# Will gay acceptance erode the Bible's authority? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414 "2014-02-27T14:10:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/141 "2014-03-04T19:10:36Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Catholic moral teaching about birth control is actually a bit narrower than people sometimes think. I’m not RC, but here is the teaching as I understand it: > > “To willfully and deliberately render a marital sex act infertile, is to pervert the nature of the sex act, and is (therefore) forbidden.” Seems to me by that logic, sex without the intention to have children should be forbidden, even if it’s possible. If you are having sex just for fun, and even hoping you don’t get pregnant while you do it, it shouldn’t be done. Makes no sense to me but I’m not a Catholic. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/142 "2014-03-04T22:58:07Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Seems to me by that logic, sex without the intention to have children should be forbidden, even if it’s possible. If you are having sex just for fun, and even hoping you don’t get pregnant while you do it, it shouldn’t be done. Makes no sense to me but I’m not a Catholic. I don’t entirely disagree with you, but the Catholic Chuch would say there is a relevant difference between: 1. turning what would otherwise be a (potentially) fertile sex act into a sterile one, by physical or biochemical means, and 1. taking advantage of natural cycles by only choosing to have sex during non-ovulatory periods. The changing of the nature of the sex act is what they object to, more than the fact that the resulting sex acts are infertile. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/143 "2014-03-05T00:55:21Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I don’t entirely disagree with you, but the Catholic Chuch would say there is a relevant difference between: > > 1. turning what would otherwise be a (potentially) fertile sex act into a sterile one, by physical or biochemical means, > > and > > 1. taking advantage of natural cycles by only choosing to have sex during non-ovulatory periods. > > The changing of the nature of the sex act is what they object to, more than the fact that the resulting sex acts are infertile. Sure, but their logic is fucked. If you have sex but avoid fertility, it doesn’t much matter how. You’re having sex for fun and deliberately trying to avoid a baby. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/144 "2014-03-06T13:04:23Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Truthfully, the prohibition on remarriage after divorce is one of the best-attested, strongest, and most unequivocal things attributed to Jesus. I’ll quote here from a recent comment thread from the Christian blog ‘Ship of Fools’: > "I think a key point to remember here is that Jesus does not usually promulgate law. It is in fact striking just how little there is of any definitive statement what his followers must do. He practically always teaches principles, and where He touches on law, He teaches right interpretations. The gospel is almost entirely “meta-law” then…OK. But I can think of a few instances where this is decidedly not the case. Where instead Jesus says with utmost clarity that his followers must do something specific, where he promulgates law and lays it down in the same breath. And characteristically, this is over and against Jewish custom, flies in the fact of what people expect and is met with disbelief, shock and even anger. > > One occasion we have been discussing, the (re-)establishment of the sacrament of marriage…The whole setup of these in scripture, the very extraordinary nature of how they are presented, how people react to them and how they are later reaffirmed by St Paul with explicit reference to Christ, say to me one thing: This is Christ executing His Divinity as law-giver, not law-explainer/interpreter. This is God speaking from the mountain. This the Teacher speaking from His Seat. These are stone tablets. There was no intention for wiggle room here concerning what we ought to do. None. At. All." > > I think the only two really intellectually honest positions here are the liberal Protestant position (which holds that lifetime marriage is a nice ideal that is almost impossible to live up to in practice, and that we can always rely on God’s mercy trumping His justice) or the Roman Catholic position which forbids all divorce, anywhere, anytime. I more or less side with the liberal Protestant, although I don’t believe in Christian churches performing remarriages, but the Catholic position, given their premises, is intellectually entirely coherent. I believe the R C C declares the marriage in many cases are not really marriages and allow many to re-marry. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/145 "2014-03-06T13:15:39Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Only having sex when one cannot conceive is the most unnatural thing there is, as far as birth control is concerned, and had made many Marriages for a lot of people I know a lot of unhappy couples. Just as surgery is an unnatural thing or going without food . If person has a low sex drive waiting may be okay for them, but the natural thing is for couples to have sex when the mood strikes both of them. If they have high sex drives, then the mood strikes whether it’s a fertile day or not. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/146 "2014-03-06T13:37:07Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > According to Talmud scholars everywhere, the Bible forbids contraception. OTTOMH > > G-d said “Be fruitful and multiply”. If you use contraception, you’re actively disobeying this command. > > You’re not supposed to waste seed. This includes not only a ban on condoms, but a command that all sex must end in ejaculation in the vagina. You’re wife can perform fellatio as foreplay. But, you can only yeehaw in the hoohah. > > You may recall occasional stories about Orthodox Jewish workers refusing to sell condoms. Isn’t it amazing how they fall all over themselves to maximize adherance to such a simple, innocuous statement? “Be fruitful and multiply.” To me, that means God is inviting his people to go out and build their families and nation and he’ll look after them. It’s not a command to have as many children as possible and never ever waste an opportunity to get pregnant or else he’ll get really really mad. Religious people really need to just relax. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/147 "2014-03-06T15:28:51Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Only having sex when one cannot conceive is the most unnatural thing there is, as far as birth control is concerned, and had made many Marriages for a lot of people I know a lot of unhappy couples. Just as surgery is an unnatural thing or going without food . If person has a low sex drive waiting may be okay for them, but the natural thing is for couples to have sex when the mood strikes both of them. If the mood strikes a couple while they’re in the middle of an evening at the symphony, should they strip off their clothes and get it on right in the middle of the concert hall? Everyone agrees that there are inappropriate and appropriate times to have sex. The Catholic Church just has rules that are more stringent than most. (For what it’s worth, the Orthodox Church has a whole slew of fast days on which you’re not allowed to have sex, either). As for using the mind they’re given, being Catholic and submitting to its disciplines is a free choice. If you don’t want to abide by the rules about NFP, you can always become Lutheran or Episcopalian. I have no particular dog in this fight: I think the invention of oral contraception was a triumph of scientific ingenuity and has made life better for a lot of people and societies, and I don’t believe it’s morally wrong. That being said, many women find the side effects of the Pill ‘unnatural’ and a detriment to their personal lives as well. I know plenty who complain about weight gain, decreased libido, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/148 "2014-03-06T17:01:58Z")
> [@IMfez](#): > > Assuming gay acceptance continues its trend and eventually becomes a non-issue, will the Bible be taken less seriously as a source of authority? Hopefully, yes! And probably yes. But not as much as I would like. > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I dunno. Has shrimp acceptance eroded its authority? Spot on, and hilarious. > [@IMfez](#): > > The argument I see that leads to “yes” is that a society that openly accepts gays goes against the word of the bible. No more so than a shrimp eating society, or one that allows you to eat pork. > [@](#): > > My opinion: this is too big a concession. I think the bible will lose some amount of authority. Modern Christians get fed a cavalcade of crap and that’s using the metric of the bible, not my own opinion of what’s crap. One man and one woman? Pfft, just read the book. It’s usually one man, a bunch of wives who are sometimes his daughters - see Lot. The bible mentions homosexuality very few times, and it’s always right next to instructions like stone to death a woman who gets raped and doesn’t yell loud enough, or about how evil eating pork is. In fact, “abomination” is used for shrimp. Ironically, some piss-poor but nonetheless widely accepted translations say “looking at clouds” is an abomination too (it’s supposed to mean divination through the clouds, but that includes weather forecasting so Fox News is apparently an Abomination). Gay sex is not some critical or major issue given the full context of the bible, but people who think gay sex is squicky sure have made it GODS NUMBER ONE MOST HATED THING for propaganda purposes. So while it _shouldn’t_ have any more effect than the widespread consumption of shrimp or the use of clothes made of 2 different materials (read: everything you’re wearing), those using it for propaganda have made it seem like Christianity is _ **about** _ being anti-gay rather than being about a gazzillion topics (from shrimp eating, to textiles, to the CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE and the alleged HISTORY OF THE PLANET), only one of which happens to mention not having gay sex. Thus, as gay-rights win out, the bible gets the shaft. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/149 "2014-03-06T17:05:22Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > The bible mentions homosexuality very few times, and it’s always right next to instructions like stone to death a woman who gets raped and doesn’t yell loud enough, or about how evil eating pork is. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/150 "2014-03-06T18:42:34Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Cite? > **[Deuteronomy 14:8 - Clean and Unclean Animals](https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-8.htm)** > > as well as the pig; though it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you. You must not eat its meat or touch its carcass. [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says\_about/stoning.html](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html) ---
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/151 "2014-03-06T18:52:17Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Cite? The specific mention, that is rape victims being stoned to death, was me mixing Deuteronomy with Leviticus but here’s a few gems from that text: > [@](#): > > “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. > > **“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.** 19:13. When was the last time you got your paycheck in anything less than _two weeks_? > [@](#): > > “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. > “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. 19:19. The latter is obviously a real gem, but the first one is a huge no-no when you get into agriculture. > [@](#): > > “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. 19:27 > [@](#): > > “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. 