• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is homosexuality wrong?

boloboffin said:
Personally, I also see this as a little more evidence that Paul's misogyny sprung from living so far back into the closet that he was passing mothballs, but that's really just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have similar suspicions. Take Pastor Ted Haggard and Senator Larry Craig as examples -- Haggard railed against the sin of homosexuality in his services, yet carried on a homosexual affair in private. Craig argued against gay rights but solicited anonymous sex in public bathrooms. Their anti-gay public side was a ploy they believed helped conceal their gayness.

There's a great passage in Hitchens' "God is Not Great" which I must paraphrase since the book is not by my side, that those who emphatically condemn acts of others are those who really want to act that way themselves.

My suspicion is that the authors of the homophobic passages of the bible either did it themselves secretly or really wanted to. I think the real root of homophobia, and for that matter erotophobia, is envy.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Scott said:
My suspicion is that the authors of the homophobic passages of the bible either did it themselves secretly or really wanted to. I think the real root of homophobia, and for that matter erotophobia, is envy.
Click to expand...

If I follow your post correctly, this homophobia is a case of non-Freudian anus envy.

Did I hit close to the mark?

DR
 
bluharmony said:
I also support freedom of choice and am a big fan of Swift's A Modest Proposal. Just kidding about the latter. Sort of.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Light years ahead of his time.

Mr. Scott said:
My suspicion is that the authors of the homophobic passages of the bible either did it themselves secretly or really wanted to. I think the real root of homophobia, and for that matter erotophobia, is envy.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely. Self-loathing produces strange results.
 
Mr. Scott said:
I have similar suspicions. Take Pastor Ted Haggard and Senator Larry Craig as examples -- Haggard railed against the sin of homosexuality in his services, yet carried on a homosexual affair in private. Craig argued against gay rights but solicited anonymous sex in public bathrooms. Their anti-gay public side was a ploy they believed helped conceal their gayness.

There's a great passage in Hitchens' "God is Not Great" which I must paraphrase since the book is not by my side, that those who emphatically condemn acts of others are those who really want to act that way themselves.

My suspicion is that the authors of the homophobic passages of the bible either did it themselves secretly or really wanted to. I think the real root of homophobia, and for that matter erotophobia, is envy.
Click to expand...

I don't think this holds for all cases. Does this mean that Mohammed must have been an alcoholic, why else would he have banned alcohol?

And imagine the true depths of the alcoholism that must have driven the government during prohibition to up the quantity of poison in industrial alcohol to punish those drinking it.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
I've seen these stanzas (wrong word, I know, but my brain just froze up on the right one) before, and I've always wondered how accurate the translation is. For example, I've heard that the first one quoted here can be interpreted as "Don't have sex with a man in the same bed where you have sex with a woman." It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but makes more sense than some other parts of the Bible.

Anyone know what the best translations of these verses are?
Click to expand...


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


Leviticus 18:22

22`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].



Leviticus 20:13

13`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.


Corinthians 6:9-10

9have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.


Romans 1:26-28

26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

28And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly;

I tend to equate the frowning upon homosexuality with the frowning upon sex that isn't specifically for procreation. Doubt I have to explain my stance further than that.

The word sodomy itself is beyond loaded, also note it's just sodomites in this translation.

Really I was hoping the topic was 'Why is Homosexuality <the> Wrong <Way to Procreate>' which is a way more fun conversation than this one!

Dare I ask what another 100 years of tech will give us in the areas of sex change? How much will your local Wal-Mart charge for a portable incubator set! I have a feeling the one for females will be a good 20% cheaper than the one for males.....
 
Has this already been covered?....if so, I apologize for not reading the whole thread......

In Leviticus it was considered wrong because it was a category breaker.

God created order from chaos. Our proper relationship with God is to abide by the categories (order) that he created. Men penetrate women. To penetrate a man, or for a man to act like a woman, is to break the ordered category that God created.

Same reasoning as the Kosher laws. You don't eat pork because pigs have cloven hooves but don't chew their cud. You don't eat shellfish because they swim in the sea but don't have scales and fins.

As to the real answer, I don't recognize the question. Why would anyone think it is wrong in this day and age?
 
fls said:
And....what Cello Man said, except substitute Halle Berry.
Click to expand...
Wrong. If God didn't want people to covet their neighbor's wife he wouldn't have invented Halle Berry. HB as a lesbian would be briefly titillating but a tragic waste in the long run.

Heavy sighs...
 
Garrette said:
Wrong. If God didn't want people to covet their neighbor's wife he wouldn't have invented Halle Berry. HB as a lesbian would be briefly titillating but a tragic waste in the long run.

Heavy sighs...
Click to expand...

Not if we had video. Lots and lots of video.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am not sure why you gave such weight to the social consensus.
Click to expand...

I merely gave a short description. I don't feel like posting a full anthropogical PhD at the moment. Social consensus was a very important part of sub-Saharan Africa for a very long time.
 
Garrette said:
Wrong. If God didn't want people to covet their neighbor's wife he wouldn't have invented Halle Berry. HB as a lesbian would be briefly titillating but a tragic waste in the long run.

Heavy sighs...
Click to expand...

Maybe he was trying to kill two birds with one stone. No reason we can't both be attracted to her at the same time.

Linda
 
this charming man said:
Halle Berry makes me want to kill kittens.

/I hope people here know that euphemism.
Click to expand...

I would have phrased it as "Halle Berry makes me want to make god kill a kitten."

But then I probably also would have substituted "Kari Byron" for "Halle Berry".
 
Gurdur said:
I merely gave a short description. I don't feel like posting a full anthropogical PhD at the moment. Social consensus was a very important part of sub-Saharan Africa for a very long time.
Click to expand...

But why does breaking the social consensus make something wrong? I can see why it would be punished by that society, but as a more general statement I don't get it.
 
fls said:
Maybe he was trying to kill two birds with one stone. No reason we can't both be attracted to her at the same time.

Linda
Click to expand...

Angelina Jolie would seem to fit that catagory better. She was fourth on a list of the person married women wanted to have extramarital sex with the most.
 
drkitten said:
Who is the one injured when someone fails to respect the Sabbath? Who is the victim when someone worships an idol?

GIA wrote
God.

Who is injured when I covet something belonging to my neighbor? Remember that I'm not taking it, I'm just wanting it....
Click to expand...

You are hurt by showing your failings.

What does this have to do with the question?

Regards
DL
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I think the catholic church's (current) reasoning for this (if you really wanted to know and it wasn't a rhetorical question) is that sex should only occur where there is a possibility of creating life. Sex should never be completely divorced from procreation. That's why they have a downer on contraception as well.
Click to expand...

Good point but it does not take a rocket scientist to dither out that man's nature goes against the will of the nature that God gives man.

I don't think the benefits to God are worthy of God denigrating unjustly against a sub group of society that He created Himself.

Again, most of His laws go against those who create victims.

Why does He break His rules in the case of homosexuals?

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom