Abstinence Criticized
 

Not abstinence education... abstinence itself.

hxxp://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...te/7942316.htm

Could someone please explain how practicing abstinence and telling others about its benefits is bigoted?

I believe this is the opposing stance:

This campaign is claiming the higher moral ground.

In particular, gays and lesbians cannot be married legally in some states. Therefore in this campaign's eyes they are impure and morally wrong.

I think that HFP gets it right. Some people feel that it is wrong to advocate abstinance outside of the commitment of marriage, but then to deny the right to that commitment to certain segments of the population.

If, however, you advocate abstinence outside of marriage for everyone and hold homosexuals to the same standard (recognize their unions as binding commitments in which sexual intercourse can morally occur), then there is no problem with your position.

I don't know if this is what the people obejcting believe, but if it is, it makes sense to me.

Note too that they don't say that purity and abstitence are bigoted per se, but that this campaign is part of a bigoted agenda overall.

For gays, it seems like this:

They are being told there early lives that being normal is being straight. Other feelings are "sinful" or "abnormal."

When they discover they have "sinful" or "abnormal" feelings, they try to repress them, but most can't do that.

When they try to explore their "abnormal" feelings, they are told to be "pure" and wait.

Wait for what? They can't get married. They can't ever have sexual intimacy without being a deviant and sinful. Purity and abstinence become more ways to ensure gays don't have a place in our society. It just pushes them further underground.

Well in this case, unless she has a good deal amount of girls hitting on her, I doubt this is HER reason to do so. But coming from a family that believes this, they both go hand in hand and my parents are very adament about what I was "allowed" to watch growing up. IE no PG-13 movies til I was 13, R when I was 17, my mother would kick my ass if she knew some of the stuff I have done, and the like.

But to say the purity movement has a "hidden agenda" is really ridiculus because it's more the group of HS'ers and the like, then 35 year old's who are a alittle homophobe.

And then Melissa went to college and let the good times roll...

Whether you are gay or straight, "wait" should at least mean "wait until you get out of high school." The marriage issue doesn't even enter the picture - unless, of course, you've knocked up your high school sweetheart and get married. But that just takes us back to the original issue.

It's only a day of purity so don't worry about it. There are 364 other days left in the year...

The problem is for gays, what are you waiting for? Marriage is the logical answer for the straight purity movement. For gays? They don't have to worry about pregnancy and they don't know what the rest of their life has to offer in terms of being gay, so why not experiment? Waiting only makes sense if there is something better to wait for - and society has offered gays very little to wait for.

Casual sex is a sin. Only meaningful, love sex is pure. Or a really great night of shagging. Sometimes that can be divine. Even if it's casual.

Well, let's see...how about waiting for the maturity to deal with the complications that come with having sex? Gays might not have pregnancy to worry about, but what about sexually transmitted diseases? What about the issues dealing with intimacy and relationships that become extremely complex once you involve sex? Those are issues common to both straights and gays. And I, for one, don't think it hurts anyone to suggest that maybe kids should wait until they are at least out of high school before they make that kind of choice.

I fully understand that the "wait until you're married" mantra means very little to a gay person. But I think there's enough common sense involved in telling high school kids to wait, that it should, and does, apply equally to gays and straights.

Note that your argument is very different than suggesting "purity." Gays are already "unpure" and can't redeem themselves according to the "purity" movement. As for maturity and STD's, they are both concerns, but that is a reason for teaching about sex rather than pretending that "purity" is the answer.

The "purity" movement is really a straights-only movement and presumes heterosexual normalcy - it pushes gays to the side and pretends they don't exist. The motives may be "pure," but the execution is poor, poor form.

John, I'd imagine the "religious right" groups probably piss you off as much as the ACLU so we won't get into that really. Purity in the case of THESE high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Ksyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage or even after HS.

Like I said before, bringing homosexuality in was the article and your own doing's, not the 17 year old girl who wants to wait for marriage.

Dola,

If you are gonna stereotype what the conver's believe, gay's are sinful. Unpure is a synonym for it, but a difference instance.

