[besson3c]

I wouldn't be surprised if other religions could be included in this list too...

I've been reading and hearing about some of the absolutely horrible stories of gay/bi people and their dealings with these respective faiths... In short, it sounds like it is living hell to feel so spiritually inclined and to have to either live in secret, or prepare to have clergy attempt to "fix" the problem or counter it with such utter nonsense such as special prayer and strange lifestyle changes.

It's not only the gay thing though, the same applies to premarital sex and the insistence towards abstinence while suppressing education, the way women are treated in general (although perhaps this is more of a cultural thing), and various other puritanical stuff that just doesn't seem to jive with the world we live in (e.g. refusing to use contraceptives, etc.)

Of course, there is also the sex with little boys thing, the possible bankruptcy of the Catholic church, etc.

What is it about religion + sexuality that just seems to amount to a cluster**** of problems? Why haven't we figured out that it is incredibly hypocritical, in the case of Christianity, to go on about having a personal relationship with God while at the same time passing on judgment and taking actions to marginalize or somehow make life for others unpleasant?

[imitchellg5]

You can't really debate this question when such bias is already present in the question before an answer can even be formulated.

[ort888]

I don't understand why Christians aren't up in arms about Usury. It's mentioned as a no-no in the bible about 10 times as much as homosexuality is.

Why aren't there Christians picketing banks?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You can't really debate this question when such bias is already present in the question before an answer can even be formulated.

It was definitely a leading question, but at the same time I wanted to express my belief with the forcefulness necessary for sincerity. I do not intend to get up in somebody's grill if they have a different opinion than mine and can make a reasonable argument.

[Doofy]

Question presupposes that the religious viewpoint is messed up without considering that the opposing view is the one that's wrong. Pointless, other than as yet another attack on religion.

Noting that Bess doesn't seem to realise that his new mate the Dali Lama is equally condemning of the bum fun.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't understand why Christians aren't up in arms about Usury.

Because there's no prohibition on it, perhaps?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Noting that Bess doesn't seem to realise that his new mate the Dali Lama is equally condemning of the bum fun.

How do you know who my mate is?

I think there is *plenty* of evidence of the sort of problems mixing religion with sexuality has caused, I listed several examples. While the subject and premise of the message was a provocation, I at least attempted to use some examples I think are valid, no? I also left the reasons behind these examples open for somebody else to explain, because I don't understand them. I'm open to learning though, even if it is simply being introduced to a perspective I may not agree with...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you know who my mate is?

If you're going to start arguing turns of phrase, then it's all pointless.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think there is *plenty* of evidence of the sort of problems mixing religion with sexuality has caused, I listed several examples.

Your examples assume that religion is the problem. What if it's society which is the problem?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you're going to start arguing turns of phrase, then it's all pointless.

As is countering what you perceived as an attack with another attack/jab, just saying...

Your examples assume that religion is the problem. What if it's society which is the problem?

It could very well be society or just individual people, but when this is connected to religious justification, while the religion *itself* might not be the problem, the organized movements of Christianity and Judaism which are the sum of their individual members could be. I want to know why so many Christians and Jews (including leadership) hvae such backwards and problematic viewpoints relating to sexuality?

[Doofy]

You'd be more convincing if you'd have included islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism and Baha'i.

Anyway, since Christianity is relatively new compared to ye olde buggery, isn't your viewpoint the "backwards" one?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You'd be more convincing if you'd have included islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Rastafarianism, Jainism and Baha'i.

I would have, which is why I included this at the very beginning of my post:

I wouldn't be surprised if other religions could be included in this list too...

However, I'm not familiar enough to cite specific examples, although female circumcision in the Islamic world comes to mind now.

Fine then, what is it about religion in general that mixes so poorly with these issues?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would have

But you didn't.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fine then, what is it about religion in general that mixes so poorly with these issues?

Or you could ask: "What is it about people who subscribe to these issues that mixes so poorly with religion?"

[sek929]

Sexual desire is one of our most animalistic traits held over from when we didn't put so much into partnerships. As I see it, most religions view mankind to be greater than the other common beasts on this planet, and therefore should be capable of containing and controlling these desires.

Obviously I find the 'truth' be be smack dab in the middle ground of this issue.

F**king everything that walks is ultimately self-destructive and dangerous, while repressing basic biological imperatives is naive and unnatural.

I can't imagine marrying a woman without ever bedding her first, simply makes no sense. Also makes no sense to wait until you are married to start learning how to please a partner.

[lpkmckenna]

I may be an atheist, but I already know that religion isn't the source of backward sexual attitudes. Religion is merely a vector, a route of communications. Religious texts include the biases of their times, just like laws, literature, and science include biases of the time.

And regards to the question, neither mainstream Christianity nor mainstream Judaism is hostile to sex or homosexuality. Only fringe movements within those religions are so backwards.

And sex-hostile movements aren't exclusive to western monotheism. In ancient cultures, there were often moral panics about loosening attitudes to sex, as recorded by historians. Unchaste behaviour was often met with severe punishments: in ancient Rome, a father would be expected to kill his daughter if she was caught screwing around.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is it about religion + sexuality that just seems to amount to a cluster**** of problems? Why haven't we figured out that it is incredibly hypocritical, in the case of Christianity, to go on about having a personal relationship with God while at the same time passing on judgment and taking actions to marginalize or somehow make life for others unpleasant?

So, if you knew, I mean knew that behavior X would lead to eternal damnation, isn't it your duty to speak up?

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, if you knew, I mean knew that behavior X would lead to eternal damnation, isn't it your duty to speak up?

I can empathize with that desire, but I don't think it covers all cases. I'd wager that many people who use religion to condemn gay/premarital/safe sex are doing just that: using religion as a tool (a vector, as lpkmckenna put it) to push their own personal views.

But I'd like to focus on the people you mentioned, because they're more interesting. So let's say you did know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that my behavior would ultimately result in me being damned to hell for all eternity. Then yes, I would expect you to want to speak up to help me, especially if you're a friend of mine. Compare it to staging an intervention for an alcoholic. Sure, it reeks of meddling, but it really is for the recipient's own good.

The problem, of course, occurs when I'm just as positive as you are that my behavior will NOT result in damnation. Then your desire to help me directly conflicts with my freedom to live my own life.

(Oh, and there's a reason I mentioned friends. If you're a random stranger who feels the need to interfere with my private life for any reason, STFU and GFTO.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

I can empathize with that desire, but I don't think it covers all cases. I'd wager that many people who use religion to condemn gay/premarital/safe sex are doing just that: using religion as a tool (a vector, as lpkmckenna put it) to push their own personal views.

From whence doth those views spring?

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

The problem, of course, occurs when I'm just as positive as you are that my behavior will NOT result in damnation. Then your desire to help me directly conflicts with my freedom to live my own life.

Absolutely. Of course, each person would approach addressing this differently, but it seems consistent to me that your soul trumps your freedom. I mean, that's sort of the point, isn't it?

[Big Mac]

Why did you choose to throw Judaism in with Christianity, besson? To get me involved? What do you know about Judaism's view on sexual matters? And since you included Judaism and Christianity why not go for the trifecta and put Islam in as well? Only fair.

I'm a little busy right now but if someone could summarize for me what they think is so messed up about Judaism's take on sexuality, I'll be happy to address the topics. (I did a search within the thread for Judaism and could only find one reference to it other than in the title of the thread.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why did you choose to throw Judaism in with Christianity, besson? To get me involved? What do you know about Judaism's view on sexual matters? And since you included Judaism and Christianity why not go for the trifecta and put Islam in as well? Only fair.

Sure, throw Islam in there...

To be honest, I've observed this in Christianity for a while, but I recently watched this documentary called "Trembling Before G-d" here on Hulu: Hulu - Trembling Before G-D - Watch the full feature film now. which is about gays and Judaism, it sort of sparked all of this. I don't know whether you'd agree or disagree with this documentary, it was just something I had on while I was programming and wasn't paying complete and utter attention to it, but...

