The Large One
Who's Next?
Then for hers and society's sake, I sincerely hope your daughter disappoints you.
What I want to know is - if homosexuality is something you don't want in your life, in what way does it affect you?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Gay 'Pride'
- Thread starter Pork Sword
- Start date
Then for hers and society's sake, I sincerely hope your daughter disappoints you.
What I want to know is - if homosexuality is something you don't want in your life, in what way does it affect you?
chez
Johnny Byrne-The Greatest
We do that with multi cultural issues which is fine by me on the main. But by, for want of a better word, letting them see homosexuality being practiced in public it is saying that it is OK and normal, and I just dont believe that it is normal or a correct way to live your life.
chez
Johnny Byrne-The Greatest
How does it affect me
? What? It's obvious isn't it. Homosexuality is sickening to look at, so by gays practicing it in public it affects me coz I am subjected to it everytime I go into my hometown.coventrygull
the right one
But it is normal and correct if your gay
I've no idea how old your daughter is, but would you not be doing better by her if you were to allow her to make her own mind up as to what she thinks about it?
To me, your attitude (for want of a better word) is as wrong as people who force religion onto their children. Let them grow up and make their own choices as to what they do or don't think is 'normal' or 'correct', or what they do or do not believe in.
This about says it all
Well, of course, decent people don’t hate gays; they merely disapprove -- and for very good reasons, too! So here they are -- the top five reasons to disapprove of homosexuality.
IT’S A SIN. You’ve heard the litany of biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality: Genesis, Leviticus, Romans. Probably you have also read books by such writers as John Boswell and John McNeill, who claim that the Bible doesn’t really prohibit homosexuality as we know it. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced. I don’t think that their arguments really resolve anything. I will cheerfully admit that biblical writers disliked homosexuality.
The point is, so what? It’s not like the Bible has never been wrong before. A few years ago the Catholic church finally apologized for its role in persecuting men like Giordano Bruno and Galileo, who had the audacity to suggest that the biblical description of the cosmos does not correspond with reality. More recently, the pope has acknowledged that there is real evidence to support evolution: "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis." (Read statements by the pope on cosmology and evolution.) I don’t think that many people realize the full significance of this. It is an admission that the Bible is completely wrong about something as important as the nature of the world that we live in. And despite the bizarre efforts of "creation scientists," science has disproved a global Noachian flood, which supposedly occurred about 2,350 B.C.
The New Testament says that devil possession causes people to be blind, dumb, to suffer seizures and convulsions, and to act in a wild and violent manner. Jesus not only believed in such devils, but also reportedly had actual conversations with them and gave his disciples power to cast them out. But today we know that there are medical reasons for these conditions and that they are not caused by devils and demons inhabiting people's bodies.
Leviticus 25:44-46 is an enthusiastic endorsement of slavery. Christian masters felt no conflict between Leviticus and the commandment to "love thy neighbor." The Bible authorized slavery; therefore it was natural and right. Jesus never condemned slavery, and Paul insisted that slaves should obey their masters (Eph.6:5, Col. 3:22, 1Tim. 6:1, Tit. 2:9). However, we now regard slavery as a violation of basic human rights. Did God change his mind, or did we apply an extra-biblical standard of morality?
So the Bible is not always an infallible guide to what is true or moral. If science can enlighten the Bible's views on cosmology, human origins, geological processes, and medicine, why can it not also enlighten the Bible on sexual orientation?
People who believe that homosexuality is a sin will not allow any genetic basis for this behavior. If it is a sin, it must be a choice. They will tell you stories about “ex-gays,” people who have converted from gay to straight. But of course, other people have made the opposite transition, realizing that they are gay only after they have married and had children. These stories do not prove anything about sexual orientation, but do testify to the power of social influences and the overwhelming desire of some people to conform to what is expected of them. How can anyone choose which gender they are sexually attracted to? If homosexuality is a choice, heterosexuality must also be a choice. But in fact, straight people do not believe that they choose their sexual orientation; they regard heterosexuality as natural, as a part of human nature. How then can we believe that a small minority of people, who are born heterosexual, somehow attain the power, even at a very early age, to overrule their own natures and choose an alternate orientation?
IT’S UNNATURAL. You’ve probably noticed that humans and other animals are male and female, and that they complement each other physiologically. To some people this implies natural order and rational design. The Bible states that God directly created the first man and woman. But if this is true, gender should be fixed for eternity. In other words, males could be produced only by males and females only by females. The Bible cannot explain how a male and female can mate and produce offspring of either or both sexes. We, of course, know that gender is determined by the shuffling of chromosomes, which genetically control the development of the body. But life when it first evolved was not distinguished by gender, and that is still true of at least some kinds of organisms. Some animals, such as crocodiles and turtles, do not have sex-determining chromosomes; instead, gender is determined by environmental conditions, like heat and cold.
Heterosexuality includes a form of reproduction which has been successful, but that does not prove rational design. Heterosexuality certainly isn’t universal; some organisms reproduce asexually, some by means of parthenogenesis, some are hermaphroditic, and some species utilize different modes of reproduction at different times. For example, biologists have discovered a strange little creature called S. Pandora, which lives happily around the mouthparts of Norwegian lobsters, reproducing asexually. But when the lobster molts, S. Pandora also gets thrown out, so each one of the creatures gives birth to either a male or female. After mating, the female gives birth to a larva, and both parents die. The larva finds a lobster host and again starts reproducing asexually. Nature loves experimentation and variety.
The argument from design becomes less convincing when we consider viruses. Viruses lack the machinery required to produce the proteins that they need for reproduction, but they are adept at invading cells of other organisms, commandeering the cellular machinery, and forcing the host cell to manufacture proteins for their own replication. Are we supposed to believe that this ingenious ability of viruses was designed by God? If not, why do we believe that heterosexual reproduction is divinely ordained?
The truth is that straight people believe that heterosexuality is the natural order because that is what they know, and they can’t conceive of anything different.
IT’S NONPRODUCTIVE. Homosexuals can’t reproduce. That is what is claimed, and it implies that gay people are defective and of less value than straights. But there isn’t anything wrong with the reproductive systems of gay men and lesbians. Many gay people either have children or would like to, and science has provided the means to do so. The only question is, will society permit gays to raise families without harassment? On the other hand, society does not condemn straights who either can’t have children or choose not to.
Despite all the rhetoric that we hear about the importance of marriage, family, and family values, the Bible presents quite a different view. Jesus would not allow one of his disciples to return to bury his father (Matt. 8:21-22). When his disciples asked if it was best not to marry, Jesus made a startling reply, telling them to act as if they were eunuchs (Matt. 19:11-12). Paul regarded marriage as hardly more than a concession to people who cannot control their sexual passions, and he expected that those who were really devoted to the Lord would remain single (1 Cor. 7:1, 8-11). Paul even reinterpreted Genesis 2:24 to agree with his preference for celibacy: “'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:31-32). Thus for Paul, earthly marriage is merely symbolic of the spiritual marriage between Christ and his followers, and Paul apparently believed that a person had a greater chance of attaining the heavenly marriage, if he eschewed earthly marriage. Lest any doubt remain, Revelation makes explicit who will constitute the elect of God: “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste” (Rev. 14:4). The New Testament clearly favors celibacy over marriage. Ironically, Christians, who have exalted marriage, often prescribe celibacy for gay people, but not for themselves.
IT’S SOCIALLY HARMFUL. This charge is the dumping ground for every crackpot theory which diseased minds can invent, such as that homosexuality is responsible for the fall of nations, that gays have an agenda to destroy the family and sodomize children, or that AIDS is a gay disease.
Okay, so Alexander the Great was gay, and perhaps Julius Caesar as well (if you believe Seutonius), but they didn’t tear down their nations; they made them more powerful. One might also point out that the Roman Empire did not fall until after Constantine became a Christian.
Have heterosexuals really done all that well in creating happy, well-functioning families and societies? Are gay people really responsible for such things as spousal beatings, the abuse of children, divorce, and teen pregnancies? Are women raped by gay men? Is it okay for parents to throw out a gay child? If we are talking about socially lethal behavior, heterosexuals need no help from gay people.
To say that AIDS is a gay disease or God’s judgment ignores the fact that diseases are either viral or genetic. To be a gay disease, AIDS would have to be both genetic and linked to another genetic condition which causes homosexuality. But it is clear that heterosexuals can also contract the disease; it doesn’t discriminate according to sexual orientation. In an effort to turn blame back again onto gays, some people claimed that AIDS is not caused by a virus at all, but by drug abuse. However, scientists actually succeeded in infecting a chimpanzee with AIDS, and the chimp reportedly was not abusing drugs! In fact scientists are now certain that the HIV virus originated in Africa from its simian counterpart, SIV. (This is not as strange as it sounds. The influenza virus, for example, can infect birds, mammals, and humans.)
The religious right constantly claims that their opposition to gay people is not based on prejudice, but on health statistics. Their position is that homosexuality should not be tolerated, because of the risk of becoming infected with HIV, leading to a tragically shortened life span. They simply have our best interests at heart. However, if this line of reasoning is to be pursued, they will soon have to start making distinctions on the basis of race and nationality. The CDC reports that in the United States in 1998, 45% of new AIDS cases were among blacks and 20% were among latinos. The rate of AIDS among blacks (66.4) is two times greater than the rate for latinos (28.1) and eight times greater than the rate for whites (8.2). Does the religious right want to argue that the black and latino lifestyles should not be tolerated, because they produce more homosexuals and more AIDS cases than whites? Other statistics can produce other bases for intolerance. The World AIDS Conference recently reported that among teenagers in Kenya and Zambia, more females are infected with HIV than males, and most of the females were infected by men aged 35 and over. Should we be intolerant of the heterosexual lifestyles in these countries? The life span of Russians is considerably lower than for Americans. Should we be intolerant of the Russian lifestyle? Certainly, lifestyles can contribute to the spread of AIDS, and everyone should take responsibility for their actions. But the issue is not sexual orientation, race, or nationality, but preventing the spread of disease among every sexual orientation, race, and nationality. Health statistics are not a basis for making moral judgments or for ranking people on a scale of tolerance.
Some people seem to realize that they are going to lose the argument that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, so they try to nullify genetic evidence beforehand by claiming that it is irrelevant. For example, one argument is that there is an analogy between homosexuality and alcoholism. Alcoholism may be genetic, but society is justified in disapproving of alcoholism, even if a person can claim that he did not choose to be an alcoholic and can’t change. However, I fail to see the analogy. Moderate drinking is perfectly acceptable in our society. Is the argument proposing that moderate homosexuality is acceptable, but that some people may have a genetic variation which makes it impossible for them to practice homosexuality without going to excess?
Homosexuality isn’t like alcoholism; it isn’t like anything except heterosexuality. Heterosexuals claim that they did not choose their sexual orientation and can’t change, but apparently it is not permissible for gay people to say the same about their orientation.
And then there is the argument that homosexual behavior is illegal. Yes, it is. But not because homosexuality threatens life or property, but simply because straight society has chosen to criminalize it. And having made this arbitrary judgment, it then has a reason to deny equal rights to gay people.
IT’S DISGUSTING. I’m sorry, but this is not an argument; it is simply the expression of personal feeling. In a democracy laws should not be based on what some people consider to be disgusting, but of course, that is precisely the rationalization for sodomy laws.
