Live and let live, I say. I do have an observation though, having been a clerk at an “adult bookstore”. Generally speaking, heterosexual guys who just can’t stand the notion of two men getting it on sure do LOOOVE to rent videos featuring two women together.
???
I think it all has to do with violating gender roles. To a homophobic male, being male and receiving a penis in any orifice means you are acting the role of the woman, a clearly unacceptable thing in his eyes. Thus, his world perception about gender roles are blown away and he gets fearful. I have noticed that most of the vocal christians that talk about homosexuality as being a sin and homosexuals being evil are protestants who generally have problems with sex in general. One interesting side note: The pope himself said that homosexuality itself isn’t a sin, but that doing a homosexual sex act was…go figure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opalcat says:
I have never understood why this has been singled out as such a big deal by people. Can someone explain?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Opal clarifies: BTW, I was not asking why GAY people were open about being “out” but why NON GAY people were so hateful, discriminatory, etc about it. No gays in the military, etc.<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CM Keller adds:Sex is just one more area of life in which one’s choices are limited by the Bible. Christians, though, apparantly abandoned almost all Biblical prohibitions except those about sex, so it stands out.<<<<<<<<<<<
Tha Voice:
And, you’ll please pardon me, I am in a hurry…If my response is redundant, forgive a thousand times.
I am a 40 year old Lesbian. Ergo, I was brought-up to fall in love & get married (to a man). I knew when I was 3 or 4 (truly) and I believe my mother sensed it. I was, and am, a sissy-girl. The women I have been involved with are extremely feminine as well.“You wouldn’t know”…if I may use a dreadful phrase. I have dated men, quite a few. I was in lve with one. I didn’t know a single Gay person until I was about 20 years old. I was a precocious child, and once (when I was about 8 or 9) I realized that this was not something to be honest about, I lived inside my head, as to that part of my life. When I was a bit older, I read up on it and was certain that it was a normal part of discovery sexuality and that I would get over it. When I was about 20, I started to realize that hmmm, it’s not a phase. Oddly, I didn’t suffer the incredible angst that seems to go with it – it was simply no different to me than having brown eyes or a big bust or …being short.My best-friend was a Gay man…we were very close. Husband & wife without having sex. We cared for each other, deeply. We both wanted children and discussed it. (Yuppies or Guppies, at the time, we were planning it until the 5k sq. ft. house, the boat, cars, vacation homes were paid for…how’s that for arrogance?) As all friends do, we had deep philosophical discussions, all the time. We both agreed that anyone can fall in love with anyone else. (Straight or Gay…under the right circumstances, one could love someone and want to be with them forever.)
I don’t believe that EVERYONE who hates Gays, or bashes Gays, etc., is a closet case or afraid of their own feelings. we really (all of us) have to face the fact that there are some plain old EVIL folks out there. There is also bitterness. As Hitler made the Jews a scapegoat…and let’s not forget that the German people went right along with him…We make many "groups’ scapegoats. this appeals to people who have had a lot of hard-knocks in life, are troubled or bitter over disappointments in there own lives…and this gives them a way to vent.
If a hetero man was close friends with a Gay man, they may become physically intimate. Same for women.The problem arises from people who insist on using the Bible as a tool of Hatred, rather than a Sacred, but ancient & translated book that must be studied carefully. As a Christian, (Congregationalist Protestant) this doesn’t come new to me as so many BORN-AGAIN faddists who pick and choose among God’s rules.As to Jesus, He doesn’t condemn Gays…just promiscuity. The only mention of His temper was when He threw the money changers out of the Temple.
I think that the Reverend Billy Graham stated it best, during the '70’s when Anita Bryant was being used : “There are literally hundreds of sins mentioned in the Bible. I am not going to march down the street over one particular one.”
Also;in the Bible, a sin is a sin is a sin…it is humans (most notably Catholics) who assign degrees of guilt to them.
We will be judged, individually, and on our entire life. Not what we do in bed.
Peace and…remember: People have ehelped strangers and entertained Angels, unaware.
AIDS may have been sent by God. But not to punish Homosexuals. Rather to see how the most reviled group (currently) would be treated by their fellow man, Jew & Christian alike. Well, He has his answer: because of the stigma, shame and retribution toward PWA, now, it is indeed everyone’s problem.
The Voice
Rowan:
And on that point I concede
I.E. (from your previous post) the context of an idolatrous orgy. On this point I disagree; it seems to me that the prohibition is a blanket prohibition on the (usual) gay male sex act, just as the prohibitions of sex with close relatives, with women married to other men or to menstruous women are.
Well, to the best of my knowledge there’s debate on whether homosexuality is included amongst the “seven Noachide commandments.” But certainly the verses in Leviticus are an injunction specifically to Jews.