Here is the description of the documentary, to save some people a click:

Built around intimately-told personal stories of Hasidic and Orthodox Jews who are gay or lesbian, this documentary portrays a group of people who face a profound dilemma.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I can't imagine marrying a woman without ever bedding her first, simply makes no sense. Also makes no sense to wait until you are married to start learning how to please a partner.

Boy, that's awful shallow.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Boy, that's awful shallow.

Care to elaborate as to what you mean by that?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sure, throw Islam in there... To be honest, I've observed this in Christianity for a while, but I recently watched this documentary called "Trembling Before G-d" here on Hulu: Hulu - Trembling Before G-D - Watch the full feature film now. which is about gays and Judaism, it sort of sparked all of this.

Okay, that makes some sense. I didn't realize that you were talking specifically about homosexual issues. I actually saw parts of that documentary, years ago and have some vague recollection of it. I wasn't impressed by the arguments put forth.

It's a fact of life that if you grow up Orthodox and especially in a very Orthodox "black hat" kind of community, there's a lot of pressure to conform. The expectation on a man growing up in such a religious community is that he will be a diligent student in the Yeshiva, get married in his early 20s, and raise and support a family. That's life for an Orthodox Jew. And it's a fact that overt homosexuality, especially for men, is highly disapproved of. A man declaring himself openly gay (and especially one who makes it known to his rabbi that he wants to go engage in homosexual sex) in that kind of environment won't be all that comfortable. Because of the explicit Torah ban on that behavior, that's the way it is in Orthodox Jewish circles, that's the way it has been, and that's the way it will be into the future. No truly Orthodox Jew would do physical harm to another Jew over it, but homosexuals trying to out themselves would be ostracized by the community to be sure.

Again, even when I saw that documentary I only saw parts of it so I don't in particular what aspects of it bothered you. However, I'm not entirely sure what you expect from Orthodox Jews in that regard, besson. Orthodox Jews will never embrace homosexuality.

I just spent a more religious Shabbos than I usually do in a very Jewish enclave of LA, and I'd like to describe what the atmosphere is like. It's a completely different world from the secular one that we usually live in. You are immersed in all things Jewish. The family I stayed with is a beautiful young family with four great kids. The kids in Orthodox homes are usually very well behaved, with the young ones taking care of the very young ones while the mother and father are often doing something else. There are a number of Orthodox synagogues around, and they're all full of Orthodox Jews. If you choose to go to a popular lecture on Shabbos afternoon you'll come to a synagogue hall filled with black hats. You pray a lot of the time, eat Jewish food, listen to discourses often in Yiddish. It's like you're in a Jewish world.

Now if you were to live in that kind of community and work in that kind of community all the time, then you'd be immersed in Torah Judaism every waking hour. The schools teach children Yiddish (not Hebrew as in Israel, Yiddish). They don't allow TVs or Internet access in homes, or else the kids are expelled. The kids read books and play with normal toys, but aside from Jewish programming they occasionally get to watch they don't see any other media. Some of the adults who work in the outside world keep tabs on secular society, but most work within the community.

Now you may call that kind of lifestyle backward, archaic, primitive, etc.. I believe it is very beautiful even though I don't think I could ever live completely cut off from the non-Jewish world. But my point is, that's what it means to live in and be part of an Orthodox community. They don't care one bit about what the secular world does as long as they aren't directly impacted because they're shielded from the rest. The Orthodox Jewish population is growing while Conservative and Reform Judaism are shrinking. And it's because they live in close knit, insular communities that are resistant to change. They live the same general Torah lifestyle with the addition of modern technology (on non-Shabbos and non-festival days.)

That's a glimpse into Orthodox Jewry. And it should give you some understanding of why you'll be disappointed if you're hoping to see the secular world's dominant attitudes rub off on it.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Care to elaborate as to what you mean by that?

I too agree that it's highly shallow to demand sex before marriage. For their part strictly Orthodox Jews don't even hold hands while dating. Yet divorce is virtually unheard of there and family life is much stabler and happier than the typical secular counterpart seems.

[besson3c]

I just thought it (the documentary) was pretty sad overall, but it was also clearly designed to be that way. I was mostly just sort of half immersing myself in the general Jewish stuff in that documentary, half since I wasn't paying full attention to it. Maybe I'll watch it again and pay better attention...

It just sort of appended to my list of what I believe to be backwards thinking when it comes to orthodox religion of any kind that I've ever encountered or know anything about. Being in North America this is mostly Christianity, but my perception is that some of these same viewpoints towards sexuality are shared across many religions, and that it just seems that there is probably more backwards thinking to me than progressive thinking, like these sorts of beliefs somehow haven't caught up to the world we live in. I mean, I just can't seem to put pragmatic viewpoints towards sexuality or those that do not create bothersome strife and devout religious beliefs in the same sentence in general. I was just curious as to why this was.

Are you an orthodox Jew?


I'm not sure where you got demanding sex before marriage from what was written...

[besson3c]

The other thing, WRT Christianity, and I know that several of you have heard this soapbox speech of mine before, but I also find the way that Christianity is practiced and taught/spread to be pretty intellectually lazy. It annoys me when I come across Christians using very emotional-based arguments and trying to convince people of these sorts of absolute truths about matters, such as some of these backwards views towards sexuality. How can one counter this, since it seems to be a consensus that it is wrong to have sex before marriage, it is wrong to have sodomy (with any other person of any gender), wrong to have sex if the intention is not to procreate, some would say wrong for a woman to enjoy sex, etc.

Whether you believe this or not, what good has ever come of trying to meddle in the sex lives of others, including teenage children even?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just thought it (the documentary) was pretty sad overall, but it was also clearly designed to be that way. I was mostly just sort of half immersing myself in the general Jewish stuff in that documentary, half since I wasn't paying full attention to it. Maybe I'll watch it again and pay better attention...

Interesting. I'd say that it would be a good idea to also find a more positive documentary on Orthodoxy to get some balance. That film's creators obviously have an axe to grind.

It just sort of appended to my list of what I believe to be backwards thinking when it comes to orthodox religion of any kind that I've ever encountered or know anything about. Being in North America this is mostly Christianity, but my perception is that some of these same viewpoints towards sexuality are shared across many religions, and that it just seems that there is probably more backwards thinking to me than progressive thinking, like these sorts of beliefs somehow haven't caught up to the world we live in. I mean, I just can't seem to put pragmatic viewpoints towards sexuality or those that do not create bothersome strife and devout religious beliefs in the same sentence in general. I was just curious as to why this was.

Traditional forms of religion will have traditional attitudes toward the different aspects of life and society. Judaism and Christianity share a lot of ethical standards, so you'll find a degree of commonality in certain respects. Now what you said in respect to the devoutly religious not being caught up with society is true, although I don't look at it that way. Modern secular society has become very tolerant of a great many things, such as homosexuality, culturally pervasive promiscuity and high rates of divorce. Traditional forms of Western religion don't want to catch up to that standard of tolerance because the devout do not want to promote those things seen as either violations of divine law or trends that could be destructive to the community.

But it isn't as if most devout communities shun everything that comes from the modern world. Orthodox Jews don't shun electricity or automobile travel except on Shabbos and other holy days, unlike the Amish who forgo electricity completely and endeavor to live lives straight out of the 17th Century.

Are you an orthodox Jew?

Yes and no. I have become increasingly Orthodox over the last number of years but don't often refer to myself that way because it's not a title I feel I deserve to use yet. More often I call myself a religious Jew or a Torah observant Jew. However, the best label for me is Aspiring Baal Teshuva. (Note that I say "aspiring" because even the BT label is to me reserved for a level of Torah observance that I have yet to fully achieve. I probably won't get to that point of feeling confident enough to call myself a BT without qualification until I move to an Orthodox area of town.) Growing up my -parents taught us that Orthodox Judaism was authentic Judaism, and we were taught to abide by the Orthodox opinion. But our home was not run in an Orthodox fashion, largely because we ended up living in a not too Jewish area. As an adult I came to recognize that I wanted to live in accordance with my principles, so I have been growing into Torah observance for years. If I'm ever blessed with a wife and children my kids will be raised Orthodox.

