I think the more H4E talks, the more of her ignorance she displays. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
I’m amazed to find fundies giving such deep thought to homosexual sex – it must hold some degree of interest for them that it doesn’t for us more moderate types. “Misuse of the rectum”? Who decides that? Not what it was “designed for”? What, your rectum came with an owner’s manual? You actually think about this stuff? Why?
Listen, you do what’s “natural” to you, and allow a gay man to do what’s “natural” to him, and a gay woman what’s “natural” to her (so long as all parties, straight or gay, are consenting), then don’t worry about it. You use your mouth, your hands, and all your naughty bits however you like and feel is appropriate, and allow others to do the same. Why? Because other people’s sex lives are none of your affair. And your interest in the sex lives of others is almost voyeuristic. It’s puzzling; it’s off-putting; and it’s rude. Who here invited you into his bed?
Anyway, I guess I’ve just never understood how or why a fundie would think that enumerating the sins of his or her neighbors (instead of worrying about his/her own) is consistent with loving God or loving you neighbor. Maybe such people think they’ve got those two commandments down already and they don’t need anymore work. I think the offense, distrust, and anger these “Christians” have managed to sow here puts a lie to that assumption.
And as I’ve already said: If the choice is between being sworn at or called a name, and being informed that my soul is damned, please – call me a name. I’m amazed at the very idea that common profanity or name-calling could be “worse” than presuming to tell someone God disapproves of them. The former at worst hurts a feeling or two; the latter alienates people from God. The former is a social sin; the latter is IMO a sin before God.
I’m sitting back wondering at the wonderful contortions that must be happening in order for some one to truely believe that telling some one that they’re perverted, abnormal and going to hell is somehow ‘polite’, since they didn’t say “fuck”.
In this thread, no, but in the real world, absolutely. Every anti-gay referendum in the past two decades has been initiated and supported by the fundamentalists, like the Take Back Miami assholes who are trying to repeal gay rights ordinances in Dade County, FL. (a hint: their Web page plays a Christian hymn MIDI-which is really annoying, not to mention poor Web design, but that’s a separate rant).
It’s this simple: Gay people have no wish to harm fundamentalists (although we might want you to wear less polyester and update your haircuts), but fundamentalists like H4E are doing their best to harm gays by taking away protections against legal discrimination. That’s not “rabid drooling,” but simple fact.
You know something? I hope your worldview **is ** true! That means I’ll be spending eternity trading witty banter and sipping Cosmopolitans with Gertrude Stein, Virginia Woolf, Noel Coward, Paul Lynde, Rock Hudson, Willa Cather, Yukio Mishima, and Oscar Wilde, while Cole Porter and Tchaikovsky play background music. The walls will be hung with new art by Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Francis Bacon.
You, on the other hand, will be stuck with RC Cola and the eternal company of Tim LaHaye, Jesse Helms, and Tim LaHaye, in a dull beige heaven with no books, no art, no show tunes, no fashions.
In this thread, no, but in the real world, absolutely. Every anti-gay referendum in the past two decades has been initiated and supported by the fundamentalists, like the Take Back Miami assholes who are trying to repeal gay rights ordinances in Dade County, FL. (a hint: their Web page plays a Christian hymn MIDI-which is really annoying, not to mention poor Web design, but that’s a separate rant).
It’s this simple: Gay people have no wish to harm fundamentalists (although we might want you to wear less polyester and update your haircuts), but fundamentalists like H4E are doing their best to harm gays by taking away protections against legal discrimination. That’s not “rabid drooling,” but simple fact.
You know something? I hope your worldview **is ** true! That means I’ll be spending eternity trading witty banter and sipping Cosmopolitans with Gertrude Stein, Virginia Woolf, Noel Coward, Paul Lynde, Rock Hudson, Willa Cather, Yukio Mishima, and Oscar Wilde, while Cole Porter and Tchaikovsky play background music. The walls will be hung with new art by Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Francis Bacon.
You, on the other hand, will be stuck with RC Cola and the eternal company of Ann Coulter, Jesse Helms, and Tim LaHaye, in a dull beige heaven with no books, no art, no show tunes, no fashions.
His4Ever and the other anti-homosexuals reading this, I have two comments I’d like you to listen to.
On the assumption that the Torah has been translated EXACTLY from Hebrew to English, then “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination,” makes no sense as it relates to females. If you interpret it literally, as you seem wont to do, then all females MUST, by commandment from God, lie only with women. To do otherwise is sinful in God’s eyes. How do you explain this? I’m not being flippant. I really, truly, do not understand this. All females cannot sleep with men for it is an abomination towards God.
Since you are being literal in your understanding of the Torah, I might point out to you that the text you quote is NOT translated exactly. Have you ever read God’s word straight from the Old Testement? In Hebrew? I have. Let me explain something about the Torah. The words have no vowels. The sentences have no punctuation. Reread that, because I want it to sink in. The sentences have NO punctuation. We insert commas and colons and semi-colons where we feel them to be appropriate…but that doesn’t make them correct.
The original text, if we translated it to English, may read something like “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind it is an abomination,”
No semi-colon. No comma. Maybe God’s saying that ALL of womankind is evil? All of womankind is an abomination.
Transcribers inserted vowels. Translators inserted punctuation.
How do you know that they were correct?
I knew from previous threads that you had read it, that’s why I said ponder. Anyway, please bear in mind also that the one telling the woman to go and leave her life of sin is Jesus and not the disciples. I have no grounds to ask that you bear this in mind, but yet I find that reminding myself of that point has been of great assistance in my own life.
I included RC Cola as an indication of the down-market, Walmartian, redneck nature of the fundie heaven. IMO, it is the nastiest-tasting of all the sodas.
The comparison was not in my case as you seem to have read it. My comparison was in the use of the Bible. I hope you are aware that the Bible was used to rationalise slavery and apartheid for centuries? All from The story of Ham in Genesis. In recent times those verses have been reinterpreted and we now say slavery is wrong and those passages were being misread. Surely that means your interpretation of passages that mention homosexuality are up for question? Have a look here for some discussion of different possible interpretations that have just as much validity as yours.
My question to you is, are you not using the Bible to prop up your own prejudices as the Founding Fathers did with their rationalising of slavery rather than forming prejudices due to your reading of the Bible? What is in your heart when you approach the Scriptures dictates what they will say to you. Try reading them with love some time, even this old atheist does that.
The Bible can be the Book of Love or the Book of Hate depending on the reader, I guess that is where the free will part comes in. I wish you would choose the former but I guess it up to you.
(sorry for going over the top yesterday, sometimes it just really gets to me that this fight just has to keep being fought, enough already, thanks for all the wisdom Jodi)
Jodi, if I’d been sipping a drink when I read your “misuse of the colon” comments, it would have sprayed all over my screen. So I went and got a soda, read it again while drinking, and lo and behold, a cola-colored monitor. You’re brilliant.
I have to say, this board’s persistence in arguing with these bigots is encouraging. It’s good to see that you have so much hope for them, that you believe that someday they may abandon the evil they espouse.
There are still people in the United States who disapprove of black people being treated equally before the law as white people, over a hundred years after the Civil War was fought. There are still those who rail against interracial marriage. Some amazingly ignorant people still believe all Jews are evil.
Fortunately, none of these groups has any influence at all on legislation. However, in the past, all of them have been powerful political influences, and all of them used Biblical passages to justify their hatred.
You straight supremacists are no different. At all. You’re welcome to spout all the badly-understood biblical passages you want; all you’re doing is revealing the vile need to opress your fellow human beings. You time is over; all that’s left now is to pry your greedy hands off our laws, and relegate you to the lunatic fringe of society, where I think you’ll feel right at home.
You see, people are good. People don’t want to hurt each other, for the most part. People want others around them to be happy, and fulfilled, and to participate fully in the endeavor of building a good community together. There are only a few perverted freaks out there who think that others need to be belittled and reviled, and good people have learned to recognize them, and use them as a lesson in how human beings should not behave toward each other.
Those of you who have some compassion in your souls will, sooner or later, learn that condemning people for loving each other is wrong, and will work toward understanding and accepting gay people. Those who do not, who hold tight to their hatred, will be pushed to the side as the world moves on without you.
Would that this were true…unfortunately, with the likes of Helms et al. still (until next election, unless I missed the “YAY! NO MORE JESSE HELMS IN OFFICE!” party…) clinging to centuries-old viewpoints, it’s still too much of an uphill battle to get equal rights for people.
Oh … re: spewing drinks, I’ve adopted the habit of taking sips in between reading paragraphs (or what-have-you) on the board. Have yet to rederocate my monitor (and that’s not just because I have no fashion sense…) or lose a drink. Might take longer to read, but them’s the breaks;)
When I say “still too much of an uphill battle”, I mean that it should not be as much of one as it is, not that it’s an insurmountable hill/unwinnable battle.
Why the hell didn’t somebody wake me up? I hate it when I miss a thread like this until it’s three pages long and no one’s reading it any more. Well, I’ll throw in anyway.
Reading this thread has been very refreshing. I’ve been saying for a long time that simple, straightforward condemnation of “straight supremecists” is the only answer: neither reason nor rage will ever change their minds, so they must simply be shunned. So as one who falls into neither of the more popular camps (reason, rage), I’ve often been attacked on both flanks when arguing against those two strategies. It’s nice to see the third alternative, the only one I think will ever work, espoused now by so many Dopers. Let’s hope that from here on out, homophobia will be treated with the same level of disdain as racism, sexism, etc.; even here, expressing one’s condemnation of homosexuals has always been more “OK” than any other such “opinions.”
A couple of responses to posts in this long, long thread:
I really hate it when a homophobe says, stupidly, as if trying to get off on a technicality, “I don’t hate homosexuals, . . . [insert lame rationalization here].” Well, fine, I guess technically, you don’t feel a personal animosity toward any particular individual homosexual. But if you wish for them a diminished life during their limited time on the planet–if you wish for them to have fewer rights than you, e.g.–and you wish for them eternal torture and damnation when they’re done here, then you’re splitting hairs. “Hatred” is as accurate a word as any to describe your feelings for a person on whom you’d wish such things.
