Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's my theory.

You see a guy working out and dressing fashionably and you're out of the running; but then wait! He's gay!

You're back in!

@Killkrazy: Those leaflets were dropped before Nagasaki, but AFTER Hiroshima (it says so in the leaflet itself). I'm also not 100 percent sure about the reliability of this source.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:Isn't it funny that much of society is more intolerant of Gays rather than Lesbians...

That's because 'society' is still largely directed by white men, many of whom find homosexuals threatening but who are somewhat excited by the thought of lesbians.

Thinking about it rationally, heterosexual men should welcome homosexual men because it reduces the competition for women.

Don't forget that whole inconvenient Bible thing right. Of course, let's forget the whole Bible thing and blame heterosexual white men.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

GG

Leviticus also commands not to eat shellfish nor pork, I see plenty of Christians doing both.

generalgrog wrote:
Don't forget that whole inconvenient Bible thing right. Of course, let's forget the whole Bible thing and blame heterosexual white men.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

GG

You would prefer that we blame the Bible?

Anyway, according to that homosexuality is acceptable among women, but not among men.

And don't ever use the NKJ Bible as an authoritative source. It may as well be a pop-up book.

I was merely pointing out the flaw of "blaming" white males. When many people, male and female, use the Bible as the source of their antoganism towards gays.

For you anti NKJ folks

Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
For you anti NKJ folks

Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.

GG

See, it really isn't clear. For example "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." simply means that you shouldn't engage in the same sexual activity with different genders. So, if you don't have anal sex with women, you aren't violating the clause.

A sound translation is incredibly important when dealing with scripture, and otherwise minor differences can profoundly affect that nature of the text; as illustrated here.

generalgrog wrote:I was merely pointing out the flaw of "blaming" white males. When many people, male and female, use the Bible as the source of their antoganism towards gays.

For you anti NKJ folks

Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.

GG

Maybe the people who wrote the Bible were homophobic, and that's why those bits were written. If so, we circle back to my point.

A proportion of men are homophobic. Some of them use the Bible for justification and others have never read the book.

LunaHound wrote:Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.

Not only will views change before and after the event, they'll change before and after every event. All we can do is attempt to build the most complete picture of current events and try to make the best possible decision.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that you can't judge the moral correctness of one action by the morality of an action in a contrived hypothetical.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Leviticus also commands not to eat shellfish nor pork, I see plenty of Christians doing both.

Shellfish are icky but bacon is divine.

It's sad that sexuality even comes into life anymore, surely we've moved beyond caring, I don't really want to hear my neighbours doing it at 3 in the morning but it's okay caus' they're straight...

Yet if I make a passing comment about Brad Pitt all hell breaks loose, and it was only about how cool his shoes were...:|

Sexuality is probably about the most powerful driving instinct after basic food, shelter and survival urges.

Nurses say they know when a male patient in hospital has turned the corner to recovery because me starts flirting with them.

When you consider that humans, more than other animals, use sexuality as a source of pair bonding and pleasure, it becomes very understandable that it can't be eradicated from society.

Societies which deprecate sexuality put considerable effort into suppressing it, and often fail badly.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
For you anti NKJ folks

Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.

GG

See, it really isn't clear. For example "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." simply means that you shouldn't engage in the same sexual activity with different genders. So, if you don't have anal sex with women, you aren't violating the clause.

Maybe to a rules lawyer or someone trying to warp the Bible to their own slant. Everyone with common sense knows exactly the kind of behaviour that passage is talking about. It's only the people that want to make things complicated for their own agenda, that try to twist it. And there are other passages throughout the Bible that make similar condemnations against homosexuality, and other sexual sins.

I didn't follow your link Dogma, as I have seen those homosexual apologist sites before, and for every one of those homosexual apologist sites, I can place a link to a Biblically sound site explaining why the homosexual apologists are wrong.

Bottom line... homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, there is no way of getting around that fact with a sound contextual exegesis of the Bible. But as always you should love the sinner and hate the sin. I don't hate gays, but I won't hesitate to tell them they have a problem, in the same way I would tell someone that is addicted to pornography, or cheats on their wife, that they have a problem and that Jesus can deliver them.

I won't lie to them, or play the enabler, and tell them they were born gay or that the Bible says it's ok for them to be gay.

GG

Modern society is no longer based solely on Biblical injunctions.