I'm not sure where you got demanding sex before marriage from what was written...

Isn't that what sek posted?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Traditional forms of Western religion don't want to catch up to that standard of tolerance because the devout do not want to promote those things seen as either violations of divine law or trends that could be destructive to the community.

That's a bit of a whitewash. Pretty much every religious group resists change, but they do change once the reasons for doing so are overwhelming. Groups like the Orthodox or the Amish are not any more "observant," just stubborn.

Speaking of sexuality issues: Texas GOP platform: criminalize gay marriage and ban sodomy, outlaw strip clubs and pornography

The best thing about traditional groups like the Amish and Orthodox Jews is they aren't shoving their beliefs on everyone else. Unfortunately, non-traditional religious groups can be just as backwards and stubborn, and politically active too.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's a bit of a whitewash. Pretty much every religious group resists change, but they do change once the reasons for doing so are overwhelming. Groups like the Orthodox or the Amish are not any more "observant," just stubborn.

Orthodox Jews are never going to embrace modernity to such an extent that they willfully transgress the Torah, like by perform melachot (categories of work) on Shabbos and Yom Tov festivals. That's what I mean by observant. Now you can argue that electricity doesn't fit within the technical categories of melachot, but that argument was settled in the religious world when electricity was first popularized.

Nor will Orthodox Judaism ever accept casual sexual relationships, immodest clothing (by Orthodox standards), lax observance of observable commandments, and a variety of other features that mark the non-Orthodox Jewish world and the secular world generally. That's all I mean. And I certainly don't think that qualifies as stubbornness.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Boy, that's awful shallow.

And you're speaking from all sorts of experience, right?

[Wiskedjak]

I haven't seen anything about sexuality that doesn't mix well with religion. The problem, as usual, is people. People often use religion to control those they fear or don't understand.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I haven't seen anything about sexuality that doesn't mix well with religion. The problem, as usual, is people. People often use religion to control those they fear or don't understand.

What about the stuff in the bible that relates to sodomy, gays, sex before marriage, etc.?

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about the stuff in the bible that relates to sodomy, gays, sex before marriage, etc.?

What about the stuff in the Bible that relates to seafood?

Originally Posted by Leviticus 11:9-12

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. / And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: / They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. / Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

And again in Deuteronomy:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 14:9-10

These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: / And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

The Bible clearly states that any marine animal that has no fins or scales (shrimp, crabs, lobster) are "an abomination" and must not be eaten.

Originally Posted by subego

From whence doth those views spring?

THAT is where I get those views. People ignore the portions of the Bible that they want to ignore, and focus on what they want to focus on. The Old Testament is no harsher on homosexuality than it is on eating shrimp, yet only one of these is still considered an abomination unto the Lord by many Christians.

[hyteckit]

Shrimp, crabs, lobster. Yummy!

If God didn't want you to eat seafood, s/he would've made you allergic to it.

[besson3c]

Maybe the problem here isn't purely with sexuality, but it is in taking all religious text (esp. the old testament, in the case of Christianity) literally and rigidly, and in cherry picking which parts to do this with too? There are certain parts which are pretty backwards or at least nonsensical like the shellfish thing...

I must admit, I'm particularly fond of coveting my neighbor's ox. It is a pretty kick ass ox, okay?

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe the problem here isn't purely with sexuality, but it is in taking all religious text (esp. the old testament, in the case of Christianity) literally and rigidly, and in cherry picking which parts to do this with too? There are certain parts which are pretty backwards or at least nonsensical like the shellfish thing...

That's the exact point I've been trying to make. Either the Bible is infallible and absolute, and we should take the entire thing literally, or it isn't, in which case a single line from a book or two of the Old Testament is not grounds for oppressing an entire group of people.

I must admit, I'm particularly fond of coveting my neighbor's ox. It is a pretty kick ass ox, okay?

