Why would someone who is okay with homosexuality have an issue with their children being told homosexuality is okay?



Do you know that for sure? Offhand, I know ancient Greek societies, particularly in Athens, promoted sexual relationships between older men and adolescents. There were evidently Roman emperors who took male lovers and concubines. Buddhism in Japan and China supported homosexual relationships within its monasteries. I'm not an expert on the history of all societies and religions and their various stances on homosexuality, far from it; but considering the above I'd be surprised if human history was as vehemently and conclusively against homosexuality as you suggest.

Regardless, many societies treated women as property. We don't hold to that viewpoint anymore. The majority have not always been right.





My above statement should have made the following abundantly clear: I don't draw any authority from the bible in any of my arguments. You do. Your point would only be valid if I were arguing for homosexual rights while also trying to argue, say, that disobedient children should be put to death based on the following verses:



But I'm not. I'm not relying on the bible for any of my beliefs. And to be clear, I don't support the death penalty for unruly children. Before you try to make that argument.



Exhibit A on you not knowing what's in your own holy book:


To quote just one instance of divorce being outlawed in the bible.





In the above post from this thread, are you not implying homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry and have access to the same legal protections within marriage? If not, I've misunderstood your intent; but it does sound awfully like you feel that way.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

As one of those fundie types who does believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and who is also an anarchist who doesn't believe the important ones can be given by the state, I really don't care much at all as to what the law says or wants to say on this question. To my mind, the whole debate, as indeed most of these sorts of socio-political issues, smacks of a debate between competing idolatries.

And those are *all* no-nos.

Instead, I recommend Romans 12:2 to all of you.

Again.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

You're keeping me busy - which, of course, I do not say as a negative thing.

Starting at the end, I don't know what gave you that idea. I merely asked him (or you) - whoever, rhetorically, if you wanted to apply all those legal benefits to homosexual marriage. That, to me, seemed like such a complicated mess/bad idea that it would be opposed even by a proponent of "let the bastards have their rights" - meaning allowing them to practice it and even ceremonially get married - just without the legal bennies.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I guess I stand corrected about Biblical negatives about divorce - I should have remembered that "no man put asunder" line hahahaha. I never claimed to be infallible - that would be the pope. I also never claimed to be without sin - that would be Jesus.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

for a non-believer, you did a damn good job of citing stuff in the Bible. One thing you did not counter, however, is the apparent hierarchy of sins - none other than homosexuality rising to the level of "abomination". I applaud you also for citing some instances of homosexuality being accepted. I still contend, though, that the vast majority of civilizations and religions past and present regard it as evil/abnormal/perverse. Even some of those you cited, I think, regarded it as an "acceptable perversion".

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

As for your first (rhetorical?) question - "Why would someone who is okay with homosexuality have an issue with their children being told homosexuality is okay?" I can only say, SERIOUSLY? I really don't know how old you are or if you have kids or married or not or even sexual orientation, but leaping to the assumption that you are NOT actually a homosexual yourself, do you really honestly not have a problem with kids - yours if you have them - being taught that ass-f*cking is perfectly fine - just a different variety of normalcy?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Since you are doing such an enthusiastic and passionate job of defending homosexuality and homosexual marriage in particular, I will through you a new wrinkle to comment on: the thing that bothers me the most - what I consider the worst aspect of the homosexual agenda - is the harassing/brow-beating/black-listing/whatever of decent normal people who speak out - sometimes in ways so mild that they don't even realize they are inviting the wrath of what can now be referred to as "the homosexuality apologist establishment" - the latest of these being Tony Dungy.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Why is it a bad idea? I don't personally know nor am I aware of anyone that supports gay marriage without the benefits. Yes, give them rights. That's the whole bloody point.



As an aside, papal infallibility IS utter bollocks.



Shellfish and pork are "abominations" in Leviticus, too. So is a man wearing a woman's garb. Those are dismissed this day and age. It's an abomination to profane the name of God, which some might argue your constant "God Damn Its" would violate. And who determined "abomination" set something at the top of the hierarchy as opposed to any of the other words or phrases used to condemn anything else in the Bible? And why, if homosexuality is such an important sin, is mentioned all of what, 3 or 4 times in the bible? It's hardly discussed at all.



And who the flying f*ck is proposing we teach little kids graphically about sex? Do we teach kids about heterosexual relationships by telling them "and then the man jackhammers away at the women's pussy with his dick"? NO. We start with a man and a woman love each other; so the alternatives would be a man and a man loving each other or a woman and a woman loving each other. You'd teach people about the sexual aspect when they're of an appropriate age to learn about sex in general.



You can't, on one hand, constantly call homosexuals abominations and perversions and evil and then, on the other, go and complain that others are calling you out for acting like an asshole. If you don't want to be called an asshole, don't act like an asshole. It's that simple.

Throw that in the context of homosexuals being denied rights because of people holding viewpoints like yours, and it shouldn't be surprising when even the more benign condemnations of homosexuality receive backlash.

On Tony Dungy, he was one of the most outspoken champions of Michael Vick getting a second chance, in spite of his mistakes and in spite of the "media distraction." I applaud him for that and I very much respect Coach Dungy. But using the media distraction excuse now smells an awful lot like bullshit in the context of his past support for Vick. If you more or less say you'd be willing to discriminate against someone in an employment decision based on their sexual orientation, then you probably should get some shit for it.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

First of all, I will say, I enjoy the civility and fairly rational content of your discussion. It is a breath of fresh air compared to the lack of both in the guy I usually argue with.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

You're just lucky I talk to you. The rational content of bull shit you spew is still bull shit, albeit articulated well.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

I don't know, I didn't dig out a concordance. Are you telling me the actual word "abomination" is used in those other contexts also?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord

...

26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus Chapter 18 wrote:

3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.

4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,

5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.

6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.

7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

Deuteronomy Chapter 14 wrote:

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus Chapter 11 wrote:

What are you, a disillusioned divinity student or something hahahaha?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I would say the reason homosexuality is mentioned so little in the Bible is that it was such a rare occurrence back then. I would further suggest that it is a helluva lot more rare/less common than the usually non-homosexual proponents try to give the impression of even now - the male variety, for sure.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I didn't mean to say the pope was infallible, just that he claimed to be. At least you didn't diss Jesus hahahaha.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

My point about Dungy - and about numerous others over the years who have had their careers destroyed in some cases - is that he was jumped on horribly by the damn mostly straight political correctness shitheads for merely expressing a good moral and normal point of view which he may or may not have even known was gonna be controversial. THAT pisses me off more than anything else in this whole realm of discussion.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

As for my referring to homosexuals as "abominations", never say never, but I don't think I ever did that. Hate the sin, not the sinner - I consistently refer to homosexualITY as abomination, perversion, etc. As for the practicers of it, I have actually known enough decent people of that orientation that I do not condemn the people. Rather, I strongly condemn the promoters of the God damned homosexual agenda - most of which, I think you will agree, are not even homosexuals.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

And that transitions into the next point: my use of "God damn" and "God damned". Yes, I do say that a lot - pertaining to concepts and things i.e. "God damned homosexual agenda" or "God damned political correctness", as well as to people and groups of people i.e. "God damned Obama" or "God damned Muslims". Notice, I do not say "God damned homosexuals". I was taught that saying "God damn" is in effect a prayer - a prayer that God will condemn to hell whatever or whoever you say it about. Similarly, I was taught that saying "God damned" reflects the sincere belief that God already has or certainly will condemn the item referred to to hell. So with very rare exceptions, when I say it, I really mean those things - NOT vainly using the name of God, which yes, indeed is a listed sin. Abomination? That's news to me, but if you are sure, I guess.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

What did I leave out? Oh yeah, Rights. First of all, benefits: giving homosexual marriage all of those bennies opens up a huge can of worms that arguably would or at least could end up actually harming the position of real homosexuals - I cite the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" - to illustrate that hahahaha - sure it was just a movie, but the scenario was valid. As for actual RIGHTS, I ask, where do you get a "right" to practice homosexuality - or for that matter, a "right" of marriage - either gay or straight? There certainly is no Constitutional right of homosexuality; It absolutely fails as a "God-given" right; And it most certainly is not a "natural" right. So what kind of "right" do you assert that it is?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Yup.



The chapter is a list of commandments, a bunch of "though shalt nots". Within this list is the "though shalt not lie with a man" that seems to be the only line of the bible of which you are cognizant. While it doesn't directly say profaning the name of God is an abomination, it states you shall not commit any of these abominations.

There's a list of what you can eat and what you can't eat; and what you can't eat is referred to as abominable:



So any land animal that doesn't both have a cleft hoof AND first regurgitates partially digested food before swallowing again is abominable and shall not be eaten.

Shellfish are directly called an abomination (or rather anything that doesn't have scales and fines, so catfish would be as well):



Plenty of other things referred to as abominations as well but if I quote them all it will end up being half the bible.



Nope. A former Catholic and Lutheran (Dad is Catholic and Mom is Lutheran). I went to Catholic school. I retained familiarity with certain sections of the Bible that struck me as particularly insane. Now it's a quick google search to find the passages and recall the wording.



Do you have any evidence to back that up? The writers of the Jewish and Christian texts would have come across the Greeks and, to probably a larger extent, the Romans, in whose culture homosexual acts were evidently common in certain relationship structures. I've heard the Babylonians were okay with homosexual behavior. They would have had contact with the Jews of the biblical era.

I'd also point to the excerpt from Leviticus Chapter 18 above, which states the condemned acts (including that bit about lying with another man) have been committed in the land by other people. So your own holy book would arguably disagree with you on that point.



No, I know. We agree on the pope. I even thought that when I WAS a Catholic. Arrogant BS is all it is.



I'd disagree with ruining Dungy's career over this. Then again, he arguably would have been happy to deny Michael Sam his career. Believe it's wrong all you want. The minute people take that idea and start using it to discriminate or deny rights to others, that person is risking potentially severe consequences. Consequences that they probably deserve.

You've also not shown it to be a "good moral and normal point of view" at all. Not in the least. You have a couple lines from a book you otherwise don't seem to know a damn thing about. If your sole argument stems from several lines in a book which you otherwise ignore or with which you blatantly disagree (e.g. divorce, football or anyone else not keeping the sabbath, wearing mixed fabrics, brutally murdering unruly children, etc., etc., etc.); you are full of it. Utterly. Bursting at the seems I'd say.

Present one valid argument for why homosexuality should be denigrated and the practitioners thereof denied rights.



Yes, how dare people support those decent people in seeking equal rights. 🙄

Hate the sin, not the sinner is a bullshit cop out. Homosexuality is not a choice. They can't change who they are. You're effectively telling someone who is gay that you'd hate it if they found someone to fall in love with and spend their life with. What a shitty thing to effectively say to someone.



I've heard that argument and I've heard widely varying opinions on the use of "god damn it" in relation to the commandment to not take the lord's name in vain. That's why (I believe) I said arguably. Also, if it's a prayer, it's a shitty thing to ask your god for, to send another or a group of people to eternal damnation. If it's not something you're asking for, what makes you presume to know what your god has or has not condemned something (unless your god is a figment of an imagination, which is not something I believe you are willing to grant). Doesn't matter to me; but for someone claiming to be religious, you're treading on very thin ice on this point.



What can of worms? That they can have visitation rights? That if you marry someone from another country and you're gay they could actually stay in the country? That they could have tax breaks for filing jointly? What the hell are you on about?

If there's a specific situation in which a certain couple could be "harmed" by becoming married it's their choice to do so or stay a civil union or just a couple or whatever they wanted. No one would be forcing them to get married. It would be their own choice.

And what right?... legally recognized gay marriage. You know, the whole topic? That's a legal right accorded to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples (at least in 31 states). Why? If the only reason is religious, that's a violation of the First Amendment.

As far as natural rights, your "hate the sin, not the sinner" bollocks flies in the face of the pursuit of happiness, which I'd hope we could agree is a natural right. Or were you hinting homosexuality isn't natural? If it's not natural, why does it show up in nature?

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

for a non-believer, you did a damn good job of citing stuff in the Bible. One thing you did not counter, however, is the apparent hierarchy of sins - none other than homosexuality rising to the level of "abomination".

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Agreed, this is way-y-y-y-y down the list of issues in importance ........ but like the Tennessee Titans next Saturday night, it's the only game on right now.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I read Romans 12:2. It appears you picked the perfect verse - that could be used by those on either side to support their position.