Rewriting Bug's argument:

Purity in the case of THESE [Hetero] high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Kysyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage [which gays can't do] or even after HS.

These campaigns are made with only straight students in mind and they pretend gays are invisible. Worse, they use words like "purity" which necessarily exclude gays.

If you want to form an abstitence first campaign that doesn't use concepts like "purity" and actually addresses gays too, then go ahead. This campaign doesn't do that.

Coceptually sex before marriage is applicable to whatever preference you have. Take out the word marriage and replace it with life partner or something. The spirit is to treat sex more seriously --- look at the analogy "going to McDonalds.". Maybe marriage is a poor choice of words but I think the campaign speaks to lessening casual sex.

Take it as you will but gays can also abstaine from sex until they find the person they want to spend their life with regardless of semantics...

Where did the girl mention homosexuality once? Pure is a biblical term and I think you and I can both agree that this girl is most likely a Christian and if the term has been warped over the year, I'm sorry, but doesnt make this article pro or con about homosexuality until the author tied it in.

I guess the big issue is that homosexuality is tied into sex while heterosexuality isn't? That seems to be the case here.


Edit-forgot to finish the sentence

Meh. Not every message has to target every demographic. In fact, for decent signal-to-noise ratio communication, messages shouldn't target every demographic. Pick your audience, broadcast your message and hope to hit your group with the big points. When you select another audience, you change your message to suit them.

This isn't an argument about bigotry, but about information theory -- though it can academically be argued that any message which targets a demographic is exclusionary (and, I suppose, bigoted) by definition. You'll note that most feminine hygiene product commercials don't address issues of male hygiene. By suggesting that the feminine product can make only a woman feel "clean and fresh", it consequently argues that men cannot use the same product in the same way and feel equally clean and fresh. I have nothing to look forward to in choosing to use said product. On the other hand, if I want to feel clean and fresh, I can always watch a commercial for a product that is marketed to men.

I see this issue pretty much the same way.

The problems are 1) Use of language like "purity" which screws gays , 2) The arguments for abstinence are very different for gays and straights (pregnancy being the core argument for straights + "wait for marriage"), and 3) The moral element of the campaign (related to "purity issue") - this isn't a sex education campaign, it is a moral one.

I'm not arguing that a gay friendly abstinence campaign can't exist. I'm just arguing that the one you and Ksyrup describe isn't the same as this one.

7 people reading this thread....

dola...

"Purity" is not a solely Biblical term. Let's not get into this argument again, please. :)

Dola, 13

No, but it's more then likely where the idea came from in this article

That's my point. She doesn't mention homosexuality and presumes heterosexual normalcy while using words and arguments that exclude gays. This has nothing to do with her being (or not being) Christian. It has to do with the way the campaign is structured and the assumptions and arguments it makes.

JG,

Isn't this really an example of false internalization rather than an actual fact? If we start worrying about what beliefs about themselves people may have internalized, there's no reason to attempt to communicate at all.

Edit: My problem with campaigns like this is that when we start harping on inclusiveness, we end up diluting the message to such an extent that it the nebulous platitudes apply to no one in any real way.

This is a fair argument, but I have a couple problems with it. First, sex discussions and campaigns at the high school level almost NEVER include gays. This is part of a pattern. Second, there is a difference in these campaigns between targetting and using rhetoric that necessarily excludes. Targetting allows for inclusion of unintended groups - exclusion doesn't.

If I say let's go find some hot girls, am I excluding guys because I didn't mention them when there probably are some good looking men around too?

I think the pattern is what is important here. No one is arguing the extreme, but this is not the first or last campaign which pretends gays don't exist and then uses language to reinforce that fact. And I think this has a lot more to do with internalization of "sin" - gays, especially at this age receive a constant barrage of messages to be straight. There is no diversity of messages for them and the internalization is inevitable.

We MUST be in the 1950's then because when I was in HS, they talked about it. You always hear about schools having to update their ciriculum (sp) in order to include homosexuality as part of it and conservative groups fighting it to the bitter end.

Ah, this may be the difference. Being a WASP male heterosexual, I'm not used to thinking in terms of people trying to specifically exclude me from their message/campaign. You may very well be right and I'm just not looking at this deeply enough.