Man, forget the ox, I'm too busy coveting my neighbor's sweet-ass motorcycle. *drool*

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

THAT is where I get those views. People ignore the portions of the Bible that they want to ignore, and focus on what they want to focus on. The Old Testament is no harsher on homosexuality than it is on eating shrimp, yet only one of these is still considered an abomination unto the Lord by many Christians.

Your argument about shrimp only works if you completely ignore the fact that no Christian is bound to Old Testament law. Anyone who thinks they are is quite simply mistaken. The whole point of Christianity was to wash away all the rules and regulations of the OT.

So, we're left with the New Testament...

have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

Nowt about shellfish in there. Nowt about poly cotton either.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Your argument about shrimp only works if you completely ignore the fact that no Christian is bound to Old Testament law. Anyone who thinks they are is quite simply mistaken. The whole point of Christianity was to wash away all the rules and regulations of the OT.

So, we're left with the New Testament...

Glad you brought that up! I'll point out that you quoted from 1 Corinthians, which technically isn't the word of Jesus. So if you choose to go by that, you'll definitely be obligated to go by Jesus's exact words:

Originally Posted by Luke 16:18

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery

And again:

Originally Posted by Mark 10:11-12

And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; / and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Why do I not hear outrage and pushes for a constitutional amendment banning divorce (or at the very least, remarriage following divorce)? It's right there in His own words, stated far more clearly than any of His thoughts on homosexuality.

Again, people cherry-pick what they want to follow and what they want to ignore, even from the New Testament.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Why do I not hear outrage and pushes for a constitutional amendment banning divorce (or at the very least, remarriage following divorce)?

Why would the proper Christians who want to live by the word push this into the political arena (especially in a country with a first amendment)? Surely they'd just live it?

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Again, people cherry-pick what they want to follow and what they want to ignore, even from the New Testament.

Can't argue with that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why would the proper Christians who want to live by the word push this into the political arena (especially in a country with a first amendment)? Surely they'd just live it?

Why would proper Christians who want to live by the Word care about the issue of gay marriage? Surely they'd just live it?

Why do some Christians insist on politicizing some of the Bible and not others? Clearly, the answer is that sone Christians don't want to lose the ability to be able to divorce and remarry while they have little interest in marrying someone of the same sex.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why would proper Christians who want to live by the Word care about the issue of gay marriage? Surely they'd just live it?

These two things tend to take on different levels of "in your faceness" in society.

For someone to live with the "no divorce" rule within our modern society takes nothing more than simply living it - it doesn't bother anyone else.

But when we talk about gay marriage, that's got a whole load of baggage attached to it. You'd think it was simply a case of the two gay folks marrying and it not bothering anyone else, but it doesn't work like that. The rest of society tends to be forced to recognise the marriage. Example.

And then there's the whole normalisation thing. My guitarist's six-year-old was due to be taught all about gay sex (as part of the national curriculum) until the teachers consulted with parents and prompted some protests. So, how can one ignore gay marriage if those who support it ram it down everyone's throats all the time?

(Dispassionate argument here - I don't care what you put your private parts into, as long as the recipient is consenting and you keep it off my lawn).

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

My guitarist's six-year-old was due to be taught all about gay sex (as part of the national curriculum) until the teachers consulted with parents and prompted some protests.

I'm not from the UK, so I'm not familiar with this. When you say "all about gay sex", do you mean simply about the existence of homosexuals? Or was your local kindergarten (or whatever you blokes call it over there) actually about to provide sex ed to six-year-olds? Because I don't see a problem with the former, and I don't think we should be teaching kindergarteners about sex, gay or otherwise.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

I'm not from the UK, so I'm not familiar with this. When you say "all about gay sex", do you mean simply about the existence of homosexuals? Or was your local kindergarten (or whatever you blokes call it over there) actually about to provide sex ed to six-year-olds?

I'm talking "this is a clitoris, it feels nice when you rub it" level. That's an exact quote (I didn't get an exact quote about the gayness but let's just say it sounded like they were prepping everybody for felching lessons the year after).

Yes. "Clitoris". Six-year-olds.