Speaking of Sodom, it is interesting that people who use the biblical story to condemn homosexuality never continue on past the destruction of Sodom. After the Lord turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, Lot’s daughters got their father drunk and then had sex with him. The Lord was apparently unperturbed by these acts of incest, for he allowed Lot’s daughters to live, and they became the progenitors of the Moabites and Ammonites. But this is not the end of the story, for Ruth was a Moabitess, and she was the mother of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. The gospel of Matthew includes Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus. I personally find incest to be disgusting, but according to the Bible, the drunken incest between Lot and his daughters contributed to the lineage which produced Jesus.
Well, of course, decent people don’t hate gays; they merely disapprove -- and for very good reasons, too! So here they are -- the top five reasons to disapprove of homosexuality.
IT’S A SIN. You’ve heard the litany of biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality: Genesis, Leviticus, Romans. Probably you have also read books by such writers as John Boswell and John McNeill, who claim that the Bible doesn’t really prohibit homosexuality as we know it. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced. I don’t think that their arguments really resolve anything. I will cheerfully admit that biblical writers disliked homosexuality.
The point is, so what? It’s not like the Bible has never been wrong before. A few years ago the Catholic church finally apologized for its role in persecuting men like Giordano Bruno and Galileo, who had the audacity to suggest that the biblical description of the cosmos does not correspond with reality. More recently, the pope has acknowledged that there is real evidence to support evolution: "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis." (Read statements by the pope on cosmology and evolution.) I don’t think that many people realize the full significance of this. It is an admission that the Bible is completely wrong about something as important as the nature of the world that we live in. And despite the bizarre efforts of "creation scientists," science has disproved a global Noachian flood, which supposedly occurred about 2,350 B.C.
The New Testament says that devil possession causes people to be blind, dumb, to suffer seizures and convulsions, and to act in a wild and violent manner. Jesus not only believed in such devils, but also reportedly had actual conversations with them and gave his disciples power to cast them out. But today we know that there are medical reasons for these conditions and that they are not caused by devils and demons inhabiting people's bodies.
Leviticus 25:44-46 is an enthusiastic endorsement of slavery. Christian masters felt no conflict between Leviticus and the commandment to "love thy neighbor." The Bible authorized slavery; therefore it was natural and right. Jesus never condemned slavery, and Paul insisted that slaves should obey their masters (Eph.6:5, Col. 3:22, 1Tim. 6:1, Tit. 2:9). However, we now regard slavery as a violation of basic human rights. Did God change his mind, or did we apply an extra-biblical standard of morality?
So the Bible is not always an infallible guide to what is true or moral. If science can enlighten the Bible's views on cosmology, human origins, geological processes, and medicine, why can it not also enlighten the Bible on sexual orientation?
People who believe that homosexuality is a sin will not allow any genetic basis for this behavior. If it is a sin, it must be a choice. They will tell you stories about “ex-gays,” people who have converted from gay to straight. But of course, other people have made the opposite transition, realizing that they are gay only after they have married and had children. These stories do not prove anything about sexual orientation, but do testify to the power of social influences and the overwhelming desire of some people to conform to what is expected of them. How can anyone choose which gender they are sexually attracted to? If homosexuality is a choice, heterosexuality must also be a choice. But in fact, straight people do not believe that they choose their sexual orientation; they regard heterosexuality as natural, as a part of human nature. How then can we believe that a small minority of people, who are born heterosexual, somehow attain the power, even at a very early age, to overrule their own natures and choose an alternate orientation?
IT’S UNNATURAL. You’ve probably noticed that humans and other animals are male and female, and that they complement each other physiologically. To some people this implies natural order and rational design. The Bible states that God directly created the first man and woman. But if this is true, gender should be fixed for eternity. In other words, males could be produced only by males and females only by females. The Bible cannot explain how a male and female can mate and produce offspring of either or both sexes. We, of course, know that gender is determined by the shuffling of chromosomes, which genetically control the development of the body. But life when it first evolved was not distinguished by gender, and that is still true of at least some kinds of organisms. Some animals, such as crocodiles and turtles, do not have sex-determining chromosomes; instead, gender is determined by environmental conditions, like heat and cold.
Heterosexuality includes a form of reproduction which has been successful, but that does not prove rational design. Heterosexuality certainly isn’t universal; some organisms reproduce asexually, some by means of parthenogenesis, some are hermaphroditic, and some species utilize different modes of reproduction at different times. For example, biologists have discovered a strange little creature called S. Pandora, which lives happily around the mouthparts of Norwegian lobsters, reproducing asexually. But when the lobster molts, S. Pandora also gets thrown out, so each one of the creatures gives birth to either a male or female. After mating, the female gives birth to a larva, and both parents die. The larva finds a lobster host and again starts reproducing asexually. Nature loves experimentation and variety.
The argument from design becomes less convincing when we consider viruses. Viruses lack the machinery required to produce the proteins that they need for reproduction, but they are adept at invading cells of other organisms, commandeering the cellular machinery, and forcing the host cell to manufacture proteins for their own replication. Are we supposed to believe that this ingenious ability of viruses was designed by God? If not, why do we believe that heterosexual reproduction is divinely ordained?
The truth is that straight people believe that heterosexuality is the natural order because that is what they know, and they can’t conceive of anything different.
IT’S NONPRODUCTIVE. Homosexuals can’t reproduce. That is what is claimed, and it implies that gay people are defective and of less value than straights. But there isn’t anything wrong with the reproductive systems of gay men and lesbians. Many gay people either have children or would like to, and science has provided the means to do so. The only question is, will society permit gays to raise families without harassment? On the other hand, society does not condemn straights who either can’t have children or choose not to.