Good points Kill, I'd like to amend my last post to 'sexual labels' and sexual identity.

In an ideal world it shouldn't matter how we fulfil the urge, with exceptions to the legal side of things of course. I suppose there are people who make an issue out of their chosen sexual preference, but that's their choice; and they often look shocked and taken aback when they're met with grief.

Half the issue (I think this is my point, who knows) is that people make an issue out of their being an issue. People expect people to offended by racist jokes, so often blow the incident well out of proportion in a weird 'defend the rights' sort of way.

I dunno...I used to go prancing around proclaiming my love for man jesus, kylie monogue and prada shoes, more grief than it's worth. Keep your ideas to yourself and be the person you are without the labels and stigmas forced into your own perspective and life is alot easier.

(I'm sure somebody will dissect this post shortly and make me realise what it is I'm trying to say. I'd not bother posting but the internet has this effect on me...that, and it makes me watch Barney...alot...)

generalgrog wrote:
Maybe to a rules lawyer or someone trying to warp the Bible to their own slant.

How is it warping anything? I'm following the text to the letter. Now, you could argue that Christian tradition can be used as a lens with which to interpret the Bible, but that's a very different argument from "The Bible says so."

generalgrog wrote:
Everyone with common sense knows exactly the kind of behaviour that passage is talking about.

There's no such thing as common sense. Only logic that you don't know how to explain.

generalgrog wrote:
It's only the people that want to make things complicated for their own agenda, that try to twist it. And there are other passages throughout the Bible that make similar condemnations against homosexuality, and other sexual sins.

The Bible never condemns homosexuality specifically, it can't, the word didn't exist. The Bible makes references to behavior which many equate to homosexuality. These are different things.

generalgrog wrote:
I didn't follow your link Dogma, as I have seen those homosexual apologist sites before, and for every one of those homosexual apologist sites, I can place a link to a Biblically sound site explaining why the homosexual apologists are wrong.

First, I wouldn't ever use the phrase 'homosexual apologists'. That second word carries a connotation which doesn't bode well for your argument.

Second, that site had nothing to do with any supposed apologist thought. Religioustolerance.com indexes varied opinions on the meaning of Biblical text. The whole point being to show that there is no correct way to read the Bible. A point which I support, and commonly make in our conversations.

The difference between us is that you're attempting to argue that the Bible says one thing, and only one thing. I'm making the point that the Bible can say just about anything you want it to say, just like any other dated text.

generalgrog wrote:
Bottom line... homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, there is no way of getting around that fact with a sound contextual exegesis of the Bible.

Do you eat pork? Do you know a man and a woman who live together out of wedlock?

The Bible mentions many sins which very few people take seriously. Why do you place so much emphasis on homosexuality, which is only addressed tangentially?

generalgrog wrote:
But as always you should love the sinner and hate the sin. I don't hate gays, but I won't hesitate to tell them they have a problem, in the same way I would tell someone that is addicted to pornography, or cheats on their wife, that they have a problem and that Jesus can deliver them.

At some point your zeal to separate sin from sinner leaves nothing of the person being considered.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Bottom line... homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, there is no way of getting around that fact with a sound contextual exegesis of the Bible.

Do you eat pork? Do you know a man and a woman who live together out of wedlock?

The Bible mentions many sins which very few people take seriously. Why do you place so much emphasis on homosexuality, which is only addressed tangentially?

Here we go again with the "Why do you place so much emphasis" thereby implying I have some sort of axe to grind on this particular issue. My original post was to point out that white males may be basing their disdain for homosexuality based on what the Bible says concerning homosexuality. Not becuase they are simply white males. Afterall a long time ago in Greece homosexuality wasn't considered a problem with white males, in fact the pagan Greek culture considered it normal, if I recall my Greek history correctly.

As I have said before homosexuality, and adultery, fornication are all considered sins before God. I have said that repeatedly in other posts, yet you and others seem to fixate on homosexuality as your pet "issue" The problem is with you, not me. :-)

The whole pork red herring that you and others keep bringing up, is a product of the doctrine of progressive revelation. Christians aren't required to follow the law of Moses to the letter, Jesus gave us a new covenant. That's why we don't wear our hair like Jews, or follow the feast days, or any of the other thousands of Levitical laws, because Jesus fulfilled the law. The law is written in our hearts, and Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, Who indwells us.

