Yeah, comparing my love for my husband (whom I’ve been with for 12 years, if only married for 1 (and please not the lack of scare quotes)) with love for a video game or an animal isn’t insulting or belittling at all. Good Christian you are…
Cool. Then two men may engage in it in a public place, and it is not “public sex.” (And the laws against sodomy have already been struck down.)
Hey, guys, we just won another big legal victory, by nothing more than a dictionary citation!
Such as between Dutch people.
Nothing makes the union of Dutch people natural, desirable, Godly, or, in the relevant and correct sense, sex, because it is correctly viewed as sodomy.
Seriously: Can we as a society really pretend that the union of two Dutch people qualifies as a marriage? Have we lost all sense?
Where did you get your definitions from?
Emphasis added Yes. That’s transvestitism. 
But, in all seriousness, who are you to tell Christians what they should or should not believe? Next, you’ll be telling them that the host doesn’t really transubstantiate into the Body of Christ. :eek:
Bullshit.
They are if they think that the Mosaic laws dealing with morality (as opposed to the purely ceremonial laws) are the basis of the absolute morality they like to talk about, and not just God fucking with the Jews.
I am no bible scholar, but if I understand the OP right, it says that the only bible quotes which *clearly *speak out against homosexuality come from the old testament along with those other laws learjeff has quoted. Is that true?
If yes, then today’s Christians seem to actually think these laws must be followed today - why else would they condemn homosexuality and justify that with the bible?
Personally I believe that the laws laid down in the bible simply reflect the moral standards of the people who wrote it and thus of the society they were living in. But society and its moral standards have changed over time. A good example is our attitude towards slavery. When the bible was written it was widely accepted as a fact of life. As long as a slave oner refrained from unduly mistreating his slaves few people would have objected and neither does the bible. Today of course we live in a society where the notion that one person can own another is universally rejected. The reason why no Christian is quoting bible passages to justify slave ownership is simply that they don’t want to. Turn back the clock by some 150 years, and I’m sure you will find Christians who did just that.
The change in attitude towards homosexuality is a much more recent development. Until well into the last century it was illegal in most western nations, and in other parts of the world it still is today. So I don’t find it surprising that conservative Christians still are looking to the bible for justifications to reject homosexuality - something they would never do for slavery. They aren’t bigots. They just aren’t there yet.
That’s because nobody asks for a divorce case, as I am sure you are aware. However, millions of “marriage after divorce” cakes are made every year, and I have never heard of a baker refusing to make a second marriage cake–despite the fact that Luke 16:18 says, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” There are no lawsuits on the matter because there are no refusals on the matter.
I know you believe you speak for the whole group. I am reminded of the words of my favorite Christian writer:
Some of them base it on the condemnation of homosexuality in Corinthians, which was always read as such by anyone who understood Greek until the 1970s, when it was magically discovered that the Koine word for “homosexuals” actually meant “prostitutes” or even “whoever does whatever we consider at any place and time to be sexually immoral, which may or may not be anybody” despite no linguistic evidence for this novel reading whatsoever.
Others acknowledge that some parts of Leviticus were maintained and some weren’t.
The problem with “you’re just hypocrites selectively reading the Bible” is that is has never convinced anyone. What Christians believe is what Christians believe. “You should interpret the Bible differently than you do” is a religious exhortation, just as much as “you should be a Muslim instead of a Christian” or “you should be an atheist instead of a Christian” is. It’s the sort of masterstroke-in-your-own-mind that you can easily get into when you spend all your time among like-minded people, but it doesn’t actually do anything in a real argument with a real Christian homophobe. They already know that you believe differently than they do, and you adding on that you are playing armchair Bible scholar based on something you read on Facebook neither changes nor strengthens that argument – it just makes you seem disingenuous. After all, you don’t really believe that people should follow the Bible at all, so what are you doing making an argument about which interpretation of Jesus’s supposed abrogation of Levitical law is correct?
Homophobes/Christians are evil and stupid. But they’re not as stupid as you think they are. They know when you’re bullshitting like this, and this tactic has never succeeded in changing anyone’s mind about anything. Social shame, demonstrations that the sky doesn’t fall when there are equal rights, and appeals to basic humanity from showing gay family members and friends to outright “if your religion is telling you to treat people in an evil way, abandon your religion” work. Tendentious attempts to pretend you care abut Biblical interpretation when you are way in over your head and just coming up with off-the-cuff nonsense on that topic don’t.
I love Christians. I just find the practice of Christianity to be an abomination.
God’s mistake, or maybe it’s a cute little practical joke, is creating an entire subset of people who by his own supposed moral laws can’t ever have sex.
I am not talking about the way things work in your created universe. I’m talking about the way things work in the unchangeable universe that you and I both inhabit. In this universe we find both unchangeable purpose and meaning. For one to deny one or the other is simply a misuse of the intellect. It is obvious what “nature” intends when sex is happening, and the pleasure is not the purpose.
That’s not how I see it. I am merely pointing out that the bible is full of contradictions and asking them to look at the very thing that drives their faith and since they are “choosing” which parts to follow anyway, why not go with the ones that do no/less harm to their fellow humans.
(bolding mine)
Godomy?
You may want to hold off on accusing people of being in an alternate universe.
So far not a single person here has agreed with the definitions you are using. Your definitions can’t be found in dictionaries or in law.
Kaylasdad99 may not be in your reality but it would seem he is in the same one as the rest of us.
On an emotional level, this works – it’s basically a way of appealing to “be a good person instead of a religious person” while letting them save social face by not repudiating their church entirely. I’m just saying, don’t pretend it is some great intellectual argument. It’s arrogant to pretend that Christians haven’t come up with explanations for why homosexuality is bad and shrimp is good over the last 2000 years. These explanations are stupid and evil, but pretending they don’t even exist is narcissistic; basically, it’s proclaiming that if some discussion took place before you personally became interested in the issue, it didn’t really happen.
If sex were only for procreation, women would be interested in sex only when procreation was possible. My dog was like that when she was a breeder. So, either your claimed knowledge of what God wants is faulty, or God screwed up.
Not to mention that my father got remarried when he and my stepmother were well beyond the age of reproduction. Was his marriage wrong?
So a guy who knocks up a 10 year old is having Bible approved sex, but my sister and her wife are sodomites?
If some Christians feel that SSM is wrong, they are free not to partake of it. But if they want to impose their views on those of us who are not Christians, they need to explain why these views are good for the rest of us without reference to God. The attempts to do this in court cases failed miserably.
Attempting to impose religious morality on others is exactly what theocracies do, so the accusation has some merit. And of course goes directly against the Constitution.
No, you don’t. There are a lot of deeply religious, deeply observant Christians who support gay rights, up to and including marriage rights. And by “deeply religious, deeply observant,” I don’t just mean “goes to Church regularly,” I mean, “has joined a monastery.” I’ve marched in marriage rights parades alongside Dominican monks. I have a friend who is becoming a Franciscan friar. Last time I talked to him, he had open blisters on his fingers from working the food line in a homeless shelter.
You don’t speak for those guys. Not on this issue, you don’t.