Hello folks
I hope no one minds but I wanted to post this hear and what comes up. I know political threads can get heated and I'm willing to take what ever gets thrown my way on this one. I just wanna see what the forum thinks.
Sorry if I upset anyone
The climate here in maine is getting a little heated with the upcoming referendums and well there is only one question on the ballot that's really got my panties in a twist (and thats hard since I wear boxers). Here in maine The issue is question one. the referendum to repeal maines newly created gay marrige bill.
A yes vote removes the right to marry and a No vote keeps it.
I can already hear the confused folks muttering.
It's interesting in away because a lot of the groups behind the prop 8 vote in cali are here now pouring money into my state
Hell Nom recently got into campaign fiance trouble for all the out of state money it's heaping on the pile. It seems the yes people are really pounding away too. with the anti gay adds numbering at least 3 to 1
but it's the tone that strikes me most looking at the ads. In the No campaign you get families talking about, how Mainers are an independent bunch who trust there neighbors and value everyone's rights. It's an upbeat feeling and positive tone
and in the yes ads you usually have 1 person looking right at the camera glowering, a teacher or a lawyers saying this is bad the sky will fall and dinosaur riding nazi's will take over the state unless you do something. I think I may have made part of that up but I'm sure ou get my drift.
I just wonder when push comes to shove which side will win
It seems the same old Prop 8 chestnuts have been rolled out. The Gay will be taught in school!!! Gasp!!!
I wonder how that works since I wasn't taught the straight in school myself (sure there was the health class sex ed stuff but really I learned more sneaking my dad's penthouse.
one thing that anoy's me more then anything else is when people say it's a choice. I certainly don't remember choosing to be gay, but lets put that aside so what if it's a chioce people make choices every day that are protected by there government. in fact most of the people screaming about same sex marrige are sheltering behind a government protected choice.
And by that I mean Religion. Religion is a choice, you aren't genetically encoded to be catholic, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist. But this choice has been enshrined in the US constitution, and is protected through out the nation. Hell this choice is used repeatedly as a bludgeon by people all over this nation to try and limit other peoples choices, simply because according to there world view they might choose wrong.
*shrugs*
So can some one tell me if my being gay was a choice I made how come it's some how less deserving of protection then your choice to be catholic?
sorry folks if this confuses anyone it's 2 am here, so I could be rambling and am probably not in my best form. Having read the next days letters to the editor (the newspapers post them on the web at 1 am) I felt the need to vent my spleen. but if anyone has an answer to this question I'd love to hear it
Wait.....
You looked at a Penthouse?
Quote from: Kenji on October 09, 2009, 02:11:47 AM
Wait.....
You looked at a Penthouse?
Damn I should have known some one would call me on that.
yes I looked at penhouse... Mainly for the articals... even then I was more cerberaly stimulated then visualy and the letters to the magizine were usualy dusies of interesting erotic fiction.
Granted I was around 12 or 13 I think but heyI wasn't sure what gay was
*chuckles*
Well, it did catch me off guard that you of all people looked at one. :T
Can't say I've ever been against gay marriage. I laugh whenever someone says "man+woman marriage was Jesus' idea" or something, yet in truth it was actually an idea from women, if I recall, because they were sick of their men having mistresses.
Not that it matters anyways. Crappy parents are crappy, good parents are good.
I've never been one to really delve deeply into political (or for double points in these circumstances, religious) things as they're a surefire way to give a headache. My only contribution to this thread is to point out that like many normal old people, I don't actually see why there's a massive drama in the first place. The whole "yeah, so gay people want to marry. That's cool. Why's it a huge problem?"
And someone needs to stab the double standard of 'some people' thinking lesbians are the best thing ever but gay men are the most frightening and terrifying things on the planet. The world needs to man up and accept its gays. MAN UP, I SAID.
I'm with Janus, if somewhat less enthusiastic about his second point.
It's marriage. Gay people can get hitched. If you're that worked up about it, call it a civil ceremony instead of marriage, and go the fuck away, we're trying to get on with interesting and useful stuff, here...
Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.
That makes it a religious institution and any delegation of religious authority to the state would only profane the religious institution.
If the state wants a purely civil marriage, that's fine, but I see no reason why religious organizations should be able to dictate the sexes of the people to be married. Especially since I can't guarantee that my religious view will remain the majority.