GG

Religion vs sexuality...

Religion vs freedom of speech...

Religion vs non religion...

All unwinable.

*Moves over to the Disney Meet Marvel thread.*

Shamfrit wrote:Religion vs sexuality...

Religion vs freedom of speech...

Religion vs non religion...

All unwinable.

*Moves over to the Disney Meet Marvel thread.*

Shamfrit, don't worry, me and Dogma go at it all the time. I'm surprised the Aussie hasn't jumped in yet. :-)

GG

generalgrog wrote:
As I have said before homosexuality, and adultery, fornication are all considered sins before God. I have said that repeatedly in other posts, yet you and others seem to fixate on homosexuality as your pet "issue" The problem is with you, not me. :-)

Adultery and fornication are repeatedly indited within the Bible. Homosexuality is only mentioned in tangent; placing it roughly on par with the other Levitical laws.

generalgrog wrote:
The whole pork red herring that you and others keep bringing up, is a product of the doctrine of progressive revelation.

And yet you chose to quote Leviticus, rather than Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, or Jude 1:7.

generalgrog wrote:
Christians aren't required to follow the law of Moses to the letter, Jesus gave us a new covenant.That's why we don't wear our hair like Jews, or follow the feast days, or any of the other thousands of Levitical laws, because Jesus fulfilled the law. The law is written in our hearts, and Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, Who indwells us.

GG

If you aren't required to follow the law of Moses, then it seems hardly proper to cite it as a motivating factor in the condemnation in same sex behavior. Otherwise you're simply making an argument from personal preference. A point furthered by the notion that the law is 'written on your heart'.

DOGMA-

OK, so sue me for choosing the 2 NKJ leviticus passages, in a hurry, and not spending 4 hours writing up an entire sermon using Thompson chain references so that Dogma would be satisfied. I'm still right, and my point still stands, no matter what all the hand ringing your doing. You yourself mentioned Romans, Corinthians, Jude, 1 Timothy. I don't feel the need to type up looooong posts in an effort to "prove" my view, that no one will read, and choose selective quotes to jump up on a soapbox creating a mountain out of a mole hill, just because someone used a Bible passage to make a point.

This isn't Dallas Theological seminary, Notre Dame or Oral Roberts university where every point needs to be backed up by a 3 hour 10 page thesis.

I made my point simple and to the point, regarding singling out white males as somehow inherently intolerant of homosexuality, and you choose to single out my choice of using New King James over King James(or other Bibles) and then using "only" leviticus and not going far enough with my point and not also refering the new testament warnings against Homosexuality.

Deal with it.

GG

dogma wrote:
The Bible never condemns homosexuality specifically, it can't, the word didn't exist. The Bible makes references to behavior which many equate to homosexuality. These are different things.

Actually it does. If you will look up 1 Corinthians 6:9 (the irony of this verse number is not lost on me) St. Paul clearly states that, among many other things, homosexuality is a sin, and those offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. Now, I really hate it when people focus on just one aspect of Biblical morality: ie abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc. There is a spectrum of items that Christians are commanded not to do, but I do not see anywhere how this applies to non-believers. Scripture is very clear in that it commands us to not judge those outside the Faith, because God has already done so. This is also another reason that I left the Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement. They were too focused on single issues and they interpreted the Scripture literally. Using Church tradition is essential to helping to provide context and scope to the meaning of the Bible.

dogma wrote:
Do you eat pork? Do you know a man and a woman who live together out of wedlock?

The Bible mentions many sins which very few people take seriously. Why do you place so much emphasis on homosexuality, which is only addressed tangentially?

As a reference to the pork thing, God specifically told St. Paul that it was ok to eat "unclean" meets since the Law was no longer the harsh task master it once was. And yes I do know Christians who live together out of wedlock, that doesn't make it ok. All sins will be judged in the end, and to me I tolerate hypocrisy as little as possible. I am a forgiving person, but if one will not try to amend their ways, I will not hesitate to confront them with their own sin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:DOGMA-

OK, so sue me for choosing the 2 NKJ leviticus passages, in a hurry, and not spending 4 hours writing up an entire sermon using Thompson chain references so that Dogma would be satisfied. I'm still right, and my point still stands, no matter what all the hand ringing your doing. You yourself mentioned Romans, Corinthians, Jude, 1 Timothy. I don't feel the need to type up looooong posts in an effort to "prove" my view, that no one will read, and choose selective quotes to jump up on a soapbox creating a mountain out of a mole hill, just because someone used a Bible passage to make a point.