Despite all the rhetoric that we hear about the importance of marriage, family, and family values, the Bible presents quite a different view. Jesus would not allow one of his disciples to return to bury his father (Matt. 8:21-22). When his disciples asked if it was best not to marry, Jesus made a startling reply, telling them to act as if they were eunuchs (Matt. 19:11-12). Paul regarded marriage as hardly more than a concession to people who cannot control their sexual passions, and he expected that those who were really devoted to the Lord would remain single (1 Cor. 7:1, 8-11). Paul even reinterpreted Genesis 2:24 to agree with his preference for celibacy: “'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:31-32). Thus for Paul, earthly marriage is merely symbolic of the spiritual marriage between Christ and his followers, and Paul apparently believed that a person had a greater chance of attaining the heavenly marriage, if he eschewed earthly marriage. Lest any doubt remain, Revelation makes explicit who will constitute the elect of God: “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste” (Rev. 14:4). The New Testament clearly favors celibacy over marriage. Ironically, Christians, who have exalted marriage, often prescribe celibacy for gay people, but not for themselves.
IT’S SOCIALLY HARMFUL. This charge is the dumping ground for every crackpot theory which diseased minds can invent, such as that homosexuality is responsible for the fall of nations, that gays have an agenda to destroy the family and sodomize children, or that AIDS is a gay disease.
Okay, so Alexander the Great was gay, and perhaps Julius Caesar as well (if you believe Seutonius), but they didn’t tear down their nations; they made them more powerful. One might also point out that the Roman Empire did not fall until after Constantine became a Christian.
Have heterosexuals really done all that well in creating happy, well-functioning families and societies? Are gay people really responsible for such things as spousal beatings, the abuse of children, divorce, and teen pregnancies? Are women raped by gay men? Is it okay for parents to throw out a gay child? If we are talking about socially lethal behavior, heterosexuals need no help from gay people.
To say that AIDS is a gay disease or God’s judgment ignores the fact that diseases are either viral or genetic. To be a gay disease, AIDS would have to be both genetic and linked to another genetic condition which causes homosexuality. But it is clear that heterosexuals can also contract the disease; it doesn’t discriminate according to sexual orientation. In an effort to turn blame back again onto gays, some people claimed that AIDS is not caused by a virus at all, but by drug abuse. However, scientists actually succeeded in infecting a chimpanzee with AIDS, and the chimp reportedly was not abusing drugs! In fact scientists are now certain that the HIV virus originated in Africa from its simian counterpart, SIV. (This is not as strange as it sounds. The influenza virus, for example, can infect birds, mammals, and humans.)
The religious right constantly claims that their opposition to gay people is not based on prejudice, but on health statistics. Their position is that homosexuality should not be tolerated, because of the risk of becoming infected with HIV, leading to a tragically shortened life span. They simply have our best interests at heart. However, if this line of reasoning is to be pursued, they will soon have to start making distinctions on the basis of race and nationality. The CDC reports that in the United States in 1998, 45% of new AIDS cases were among blacks and 20% were among latinos. The rate of AIDS among blacks (66.4) is two times greater than the rate for latinos (28.1) and eight times greater than the rate for whites (8.2). Does the religious right want to argue that the black and latino lifestyles should not be tolerated, because they produce more homosexuals and more AIDS cases than whites? Other statistics can produce other bases for intolerance. The World AIDS Conference recently reported that among teenagers in Kenya and Zambia, more females are infected with HIV than males, and most of the females were infected by men aged 35 and over. Should we be intolerant of the heterosexual lifestyles in these countries? The life span of Russians is considerably lower than for Americans. Should we be intolerant of the Russian lifestyle? Certainly, lifestyles can contribute to the spread of AIDS, and everyone should take responsibility for their actions. But the issue is not sexual orientation, race, or nationality, but preventing the spread of disease among every sexual orientation, race, and nationality. Health statistics are not a basis for making moral judgments or for ranking people on a scale of tolerance.
Some people seem to realize that they are going to lose the argument that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, so they try to nullify genetic evidence beforehand by claiming that it is irrelevant. For example, one argument is that there is an analogy between homosexuality and alcoholism. Alcoholism may be genetic, but society is justified in disapproving of alcoholism, even if a person can claim that he did not choose to be an alcoholic and can’t change. However, I fail to see the analogy. Moderate drinking is perfectly acceptable in our society. Is the argument proposing that moderate homosexuality is acceptable, but that some people may have a genetic variation which makes it impossible for them to practice homosexuality without going to excess?
Homosexuality isn’t like alcoholism; it isn’t like anything except heterosexuality. Heterosexuals claim that they did not choose their sexual orientation and can’t change, but apparently it is not permissible for gay people to say the same about their orientation.
And then there is the argument that homosexual behavior is illegal. Yes, it is. But not because homosexuality threatens life or property, but simply because straight society has chosen to criminalize it. And having made this arbitrary judgment, it then has a reason to deny equal rights to gay people.
IT’S DISGUSTING. I’m sorry, but this is not an argument; it is simply the expression of personal feeling. In a democracy laws should not be based on what some people consider to be disgusting, but of course, that is precisely the rationalization for sodomy laws.
Speaking of Sodom, it is interesting that people who use the biblical story to condemn homosexuality never continue on past the destruction of Sodom. After the Lord turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, Lot’s daughters got their father drunk and then had sex with him. The Lord was apparently unperturbed by these acts of incest, for he allowed Lot’s daughters to live, and they became the progenitors of the Moabites and Ammonites. But this is not the end of the story, for Ruth was a Moabitess, and she was the mother of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. The gospel of Matthew includes Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus. I personally find incest to be disgusting, but according to the Bible, the drunken incest between Lot and his daughters contributed to the lineage which produced Jesus.
This about says it all
Well, of course, decent people don’t hate gays; they merely disapprove -- and for very good reasons, too! So here they are -- the top five reasons to disapprove of homosexuality.