Needless to say the responses of the parents had the teachers scuttling off to the education board asking what the minimum they could get away with teaching was. Haven't heard any more about it since, but this was a couple months back while the Labour loonies were still in charge - new government might bring some common sense to the table.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Care to elaborate as to what you mean by that?

If you're gonna marry someone based upon whether or not they're good in bed or not doesn't seem like a foundation for a lasting marriage or a relationship where the partners are valued.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Your argument about shrimp only works if you completely ignore the fact that no Christian is bound to Old Testament law. Anyone who thinks they are is quite simply mistaken. The whole point of Christianity was to wash away all the rules and regulations of the OT.

Even though that's impossible because the Torah is eternal and not subject to revision. Even the gospels have Jesus attest to that in some form, like in Matthew 5:17 and proceeding through a number of verses. It is claimed Jesus said that the Torah is in effect as long as the heavens and earth exist "until all is fulfilled" (and I would argue that assuming an historical Jesus existed he almost certainly didn't say "until all is fulfilled). The gospel has him say that whoever teaches another to transgress the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and follows the commandments will be called great. And does he not go on to say in verse 20 that unless your righteousness exceeds the Pharisees and the teachers of the law you will not enter the kingdom of heaven? He says that without indicating at all that this only applies to before his supposed fulfillment.

So, we're left with the New Testament...

If you say so. I think that even if you go just by the gospel portrayals of what Jesus reportedly said (rather than basing yourself on G-d's own words in the TaNaKh), often times he's quite opposed to that view.

"have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit."

Do you know where those requirements from the Jerusalem Church originally came from? If not, you may want to do some research on that. Here's a hint: The Torah is eternal and not subject to revision, but no one ever said it applies to non-Jews. There is a different standard for the rest of the world, and it's attested to in the Christian Bible by the quotation above.

[Chongo]

A classic moment from 2007
YouTube - No gays in Iran, says Ahmadinejad

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University last night in response to a question about the recent execution of two gay men there.

"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon," he continued. "I do not know who has told you we have it."

Read more: 'We don't have any gays in Iran,' Iranian president tells Ivy League audience | Mail Online

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

If you're gonna marry someone based upon whether or not they're good in bed or not doesn't seem like a foundation for a lasting marriage or a relationship where the partners are valued.

I still don't see where this interpretation of what was written came from.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Even though that's impossible because the Torah is eternal and not subject to revision. Even the gospels have Jesus attest to that in some form, like in Matthew 5:17 and proceeding through a number of verses. It is claimed Jesus said that the Torah is in effect as long as the heavens and earth exist "until all is fulfilled" (and I would argue that assuming an historical Jesus existed he almost certainly didn't say "until all is fulfilled). The gospel has him say that whoever teaches another to transgress the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and follows the commandments will be called great. And does he not go on to say in verse 20 that unless your righteousness exceeds the Pharisees and the teachers of the law you will not enter the kingdom of heaven? He says that without indicating at all that this only applies to before his supposed fulfillment.

If I bothered to reply to this you'd put me on your ignore list. So I won't.

[Big Mac]

No, go ahead, Doof. I consider us good friends, and i don't mince words around here about your religion so why should you mince words? It's only fair that if I give it I should be okay with taking whatever you have to give. It's helpful to me to read all arguments.

[Doofy]

Nope, not gonna happen.

[Big Mac]

Okay, your call. You really piqued my curiosity though. There's basically nothing you could say that could cause me to block you. I know you don't recognize the eternality of the Torah. Unless you were to do something like call Jews the spawn of the devil or some such, I'm fine with just about anything else.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But when we talk about gay marriage, that's got a whole load of baggage attached to it. You'd think it was simply a case of the two gay folks marrying and it not bothering anyone else, but it doesn't work like that. The rest of society tends to be forced to recognise the marriage. Example.

What do you think would happen if the Christian owners of that Bed&Breakfast had respected the rest of the teachings from the Bible and turned away a recently married pair of divorcees? Society has been forced to recognize divorce, but the Christians don't seem too upset over *this* aspect of society that flies squarely in the face of their sacred teachings.