Come on - look at my argument - that is not what I'm saying. Invisibility is one of the three issues that bothers me. Alone it is not as significant, with the other two, it is part of a bad pattern.

I should have been an attorney... I guessed the opposition's argument. :D

If this was an abstinence campaign, it would say "don't have sex period" not "don't have sex until you are married".

There are no conditions to abstaining from something. You either do it or you don't. But somehow I don't think nuns and sisters of a faith are this campaign's target.

Go back to the 1930's and start a "purity by voting" campaign and see the results.

John, you are only giving one side. You keep mention the exclusion of homosexuals in a lot of life's aspect and how they hear about being straight, not gay from a lot of the religious groups, of which I agree, they are pretty relentless. But for every article chastising homosexuals, you could find one chastising conservatives. It's a two way street. One tells you that your whole belief structure is wrong, the other says that our belief structure is right. So which is it?

The world is too PC IMO. Everyone thinks that everyone else has a hidden agenda. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I read in a lot of religious right magazines. Whether or not I believe what they believe or their conspiracy theories and what not, it's pretty out there.

That's why the core of the issue isn't tied to picking apart the verbage. I think it's a reaction to what's in the first sentence that refers to "messages of sexual promiscuity" and the main issue is to curtail irresponsible sex. You can argue semantics until your blue in the face but I think anyone can identify with treating sex in a morally responsible way...which by the way can mean different things to different people.

To compare the persecution of gays to that of being conservative shows me that there is no way we can come to terms on this argument.

The secular humanists just don't know when to quit. Bad enough they continually insult God's Word and those who actually believe in it by ridiculing and scorning both whenever they get a chance. But now they would even attempt to deny the difference between their own world view and those of Christians by not even allowing those who would like a 'choice' in what is appropriate and not.

Sorry, this one push's my buttons. The arrogance of the secular humanists always seems to come down to how much 'smarter' they are then those 'backwards fundamentalists' and how they push their beliefs in a self-righteous manner twice as bad as those they always claim are religiously self-righteous.

Perfect example, nothing on earth in more self-righteous and pious than a secular humanist who feels that his/her 'rights' have been violated by them having been subject to someone else's religious belief. (Like the sanctimonious folks all over the news shows talking about how that 'fanatical pilot' should be fired!) It was actually a gay columnist for some publication aboard the plane that stated what the Pilot said was not at all 'in your face' and that the passenger's reaction was way overblown.

By the way, Supreme Court has ruled some years ago that Secular Humanism IS a religion (of man) and holds all the same doctrine-types and mandates as any other religion. So all the phonies who like to hide behind some false claim of 'neutrality' and 'superiority of rationality, not religion", ect..., yes you can be every bit as self-righteous, pious, ect...as the backwards religious folks. Only the religious folks actually seem to know better.

Go away, Bubba.

And I'm neither "secular" or a "humanist."

And it is always interesting to me that those who want their life choice (religion) actively protected by the law think that arguing being gay is a "choice" somehow denies their claim to even basic protections.

Clearly.
Why does everyone feel the need to read into everything and look for non existant hidden meanings. All this girl is doing is try to motivate kids to not have sex at a young age. This cuts down on teenage pregnacy, disease and boosts self esteem. Yet because somebody out there doesnt like the word she uses to describe it theres a huge deal made about it. Its like a new version of the Kevin Bacon game. In every news story there a hidden anti gay agenda that can be linked to it in 6 moves or less. Doent be stupid, applaud her for what she is doing because everyone knows what she is trying to accomplish and if you sympathize with they gay movement turn your attention to people and organizations that are openly anti gay.

right.... so I am guessing these pamphlets being passed out talk about homosexuals and their different situation also... I bet not.

What's the difference between saying "don't have sex before marriage" and "don't have sex until you have matured mentally as an adult"

Marriage doesn't automatically make you mature all of a sudden. That's conservative talk. errr no I'm messing with verbage...

Because no one has ever been killed for being a Christian.... :(

This doesn't even deserve a response, but you said "conservative" not "christian."