IT’S A SIN. You’ve heard the litany of biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality: Genesis, Leviticus, Romans. Probably you have also read books by such writers as John Boswell and John McNeill, who claim that the Bible doesn’t really prohibit homosexuality as we know it. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced. I don’t think that their arguments really resolve anything. I will cheerfully admit that biblical writers disliked homosexuality.
The point is, so what? It’s not like the Bible has never been wrong before. A few years ago the Catholic church finally apologized for its role in persecuting men like Giordano Bruno and Galileo, who had the audacity to suggest that the biblical description of the cosmos does not correspond with reality. More recently, the pope has acknowledged that there is real evidence to support evolution: "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis." (Read statements by the pope on cosmology and evolution.) I don’t think that many people realize the full significance of this. It is an admission that the Bible is completely wrong about something as important as the nature of the world that we live in. And despite the bizarre efforts of "creation scientists," science has disproved a global Noachian flood, which supposedly occurred about 2,350 B.C.
The New Testament says that devil possession causes people to be blind, dumb, to suffer seizures and convulsions, and to act in a wild and violent manner. Jesus not only believed in such devils, but also reportedly had actual conversations with them and gave his disciples power to cast them out. But today we know that there are medical reasons for these conditions and that they are not caused by devils and demons inhabiting people's bodies.
Leviticus 25:44-46 is an enthusiastic endorsement of slavery. Christian masters felt no conflict between Leviticus and the commandment to "love thy neighbor." The Bible authorized slavery; therefore it was natural and right. Jesus never condemned slavery, and Paul insisted that slaves should obey their masters (Eph.6:5, Col. 3:22, 1Tim. 6:1, Tit. 2:9). However, we now regard slavery as a violation of basic human rights. Did God change his mind, or did we apply an extra-biblical standard of morality?
So the Bible is not always an infallible guide to what is true or moral. If science can enlighten the Bible's views on cosmology, human origins, geological processes, and medicine, why can it not also enlighten the Bible on sexual orientation?
People who believe that homosexuality is a sin will not allow any genetic basis for this behavior. If it is a sin, it must be a choice. They will tell you stories about “ex-gays,” people who have converted from gay to straight. But of course, other people have made the opposite transition, realizing that they are gay only after they have married and had children. These stories do not prove anything about sexual orientation, but do testify to the power of social influences and the overwhelming desire of some people to conform to what is expected of them. How can anyone choose which gender they are sexually attracted to? If homosexuality is a choice, heterosexuality must also be a choice. But in fact, straight people do not believe that they choose their sexual orientation; they regard heterosexuality as natural, as a part of human nature. How then can we believe that a small minority of people, who are born heterosexual, somehow attain the power, even at a very early age, to overrule their own natures and choose an alternate orientation?
IT’S UNNATURAL. You’ve probably noticed that humans and other animals are male and female, and that they complement each other physiologically. To some people this implies natural order and rational design. The Bible states that God directly created the first man and woman. But if this is true, gender should be fixed for eternity. In other words, males could be produced only by males and females only by females. The Bible cannot explain how a male and female can mate and produce offspring of either or both sexes. We, of course, know that gender is determined by the shuffling of chromosomes, which genetically control the development of the body. But life when it first evolved was not distinguished by gender, and that is still true of at least some kinds of organisms. Some animals, such as crocodiles and turtles, do not have sex-determining chromosomes; instead, gender is determined by environmental conditions, like heat and cold.
Heterosexuality includes a form of reproduction which has been successful, but that does not prove rational design. Heterosexuality certainly isn’t universal; some organisms reproduce asexually, some by means of parthenogenesis, some are hermaphroditic, and some species utilize different modes of reproduction at different times. For example, biologists have discovered a strange little creature called S. Pandora, which lives happily around the mouthparts of Norwegian lobsters, reproducing asexually. But when the lobster molts, S. Pandora also gets thrown out, so each one of the creatures gives birth to either a male or female. After mating, the female gives birth to a larva, and both parents die. The larva finds a lobster host and again starts reproducing asexually. Nature loves experimentation and variety.
The argument from design becomes less convincing when we consider viruses. Viruses lack the machinery required to produce the proteins that they need for reproduction, but they are adept at invading cells of other organisms, commandeering the cellular machinery, and forcing the host cell to manufacture proteins for their own replication. Are we supposed to believe that this ingenious ability of viruses was designed by God? If not, why do we believe that heterosexual reproduction is divinely ordained?
The truth is that straight people believe that heterosexuality is the natural order because that is what they know, and they can’t conceive of anything different.
IT’S NONPRODUCTIVE. Homosexuals can’t reproduce. That is what is claimed, and it implies that gay people are defective and of less value than straights. But there isn’t anything wrong with the reproductive systems of gay men and lesbians. Many gay people either have children or would like to, and science has provided the means to do so. The only question is, will society permit gays to raise families without harassment? On the other hand, society does not condemn straights who either can’t have children or choose not to.
Despite all the rhetoric that we hear about the importance of marriage, family, and family values, the Bible presents quite a different view. Jesus would not allow one of his disciples to return to bury his father (Matt. 8:21-22). When his disciples asked if it was best not to marry, Jesus made a startling reply, telling them to act as if they were eunuchs (Matt. 19:11-12). Paul regarded marriage as hardly more than a concession to people who cannot control their sexual passions, and he expected that those who were really devoted to the Lord would remain single (1 Cor. 7:1, 8-11). Paul even reinterpreted Genesis 2:24 to agree with his preference for celibacy: “'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:31-32). Thus for Paul, earthly marriage is merely symbolic of the spiritual marriage between Christ and his followers, and Paul apparently believed that a person had a greater chance of attaining the heavenly marriage, if he eschewed earthly marriage. Lest any doubt remain, Revelation makes explicit who will constitute the elect of God: “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste” (Rev. 14:4). The New Testament clearly favors celibacy over marriage. Ironically, Christians, who have exalted marriage, often prescribe celibacy for gay people, but not for themselves.
IT’S SOCIALLY HARMFUL. This charge is the dumping ground for every crackpot theory which diseased minds can invent, such as that homosexuality is responsible for the fall of nations, that gays have an agenda to destroy the family and sodomize children, or that AIDS is a gay disease.
Okay, so Alexander the Great was gay, and perhaps Julius Caesar as well (if you believe Seutonius), but they didn’t tear down their nations; they made them more powerful. One might also point out that the Roman Empire did not fall until after Constantine became a Christian.
Have heterosexuals really done all that well in creating happy, well-functioning families and societies? Are gay people really responsible for such things as spousal beatings, the abuse of children, divorce, and teen pregnancies? Are women raped by gay men? Is it okay for parents to throw out a gay child? If we are talking about socially lethal behavior, heterosexuals need no help from gay people.
To say that AIDS is a gay disease or God’s judgment ignores the fact that diseases are either viral or genetic. To be a gay disease, AIDS would have to be both genetic and linked to another genetic condition which causes homosexuality. But it is clear that heterosexuals can also contract the disease; it doesn’t discriminate according to sexual orientation. In an effort to turn blame back again onto gays, some people claimed that AIDS is not caused by a virus at all, but by drug abuse. However, scientists actually succeeded in infecting a chimpanzee with AIDS, and the chimp reportedly was not abusing drugs! In fact scientists are now certain that the HIV virus originated in Africa from its simian counterpart, SIV. (This is not as strange as it sounds. The influenza virus, for example, can infect birds, mammals, and humans.)
The religious right constantly claims that their opposition to gay people is not based on prejudice, but on health statistics. Their position is that homosexuality should not be tolerated, because of the risk of becoming infected with HIV, leading to a tragically shortened life span. They simply have our best interests at heart. However, if this line of reasoning is to be pursued, they will soon have to start making distinctions on the basis of race and nationality. The CDC reports that in the United States in 1998, 45% of new AIDS cases were among blacks and 20% were among latinos. The rate of AIDS among blacks (66.4) is two times greater than the rate for latinos (28.1) and eight times greater than the rate for whites (8.2). Does the religious right want to argue that the black and latino lifestyles should not be tolerated, because they produce more homosexuals and more AIDS cases than whites? Other statistics can produce other bases for intolerance. The World AIDS Conference recently reported that among teenagers in Kenya and Zambia, more females are infected with HIV than males, and most of the females were infected by men aged 35 and over. Should we be intolerant of the heterosexual lifestyles in these countries? The life span of Russians is considerably lower than for Americans. Should we be intolerant of the Russian lifestyle? Certainly, lifestyles can contribute to the spread of AIDS, and everyone should take responsibility for their actions. But the issue is not sexual orientation, race, or nationality, but preventing the spread of disease among every sexual orientation, race, and nationality. Health statistics are not a basis for making moral judgments or for ranking people on a scale of tolerance.
Some people seem to realize that they are going to lose the argument that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, so they try to nullify genetic evidence beforehand by claiming that it is irrelevant. For example, one argument is that there is an analogy between homosexuality and alcoholism. Alcoholism may be genetic, but society is justified in disapproving of alcoholism, even if a person can claim that he did not choose to be an alcoholic and can’t change. However, I fail to see the analogy. Moderate drinking is perfectly acceptable in our society. Is the argument proposing that moderate homosexuality is acceptable, but that some people may have a genetic variation which makes it impossible for them to practice homosexuality without going to excess?
Homosexuality isn’t like alcoholism; it isn’t like anything except heterosexuality. Heterosexuals claim that they did not choose their sexual orientation and can’t change, but apparently it is not permissible for gay people to say the same about their orientation.
And then there is the argument that homosexual behavior is illegal. Yes, it is. But not because homosexuality threatens life or property, but simply because straight society has chosen to criminalize it. And having made this arbitrary judgment, it then has a reason to deny equal rights to gay people.
IT’S DISGUSTING. I’m sorry, but this is not an argument; it is simply the expression of personal feeling. In a democracy laws should not be based on what some people consider to be disgusting, but of course, that is precisely the rationalization for sodomy laws.
Speaking of Sodom, it is interesting that people who use the biblical story to condemn homosexuality never continue on past the destruction of Sodom. After the Lord turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, Lot’s daughters got their father drunk and then had sex with him. The Lord was apparently unperturbed by these acts of incest, for he allowed Lot’s daughters to live, and they became the progenitors of the Moabites and Ammonites. But this is not the end of the story, for Ruth was a Moabitess, and she was the mother of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. The gospel of Matthew includes Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus. I personally find incest to be disgusting, but according to the Bible, the drunken incest between Lot and his daughters contributed to the lineage which produced Jesus.
Well, of course, decent people don’t hate gays; they merely disapprove -- and for very good reasons, too! So here they are -- the top five reasons to disapprove of homosexuality.
IT’S A SIN. You’ve heard the litany of biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality: Genesis, Leviticus, Romans. Probably you have also read books by such writers as John Boswell and John McNeill, who claim that the Bible doesn’t really prohibit homosexuality as we know it. Well, I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced. I don’t think that their arguments really resolve anything. I will cheerfully admit that biblical writers disliked homosexuality.
The point is, so what? It’s not like the Bible has never been wrong before. A few years ago the Catholic church finally apologized for its role in persecuting men like Giordano Bruno and Galileo, who had the audacity to suggest that the biblical description of the cosmos does not correspond with reality. More recently, the pope has acknowledged that there is real evidence to support evolution: "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis." (Read statements by the pope on cosmology and evolution.) I don’t think that many people realize the full significance of this. It is an admission that the Bible is completely wrong about something as important as the nature of the world that we live in. And despite the bizarre efforts of "creation scientists," science has disproved a global Noachian flood, which supposedly occurred about 2,350 B.C.
The New Testament says that devil possession causes people to be blind, dumb, to suffer seizures and convulsions, and to act in a wild and violent manner. Jesus not only believed in such devils, but also reportedly had actual conversations with them and gave his disciples power to cast them out. But today we know that there are medical reasons for these conditions and that they are not caused by devils and demons inhabiting people's bodies.
Leviticus 25:44-46 is an enthusiastic endorsement of slavery. Christian masters felt no conflict between Leviticus and the commandment to "love thy neighbor." The Bible authorized slavery; therefore it was natural and right. Jesus never condemned slavery, and Paul insisted that slaves should obey their masters (Eph.6:5, Col. 3:22, 1Tim. 6:1, Tit. 2:9). However, we now regard slavery as a violation of basic human rights. Did God change his mind, or did we apply an extra-biblical standard of morality?
So the Bible is not always an infallible guide to what is true or moral. If science can enlighten the Bible's views on cosmology, human origins, geological processes, and medicine, why can it not also enlighten the Bible on sexual orientation?
People who believe that homosexuality is a sin will not allow any genetic basis for this behavior. If it is a sin, it must be a choice. They will tell you stories about “ex-gays,” people who have converted from gay to straight. But of course, other people have made the opposite transition, realizing that they are gay only after they have married and had children. These stories do not prove anything about sexual orientation, but do testify to the power of social influences and the overwhelming desire of some people to conform to what is expected of them. How can anyone choose which gender they are sexually attracted to? If homosexuality is a choice, heterosexuality must also be a choice. But in fact, straight people do not believe that they choose their sexual orientation; they regard heterosexuality as natural, as a part of human nature. How then can we believe that a small minority of people, who are born heterosexual, somehow attain the power, even at a very early age, to overrule their own natures and choose an alternate orientation?
IT’S UNNATURAL. You’ve probably noticed that humans and other animals are male and female, and that they complement each other physiologically. To some people this implies natural order and rational design. The Bible states that God directly created the first man and woman. But if this is true, gender should be fixed for eternity. In other words, males could be produced only by males and females only by females. The Bible cannot explain how a male and female can mate and produce offspring of either or both sexes. We, of course, know that gender is determined by the shuffling of chromosomes, which genetically control the development of the body. But life when it first evolved was not distinguished by gender, and that is still true of at least some kinds of organisms. Some animals, such as crocodiles and turtles, do not have sex-determining chromosomes; instead, gender is determined by environmental conditions, like heat and cold.
Heterosexuality includes a form of reproduction which has been successful, but that does not prove rational design. Heterosexuality certainly isn’t universal; some organisms reproduce asexually, some by means of parthenogenesis, some are hermaphroditic, and some species utilize different modes of reproduction at different times. For example, biologists have discovered a strange little creature called S. Pandora, which lives happily around the mouthparts of Norwegian lobsters, reproducing asexually. But when the lobster molts, S. Pandora also gets thrown out, so each one of the creatures gives birth to either a male or female. After mating, the female gives birth to a larva, and both parents die. The larva finds a lobster host and again starts reproducing asexually. Nature loves experimentation and variety.
The argument from design becomes less convincing when we consider viruses. Viruses lack the machinery required to produce the proteins that they need for reproduction, but they are adept at invading cells of other organisms, commandeering the cellular machinery, and forcing the host cell to manufacture proteins for their own replication. Are we supposed to believe that this ingenious ability of viruses was designed by God? If not, why do we believe that heterosexual reproduction is divinely ordained?
The truth is that straight people believe that heterosexuality is the natural order because that is what they know, and they can’t conceive of anything different.
IT’S NONPRODUCTIVE. Homosexuals can’t reproduce. That is what is claimed, and it implies that gay people are defective and of less value than straights. But there isn’t anything wrong with the reproductive systems of gay men and lesbians. Many gay people either have children or would like to, and science has provided the means to do so. The only question is, will society permit gays to raise families without harassment? On the other hand, society does not condemn straights who either can’t have children or choose not to.
Despite all the rhetoric that we hear about the importance of marriage, family, and family values, the Bible presents quite a different view. Jesus would not allow one of his disciples to return to bury his father (Matt. 8:21-22). When his disciples asked if it was best not to marry, Jesus made a startling reply, telling them to act as if they were eunuchs (Matt. 19:11-12). Paul regarded marriage as hardly more than a concession to people who cannot control their sexual passions, and he expected that those who were really devoted to the Lord would remain single (1 Cor. 7:1, 8-11). Paul even reinterpreted Genesis 2:24 to agree with his preference for celibacy: “'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:31-32). Thus for Paul, earthly marriage is merely symbolic of the spiritual marriage between Christ and his followers, and Paul apparently believed that a person had a greater chance of attaining the heavenly marriage, if he eschewed earthly marriage. Lest any doubt remain, Revelation makes explicit who will constitute the elect of God: “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste” (Rev. 14:4). The New Testament clearly favors celibacy over marriage. Ironically, Christians, who have exalted marriage, often prescribe celibacy for gay people, but not for themselves.
IT’S SOCIALLY HARMFUL. This charge is the dumping ground for every crackpot theory which diseased minds can invent, such as that homosexuality is responsible for the fall of nations, that gays have an agenda to destroy the family and sodomize children, or that AIDS is a gay disease.
Okay, so Alexander the Great was gay, and perhaps Julius Caesar as well (if you believe Seutonius), but they didn’t tear down their nations; they made them more powerful. One might also point out that the Roman Empire did not fall until after Constantine became a Christian.