In a way being is a choice but not that part matters you choose to openly accept your homosexulaity. Alright that part is important too sure but the being gay part is with the person itis mental. I sometimes find my belife odd since I am quite a bit religous. My bit of ideal is whether or not a religious text condemns homosexulaity *in relaity I can only find the bible going against the sex* is something we should watch carefully cause saying that is condemns and condemning gays has only gotten prolbems through fighting and horrible grinding on each others gears. And as a bit of joke let's go out with the famous qoute "If want to be married and be misrable like the rest of us we should let 'em". Not sure who said it off the top of my head but don't care.
Eh sorry about flagrant misuse of the proper sentence stucture but it is 6:20 AM little sleep and my sentences were wordy and hard to classify in the large gaggle of pointless grammar laws.
Quote from: silentassassin on October 09, 2009, 07:20:25 AM
Eh sorry about flagrant misuse of the proper sentence stucture but it is 6:20 AM little sleep and my sentences were wordy and hard to classify in the large gaggle of pointless grammar laws.
If it's that late, go to sleep. You're babbling. Come back when you're rested and try being understandable.
QuoteIt seems the same old Prop 8 chestnuts have been rolled out. The Gay will be taught in school!!! Gasp!!!
I wonder how that works since I wasn't taught the straight in school myself (sure there was the health class sex ed stuff but really I learned more sneaking my dad's penthouse.
I've wondered the same thing... I was never taught about being strait in school either. Why would people suddenly start teaching about being gay? I've asked this to people who use that as their argument and they really don't have a reason; they just say that's what will happen which doesn't make sense to me. :januscat
Quote from: superluser on October 09, 2009, 06:02:20 AM
Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.
That makes it a religious institution and any delegation of religious authority to the state would only profane the religious institution.
If the state wants a purely civil marriage, that's fine, but I see no reason why religious organizations should be able to dictate the sexes of the people to be married. Especially since I can't guarantee that my religious view will remain the majority.
Every gay marriage law thats been passed states this is for civil marriage only and they have provisions that state no church or religous institution can be forced to preform a same sex marriage
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:17:43 AM
Every gay marriage law thats been passed states this is for civil marriage only and they have provisions that state no church or religous institution can be forced to preform a same sex marriage
But it's still the dreaded gays getting married, and we can't have THAT can we? Sanctity of marriage and all that silly garbage. </trying to think like the crazies>
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on October 09, 2009, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:17:43 AM
Every gay marriage law thats been passed states this is for civil marriage only and they have provisions that state no church or religous institution can be forced to preform a same sex marriage
But it's still the dreaded gays getting married, and we can't have THAT can we? Sanctity of marriage and all that silly garbage. </trying to think like the crazies>
*giggles*
Oh Janus, I would so gay marry you.
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:33:29 AM
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on October 09, 2009, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:17:43 AM
Every gay marriage law thats been passed states this is for civil marriage only and they have provisions that state no church or religous institution can be forced to preform a same sex marriage
But it's still the dreaded gays getting married, and we can't have THAT can we? Sanctity of marriage and all that silly garbage. </trying to think like the crazies>
*giggles*
Oh Janus, I would so gay marry you.
That's the secret code word! Quickly, we must hurry to the Gay Lair, where we can continue our work on the Gay Agenda! *cough*
It always annoys me when the homophobes and bible-belt religious freaks try to justify their disgusting behaviour. Isn't religion supposed to be about 'Love thy neighbour' and all that? Don't recall ever reading the suffix 'Except if he's gay and wants to marry a man'. What is WRONG with it? So they want to marry other guys. Big deal. Its not like they want to marry you. And unlike what most people think Gayness is not contagious. You can't catch it. So why does it matter if theres gays living in your town who are married? They're not hurting anyone. Maybe I just don't understand *shrug* But from my p.o.v gay people have just as much right as anyone else and I always treat them like equals if I can.
(and excuse the terminology I use, like I said undereducated in the matter. I mean well though)
Funny, I always thought religion was about God.
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on October 09, 2009, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:33:29 AM
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on October 09, 2009, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:17:43 AM
Every gay marriage law thats been passed states this is for civil marriage only and they have provisions that state no church or religous institution can be forced to preform a same sex marriage
But it's still the dreaded gays getting married, and we can't have THAT can we? Sanctity of marriage and all that silly garbage. </trying to think like the crazies>
*giggles*
Oh Janus, I would so gay marry you.
That's the secret code word! Quickly, we must hurry to the Gay Lair, where we can continue our work on the Gay Agenda! *cough*
You're reminding me of Three Panel Soul when Matt was making a character in City of Villains...What was it again? Ah yes: "The Homosexual Agenda"...later renamed "Stonewall Riots".
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:17:43 AMEvery gay marriage law thats been passed states this is for civil marriage only and they have provisions that state no church or religous institution can be forced to preform a same sex marriage
Right. I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Quote from: superluser on October 09, 2009, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 10:17:43 AMEvery gay marriage law thats been passed states this is for civil marriage only and they have provisions that state no church or religous institution can be forced to preform a same sex marriage
Right. I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Ohh sorry hon
*hugs*
Quote from: thegayhare on October 09, 2009, 11:53:41 PMOhh sorry hon
*hugs*
:tighthug
I remember some group complained that they had been forced to allow a gay marriage on church property. Turns out it wasn't church property, but it was land that had been given a tax break because the group allowed it to be used as a public space. (Of course, it can't be a public space if you don't allow people to use it for whatever public purpose they choose)
Yep I actualy remember that case
It was typical overreaction by an antigay group
*nods*
It's weird though you hear about how it infringes on religous freedome but what about those religous institutions that allow gay's to get married. sure there aren't many but they do exist. Wouldn't removing the gaymarriage ban infringe on there religous freedom to preform gay marraiges?
Quote from: thegayhare on October 10, 2009, 12:42:41 AMWouldn't removing the gaymarriage ban infringe on there religous freedom to preform gay marraiges?
If civil marriage and religious marriage are two completely independent concepts, then no. It wouldn't infringe on their ability to perform gay religious marriages. But it *would* infringe on the right to perform gay civil marriages.
Quote from: superluser on October 10, 2009, 12:48:08 AM
If civil marriage and religious marriage are two completely independent concepts, then no. It wouldn't infringe on their ability to perform gay religious marriages. But it *would* infringe on the right to perform gay civil marriages.
True but it seems that at least in heterosexual marriage there is no governmental separation between civil and religious marriages. Since the religious ceremony automatically gets you the civil marriage
It only seems that with same sex couple do we need to differentiate between them
Quote from: thegayhare on October 10, 2009, 12:42:41 AM
Wouldn't removing the gaymarriage ban infringe on there religous freedom to preform gay marraiges?
Whoops! I think you meant the opposite there--removing a gay marriage ban means gay marriage is no longer banned, i. e., it's allowed. Thus it wouldn't infringe on religious freedom to perform gay marriage.
Not trying to be a wise guy, I just read that and was like, "Wha?" :erk
But going with your intended meaning, you're right. Polarization destroys logic and reasoning and the ability to think. :P
Quote from: thegayhare on October 10, 2009, 12:55:57 AMTrue but it seems that at least in heterosexual marriage there is no governmental separation between civil and religious marriages. Since the religious ceremony automatically gets you the civil marriage
It only seems that with same sex couple do we need to differentiate between them
Right. The way religious marriage is currently linked to civil marriage is wrong and worrysome.
Oh man bugger your right bal
I should realy stop writing at 1 am
Quote from: superluser on October 10, 2009, 01:15:34 AM
Right. The way it's currently done is wrong and worrysome.
I agree. And to tell the truth I wouldn't object to something like a civil union if it was fair. and the only way to make a civil union fair would be to get government out of marriage all together
If you want a religous marraige thats fin you can have one but just cause you get married in a church doesn't matter one wit to the government. If you want govenment recognition you still have to go tothe town hall and fill out the form for a civil union.
It would never happen that way though
Quote from: Succubus_1982 on October 09, 2009, 11:12:41 AM
It always annoys me when the homophobes and bible-belt religious freaks try to justify their disgusting behaviour. Isn't religion supposed to be about 'Love thy neighbour' and all that? Don't recall ever reading the suffix 'Except if he's gay and wants to marry a man'.
Soddam and Gomorrah where both vaporized for that and a few other things. That reads pretty clearly for me. :B
As for marriage, I think it may have some part to do with the word marriage itself. For the last 4,000 to 6 billion years (depending who you ask) whichever word meant marriage, pretty much meant male and female. Now here in last 10-30? years of human history we're trying to tack on male and male or female and female onto that same word. This is a problem! Call it something new and original. We make up new ones all the time! Why not have your very own word? Gays (at least here) seem to try as hard as possible (harder then the emo's, goths and punks) to show off they are gay and different, so why try to absorb a word that's ingrained into human culture to mean something else?
And why do gays feel it's ok to wear their sexuality on their sleeves? I mean, emo's, goths and punks show their identity to being different by being different (making them all the same :) ) But, that's not their sexuality. It's inappropriate for a straight couple to start making out in public (the mall, park, etc) grabbing boobs/packages, slobbering on each other (i mean kissing), and other inappropriate PDA. But apparently being gay makes this behavior OK in public? Why is has it been forced that this is acceptable because anything less is anti-gay and oppressive?
hrmm.. that sounds more flamy then it should be. It's really not supposed to be, so please don't take it so. I feel those are serious questions from myself.
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 01:32:21 AM
And why do gays feel it's ok to wear their sexuality on their sleeves? I mean, emo's, goths and punks show their identity to being different by being different (making them all the same :) ) But, that's not their sexuality. It's inappropriate for a straight couple to start making out in public (the mall, park, etc) grabbing boobs/packages, slobbering on each other (i mean kissing), and other inappropriate PDA. But apparently being gay makes this behavior OK in public? Why is has it been forced that this is acceptable because anything less is anti-gay and oppressive?
Well, for this, I will ask one question (and, no, it's not rhetorical);
When was the last time you, personally, actually saw any couple, gay or straight, making out in public? Personally, the only place
I've ever seen that was high school, and that was alyways a boy and a girl kissing each other next to the lockers. Rare enough, and never even any gays.
EDIT: it also never actually bothered me personally. I just kept on walking ;)
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 01:32:21 AM
And why do gays feel it's ok to wear their sexuality on their sleeves? I mean, emo's, goths and punks show their identity to being different by being different (making them all the same :) ) But, that's not their sexuality. It's inappropriate for a straight couple to start making out in public (the mall, park, etc) grabbing boobs/packages, slobbering on each other (i mean kissing), and other inappropriate PDA. But apparently being gay makes this behavior OK in public?
It is my belief that the public displays by gay people - whether it can be considered right or wrong is pretty subjective - is basically to get it out of the proverbial closet. And while it's considered inappropriate, I have certainly seen PDAs by straight couples before (PDAs in general offend me, that's a whole other argument). What I'm trying to get at, in a roundabout and poorly phrased fashion, is that by 'being gay', it stops people from pretending it doesn't existence and isn't 'a problem' so to speak. "I don't see anyone being gay so clearly the gays do not exist" sort of thinking. Stops the haters from pushing it under the rug, so to speak.
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on October 10, 2009, 01:45:19 AM
It is my belief that the public displays by gay people - whether it can be considered right or wrong is pretty subjective - is basically to get it out of the proverbial closet. And while it's considered inappropriate, I have certainly seen PDAs by straight couples before (PDAs in general offend me, that's a whole other argument). What I'm trying to get at, in a roundabout and poorly phrased fashion, is that by 'being gay', it stops people from pretending it doesn't existence and isn't 'a problem' so to speak. "I don't see anyone being gay so clearly the gays do not exist" sort of thinking. Stops the haters from pushing it under the rug, so to speak.
:giggle
I think you've uncovered the deep mystery there. That's got to be it--that's the only reason something like that could bother people it doesn't affect....
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on October 10, 2009, 01:42:23 AM
When was the last time you, personally, actually saw any couple, gay or straight,
end of august. but not with major gusto as I described.
I also only have lived in an area now where it is openly on the streets for less then a year, so I'm still adjusting (from areas that don't, growing up).
The two cross-dressers, three transvestites, two hookers, and probably two dozen bums (I've seen in the last week) and ass-less chaps (and o_O the corseting) still cause me Alarms.
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 02:05:55 AM
The two cross-dressers, three transvestites, two hookers, and probably two dozen bums (I've seen in the last week) and ass-less chaps (and o_O the corseting) still cause me Alarms.
I'm confused. What exactly is the difference between a cross-dresser and a transvestite, because I was under the impression they were the same thing.
(Also, what does that have to do with same-sex marriage?)
Quote from: Baal Hadad on October 10, 2009, 02:03:45 AM
:giggle
I think you've uncovered the deep mystery there. That's got to be it--that's the only reason something like that could bother people it doesn't affect....
The giggle makes me feel like I've phrased something really... really badly. Have I? D:
Quote from: Baal Hadad on October 10, 2009, 02:09:29 AM
I'm confused. What exactly is the difference between a cross-dresser and a transvestite, because I was under the impression they were the same thing.
(Also, what does that have to do with same-sex marriage?)
I thought one just wore the clothes, the other had the boob-job as well ?
Sorry I got off topic.
Quote from: Baal Hadad on October 10, 2009, 02:09:29 AM
I'm confused. What exactly is the difference between a cross-dresser and a transvestite, because I was under the impression they were the same thing.
cross-dress
/ˈkrɔsˈdrɛs, ˈkrɒs-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kraws-dres, kros-] Show IPA
Use crossdresser in a Sentence
See web results for crossdresser
See images of crossdresser
–verb (used without object)
to dress in clothing typically worn by members of the opposite sex.
trans·ves·tite (trāns-věs'tīt', trānz-)
n. A person who dresses and acts in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex.
I think "Transvestite" is supposed to also have that they get sexual stimulation from the experience. At least, if I recall the summary right... I believe it was back on the original Psycho.
Quote from: Janus Whitefurr on October 10, 2009, 02:10:27 AM
Quote from: Baal Hadad on October 10, 2009, 02:03:45 AM
:giggle
I think you've uncovered the deep mystery there. That's got to be it--that's the only reason something like that could bother people it doesn't affect....
The giggle makes me feel like I've phrased something really... really badly. Have I? D:
Um, no.... :erk The giggle was at myself, for never before realizing the truth in what you said....
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 02:12:04 AM
Quote from: Baal Hadad on October 10, 2009, 02:09:29 AM
I'm confused. What exactly is the difference between a cross-dresser and a transvestite, because I was under the impression they were the same thing.
(Also, what does that have to do with same-sex marriage?)
I thought one just wore the clothes, the other had the boob-job as well ?
Sorry I got off topic.
I think you're thinking of transsexuals there--those are different.
Quote from: Kenji on October 10, 2009, 03:05:32 AM
Quote from: Baal Hadad on October 10, 2009, 02:09:29 AM
I'm confused. What exactly is the difference between a cross-dresser and a transvestite, because I was under the impression they were the same thing.
cross-dress
/ˈkrɔsˈdrɛs, ˈkrɒs-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kraws-dres, kros-] Show IPA
Use crossdresser in a Sentence
See web results for crossdresser
See images of crossdresser
–verb (used without object)
to dress in clothing typically worn by members of the opposite sex.
trans·ves·tite (trāns-věs'tīt', trānz-)
n. A person who dresses and acts in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex.
I think "Transvestite" is supposed to also have that they get sexual stimulation from the experience. At least, if I recall the summary right... I believe it was back on the original Psycho.
I'd say that's as good a distinction as any.
Again, though, sorry to go off-topic.
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 01:32:21 AMSoddam and Gomorrah where both vaporized for that and a few other things. That reads pretty clearly for me. :B
Sodom and Gomorrah (note the spelling) were destroyed because they refused to offer hospitality to visitors, instead trying to gang gay rape them.
So let this be a lesson to everyone who is gay: don't...uh... gang gay rape people, even if you really, really want to.
It's pretty clear that Sodom and Gomorrah would have been destroyed if they had done other things that were inhospitable, as well. It's also clear from other parts of the Bible that sex outside of marriage is forbidden and that same sex religious marriages aren't valid.
Furthermore, it's clearly established that since homosexual sex was practiced by the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Eretz Israel, it is forbidden, and considered every bit as evil as eating non-kosher food.
There are no explicit condemnations of homosexual sex qua homosexual sex in the Bible, though it's clear that no circumstance can exist where it can ever be licit.
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 01:32:21 AMAs for marriage, I think it may have some part to do with the word marriage itself. For the last 4,000 to 6 billion years (depending who you ask)
I'll go with about 200,000 years, since that's probably when H. sapiens came around.
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 01:32:21 AMwhichever word meant marriage, pretty much meant male and female.
Marriage has meant different things to different societies and religions, but there have been numerous examples of same-sex marriage in particular cultures throughout history.
Quote from: ooklah on October 10, 2009, 01:32:21 AMAnd why do gays feel it's ok to wear their sexuality on their sleeves?
Honestly, no offense intended, but that sounds like classic Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33540).
Zeus and Ganymede, anyone?
Quote from: superluser on October 10, 2009, 04:18:53 AM
There are no explicit condemnations of homosexual sex qua homosexual sex in the Bible, though it's clear that no circumstance can exist where it can ever be licit.
Excuse me?
http://www.badlydrawnkitties.com/new/105.html and http://www.badlydrawnkitties.com/new/106.html ?
As fro cross-dresser and transvestites and transsexuals, I would put them in the follow categories:
cross-dresser: someone who wears clothing of the opposing gender, because he or she happens to enjoy that.
transvestite: someone who wears clothing and acts like the opposing gender, because he or she happens to think they probably should have been that in the first place.
transsexual: someone who thinks they're the wrong gender, and is working on getting that fixed.
It's a sliding scale, and precisely where people are on it is a bit vague. But that's my description.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on October 10, 2009, 08:24:33 AM
Excuse me?
http://www.badlydrawnkitties.com/new/105.html and http://www.badlydrawnkitties.com/new/106.html ?
As fro cross-dresser and transvestites and transsexuals, I would put them in the follow categories:
cross-dresser: someone who wears clothing of the opposing gender, because he or she happens to enjoy that.
transvestite: someone who wears clothing and acts like the opposing gender, because he or she happens to think they probably should have been that in the first place.
transsexual: someone who thinks they're the wrong gender, and is working on getting that fixed.
It's a sliding scale, and precisely where people are on it is a bit vague. But that's my description.
I agree with that assessment except for transvestite, because that sounds more like a transsexual than a transvestite to me--I think the sexual stimulation from cross-dressing is what defines a transvestite.
One of the things that gets me when you talk about Gay people flaunting there sexualiy is that it means so many differnt things to differnt people
to some it's over the top if some one even admits there gay in public. I mean just recently there were 2 girls voted cutestest couple in there year book some people bitched and moaned that we don't need to know the details of there sex life.
I mean that was considered tmi they were acknolaging they were dating and some folks reacted like they were handing out play by play discreptions of there nightly going on.
I think if it's okay for a straight couple it's fine for a gay one
so that means holding hands, hugging and kissing... and I do realise that there is some kissing better suited for private then public but that goes for both sides
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on October 10, 2009, 08:24:33 AMExcuse me?
http://www.badlydrawnkitties.com/new/105.html and http://www.badlydrawnkitties.com/new/106.html ?
The verse is Leviticus 20:13, which appears between verses 2-5 (dealing with Molech worship) and 22-24:
QuoteYou shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and observe them, so that the land to which I bring you to settle in may not vomit you out. You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I have said to you: You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God; I have separated you from the peoples.
Further, the condemnation here is on the same level as the condemnation of eating certain foods.
(I hadn't planned to so Hebrew studies today, but for those curious, the same level of reprobation is used in Deuteronomy 14:3, apparently applying to all non-kosher food)
This is a strong indication that homosexual sex is being condemned because it's what the people in the land did before the Israelites took over and not necessarily because it's intrinsically bad. As I said, however, there is no circumstance where homosexual sex could ever be licit.
Not that I wish to run this into the ground, superluser, but you said:
Quote
There are no explicit condemnations of homosexual sex qua homosexual sex in the Bible
"Strong indications" or not, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." sounds pretty explicit to me.
Did I miss something?
Note that I am not condoning this particular item; anyone who wishes to use this should first tell me how many tassels they have on their clothing, as also specified in Leviticus; and that they haven't ever eaten shellfish. Or pork. Or... heck, there's just about anything in Leviticus you care to look for. And the New Testament, for all it's flaws, pointed out that "love one another" was about all you needed to do; attempting to override that with the older version is just plain stupid. But I digress...
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on October 10, 2009, 07:33:00 PMNot that I wish to run this into the ground, superluser, but you said:QuoteThere are no explicit condemnations of homosexual sex qua homosexual sex in the Bible
"Strong indications" or not, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." sounds pretty explicit to me.
That's an explicit condemnation of homosexual sex in a litany of condemnations of things condemned because God doesn't want the Israelites to fall into their ways and abandon Him. It's being condemned because ``You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you.''