Well, much as I’d love to agree with CitzenPained that us Jews are more enlightened and intelligent and such, we never really had the numbers to affect legal policy in our various countries except, I note, Israel itself where same-sex marriages cannot be performed because of the influence of the religious authorities, i.e. the jerks that can go fuck themselves.
Israel will, however, recognize the legality of SSMs performed elsewhere.
Well, they won’t do that. It would make them gay!
Well, “controlled” in the sense of “keep them in line and not making trouble.” I don’t think it was expected that women would be reading the scripture, and thus it’s not aimed at them.
I’d guess that women having sex with women, if it occurred to the scripture writers at all, would get lumped in with “women are lusty, be careful around them!”
Er, it’s because it’s assumed men would be on the “receiving” end, not to mention the procreation issue.
The prohibition is mentioned elsewhere (Talmud ish) about women not laying with women because that’s what the “Egyptian” women do. This was just discussed in a class of mine but I don’t have the book/cite with me. You’ll have to take my word for it. 
Hardly anyone would have been reading the scripture, but women would have heard it read to them just as much as men. Women were controlled in the sense you mean, yes… I’m not sure what your point is, sorry.
Both men can’t be on the receiving end. And I did mention procreation. Women having sex with women doesn’t lead to babies either.
I take your word for it about the Talmud; it’s definitely not in the Christian Bible.
Richard Norton has a history of homophobia at: ritornortin.co.uk/
which was a good read and kept me up a little past my bedtime.
Homophobia originating in the primitive taboo customs gone awry.
Oh, I think it is. Some of the passages Paul didn’t miss much.
Going on.
Would it be fair for me to start a thread asking why liberals are crooked and use Blagojevich as proof? He may be a Democrat and a labor supporter, but I doubt that in his heart he has the best interests of the common man.
Well, give it a shot. I’m pretty sure the board’s liberals can handle it. Heck, LBJ massively advanced various liberal causes in his time, but was a deeply flawed man who caused a lot of damage at the same time. Blag is trivial by comparison, on both counts.
Do you really believe that Blagojevich is a good representation of Liberals as a whole, or are you just trying to get even in some way?
I think his point is that it’s an unfairly bad example.
Well, actually, literacy and scriptural understanding (for males, anyway) is important to a degree in Judaism. Less so, I understand, in Christianity.
I see what you did there.
No, because the comparison doesn’t work. Blagojevich is just one guy. Hatred and persecution of homosexuals isn’t the characteristic of one religious person or one religious sect; it appears to be overwhelmingly the norm, especially historically.
Prejudice against homosexuality was pretty much universal as recently as 40 years ago, and religion follows traditions, good or bad. This leads to the question of why that particular tradition has had such staying power. The Tower of Babel is in the Bible too, but religious terrorists don’t knock down skyscrapers for being blasphemously tall.
P.S. Onan’s sin wasn’t masturbation. It was inheritance fraud: He wouldn’t impregnate his late brother’s wife. (Another tradition that’s since fallen by the wayside.)
Considering my late husband’s brother, can I just give an atheistic “Thank you, lordy Jesus” right now?
Fine with me. If we’d kept up the tradition I’d just feel cheated, being an only child and all.
Well, for one thing it’s sexual and that seems to really get the control freaks excited. For another, it’s targeted at a historically powerless minority, while skyscrapers are built & owned by powerful people and institutions. And third, while there has always been homosexuality until historically recent times there weren’t any skyscrapers, so there was nothing to keep such a tradition alive.
Like lending money at interest, which is condemned by all of the “Big Three,” but it’s lucrative, so no one bats an eyelash.
You may be onto something with the sex hangup. I think the evils of sex get so much attention because sex leads to babies, which are a big responsibility, so if we screwed whenever we felt like it (assuming no birth control in ?? B.C.E.) society would be in chaos. Sex is also a powerful urge, and a strong temptation means a strong prohibition. Just off the top of my head, we’d have had the following psycho-sociological process: SEX IS OOGIE. Wait, if we ban all straight fucking, we’ll die out. Besides, it’s a lot of fun. So a husband and wife fucking each other is OK, but none of that weird stuff. Men doing men and women doing women? That’s so weird I’d never even thought of it! FORBIDDEN. Even though the now strongly forbidden act doesn’t lead to babies, which were the reason for the taboo in the first place!
I also like Odesio point about the subjection of women. That’s also commonplace around the world in many different societies. And what’s wrong with lesbians? That bull dyke thinks she’s a man! She’s getting uppity.
Reading just the OP, here’s my theory, admittedly a complete WAG:
Religion is about control, and a great way to control people is to force their most desirable pleasures to adhere to strict rules. Control people’s eating, sex, power, influence, and you will control them. If you’re a part of a religion and you are given unfettered control over your desires, then those desires will overwhelm your loyalty to that religion. Why should Saul care about what his rabbi wants if his choices are sex with a hot Jewish girl or sitting in a synagogue listening to an old man read from a book
So to get loyal followers, you tell them they can only have their most pleasurable desires be satisfied under strict rules, rules that can only be provided by and sanctioned by the religion itself. You’ve essentially tied their happiness to your religion, forcing conformity and domination.
I’m no religious historian, but I’ll bet most religions, especially ones that endure, have rules on things like sex and food.
Well, there’s an old joke which says that there are only two real sciences, mathematics and physics, and the mathematicians aren’t sure about physics. My understanding is that specialists in the “hard” sciences like physics and chemistry often have a condescending attitude towards the “soft” sciences like sociology and psychology. And when the subject has been highly politicized (e.g. race and IQ, global warming) it’s not at all unusual for scientists on one side to accuse scientists on the other of being quacks or stooges.