20:9. Murder angry teenagers? I didn’t bother quoting the anti-homosexual passages, but they’re interwoven with these. Homosexuality is exactly equal in this passage of the bible to wearing clothes made of cotton and wool, or eating meat with the blood in it (it’s there, don’t feel like quoting another). Thing is - and the reason the Deuteronomy example sprang to mind is that - people like to group the bible into two parts, old and new, as if the new somehow supplanted the old (note: it didn’t, at all, not remotely, not if you listen at all to Jesus). Bits and pieces are pulled up from the old testament when convinient, but the horrible things like stoning rape victims gets swept under the rug. Granted, Deuteronomy != Leviticus, but they’re both old testament and they’re _both_ biblical law. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/152 "2014-03-06T20:04:37Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > Thing is - and the reason the Deuteronomy example sprang to mind is that - people like to group the bible into two parts, old and new, as if the new somehow supplanted the old (note: it didn’t, at all, not remotely, not if you listen at all to Jesus). Bits and pieces are pulled up from the old testament when convinient, but the horrible things like stoning rape victims gets swept under the rug. Granted, Deuteronomy != Leviticus, but they’re both old testament and they’re _both_ biblical law. I’m not defending an anti-gay interpretation of the Bible, but you’re just plain wrong to say "as if the new somehow supplanted the old (note: it didn’t, at all, not remotely, not if you listen at all to Jesus). " Also known as the Shrimp Fallacy. > [@](#): > > Then [Jesus] called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles… Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. " > [@](#): > > Then [Peter] heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” Two examples of the Old Testament dietary code being discarded in the New Testament. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/153 "2014-03-06T20:10:39Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Two examples of the Old Testament dietary code being discarded in the New Testament. And this is where some devout Christian yahoo comes along and quotes Mathew 5:17 and says Jesus actually didn’t discard any of those laws : “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” But then the same yahoo shaves his beard and eats shrimp, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/154 "2014-03-06T20:10:40Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > Thing is - and the reason the Deuteronomy example sprang to mind is that - people like to group the bible into two parts, old and new, as if the new somehow supplanted the old (note: it didn’t, at all, not remotely, not if you listen at all to Jesus). Bits and pieces are pulled up from the old testament when convinient, but the horrible things like stoning rape victims gets swept under the rug. Granted, Deuteronomy != Leviticus, but they’re both old testament and they’re _both_ biblical law. With due respect, that’s nonsense. The Old and New Testaments don’t form one cohesive Book. (Actually, neither the old nor new testament _by itself_ is a book: they’re each a library of multiple books by multiple authors). A lot of early Christians (the Marcionites, for example) didn’t even _include_ the Old Testament in their Bible, and of course Jews don’t even include the New Testament in theirs. Those Christians who accepted the Old Testament did so on the grounds that it prophecied Jesus, and that Jesus quoted from it. That’s it’s entire importance: it is prologue to the story of Jesus, not a stand alone work of its own. Once the new covenant has been established, the old one is null and void. Jesus overturned the Law of Moses when he died on the cross. Sexual immorality is still a sin though (so said Jesus, Paul, John and the Council of Jerusalem). There is legitimate grounds for debate about whether homosexual acts are necessarily included undr the umbrella of ‘sexual immorality’, but that’s where the debate ought to take place, not on spurious irrelevancies about shrimp. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/155 "2014-03-06T20:11:43Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And this is where some devout Christian yahoo comes along and quotes Mathew 5:17 and says Jesus actually didn’t discard any of those laws : > > “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” > > But then the same yahoo shaves his beard and eats shrimp, of course. Jesus ‘fulfilled’ them when He died on the cross. If you want a fleshed out description of the relationship between the Old Law and the New, the Book of Hebrews is the best place to start. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/156 "2014-03-06T20:13:01Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > With due respect, that’s nonsense. The Old and New Testaments don’t form one cohesive Book. (Actually, neither the old nor new testament _by itself_ is a book: they’re each a library of multiple books by multiple authors). > > A lot of early Christians (the Marcionites, for example) didn’t even _include_ the Old Testament in their Bible, and of course Jews don’t even include the New Testament in theirs. Those Christians who accepted the Old Testament did so on the grounds that it prophecied Jesus, and that Jesus quoted from it. That’s it’s entire importance: it is prologue to the story of Jesus, not a stand alone work of its own. Once the new covenant has been established, the old one is null and void. > > Jesus overturned the Law of Moses when he died on the cross. Sexual immorality is still a sin though (so said Jesus, Paul, John and the Council of Jerusalem). There is legitimate grounds for debate about whether homosexual acts are necessarily included undr the umbrella of ‘sexual immorality’, but that’s where the debate ought to take place, not on spurious irrelevancies about shrimp. Go tell the Christians who quote the OT every time homosexuality comes up then. I don’t think Zero-syde is saying he/she agrees, just pointing out an inconsistency in their thinking. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/157 "2014-03-06T20:14:20Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Jesus ‘fulfilled’ them when He died on the cross. If you want a fleshed out description of the relationship between the Old Law and the New, the Book of Hebrews is the best place to start. No, please explain to me what you think “fulfilled” meant. And whether it applied to all the laws, or just some, and why. I’m not the yahoo, remember. I don’t think you are either, but I can’t tell yet. ---