I wouldn’t go that far, personally. What I was saying was that the reason predominantly-Christian nations, such as the U.S., make such an issue of homosexuality is because it (and other sexual prohibitions) is a Biblical thing they consider binding. I’m sure they have their reasons, not ridiculous, for which things they choose to apply and which they don’t; I’m not aware of them. I assume a priest or a Christian theologian would be able to answer that question. When dealing with a mixed crowd, I avoid ridiculing other people’s beliefs. I’m simply saying it stands out to them in a way that it doesn’t to Orthodox Jews, who also consider it Biblically forbidden.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Rowan made an interesting point regarding Lev. 18:22 –
My understanding of this point is that the other sexual sins are (forbidden but) not subject to punishment unless the intercourse was consummated with an ejaculation. Male-male acts, however, are punishable for penetration alone, even without ejaculation. Exactly why this act is singled out is a philosophical point which can be discussed, but I believe that the change of wording is what signalled to the rabbis that it is indeed different.
Here’s my 2 cents…
This is for the “Bible says gay people are bad” people. Quote the Bible all you want… it’s a great book. However, after the first half or so, there’s a section of it called the NEW TESTAMENT. Remember that guy Jesus? Yeah, he loved everyone. Even ate dinner with prostitutes. Whoa… you see, if you’re Christian, you believe that we are ALL God’s children and he loves each one of us greatly… no one person or group more than the other.
You want to go one on one with The Great One?
To say “AIDS was sent by God” to punish homosexuals, see how we’d treat homosexuals, or any other reason is rather silly. AIDS spread within the homosexual population because it’s a blood-borne pathogen, and when gay guys make whoopee it can enter the bloodstream through the resulting anal fissures. Period. The details of how it was initially transferred from the simian to the human population is a bit unclear. However this was accomplished (I can imagine a couple unsavory scenarios, the details of which I will spare you) rest assured that it was done by a human, and that God had nothing to do with it!
To say that “God introduced AIDS to punish homosexuals” is like saying “God brought kudzu here from Japan to punish the South for slavery.” There is really no need for a deity to enter the picture in either of these cases.
I have a paradox in my thinking. I certainly believe that society has no right to prohibit consual acts between adults, at least if they are not dangerous. That category would include homosexuality and also heterosexual “sodomy”. However, it would also include incest wouldn’t it? At least, it would if the participants were both adults and took steps to eliminate procreation. Certainly, we have the right to prohibit incestual marriages and even incestual relationships, don’t we? Yet I don’t believe we have the right to prohibit homosexual marriages or homosexual relationships. I find that an interesting conflict in my own opinions.
Greg Charles, conflicts like that are the hard part of living morally. If you believe that sexual freedom is good, but incest is bad, which is more important to you?
I don’t believe we have the right to tell any adults who they can or should sleep with. Homosexuality, incest, bestiality, whatever-- it’s none of my business. I may not like the mental picture, but if someone wants to do it at home, I’m not about to tell them no. (Things that harm others-- like pedophilia-- are the only exception I can think of.)
I’m told that New York still has anti-sodomy laws on the books, worded in such a way that they could be used to prosecute anyone engaging in oral sex. And you thought the prisons were overcrowded now…
[[Some people are just so uncomfortable with sex in general, that any time they meet a gay person-- someone whose gayness is spelled out in so many letters-- all they can think of is “He’s had sex.”]]
I think this hits the nail on the head. There is much sex phobia in our society, and many people are in denial about the sexual nature of their kids, their neighbors, even their married or pregnant friends.
When a person is identified as being “gay” they are being defined by their sexual nature and activity, and this makes people uncomfortable. People don’t necessarily look at a hetero. married couple and wonder who’s the top and who’s the bottom. But it’s often the first thing a person will wonder, upon hearing that someone is gay.
This is also partly why some people are uncomfortable allowing gay men to work with kids. They are, of course, no more likely to sexually abuse kids than straight guys are, but - by admitting that they are sexual at all - some people get nervous. Of course being gay has many more implications than just the sexual ones. It also means that you can’t be legally married, so you don’t get the acceptance (or the family health insurance) that heterosexual married couples do. It also means that you will face subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination, but - again - I think some of that derives from the discomfort people have with admitting that people have sex at all… especially sex that doesn’t produce kids.
Jill
>>I have a paradox in my thinking. I certainly believe that society has no right to prohibit consual acts between adults, at least if they are not dangerous. That category would include homosexuality and also heterosexual “sodomy”. However, it would also include incest wouldn’t it? At least, it would if the participants were both adults and took steps to eliminate procreation. Certainly, we have the right to prohibit incestual marriages and even incestual relationships, don’t we? Yet I don’t believe we have the right to prohibit homosexual marriages or homosexual relationships. I find that an interesting conflict in my own opinions.<<
Homeosexuality and incest are different. The best evidence says that some people are gay, and this is an immutable part of the person’s biology.
I don’t think anyone is biologically disposed to incestuous relationships.
However, that said, I happen to think that there’s not actually anything wrong with consensual incestuous relationships between adults.
Well-- I wouldn’t do it. I mean, I am a little grossed out by the idea, if the truth be told. But I’m not about to tell other people what to do. Really.
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny
Oh for crying out loud…Gayness is only a big deal in a straight society.
In a gay society its no big deal. But then being straight sure is. Boy, you otta hear what they call straight people. lol.
