The American heartland

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No Ed, but you still can't read.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

 

I have yet to see you post any passages in the Bible that are contradictory regarding homosexuality yet you claim the Bible isn't clear on this matter. Where's the facts?(This message has been edited by evmori)

[GernBlansten]

Ed, the Bible isn't contradictory regarding eating shellfish, yet those who follow it sure are.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, I didn't say they were contradictory, I said they aren't clear. The very fact that different denominations have different opinions on what the bible says about homosexuality is why I'm saying it isn't clear. I'm not referring to any specific passages, I'm pointing to all the different sects that don't agree.

[packsaddle]

"Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you."

See, this is not clear to me. I am quite familiar with camel anatomy and it sure looks to me like camels 'parteth the hoof' so they should be on the menu.

On the other hand, there is nothing to contradict this passage. It simply is something I don't understand so it isn't clear.

 

So I searched the KJV Bible for every occurence of the word "homosexual". Sorry, doesn't occur anywhere. Not once.

So I searched for 'gay'. One occurence: "James 2:3 - And ye have respect to him that weareth the GAY clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool"

So next time I see someone in drag, I'm going to offer my chair? I can't find a single contradiction to this Biblical mandate to respect people who are wearing gay clothing (whatever that is). But if the link between this and homosexuality is clear to someone, your gaydar is better than mine.

 

Anotehr draeded tpyo!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I see your sect does not include the book of Bedrock, whereupon they had a "gay old time," and smoketh Winstons:

 

[packsaddle]

I guess not but if you ever get down this way to the Elberton, GA area I think you can find something about this written in the gibberish that's on the Georgia Guidestones. I prefer to think of them as the Georgia Blarney Stones or perhaps Georgia Malarky Stones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

 

But the inscriptions aren't self-contradictory so they must be clear.

[Stosh]

Leviticus 20:13 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. KJV

 

Doesn't sound contradictory to me. The interpretation people put on it may be contradictory, but KJV makes it pretty clear. People can anything about what they think the Bible says, but it's always just an opinion when all is said and done.

 

The reason one doesn't find gay and homosexual is KJV is because those words weren't being used at that time to identify the situation. Thus one is not going to find fagot, queer and homo in today's vocabulary as it was when I was a kid.

 

Stosh

 

[packsaddle]

OK, who is mankind? Do I have to lie with ALL of mankind to be an abomination? Why didn't it say 'man'..you know...they way it said 'woman'? Or is it talking about lies as in a sort of collective self-deception? When I was dating I lied with the guys pretty consistently if we were talking to girls. Pretty much the same as the girls lied to us. It was all a lot of fun...Different lies maybe. So what does that mean, "their blood will be upon them"? And who is going to kill them? How? Do we have to stone them or are we allowed to use concepts that didn't occur back then like AK47s? Can anyone do it? Do we need a permit..or maybe an Imam or priest to consecrate the deed? Do we have to be Jewish? Christian? Are Buddhists prohibited from this kind of fun?

 

And if this is so clear why aren't people who THINK this is clear out there killing the violators? It's right there in the scripture, right? Doesn't failure to kill them amount to a violation in and of itself? Maybe that's not clear.

 

And if this verse is so important why not all the others in those early books? What about that adultery thing, "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife [it's almost as if there's a difference?], the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." I mean, we're going to have quite a slaughter if these things are so clear. Or else what is the punishment for not slaughtering them? That's not clear either.

 

For that matter, mere words are enough to bring death, "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." There's that blood upon him thing again. I think that a sizeable fraction of all teenagers need to be put to death RIGHT NOW! Wow, I feel the need to take off my shoe and throw it at someone.

 

But back to that original thing, it doesn't mention if a "woman also lie with womankind", does it? I guess that's OK? Sorry, this just isn't clear why it's bad for the man but OK for the woman. But I guess that also means it's OK for BSA to have gay leaders if they're women! Like Trevorum wrote, things are changing.

 

[sheldonsmom]

I find it interesting that no one considers all of the other issues that will arise from this, i.e. "the law of unintended consequences". My best friend is in Child Support Recovery here in Iowa. She is bracing for a nightmare in custody and support reviews. How do you do a paternity test on two women? If they adopted the child before they "married", how do you hand child support afterward? Trust me, this is a big problem. There is no case law or precedent for this. There are other unintended but real issues that will arise.

 

 

 

I find the comparison to segregation odd. I can tell by looking at a person what race or gender they are. I cannot tell what orientation you are unless you tell me. I might wonder, but I cannot know. Thus, I cannot discriminate against you unless you bring it up as an issue.

 

I have heard all about the tyranny of the majority. What about the tyranny of the minority? Should the values of the majority be sacrificed for the wishes of minority? I am for equal rights but whose rights are more equal? I am told I cannot discuss or show my religion in the workplace, the school, or in the public square because I might offend but if I am offended, I am told to change the channel, find a new job, or go somewhere else.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Sheldonsmom, if you're on the clock, your time belongs to the employer. That's the workplace. When I was a supervisor I couldn't care less what people did on their own time (as long as they didn't drag in drunk) but when they were in the workplace, activities that weren't related to work were a waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

As far as I know you are allowed to pray at school. At this school you're allowed to discuss religion with anyone who is willing to discuss it with you. This is a public school. I think it's true for any public school. And anyone who wants to is free to stand on one of our street corners and yell at all the sinners, it used to happen frequently but he moved his show to another town, I saw him recently. Maybe he's more successful there.

 

As far as equal not being equal, how about some specifics?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[CalicoPenn]

Ahh, the old "man shall not lie with man as he would a woman" claim. As I interpret this passage, this is more an admonition against bisexuality that homosexuality. See, gay men would never lie with a woman the way they would with a man so they're pretty safe there. It's the so-called straight men that need to worry - the ones with wives at home that decide to cruise airport rest rooms that are in trouble under this passage of Leviticus - not the openly gay couple sharing a home and bed. Thus - the interpretation just isn't clear.

[evmori]

OK Merlyn then what passages in the Bible aren't clear on homosexuality?

 

Do all atheists agree on everything regarding atheism, Merlyn?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Obviously the passages where Christians disagree on the meaning are the ones that aren't clear, Ed.

 

Atheists don't agree on everything, Ed. You know, just like, oh, all of humanity.

[evmori]

And what passages are those, Merlyn?

 

So atheism isn't clear then, either.(This message has been edited by evmori)