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/158 "2014-03-06T22:40:21Z")
On the question of my opinion on the Bible itself, I’ll say that having done even a cursory examination of the bible’s history and read the book, I place absolutely _no value_ in any truth claims of that book. And it’s Mathew 5:18 > [@](#): > > For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Admitedly, it’s not internally consistent, and contradicts itself possibly here and definitely in other places, but that’s hardly my problem. And there are plenty of yet fulfilled prophecies (Revelations?) and never are _which_ jots and tittles (letters and strokes of a pen) to be struck from the law specifically outlined. I suppose I _might_ sound “devout” but only because I’ve actually studied the darn thing without cherry picking the parts I like. A lot of Christians cherry-pick without realizing it, chiefly because a 2,000+ year old book hardly matches the morals and ethics of a member of modern society and in fact contradicts them so extremely that the mind defaults to ignoring the issues to avoid dealing with the problem. Furthermore, even if Jesus _did_ discard parts of the old testament, no authority (Father or Son) ever sat down and said homosexuality or wearing 2 fabric clothes, or witchcraft was either A-Okay or Abominable. Picking Homosexuality as the _root of all evil!!!_ as is done with some christians while also discarding 2 fabric clothes and witchcraft (banned in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus, but Deuteronomy has the really disgusting laws so lets not say Leviticus goes but Deuteronomy stays) is cherry-picking. If you’re going to use an extra-biblical moral code to cherry-pick anyway, you might as well discard the whole thing and just use the moral code that doesn’t include all the baggage. If we _do_ accept that all of the old testament has given way to the new, we’ve also discarded the Ten Commandments, the prohibition against certain forms of Incest, prohibitions against bestiality… amongst others. So what is it: 1) has the old replaced the new, 2) have specific parts been modified with specific mention on each modification, or 3) have no parts been modified? All 3 have serious, unresolvable issues. Oh, and there’s 4) feel it out yourself, which basically destroys any moral value the book might have - you have to use an external moral system to shape the book to fit your desires and then claim that it’s the source of morality?? Now don’t get me wrong, not all Christians do this narrowly focused blowing out of proportion that the propagandists do. A vocal, law affecting - or is that, effecting? They actually effect changes in law, hah - minority is the only group I indict for this erosion of biblical authority. They highlight the bankrupt portions of biblical morality and misconstrue Christianity as being focused on that which has the effect of alienating anyone who has empathy for or values the rights and prosperity of homosexuals, which is by and large a huge portion of the newest generation. Honestly, this is a good thing, because people don’t/can’t understand what value the bible has for Christianity, and invent whole doctrines (“Divine inspiration of the council of Niceae”, Divine intervention to keep the bible accurate while allowing the Jewish Torah+Muslim Quran+Book of Mormon to get it wrong, etc) to justify treating it as an authoritative source. The bible is a book, written by dozens if not hundreds of authors over many centuries, edited and re-edited by the council of Niceae and other conventions, kings and rulers of the past. Even if it started out 100% true, a bunch of old men in a room picking their favorite account of an event _no less than_ several centuries prior and discarding anything that they didn’t personally like is hardly a recipe for an accurate codex of fact. When did this become a rant? Sorry 'bout that one. ---
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/159 "2014-03-06T22:47:20Z")
Nicaea. Oops. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414/160 "2014-03-08T13:57:21Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > If the mood strikes a couple while they’re in the middle of an evening at the symphony, should they strip off their clothes and get it on right in the middle of the concert hall? > > Everyone agrees that there are inappropriate and appropriate times to have sex. The Catholic Church just has rules that are more stringent than most. (For what it’s worth, the Orthodox Church has a whole slew of fast days on which you’re not allowed to have sex, either). > > As for using the mind they’re given, being Catholic and submitting to its disciplines is a free choice. If you don’t want to abide by the rules about NFP, you can always become Lutheran or Episcopalian. > > I have no particular dog in this fight: I think the invention of oral contraception was a triumph of scientific ingenuity and has made life better for a lot of people and societies, and I don’t believe it’s morally wrong. That being said, many women find the side effects of the Pill ‘unnatural’ and a detriment to their personal lives as well. I know plenty who complain about weight gain, decreased libido, etc… I am pretty sure you know I didn’t mean if one is in public or outside of a private place I am referring to a Couple should be able to do as they wish in the privacy of their own home or other private place… And if either choose not to have Children the woman could have her tubes tied or the man a vasectomy. I know many couple where the man has had a vasectomy knowing it can be reversed if the couple change their minds. The R C C says a lot about the poor, but many poor people are poor like it is in Haiti, and other countries because they have not the means to proper birth control. And in some African countries they have (according to what is shown on TV) several children starving to death, and that is worse than using a condom or other safe means to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gay-acceptance-erode-the-bibles-authority/682414.md?page=9)