So, then, it sounds like you’re not asking, “Why do certain religions consider homosexuality a sin”. but instead, “Should laws be passed based on religious beliefs”, or something like that.
[Moderator Hat ON]
While it is not against the GD rules for someone to be profoundly bigoted against certain groups, mx-6*, you appear to be purely ranting rather than making any attempt to lay out a rational debate. I am disappointed that you have not seen fit to tone down you attacks on Hastur after my official warning. Should you wish to continue to have the privilege of posting here, I suggest that you straighten up and fly right pronto–no more “fag” comments, and if you’re going to argue homosexual sex is exactly analogous to sex with animals, you’d best rationally support your assertion clearly, logically, and calmly. Am I understood?
[Moderator Hat OFF]
**
Possibly to help them understand the laws. Jews tend to try to categorize commandments in order to help them understand them. Another famous categorization of the mitzvos is into positive “Thou shall…” commands and negative commandments “Thou shalt not…” But the distinctions don’t have any legal signifigance.
**
That’s fine, but that’s not the subject of the thread. The title of the thread is “Why is homosexuality a sin,” not “Why do people want to make homosexuality against the law.” I understand that the two may be related, but the latter question is not the one being asked.
**
That’s OK. There’s nothing wrong with questioning. And you’re welcome. 
**
Adultery is when a married person sleeps with someone else outside of marriage. Just because the other party condones it doesn’t mean it’s not adultery.
Actually, in some states, adultery is illegal and is a prosecutable crime (even if rarely, if ever, prosecuted). But again, we aren’t dealing with legal issues here, we’re addressing whether or not something is sinful. The scenario you presented, IMHO (and according to Jewish law [and presumably Christian as well]} is.
Zev Steinhardt
Did you get confused somewhere, Gaudere?
My post wasn’t an assertation, it was fact.
If you feel that somehow the “facts” are in dispute then retort. Fags are equal to those who screw their pets. Prove that this is not true. Give me something but don’t fuck with me for no reason other than to troll my acknowledgement of reality.
What you call a rant is still unchallenged so what are you talking about? I have nothing against Hastur but I will not leave anyone uninformed. So I feel as if I provided a public service.
I think that Gaudere needs to tone down the unsolicited attacks. Posting here is not a priviledge and never will be. What gave Gaudere that idea? Is this “The straight dope” or the somewhat biased and cockeyed Dope? If Gaudere believes that “moderator” meens dictator then Gaudere needs to remember the purpose of this board.
If the purpose is to control thoughts and words then lets change the name. If we are supposed to bow down to these self-important control freaks then realize that this board is definately in need of a name change.
Is there anything else to say? Do I need to feel priviledged to be here?
I think not! Anyone can come here and thought control is not what this board is about. So ban me if you so choose but don’t think for even a second that I can’t come back X10.
MX-6 ranted:
Okay, step at a time. First, this board is made available to the public, free of charge, by the Chicago Reader, who has named administrators and moderators and made some very simple rules for its use. Anybody who chooses to use it does so by registering and agreeing to those rules. Break 'em and get warned, or banned. Seems pretty simple to me.
Do you have freedom of speech? Certainly, but, as Lazarus Long once said, “Sure you have freedom of speech. But the rent on this hall’s been paid, and not by you. Feel like saying something contrary to the rules here? Go rent your own hall.”
Gaspode and I had a dispute a while ago, and while we never came to terms on the topic under argument, per se, we did agree that there is a strong distinction between complete freedom of ideas, which does prevail here, and insults to posters, which is restricted to the Pit and subject to its own terms there.
Gaudere warned you against insulting Hastur. You’re free to assert any general concept you wish, but not zero it in as a direct attack on another poster.
“Fags are equal to those who screw their pets.” Okay, using the dictionary, you’re saying that cigar butts are equivalent to practitioners of bestiality. Surely we can all realize that this is an assertion of unquestionable reality? :rolleyes:
Taking it as what I think you meant, “people who practice homosexuality are equal to those who practice bestiality,” this is an assertion on one of several planes. Are they equal in the sight of God? Certainly. And to you and me and Mother Teresa and Hitler – all are His children. Somehow I don’t think that’s the aspect you meant. Are they equal under the law? Nah. Different behaviors with different laws governing each, both innocent until proven guilty, etc. Probably not what you meant either. Are they morally equivalent? In your mind, yes. In others’ minds, no. That makes it, not a fact, but an assertion. Unless you’re claiming to have absolute direct access to the Truth. So make your case with reasoned argument, or drop it.
And on the other, if you do choose to continue posting here, I can recognize where getting a warning from a moderator might cause anger and a heated retort. But I’d think it through carefully and retract the slams against Gaudere and the board’s policy, if I were in your shoes, and had any interest in continuing to post here.
And on your last point? If you are banned and register under a new name, you’ve violated, not just the board rules, but some applicable laws. And if the board management so chooses, they can contact your ISP and have your access to the Internet terminated. That’s an extreme case, but it can be done. Because if you refuse to play by their rules, and insist on making their lives miserable by playing those games, they have the right to ensure that you stop.
I hope you enjoy Freecell.
Yes. An administrator, even. I have made the necessary changes.
Lynn
Administrator
For the Straight Dope
Lynn, you rock.
Aw, jeez - I see a Pit thread starting shortly under M-7* or somesuch other highly imaginative sock… er, I mean, screen name.
:rolleyes:
As Tom Lehrer once said, “I see the out patients are out in force tonight…”
Esprix
Freyr
I’m not sure what about my post contradicts your two points. If you object to the term “failing” then substitute “sinner” or another term of your choosing. My point was solely about whether, from the perspective of the religious groups, they are hypocrites.
Polycarp
This is to address your concerns about my earlier post, as expressed in your post to the Pit thread.
-
You suggest that I took offence at the idea that you as a non-Jew had an interest in Jewish tradition. This is far from the case. I misinterpreted you. When you made your statement that “Zev or Chaim …” etc., you made it with such matter-of-fact assuredness, and were so off base, that it did not occur to me that you were presenting that as being the Orthodox Jewish viewpoint. I thought you were expressing your own viewpoint, based on how you felt (or had been told) the Rabbinic Law developed. This being in conjunction with your view on how to interpret the Bible with regards to homosexual issues. To this I made (or attempted to make) the point that there is no gain in treating something from your own perspective when dealing with the beliefs of others. My humble apologies if my tone came off as being acerbic.
-
You state “Then, later, you drew a distinction to Hastur on the difference between an individual having what you considered a failing and a group advocating the acceptance of the same.” I’m not 100% sure of what you mean with this, as I made what seems to be the point you are referring to in the same post as (and prior to) my comment to you, and I did not address it specifically to Hastur. I am assuming that you do mean this point, because I’ve made no other posts to this thread (until last night, when I responded to Freyr’s comment about this post).
I realize now in looking over the thread, that this thread has gone through two different phases, several months apart (I did not read it the first time), and in addressing an issue that was brought up during the first go-round, might have been confusing. To be specific, I was addressing the point made by Danielinthewolvesden, and agreed to by sdimbert, on the first page of this thread.
Yet another reason reviving dead threads bugs me.
(Sorry, hadda say it…)
Esprix
So I guess this means you don’t want me to revive “Christianity and Love: Part III”? :o
::: ducks and runs ::::
Don’t almost all of these threads about homosexuality come off as ressurected threads with tolerant straight people and gay people facing off against intolerant straight people and hateful, judgemental people who want to ‘debate’ whether it is right or what the Christian God intended?
Aren’t there more interesting things to debate?
Hasn’t it been discussed to death?
Well, but with all respect, Hastur, this wasn’t what this thread was shaping up to look like. First of all, the conversation was more about Judaism, rather than Christianity. Secondly, with the fairly large, glaring, and obvious exception of MX-6*, the posters weren’t being hateful or judgemental at all. In fact, the debate that was shaping up was a pretty interesting one about the nature of faith…and about whether or not G-d has the right to ask us to do something we don’t understand. The debate also seemed to have been touching on the role of belief in politics. But, other than MX-6, and responses to his comments, and Izzy getting annoyed when Polycarp seemed to be trying to convince him to eat cheeseburgers, I didn’t see much animosity in this thread.
Wow, forget about on thread for a few days and look what happens! 
**Zev wrote:
That’s fine, but that’s not the subject of the thread. The title of the thread is “Why is homosexuality a sin,” not “Why do people want to make homosexuality against the law.” I understand that the two may be related, but the latter question is not the one being asked.**
And it still comes down to “Because God said so!” I agree the answer is unsatisfying. Try this link. Follow the first link (not the second one offering the shorter explaination). Then refer to the two verses about Leviticus. It offers a re-hash of the argument about the prohibition of homosexual acts but backs it up with an interesting translation of the word abomination.
**IzzyR wrote:
It seems to be accepted by all sides that someone who makes a big deal about Gays but not about other, equally serious, violations of Biblical or religious prohibitions is hypocrite. I dispute this. There is a huge difference between how one might act when confronted with an individual failing and how one should act when confronted with a mass movement that seeks approval for the failing.**
I’ve been trying to follow your logic, but not quite grasping it. I do see hypocracy on the part of those who declare homosexual acts wrong (according to Leviticus) yet chomp away merrily on bacon double cheese burgers. They insist that I be bound by the laws of Leviticus, yet they merrily violate similar laws. Isn’t that the essense of hypocracy?
Freyr
I’m unsure what the confusion is. I am unfamiliar with Christian theology, and am not commenting on the distinction between homosexual sex and other Old Testament commandments for Christians. My impression is that the Christian opposition is based primarily on NT sources. In any event, I am accepting that there is some basis for distinguishing between homosexuality and various other OT transgressions from a theological standpoint. If you dispute this you will get no argument from me. What I am commenting on is the fact that some Fundamentalist apparently make a bigger deal about Gays than they do about other things that are sins according to their own theology. See the exchange on page 1 of this thread beginning here. If you still don’t see the distinction, I’ll try to explain further.
This from the Dallas Morning News:
I think it is interesting to note that the Faculty Senate was unanimous.
{Edited out of copyright concerns. Don’t post the full text of copyrighted articles, please. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 03-01-2001 at 02:49 PM]
Wow, my posts always pull out the trolls.
Anyway, it seems when I posted this nine months ago, I was concerned with Western religions. The eastern ones don’t seem to really have a problem with it as long as you are not hurting anyone (lots of lube! Or am I wrong?
IzzyR, I think we’re in violent agreement with each other. Unless I’m mistaken, we both agree that people who point to Leviticus and go on and on about homosexual acts are hypocrites for ignoring the other some 630 rules that the Torah lays down.
Homebrew, thanks for the cool article. Those Methodists always are on the cutting edge. Just ask Jodi.
Red_Dragon, after reading his posts, I always thought that MX6 would eventually be banned, it was just a matter of time. I’m just happy to be help make it happen.
Interesting fact I gleaned from my reading recently:
The Episcopal Church’s Bishop of Georgia, with Atlanta as see city, retired last year. They’re in the process of selecting a new bishop. All six candidates approve in principle of any parish church that so chooses conducting a same-sex marriage ceremony or reasonable facsimile. (There had been controversy while there was no bishop because St. Bartholomew’s in Atlanta had shot a (usually pro forma) request to the diocese to proceed with the ceremony, and the Diocesan Council turned them down – their reason being that, while they personally had no problem with it, they didn’t want to give “the Bishop’s approval” while they were in the process of choosing a new one.)
My own church is looking into what it means to be a designated “safe space” for gay and lesbian people, particularly youth, and how one goes about formally doing that.