Have heterosexuals really done all that well in creating happy, well-functioning families and societies? Are gay people really responsible for such things as spousal beatings, the abuse of children, divorce, and teen pregnancies? Are women raped by gay men? Is it okay for parents to throw out a gay child? If we are talking about socially lethal behavior, heterosexuals need no help from gay people.
To say that AIDS is a gay disease or God’s judgment ignores the fact that diseases are either viral or genetic. To be a gay disease, AIDS would have to be both genetic and linked to another genetic condition which causes homosexuality. But it is clear that heterosexuals can also contract the disease; it doesn’t discriminate according to sexual orientation. In an effort to turn blame back again onto gays, some people claimed that AIDS is not caused by a virus at all, but by drug abuse. However, scientists actually succeeded in infecting a chimpanzee with AIDS, and the chimp reportedly was not abusing drugs! In fact scientists are now certain that the HIV virus originated in Africa from its simian counterpart, SIV. (This is not as strange as it sounds. The influenza virus, for example, can infect birds, mammals, and humans.)
The religious right constantly claims that their opposition to gay people is not based on prejudice, but on health statistics. Their position is that homosexuality should not be tolerated, because of the risk of becoming infected with HIV, leading to a tragically shortened life span. They simply have our best interests at heart. However, if this line of reasoning is to be pursued, they will soon have to start making distinctions on the basis of race and nationality. The CDC reports that in the United States in 1998, 45% of new AIDS cases were among blacks and 20% were among latinos. The rate of AIDS among blacks (66.4) is two times greater than the rate for latinos (28.1) and eight times greater than the rate for whites (8.2). Does the religious right want to argue that the black and latino lifestyles should not be tolerated, because they produce more homosexuals and more AIDS cases than whites? Other statistics can produce other bases for intolerance. The World AIDS Conference recently reported that among teenagers in Kenya and Zambia, more females are infected with HIV than males, and most of the females were infected by men aged 35 and over. Should we be intolerant of the heterosexual lifestyles in these countries? The life span of Russians is considerably lower than for Americans. Should we be intolerant of the Russian lifestyle? Certainly, lifestyles can contribute to the spread of AIDS, and everyone should take responsibility for their actions. But the issue is not sexual orientation, race, or nationality, but preventing the spread of disease among every sexual orientation, race, and nationality. Health statistics are not a basis for making moral judgments or for ranking people on a scale of tolerance.
Some people seem to realize that they are going to lose the argument that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, so they try to nullify genetic evidence beforehand by claiming that it is irrelevant. For example, one argument is that there is an analogy between homosexuality and alcoholism. Alcoholism may be genetic, but society is justified in disapproving of alcoholism, even if a person can claim that he did not choose to be an alcoholic and can’t change. However, I fail to see the analogy. Moderate drinking is perfectly acceptable in our society. Is the argument proposing that moderate homosexuality is acceptable, but that some people may have a genetic variation which makes it impossible for them to practice homosexuality without going to excess?
Homosexuality isn’t like alcoholism; it isn’t like anything except heterosexuality. Heterosexuals claim that they did not choose their sexual orientation and can’t change, but apparently it is not permissible for gay people to say the same about their orientation.
And then there is the argument that homosexual behavior is illegal. Yes, it is. But not because homosexuality threatens life or property, but simply because straight society has chosen to criminalize it. And having made this arbitrary judgment, it then has a reason to deny equal rights to gay people.
IT’S DISGUSTING. I’m sorry, but this is not an argument; it is simply the expression of personal feeling. In a democracy laws should not be based on what some people consider to be disgusting, but of course, that is precisely the rationalization for sodomy laws.
Speaking of Sodom, it is interesting that people who use the biblical story to condemn homosexuality never continue on past the destruction of Sodom. After the Lord turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, Lot’s daughters got their father drunk and then had sex with him. The Lord was apparently unperturbed by these acts of incest, for he allowed Lot’s daughters to live, and they became the progenitors of the Moabites and Ammonites. But this is not the end of the story, for Ruth was a Moabitess, and she was the mother of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. The gospel of Matthew includes Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus. I personally find incest to be disgusting, but according to the Bible, the drunken incest between Lot and his daughters contributed to the lineage which produced Jesus.
coventrygull
the right one
How does it affect me
Not many gays in Coventry. You might like it here
bhaexpress
New member
I have to admit I don't care for gays snogging in public but there again I'm not that fussed about hertrosexuals doing it either. As far as I'm concerned as long as it's not a public display I have concerns about it. People don't chose to be homosexual they're born that way.
Thats a myth Frank i'm affraid
bhaexpress
New member
No it's not, why would somebody opt to be gay if they weren't ? Look at all the stigma in this thread for a start. Anyway, since when did you get religion
How does it affect me
Chez, yuo dont know the rules do you?
You are not allowed to have a different opinion or belief than The Large One! FACT!
He will just say you are odd!
Lady Bracknell
Handbag at Dawn
Sorry, but I can't take seriously any complaint about homosexuality that's been made by someone calling himself "Pork Sword".
Cheeky Monkey
Well-known member
- Jul 17, 2003
- 23,884
Homophobia is essentially small-mindedness/ignorance. With that in mind, what do the homophobes on this thread think about black players playing for the Albion? Are they 'niggers' in the same way that gay people are 'faggots'? Or are you just selective in your small-mindedness?
bhaexpress
New member
tip top
Kandidate
bhaexpress
New member
The Large One
Who's Next?
No, you're odd. I don't care much for chez's attitude in this matter, but he believes he can at least justify himself in this matter - even if I think his justifications are misguided - and we can have some sort of debate.
You, on ther other hand, ONCE AGAIN, enter the debate with absolutely nothing to say except the usual pathetic 'don't argue with TLO...' etc. So, unless you have something constructive to add, go away.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,203
you've got a 70 metre long nose? blimey...