Homosexuality is hostile to the Christian World point of view. Doesn't mean that Christians want gays 'eliminated', all it means is that if you are not Christian be just as respectful of their rights and sensativities as you expect them to be of yours.

And anybody who thinks that no one has ever been killed for being a Christian, lol, you are historically lost without hope.

Example of the former. You don't want teacher's or school administrators telling you about Jesus Christ, don't expect them to shove anti-Christian messages about homosexuality and different forms of 'safe-sex' in your face either. Think this is possible?

Not too many liberal christians out there are there?

Ronnie, He also talked quite abit about hell, unless your the kind that just likes to pick and choose.

Original :)

Do you love your children even when they do something you don't like?

Alright, fellas. Good thread. Let's tally the votes.

Mark me down for John Galt. He seemed much more articulate than his opposition, and I feel he will ultimately come out the winner in this. (When all the votes are counted, of course.)
The one who has me stumped is MrBug708. What the shit? I can't figure out what the hell this guy is getting at. Part of me wants to say his whole strategy is to confuse his enemy and reduce the argument to merely typing random insane nonsense, which would be something of a feat, to be sure.
Anyway, get those votes in.

:rolleyes:

Nice generalization there

Huh? Look at the numbers - you will be suprised. And if you don't know the difference between "conservative" and "christian" when making your argument then maybe you shouldn't assume you understand what "purity" means either.

Oh, I'm not sauing they aren';t out there. I consider myself a moderate, I just don't like to see what I grew up knowing to be true be called hateful and bigoted.

I'm aware there is a difference between conservative and christian, but we are talking about the article correct?

Everyone uses something as hate. The crusades, the abortion doctor killers, the missionaries killed in other parts all use something to justify their means. Doesn't mean they were right to use it and also doesn't mean the ideal they used supported their actions.

As a child of God and believer in Jesus Christ, I did not know that the prohibition in the freedom of thought and attempting to understand the other side of a moral issue whether I agree with it or not was part of the deal.

I don't think it is.

This is why the discussion needs to be kept in broad terms, more or less along the lines of points-of-view. To start taking extreme examples just shows your lack of insight in general. An easy response to your comment is the "In-Your-Face" Gay Parade in San Fransisco, not too mention a little organization called 'Queer Nation" that basically ambushes people. How many pedophile stories do you want regarding homosexual behavior? (Don't get on your Catholic Priest horse either, I'm not Catholic and your just proving my point...studies show many gay men become priests to deal with their problems)

Oy Vey BW

Dola

With that, I'm off to work

I'm with Dobbs.

Offensive Myth #1: Gays are pedophiles.

Facts: The large majority of pedophiles are straight. Conservative groups who support the myth that gays are pedophlies by saying a man who molests a boy is "gay" even if he is "straight" with adults. This distortion of statistics supports one of the most offensive myths against gays. Not surprisingly, Bubba uses it.


And you know what I hate - all those "in your face" straight events like homecoming, prom, and marriage. I mean, why don't those people do those things in private?

How did an article about a girl organizing a group about waiting to have sex turn into a "prom oppresses gay people" thread?

We can agree on that! Decentralize the public school monopoly, allow vouchers to let parents send kids to schools that promote their own values and ethics, and your school can do away with whatever it wants. (Don't like the fact that you'd lose your largest vehicle of socialist indoctrination to the young that way, do you?) :D

Just to point out - I was not arguing that - I was being sarcastic because Bubba complained gay parades were "in your face."

Yeah, schools are "socialist." :rolleyes:

And I'm sure the solution is private schools with different values. Imagine that in 1950 - all the blacks go to school a, all the whites go to schools b,c, and d, hispanics and asians can share school e, etc. Yeah, that's a great idea.

By the way, you claim pedophiles being homosexual is a myth, then state something else as fact: you need to site your source, otherwise your just parroting talking points for your point of view from others that support you even though they may not be correct.

I'd say pedophiles come in all shapes and sizes.

That's pretty much the way it is today under the public school system. And fact is, the most highly sought-after private Christian high school in our area (admission is very tough), is also one of the most highly intergrated and diversified schools in addition.

Since you will probably dismiss any gay group I cite, I will cite a Christian one (although you probably won't like the Unitarians either):

hxxp://www.uugroton.org/myths.htm

The evidence is easy to find if you look beyond the homophobe cites.

I'm sorry, was there a cite? Or are you just "parroting talking points for your point of view?"

Its a fact that can easily be checked out. Its not some myth/fact reference that can be anything the poster claims it to be.

Now your ignorance is running rampant. Unitarians are not Christians, their whole existance as a 'church' is to take on the trappings and organization of a Christian denomination while remaining atheist. You either knew that and tried to pull a fast one, or your really behind the curve on the facts. :p

It is a "fact that can easily be checked out" that modern American school systems are tools of socialist indoctrination?

I knew you wouldn't like it, but my understanding is that Unitarians are Judeo-Christian faith that uses the Bible as the source of teachings. Maybe I am wrong on that - I don't know.

Either way, just look at crime stats or 1000 other cites to find the truth on this issue.

Unitarians are not atheists. Atheists are people who do not believe in the existance of a deity. Unitarians, many of them at least, do believe in the existance of a deity, or higher power, or spiritual dimension or whatever. Its just not important to them to have a doctrinaire view of what it is. You can ask ten Unitarians to define what the divine is to them, and you will get ten answers, but most of them will say that they think, or believe, that there is something there.

Put another way, Christians pray to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jews pray to Ha'shem. (Standard Jewish way of refering to God without actually stating his Hebrew name.)
Islamics pray to Allah
Shintoists pray to a variety of deities.
Members of the American Indian Church pray to the Great Spirit.
Unitarians pray to whatever is out there listening.

I predict that Melissa Millis will become known around the dorms as a crazed sex maniac after 6 months at college. As long as she doesn't go to Oral Roberts or become a lesbian.

I liken it to people who never had a drink in high school and are always the ones who turn into the uncontrollable drunks in college. The craziest person I met didn't lose her virginity until her sophomore year at college.

That was my initial hypothesis that got buried in legitimate discussion...

Sorry, I didn't read the posts before I posted. I had that immediate reaction and wanted to post without polluting the beauty of the image. :)

No actually I enjoyed revisiting it...I pretend she's hot and I'm back in college and...uh...uh...


gotta go.

Wake me up when it is National ButtFucking Lesbians Day...

Bubba, to begin with, there is nothing "anti-christian" about homosexuality, thousands if not tens of thousands of christians are gay. It happens, accept it. Secondly, there is nothing Anti-christian in teaching kids how to not get pregnant if they DO for whatever reason have sex. so frankly, your example is a load of horse shit, please shovel it back into your load where it came from.

People being killed because of their religion is historic, its happened for all time. From my own research and readings on the subject I can promise you that far more have died at the hands of christians than the other way around at this point. The very fact that you bring up this subject tells me just how closed your mind is to other points of view.

And as for the respecting of rights and sensitivities, when christian "bible thumpers" stop mid sermon and say "you know, I'm sorry, you obviously don't want to hear this, I'll leave you alone now" and do so, when they are trying their best to convert me. I'll give them the same respect and not tell them how completely assinine they're being. Religion is a PERSONAL spiritual journey, no single person in the world has the right to tell another person how they should believe. Enjoy your personal beliefs, but don't even think of projecting yours on to my way of life. Just because your religion says its the only true way, doesn't mean its right. it just means its ignorant.


*Edit* sorry i got a bit off track there:

The idea that they want to promote abstinence is fine, its not a bad thing for high school kids, they should grow up more before getting into sex. However, I can see the homosexuals point of view that the wording and perception of this campaign is biased against them. They can't marry, and using the word "until marriage" is something that will hit them straight in the face. Call it abstinance day, and suddenly they'll be being open and accepting to ALL people.

And just to add to this: Being abstinant does not define being pure. Their whole thought process is wrong there.

Outstanding post Aardvark.

At the risk of blowing this thread wide open, I must disagree. The bible states homosexuality is an abomination. YOu cant be Christian and be gay. I fully accept the fact that about half a dozen people on here are going to go berzerk on me for saying that, but the bible doesnt leave much room for discussion on the subject.

You're missing the point. Only you need to cite things, anything he says has to be factually correct.

As I've said in many threads before, it is hardly a settled fact that the Bible condemns gays. There are several books on the subject and translations/interpretations make it quite possible for people to be gay and christian.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...52062?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...52062?v=glance

Also, there are plenty of websites on these issues (many that are balanced and go both ways):

hxxp://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm

hxxp://www.whosoever.org/v2i5/defense.html

hxxp://hem.passagen.se/nicb/bible.htm

hxxp://www.bridges-across.org/ba/herzog-brauch.htm

hxxp://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gaybib.html

hxxp://www.ucc.org/theology/acton1.htm

This is far from an open and shut issue (even though the mainstream conception is like yours). I hope that people learn that there are many paths to christian faith and to wholly exclude gays is just not right.

http://www.bible.org/docs/splife/chrhome/homo.htm

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "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). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.
The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10).

In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't.

My two favorite quotes so far from that cite:

"The word "gay" means merry, exuberant, bright, lively. More recently it has been adopted by homosexuals. In its original use it did not have this double meaning. The clever adaptation of the word "gay" by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts."

"However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants."



And one key point in all of this: the key quotes that are used to condemn gays are in Leviticus, yet Chrisitians seem to have no trouble ignoring all the other different parts of Leviticus (especially the dietary ones). Look at the bibliography cite I listed. 100s of articles and books both ways have been written on this subject. It is far from settled and certainly not by the bigot who authored the cite you listed.

I'm more than willing to believe the Bible condemns homosexuality, but I think it is hardly clear and I don't pretend to know the answer.

More "fun" quotes from Noble's cite:

"Yes, I believe there are. I have not done much research in this area, however, studies made by others showed varied deviations from the average or normal parent-child relationship. For example, clinical cases show that some homosexuals have not had a normal or natural relationship with the parent of the same sex. In some instances there has been a wide gap between father and son. There are those boys who have been neglected by their unaffectionate fathers. The boy who has not had a good and wholesome relationship with his father could have an unfulfilled need for a father relationship with a man. Now that need will not start out as a sexual one, but there are cases on record in which the sexual relationship has developed. I know one case of a homosexual adult who seduced a 13 year old boy whose father had forsaken him. Before the boy's contact with the older man he had no knowledge whatever of homosexuality. The older man seduced the boy."

"Studies" - sounds impressive.

"Q. Does the Bible tell us how the church should deal with sexual sins?
In Old Testament times in Israel God dealt severely with homosexuals. He warned His people through Moses, "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). Every Jew knew that homosexuality was an abomination, a disgusting practice to be loathed, hated. This was God's attitude toward that evil practice. He hated it to the extent that He considered it worthy of punishment by death."

Gays should be killed. That's nice.

"Q. Have you personally counseled with homosexuals?
Yes, in two pastorates over a period of twenty-five years. In each instance the homosexual was a man in his thirties who had seduced teen-aged boys. The seduction of younger persons is a pattern most homosexuals follow. They seem to prefer gratifying their lust with youth. This is a pattern typical of men who marry several wives. Men who do not respect their marriage vows pursue women younger than themselves. "

This guy is just on crack now.

I often wish to bring my perspective to these types of threads, but then I remember the wisdom of Matthew 7:6 and go back to my corner.

I see, since the author of the site I listed doesnt agree with you he/she is a bigot. Also, I hardly see how its the author who is a bigot, unless you mean the author of Leviticus.

I chose the site I did for the scripture verses, not their spin. It came up first on google. Why not read the bible verses and take them for what they are instead of looking to discredit the author

Read the quotes I listed above. When asked how the church should deal with gays, he goes into a rant about how the bible says they should be killed. He later gives the platitudes of loving the sinner, but when asked a direct question on how to deal with gays, he says, "kill, kill, kill."

He also propogates every offensive myth about gays - seduction, molestation, promiscuous, etc. He bases them on "evidence" that is never producted. That is bigotry.

I'm not denying there are good arguments for why the bible condemns homosexuality (if you actually read my links, you'll see plenty of arguments both ways), but the cite you picked is from a bigot, plain and simple.

If you read my links, they discuss those versus and why they don't necessarily condemn gays and/or why they aren't important in the bible. I'm willing to say that the bible is a book of interpretation and that many people read it without finding homosexuality wrong (while others do). Acting like it is a settled issue without reading the other side just doesn't make sense to me.

:eek:

Oh yeah - here is another site that is pretty comprehensive in favor of the gay christian position:

hxxp://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html

:D

As I have said before, quoting the Bible on subjects such as homosexuality is very iffy. There is very solid evidence and many religous scholars agree that portions of the Bible were rewritten after originally put to paper. Who is to say that a person translating the Bible who was very homophobic didn't just rewrite portions of it.

The simplest response to this is this:

Christians believe in the diefication of christ through the crucifiction, that in its most basic form defines a christian.

There are untold numbers of versions of the bible, every sect of christianity uses its own preference for its services. The BIBLE does not make you christian. The bible used by your denomination simply gives you the reference works to build sermons on.

Christ and belief in him makes you christian, and you had better learn to accept that gays and lesbians have every right to believe in it just like you or any other christian does.

Sorry Matt, this didn't come across the way I was thinking it. Its supposed to read more along the line that the church says this is the only true way, and you actually believe it is the only true way, then perhaps your ignorant of the reality that is the fact that there is a true way for every single person and no-one can tell you what that is but you.

this sounds all nice n stuff. I apologize if I offended anyone with the previous.

Sorry. Fact is, the Bible states early and often that the physical world we see around us is less important and real than the spiritual one behind it. "God is spirit, and desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth."

The Bible details who God is, and just as importantly what God's relationship is to be with us (of our own choice), and how we are to be obediant to God's plan. The Bible is under the guidance and witness of God's presence on earth today, His Holy Spirit. You can find certain factual errors in certain verses (devil's myth about the horns comes from the horn representing political power on earth.) But the overall thread of the Bible will always remain consistant and without error. (New International Version is actually a more accurate translation than the King James, from what I understand.)

Homosexuality is always pointed out in the Bible as a consequence of individuals or even nations turning their backs on God and the consequence of their sin. History shows us that when homosexuality becomes an accepted norm in society then that society is nearer its end than its beginning. "God is not mocked."

The Bible also shows those who care to learn from it that homosexuality is actually spiritual in nature, and it results from the presence and even pocession of a person by unclean spirits. These spirits, like all other anti-Judeo-Christian forces in the world since ancient times seeks to raise the physical over the spiritual. But as God clearly tells us "There is a way seems right unto a man, but the ways therein are the ways of death." God refers to not only physical death but spiritual death as well.

YES! We have a winner!

This is real convincing. I wonder why when people quote I Corinthians 6:9-10 to condemn homosexuality, they don't quote the rest of the verse. According to the King James Bible, that passage reads:

"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolators, no adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inhereit the kingdom of god"

Okay, so let's go with your argument -- homosexuals are ineligible. But, let's also not forget that anyone who has committed fornication (consensual sex between a man and woman who are not married) or is covetous (one who desires the material posessions of another), just to name two easy groups, is also ineligible. My guess is that makes 90% or more of Americans ineligible, probably including everybody who as posted in this thread (have you ever fornicated or coveted? See you in hell).

Leviticus is another one. People reach way back to Leviticus to pull out verses to condemn homosexuals but never mention all the other wacky things found in Leviticus. Some of these things were pointed out in a clever "letter" ot Dr. Laura Schlessinger back when she used Leviticus to condemn homosexuals a few years ago:

"Dear Dr Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how best to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:&. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15: 19 - 24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev 25: 44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

f) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev19:27. How should they die?

h) I know from Lev. 11:6 - 8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves.

i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of threads (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24: 10 - 16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? Lev 20:14.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan..... "

Yabanci,

That is a beautiful, brilliant post.