This isn't Dallas Theological seminary, Notre Dame or Oral Roberts university where every point needs to be backed up by a 3 hour 10 page thesis.

I made my point simple and to the point, regarding singling out white males as somehow inherently intolerant of homosexuality, and you choose to single out my choice of using New King James over King James(or other Bibles) and then using "only" leviticus and not going far enough with my point and not also refering the new testament warnings against Homosexuality.

Deal with it.

GG

No offense dude, but just calm down. Don't get frustrated just because Dogma is asking good questions and leading this argument. I learned a long time ago, that my frustration in an argument is generally not with the other person, but rather with my own inability to deliver a solid front. Maybe you should examine why you are having issues with this debate and do more reading and such in order to provide a stronger point. Just a suggestion to help you out...

I'll just say how amusing I find this thread devolving into the RAW guys vs the RAI guys...


/yoink see ya!

JEB_Stuart wrote:No offense dude, but just calm down. Don't get frustrated just because Dogma is asking good questions and leading this argument. I learned a long time ago, that my frustration in an argument is generally not with the other person, but rather with my own inability to deliver a solid front. Maybe you should examine why you are having issues with this debate and do more reading and such in order to provide a stronger point. Just a suggestion to help you out...

Yeah... relevant as always, just step over here and take a quick look... there ya go, your eyes seem to be doing fine, now act like a rock.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
No offense dude, but just calm down. Don't get frustrated just because Dogma is asking good questions and leading this argument. I learned a long time ago, that my frustration in an argument is generally not with the other person, but rather with my own inability to deliver a solid front. Maybe you should examine why you are having issues with this debate and do more reading and such in order to provide a stronger point. Just a suggestion to help you out...

JEB thanks for jumping in. If you notice I used an emoticon at the end of my post.
Believe me, I'm not upset.

I agree with you that I'm not an internet arguer extraordinaire, but I think I hold my own in most cases. I think it's mainly due to the fact that I'm kind of lazy when it comes to posting, and don't always feel like posting really long comebacks when I feel a short blurb should be good enough. Also A lot of times I'm at work so I can't really spend inordinate amounts of time on long eloquent internet posts.

I'm not sure what you mean by "leading the argument".

GG

Personally, why should it bother a person who another person chooses to interact with?

If it's abhorant to you, don't ask about it.

If it's unnatural and evil, don't interact with that person (your loss, not their's.)

If the bible says no, consider that alot of people don't give two hoots about a book.

When it comes down to it, we can sleep with who we like, what we like, and when we like.

You might not like it!

But I don't like Ac/Dc, doesn't mean I'm going to poke you in the eye for being a fan.

gg.... not to make this a religion thing... but i see a lot of picking parts of that book you like and ignoring the rest.... i think we should all stone our children to death when they are disobedient!

Of course.... it recommends death for most offenses... here are some examples...

Cursing Parents
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9

Working on the Sabbath
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

Premarital Sex (girls only)
. . .If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, Deuteronomy 22:20

Disobedience (boys only)
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18

Worshipping any god but Yahweh
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that . . . hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; . . .Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

Witches
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22: 18

Wizards (epileptics? migraine sufferers? schizophrenics?)
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

Loose Daughters of Clergy
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9

Girls who are Raped within the City Limits
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city . . . But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25

Blasphemers
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16

Anyone Who Tries to Deconvert Yahweh Worshipers
If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," . . . you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them. Deuteronomy 12:6

Men who Lie With Men
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Adulterers
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12

Men who Lie with Beasts and Beasts who Lie with Men
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Leviticus 20:15

I GUESS my point is...
If you can pick and chose which parts you follow (aka any of the above or countless other quotes I am sure I can find for you in the bible...) then how can you possibly tell others they can't decide to ignore that laying with another man thing.

Nicely put there,

Let's have a poke at Scientology whilst we're here?

I think Scientology does the job well enough itself : )

generalgrog wrote:Shamfrit, don't worry, me and Dogma go at it all the time. I'm surprised the Aussie hasn't jumped in yet. :-)

GG

Be fair, I was asleep

I think I'll just read when it comes to this one. I've read maybe about a third of the bible in total, so I'm very much out of my depth.