I get SICK and GOTDAMN tired when someone slithers into one of these threads and calls us hypocrites for not being more “tolerant” of the intolerant. So let me get this straight, Shodan et al.,: they condemn me and question my humanity, and I’m supposed to be tolerant of that? So let’s weigh the two subjects of condemnation, and see what kind of scale of hypocrisy we can observe: my humanity versus their opinion. Hmmm. Does that seem equal to you? And you do realize the supreme irony of lecturing the victim of a “christian’s” condemnation on turning the other cheek?
Why don’t these same people come in and condemn the pseudochristian’s hypocrisy in condemning a fellow human being?
And H4E et al: you trot out the old cliche about loving the sinner but hating the sin. As has been pointed out here, you are simply mistaken in believing that you can distinguish the two. It’s like saying you can love the lefthanded man but hate his lefthandedness; ludicrous on its face, no?
By insisting on that disctinction, you claim to know better than I do what it means to be a homosexual: you claim to know that the “sin” is separate from the “sinner.” Elsewhere on this board I was idiotically lectured for claiming to “read minds” when I suggested that your hatred precedes your cafeteria christianity: that you “accept” the anti-gay parts of the OT while rejecting the proscriptions against polyester blends because the former supports a preexisting prejudice while the latter does not–that you don’t hate homosexuals because God says so; you say “God says so!” because you hate homosexuals. Now, if that’s mind reading, what’s your claim to know that homosexuality is a choice, and not simply part of who I am?
There’s too much more to address here, and I’m already rambling. In closing, I’d like to cut and paste a post I wrote here when I was still new, but the writing of it helped my clarify for myself some things that are relevant to this thread:
Joe Cool, you mentioned the verse in Matthew which says “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” I’ve been wielding that sword for 20 or 30 years in defense of those who are persecuted because they are different, starting with a friend whose difference was that she was handicapped. To my shame, some of those who were cruelest were kids who were active in their church’s youth groups.
If you take up that sword, please be very sure who’s side you’re using it on, and double check your actions against the second greatest commandment according to Christ (and already cited by Jodi), “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Oh, 'punha, don’t worry too much about that battle. Some of us are just crazy enough to think we’ve got some pretty powerful Forces on our side!
Actually, God doesn’t condone any sex outside of the bonds of holy matrimony. Any sex outside of marriage (fornication) is wrong in God’s eyes, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 and 35-38. Gays aren’t married. Of course, you’ll bring up the fact that they can’t marry because the law won’t let them. Well, marriage is considered to be a union between a man and a woman but I suppose you can come up with another meaning.
I’ve a little something to say on this housing issue, etc. From a Christian’s perspective if they made a law that you couldn’t refuse gays housing that would be discriminatory against a Christians’ right to live their faith according to the Bible and their conscience. Suppose a Christian owns a rental property. He or she considers that he or she is responsible to God for what goes on in their homes or homes that they own. Therefore this person would consider it wrong to rent to homosexuals or any couple that was not married, for that matter. Nor should they be forced to do so. It would be their property and they shouldn’t have to do something that deliberately violates their beliefs of right and wrong.
“marriage is considered to be a union between a man and a woman” By whom? And does that mean it ought to be considered such universally?
What would you say, H4e, to two people of the same gender being married (legal bond and all that fun stuff) and having sex? Would that be condoned by God, or is asking that putting too much of a strain on things?
Show me where it says, in the Bible, “Thou shalt deny a homosexual’s right to be housed based on his/her sexuality”. Or, hell, “Thou shalt deny something to a homosexual based on his/her sexuality”.:rolleyes:
And does that not further assume (to any degree) that all Christians, or even some Christians, are going to think the same thing on matters of sexuality? Note that I said sexuality, not sexual acts. You seem fervently unable to differentiate between the two.
Firstly, please show that your second sentence follows logically from your first.
Secondly: why in the bloody fuck would it be any of your business what happens between human consenting adults on the property of someone who is not you? Let’s say I were renting a house out to a Christan couple and my religious beliefs forbade the use of crosses. Am I responsible for preventing you from having a cross in your house? Hell fucking no. Am I allowed to remove all crosses in their house? Again, hell fucking no. While they are renting, all they are required to do is adhere to those rules I have that have some legal basis. Whether or not you approve of two gay men having sex is, happily, not a matter of legal objection or contention.
Isn’t that assuming the pair in question are engaging in “homosexual acts” (or, for that matter, “heterosexual acts”)? My sophomore year of college, my roommate was gay. I’m bi. We never once had sex. Rarely even touched. But by your beliefs, evidently we shouldn’t have been allowed to room together because we’re both attracted to men.
If you’re renting to someone, while they have the lease is it not their property? Thus why people renting apartments get renter’s insurance, and if, say, I break a window, it’s my responsibility to get it fixed, not the person from whom I’m renting?
So let’s say I believe it’s wrong to mix fabrics. Does that mean I have a right to deny housing to someone who wears poly-cotton blends?
Your arguments are making less than no sense, H4e. More than that, even, they’re presumptuous, ignorant and blind.