I think one reason for the focus of Christian groups on homosexuality more than other sins might be that if you’re straight, homosexuality represents a sin that you will never have to worry about committing. So it becomes really easy to condemn those who DO break it, and you get a smug feeling of superiority to boot. See http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/1998/07/09boll.html
I think one reason for the focus of Christian groups on homosexuality more than other sins might be that if you’re straight, homosexuality represents a sin that you will never have to worry about committing. So it becomes really easy to condemn those who DO break it, and you get a smug feeling of superiority to boot. See http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/1998/07/09boll.html
To say “AIDS was sent by God” to punish homosexuals, see how we’d treat homosexuals, or any other reason is rather silly. AIDS spread within the homosexual population because it’s a blood-borne pathogen, and when gay guys make whoopee it can enter the bloodstream through the resulting anal fissures. Period. The details of how it was initially transferred from the simian to the human population is a bit unclear. However this was accomplished (I can imagine a couple unsavory scenarios, the details of which I will spare you) rest assured that it was done by a human, and that God had nothing to do with it!
To say that “God introduced AIDS to punish homosexuals” is like saying “God brought kudzu here from Japan to punish the South for slavery.” There is really no need for a deity to enter the picture in either of these cases. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<< <<< <<<< A-Hem. Once again my cynicism/sarcasm was misinterpreted.This was (and, BTW) still a Fave of those who will use God as an Agent of HATRED. That was why I mentioned it. And, if you read carefully, I did state I was rushed. What I adore is, in addition to the Pretend Christians, That old Ronny Ray-Gun & his gang went right along with the NUTS. A disease, (not all that new–there were cases in the '50’s…another time) a virus to be precise, proliferated beginning in '79/80. It was first referred to as GRIDS (Gay Related Immune deficiency Syndrome) because Gays were the first US group where it was obvious. (Perhaps they donate blood more frequently?)When Haitians and Hets began getting it, the name was changed. Anyway, notice how nobody mentions how it passed from a ‘Gay disease’ (We, of course, were THE only country that treated it as such. All other modernized countries treated it for what it was: a communicable virus, fatal and incurable.) Thanks to Ronald “Al” Ray-gun, it was dismissed here. Then all those conservative million & billionaires who live in, Oh let’s say Fairfield County, for one, who stop in the village to pick up little boy prostitutes, before they hit Grand Central to go home, started giving it to their wives. Who in turn were giving it to their tennis-pro lover at ‘their Club’, who gave it to every woman he slept with…etc. Then of course, we have your IV Drug users…(I don’t think sexuality has anything to do with injecting Heroin, but I am sure a few Fundy’s & Right-wing radicals will disagree)…who spread it more. Then your Prostitutes (female) who sleep with married men, who sometimes sleep with boys and, well, there you have it. Not to mention the fact Elizabeth Glaser, her daughter & son and Arthur Ashe, among the 1000’s of folks we don’t know, contracted AIDS through transfusion AFTER THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION INSISTED THAT THE BLOOD SUPPLY WAS COMLETELY SAFE.
Anyway…my point was simply that nearly anyone can use the Bible to support their side. 'Cause if we take the ANTI-Christians at their word, wouldn’t we then have to believe that incompetent ex-Presidents, (who cause 10’s of 1,000’s unnecessary deaths, fail to even SAY the word AIDS in 8 years as Moron-in-Chief, trade arms for hostages, circumvent the constitution etc.)are given Alzheimer’s as God’s revenge?
Now, please back to Opal’s question…I don’t believe it was about the Bible, but why people react so oddly in the secular world.
Opal, It’s because they are stupid.
I do not think that the people that make a big deal about being gay even know why they think it is a big deal. I think what they really do not like is that who in their right mind would want to say they are gay and wish all the hassles it creates ? Why ? Because people are what they are and should be accepted as they are not as others perceive them to be.
Just new at this so wanted to see if my signature appeared.
Cheers
Please feel free to visit my webpage…
http://members.aol.com/dandmb50/1.html
or feel free to email me
Dandmb50@aol.com
It appears that my hyperlink to my webpage is not blue in my signature address. Anyone know how I can correct that ?
Please feel free to visit my webpage…
members.aol.com/dandmb50/1.html
or feel free to email me
Dandmb50@aol.com
—Dandmb50
Most likely you visited your webpage. Visited links are black and in my web browser the link looks normal.
Keeves:
Not true. I look in my “Torah Temimah”, on that phrase in Leviticus 18:22, and it refers me to the Talmud, Sanhedrin, page 55. What it says is that we learn from the phrase “the lyings of a woman” that male-male acts have the same standard that male-female ones do.
In Talmudic law, there are two legal threshholds regarding sexual sins: Initial penetration (i.e., first contact between organs) and full penetration (i.e., salami entirely hidden). (Ejaculation is not necessary for the transgression of any sexual sin, except, of course, Onanism.) The rabbis said that without that phrase, we might have thought that full penetration wouls be necessary to officially violate the male-male prohibition (unlike male-female prohibitions, which only require initial penetration), but that phrase tels us that the same standard applies for both sins.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective