One Eyed Jack
New member
You should know by now that the Bible doesn't mean what it says to people who don't like what it says.
The Personal Side of the Homosexual Debate
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
- Status
You should know by now that the Bible doesn't mean what it says to people who don't like what it says.
TracerBullet
New member
yep the bible is to be taken literally , except when it's not supposed to be. Funny how fundamentalists always seem to know what verse God doesn't want us to bother with and what ones are super important
TracerBullet
New member
defenders of homosexuality use "love" in place of "lust" - it sounds nicer
yes, drawing an analogy
so now you're claiming to be a fundamental?
TracerBullet
New member
Interpretation by who? it's not the geneticists and the researchers finding other "interpretations"
ultimately what you are saying is that since I don't like the evidence I will just say it isn't "real" evidence so I can ignore it
hundreds of studies all coming to the same conclusion is "flimsy"?
and what actual evidence is there to support this assertion? (please make sure any evidence you provide is not open to interoperation and is not in any way flimsy)
well you go right ahead then and choose to fall in love with a nice man, settle down, get married and live out your life with him
you were talking about procreation and as noted in a significant number of species most individuals do not get to procreate.
see above
again you should educate yourself on the fundamental concepts of genetics because it is obvious that you don't have a good grasp on the topic
and presenting argument from incredulity is?
bisexuality like homosexuality and heterosexuality is an inborn trait.
As noted above pedophilia is not and evidence shows it is related to brain damage
it's actually science that is saying thatOf course, you and society at large don't like pedophiles - so you and society have no qualms with saying that pedophilia is a disorder
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That's the point, we can't. Nobody 'chooses' to fall in love with someone...
- You didn't say anything about minorities...
- Technically they are.
And what qualifies a minority to be a protected in the first place?
But the Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for “a man to lie with a man as with a woman” in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East—so far as ancient texts discussed it—had three possible meanings:
1.domination
2.recreation, and
3.religious devotion.
Domination? Think of prison sex or rape during wartime.To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape.
Have you read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression?
So this is actually a very old thing.
In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the point, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much.
Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of “catcher” in such sexual activity. To lie with a man “as with a woman” pretty much captures the point. Men were supposed to be men, not women.
The ancient myth of Gilgamesh is a good example. The chief shortcoming of the ancient king of Ur was his voracious sexual appetite, which he satisfied with women, daughters, and sons—no one was safe.
In the Ancient Near East, male-male sex can also have a religious meaning. Sex as religious devotion is an odd concept for most of us, but it was not so for ancients. The Ancient Near East is a dry place. Agriculture there is a critical, but precarious undertaking. Consequently, agriculture attracted a good deal of religious attention in ancient times. Fertility gods were common, as were fertility rituals. Sometimes this involved ritual sexual activity with male priests, who, like the gods they represented, were thought to be androgynous—that is, both male and female. Devotees believed that by planting one’s seed in such a priest, one could ensure the fertility of the earth for another year.
None of these meanings depended upon the homosexuality of the participants. In fact, it was quite the opposite. All depended on the assumption that the initiator of the act (the “pitcher,” so to speak) was acting in the very heterosexual role of male. A man could dominate another man by buggering him, thus forcing him into the subordinate role of female. That was why it was permitted to rape one’s enemies at the end of a battle, but not to bugger one’s slave. In the first case, violent aggression is part of what the soldier signs on for. In the second case, you’re just taking advantage. In the case of ritual sex, the devotee (again, the “pitcher”) is seen as performing the heterosexual male role of planting his seed in another, in this case a man reimagined as part female.
So, was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East? Probably. But it is never discussed in the surviving literature.
Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean “I love you.” It means “I own you.” Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean “I love you.”
What meaning, then, did the sex acts referred to in Leviticus have? Theoretically it could have been any of the three: domination, recreation, or cult sex. Most historical researchers think it was the last of these.
This is because of the word used to condemn it: abomination ( in Hebrew [ i]to’evah[/i]. This word is often used in contexts where religious offense is involved. And this section of Leviticus, known to scholars as the Holiness Code, is all about steering clear of foreign religious and cultural practices. So the Leviticus texts probably forbid engaging in sex with foreign priests—but we cannot be sure. Those texts might forbid the sexual exploitation of male slaves.
But we can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. Male-male affection was not unknown in that place and time. A famous example from the Bible is the close relationship between Jonathan and David depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel. David says of Jonathan, “Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). And yet, the account of their relationship never mentions sex. Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean “I love you.” It means “I own you.” Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean “I love you.”
To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment.
csuguy
Well-known member
It does sound nicer, and holds more of a rhetorical punch as it hides behind the other connotations of love - "aren't you called to love your neighbor?" Of course, replace the generic term love with the specific connotation lust and suddenly you lose the force behind your position.
... No. Providing specific examples of an idea does not an analogy make. An analogy involves comparison, and using the comparison to draw inferences. I also wasn't using an analogy in place of an argument. Indeed, I wasn't even making an argument - I was making a statement, pointing out the obvious. If I wanted to turn it into an argument I could do so by providing concrete examples of things that we do have choices about.
Last edited:
csuguy
Well-known member
Depends upon what you mean by "love" - can you provide the definition you are thinking of here?
Also, while our feelings might not be directly in our control ("I'm gonna feel happy starting NOW!") - it would be wrong to say our conscious decisions don't transform how we feel overtime about people, ideas, etc.
I agree. if you are saying our decisions do affect how we feel about people over time?
I will go further to state that our actions mold or thoughts and feelings.
Excellent question.
csuguy
Well-known member
Appealing to Authority is a Logical Fallacy.
Wrong - what I am saying is that the evidence can easily be interpreted in my favor. As such, the evidence can't be used bolster your argument over my position.
There are plenty of studies on the other side of the debate as well. For instance, there have been numerous studies on identical twins - where one was gay but the other was not. Indeed - these kinds of studies completely refute your position.
The common human experience is all that is needed to know that there are things within our control. Our bodies and minds come up with many desires - but we don't act blindly upon them. We choose when and how to act upon them, if at all. We even force ourselves to do things we don't want to - like getting up to go to work.
As far as controlling our sexual impulses - from common human experience you know that you can classify a man, woman, or child as good-looking, ugly, or anything in between. This includes family members, friends, enemies, etc. Also note that despite recognizing someone as good-looking, this does not necessarily lead to sexual desires. This is because you have not chosen to pursue any of these people - your mom, dad, sister, cousins, etc. You have no desire to - because you recognize that they are socially off limits.
Of course, in other times and cultures intermarrying with these people was considered perfectly acceptable - and so they did so.
Consider that your best friend has a new girlfriend/boyfriend. They are very good looking. Are you not capable as regarding them as simply a friend? Are you incapable of drawing the same line in your mind as regards your family members?
Perhaps you jump at anything that moves - but if you evaluate yourself I'm sure you will find that whether consciously or subconsciously, there are many such social limitations in your mind that prevent you from regarding someone, however good looking, as a focus of your sexual desires.
My ability to do something does not necessitate a desire to.
I was speaking of procreation and its role in evolution (the only mechanism I can think of that you might propose a gay gene could arise). I was not using the sexual relations of other animals as a basis for my arguments regarding sex. Different animals have different natures. The spider shouldn't learn how to behave from a fish.
There is nothing above which addresses the point I made. You are still at a loss to defend homosexuality as genetic.
That you disagree with me doesn't mean I lack an adequate understanding. Rather - it is you who is arguing contrary to the fundamental concepts of genetics - to try to suggest that a gay gene could arise and spread in nature via evolution. You have yet to address this point - you just keep dancing around it, avoiding the obvious fact that you are wrong.
I'm not making arguments from incredulity. I hold a view contrary to your and argue in favor of it.
:rotfl:
Its what some scientists are trying to make a case for - not something that has been demonstrated to be the case.
csuguy
Well-known member
Yep! We can't usually change our feelings regarding others, sexually or otherwise, on the spot. It usually takes time - especially if you have history with someone. But feelings do in fact transform over time, as guided by our conscious decisions and beliefs.
I agree, and I believe to act differently may change thoughts and feelings.
PureX
Well-known member
I think you all are talking about affection, not chemistry.
We can change how we feel about a person in terms of affection, but not in terms of what we refer to as "chemistry". And in fact, it probably really does have to do with chemistry. Like it or not, we are simply not sexually attracted to some people, while we are sexually attracted to (and attractive to) others. And that attraction does not always align with the people we would otherwise choose as mates.
We can change how we feel about a person in terms of affection, but not in terms of what we refer to as "chemistry". And in fact, it probably really does have to do with chemistry. Like it or not, we are simply not sexually attracted to some people, while we are sexually attracted to (and attractive to) others. And that attraction does not always align with the people we would otherwise choose as mates.
csuguy
Well-known member
As I have discussed, we can control our attraction to people in the same manner.
Think about it - you can evaluate any man or woman as being physically attractive. This includes your family members and friends, and your friends girlfriends/boyfriends. But you aren't drawn to them sexually. There are social boundaries around sex that people won't cross - whether as a conscious or subconscious decision.
If you see an attractive person on the street walking past you - you don't start having romantic thoughts about them, especially if you don't interact with them in anyway. They are just some attractive person that you don't know and probably won't see again.
We have the ability to consciously place these same kinds of boundaries around people as we so will. If we decide that we don't want to be involved with so-n-so, then we place up a boundary in our mind concerning them. On the other hand, if we decide we do want to be involved with someone, then we focus on them and actively work on developing a relationship with them - thereby allowing for feelings to develop and grow.
PureX
Well-known member
In any case, your experience and ideas about it are not the yardstick by which everyone else's sexual experiences and ideas must conform. Using yourself as the standard, so as to pass judgment on others, is the height of hubris.
I am an alcoholic. I experience alcohol differently than other people do. So much so that I have to avoid it. Yet I have many friends who can drink it, as they wish, because they do not experience it in the same way, or degree as me.
My point is that we are all different. Just because you can do something doesn't mean everyone else can, or should. And just because you can't do something doesn't mean no one else should. To ignore this simple fact of reality is just foolish. And to persist in such ignorance is hubris.
I am an alcoholic. I experience alcohol differently than other people do. So much so that I have to avoid it. Yet I have many friends who can drink it, as they wish, because they do not experience it in the same way, or degree as me.
My point is that we are all different. Just because you can do something doesn't mean everyone else can, or should. And just because you can't do something doesn't mean no one else should. To ignore this simple fact of reality is just foolish. And to persist in such ignorance is hubris.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, I would have thought 'falling in love' would have been pretty clear but I meant as in the romantic form of love - a strong emotional attraction to someone that transcends mere attraction itself.
We may change our positions over time, and have different ideals than when younger or value certain things higher than we may have done before, but we're not in control of either falling in or out of love with someone. Some things are simply beyond our control and that's one of them.
csuguy
Well-known member
One has lots of control over that - you form attachments with those you focus on and spend your time forming those strong attachments with. Conversely, if you decide you don't want a relationship with someone - then you won't spend time with them to form those attachments.
- Status