.

The reader should remember that faith is utterly subjective, existing in the hearts of the believer. With no external method of verification, authentication, or measurement save whatever the believer *tells* you it is.

And this you call 'objective'? You simply don't know what the word means.

And note you don't actually address the truck sized holes in your imaginary 'objective' religion: the wild changes in doctrine over time. Same book, same language, same culture, different times. And you get spectacularly different interpretations. Puritians: death to adulterers and gays. The Founders, death to gays. Modern Christians, death to neither.

As the meaning of religion is subjective. And means whatever the reader believes it means as they look through the lens of their history, their culture, their society, and their personal context.

You can't deal with the fact. So you ignore it. But why would any rational reader?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.

And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.

You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.

Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.

Oh, of course I have. So completely in fact that you've abandoned the entire argument...

Winning the argument is not abandoning the argument. I 'abandoned the argument' like Grant abandoned Appomattox.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets.

Oh really?


This is where I feel duty bound to say - speak for yourself. Do not attempt to speak for me.

In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community. All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed. Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them. Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Does that bother you? They are as varied and different as you Christians.
Muslims, Christians, anyone can hate homosexuality. People are free to think what they wish. It's when they act on it that there is a problem.
Not sure why you are even bringing Islam into this but let's straighten out a few things. The Abrahamic Faiths don't like homosexuals. At this point in time - Muslims are worse in that regard. But don't pretend that everythings fine and dandy with the Christian faith when we have American mega churches down in Africa trying to criminalize homosexuality and bring about the death penalty.
What's funny is - when it comes to homosexuality, you have a far closer affinity to the Muslims you purport to hate then you will ever admit to.

I don't hate Muslims and I don't hate homosexuals. I do hate sin and as the Bible says, "Hate what is evil, cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9)

And as far as the one example you cite of homosexuals being subject to the death penalty in Uganda, you should first of all know that they dropped the death penalty provision in 2013 in favor of life in prison, something lost on the Ferguson facts-don't-matter Left as they insanely cite this error over and over. But even imprisonment, especially life imprisonment, is wrong headed. Since Uganda is 1/6th Muslim, it's difficult to pin this just on Christians.

And as a Catholic, I oppose the death penalty anyway.

My point, which you fail to refute, is that you on the Left have this hypocrisy of extolling Islam as a great faith while at the same time ignoring how they crush women's rights and kill homosexuals. Somehow Christians thinking that men should be the head of the household are a bigger threat to you that Muslims who circumcise their women, give them no right to drive, vote, own land, or work a job without their husband's permission....and are subject to honor killings, being buried alive, stoned, and beheaded for all crimes real or imagined. This is how twisted you people are. Christians have proven themselves to be one of the most tolerant world religions, but you'll never give us credit for that because of your hatred for God and the people of God.

And that is the product of an unregenerated heart.

 

[Skylar]

If the Bible were the only religious book, that might be relevant. But there are thousands of them.

The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. There is one... with a few dozen iterations interpreting such.

Says you. Muslims think the Koran is the authoritative tome. The Buddhists don't give a shit for either. The Zoroastrians care even less.

You believe you're right. They believe they're right. And your positions are mutually exclusive. Its not Jesus AND Buddha. Which means that if you're right, hundreds of millions of Buddhists are deluded and wrong. And if they're right, hundreds of millions of Christians are equally deluded and wrong.

And of course, there's nothing that mandates that *either* of you got it right. And that's just on the tomes themselves.

When we get into interpreting the meaning of the accompanying holy books, things get even more muddied, uselessly subjective and hopelessly contradictory.

And this you call 'objective'? Again, you simply don't know what the word means.

 

[Skylar]

I've never argued that my reasoning isn't subjective. Only that religion is as well.

And you've failed to sustain that argument at every point of contest.

You claim that religion is subjective, then to prove it you point to human beings acting subjectively.

Try to let that sink in before ya run to lose again.

Oh, of course I have. So completely in fact that you've abandoned the entire argument...

Winning the argument is not abandoning the argument. I 'abandoned the argument' like Grant abandoned Appomattox.

Laughing...which is why you're still running, still unable to defend your shattered claims, still unable to explain the wildly differences in interpretation between different eras based on the same religion, the same books, the same language, the same general culture. Watch, I'll make you do it again:

If religion is objective, how then do you account for the wild differences in practice even among the same religion, using the same holy book, using the same language....seperated by time? Puritans killed adulterers and gays. The Founders only gays. Modern Christians neither. Did your 'objective religion' change over the last 500 years? Or was it always just subjectively interpretative?

Its clearly the latter. You yourself demonstrated it for us when you gave us YOUR rationale for ignoring the passages of the OT you don't like. The Founders didn't accept this rationale. Nor did the Puritans before them. And any theist can do exactly as you did, straight up ignore any passage, commandment or word of God they don't like.....through the wondrous magic of interpretation.

Where 'must be put to death' is morphed into 'you don't actually have to do anything' based on.....well, whatever you'd like to believe. You can use *any* rationale you like. Mikey offered us his 'standing commandment' and 'specific commandment' dichotomy. Where he just made up arbitrary classifications based on whatever he wanted to believe....that conveniently granted him permission to ignore any passage of any part of the Bible. Simply by labeling it a 'specific commandment'.

And this you call 'objective"? Laughing...I don't think objective means what you think it means. Religion is inescapably, inevitably and gloriously subjective. And it means whatever you want to believe it does. Which is exactly my point.

Laughing.....keep running, Keyes. Your every excuse only proves my point for me.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you believe. And yet for the majority of the history of your faith {The Reader should remember here, that the Faith is Objective} and for at least a dozen centuries after your 'new message', Christians {The Reader should now note that the contributor has now shifted the appeal from the objectivity of the Faith, to the subjectivity intrinsic to the human being} still followed the OT when they wanted to.

The reader should remember that faith is utterly subjective, existing in the hearts of the believer.

Hey great... an emphatic assertion.

Now "Faith" is subjective.

As a Christian, I recognize that where I willfully engage in sexual intercourse, that I am responsible for the life conceived as a result of my actions. That God grants endows us with life and that I have the SAME RIGHTS as the life I conceived through my willful behavior.

As a result I CHOOSE to bear my responsibility to raise that child... deciding to NOT murder that human life because such is a MONUMENTAL INCONVENIENCE TO ME!

Now... let's define the terms:

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Now... my Christian FAITH tells me that MY NEEDS ARE IRRELEVANT... that God endowed the child I conceived through my willful actions. My decision to NOT MURDER that child, which is perfectly LEGAL... is an action taken DESPITE SUCH BEING A MASSIVE INCONVENIENCE TO ME: PERSONALLY.

So, we find that when the terms are defined, where the actions common to faith are defined and compared to the defined terms that IN TRUTH, thus in REALITY: Faith rests in the tenets of ONE's RELIGION... The OBJECTIVE WILL OF GOD!

Where the individual acts in response to the OBJECTIVE TENETS OF HIS FAITH... he acts OBJECTIVELY... and where the individual acts in response to their own NEEDS; they act SUBJECTIVELY.

Left-think rejects objectivity... thus is it subjective.

Do you SEE how easy this stuff is folks?