Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (281) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 195928  
Subject: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 12:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Folks,

This is a forward of a partial post on the Political Asylum Board. You are much smarter than I am and thought you may want to provide your thoughts to Fishfinder (poster).

The discussion was why I don't think soceity embraces the homosexual lifestyle and Gay Rights movement. My point was that our country was founded on Biblical Principles and Homosexuality is forbidden by God and declared unnatural by Him.

Here is the link to the original thread if you want to start from the beginning. The subj was Liberal Agendas and the Military:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13758435

Here is the entire post which I am referencing:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13777109

Here is the Biblical section which I thought might interest you.

Fishfinder says:

Anyway- I wanted to address a couple positions stated in your posts. One statement you make is that homosexuality is strictly forbidden by God as depicted in the Bible, and it is equated with adultery, murder, drunkeness and sexual misconduct. My late mother, one of the most intensely spiritual people I ever knew, and a devout Episcopalian, always told my brothers and me to remember one thing about the Bible; it was not let down from Heaven on a string. It was authored by men: men who were no doubt Divinely inspired a lot of the time, but also mere men who were subject to the prejudices, ignorance and social mores of their time. They wrote many wonderful things in the Bible; for instance, the primary responsibility of Christians, which I recall is to worship the Lord above all else, and to love our neighbors as ourselves (don't recall anything about it saying "excepting homosexuals", though.) Yes, there is a lot of wonderful advice in that work, but there also are some ideas which do not, and dare I say, should not carry over to today.

I have no real argument with your assertion about our country being founded on Biblical principles, but you also must realize that the principles contain the above-mentioned misconceptions and prejudices. Again, the societal mores of colonial times differed greatly from what we accept today, to wit, slavery was normal, women were viewed more as chattel than people, etc. (Jeez, I think maybe a few people were burned at the stake for witchcraft, too!)

We all should accept that civilization progresses and that prejudices die out in an evolutionary fashion. Unfortunately for gays, some fears and prejudices are more obdurate than others. I think two of the overriding principles this country was founded on were, in fact, tolerance and freedom, both of which we should be applying towards all people, irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity and, yes, sexual orientation!

A few weeks ago, I posted a "New School Prayer" which decried the advent of "political correctness" and lack of spiritualism in the public education system:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13260483

I was somewhat taken aback by the number of responses assailing this as an attack on "freedom of choice" and separation of church and state. Now, after reading some of the traffic on this issue, I think I have a better understanding what causes those jitters. The use of the Bible as a justification for labelling others as "less than", and promoting intolerance goes against the teachings of Jesus and other religions as well!


Enjoy.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RahmYtsami Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34976 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 1:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ron,

Love the sinner, but hate the sin is a good standby when it comes to homosexuality.

However, with respect to your question about why society does not embrace homosexuality, I believe it has very little to do with this countries history or the Bible. Pretty much every country and religion has condemned homosexuality, so why should the US or Christianity be any differant?

Praise God,
Brother Andrew

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34979 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 6:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hello Andrew. Great hearing from you again. As a quick OT, my MI portfolios are getting creamed. Yikes!!! I know FTS. :-)

Love the sinner, but hate the sin is a good standby when it comes to homosexuality.

I absolutely agree. The problem I often run into is, so often, my total distaste for the lifestyle/behavior, gets turned around as a hatred for the person. This of course can not be farther from the truth.

To fill you in a little on the discussion, the issue was why the military should not be used for social experiments. One of those social experiments was homosexuals in the military. I argue one of the points is the military has a tough time maintaining good order and discipline when it comes to homosexual behavior. Why? Because our military is just a cross section of America and America does not accept homosexuality as normal, at best they only tolerate it. The argument evolved to why doesn't American Society embrace homosexuality. Here's one of the many links to my argument if you care to gander:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13759827

Pretty much every country and religion has condemned homosexuality, ...

I agree. That is another reason why our society has a tough time accepting homosexuality as normal. It is not accepted worldwide. Gay Rights activists want us to believe homosexuality is a completely normal and natural thing. Some people comapred it to the civil rights movement, women rights issues, etc. My point is, it is two completely different issues. That statement sort of turned the argument to the Bible.

I believe it has very little to do with this countries history or the Bible.... so why should the US or Christianity be any differant?

The US is not any different. However, the point I was trying to make in the other threads (on other boards) was that whether one believes the Bible or not is irrelevent. America's moral standards are from Biblical principles. They were in the beginning and they still are now. But, I agree, so do many other countries and other religions condemn homosexuality. Our country could have been established on witchcraft but it was not. Here is a pretty good article which I used to support my case. As you read it, keep in mind, the original topic that prompted a Biblical discussion was Gays in the Military. This article talks about the impact the Bible has on America's attitude.

http://www.capo.org/premise/95/august/p950710.html

The reason I posted the portion I did was because the original poster insinuated the Bible was not totally true. I was hoping some folks could give him a different perspective or insight. Of course, if one does not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and free from error, then any argument using the Bible is most likely mute.

For the others on the board, I apologize that this got a bit OT for this board. There are a lot of smart folks on this board that I was hoping could give some insights into what the Bible says about homosexuality. To me it is Biblically black and white. I reference Lev: 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor6:9. However, that is not true to everyone.

Anyway, Andrew, thanks for the response. Hope your MI portfolios are doing better than mine. :-)

Ron





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34982 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 8:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
To fill you in a little on the discussion, the issue was why the military should not be used for social experiments. One of those social experiments was homosexuals in the military. I argue one of the points is the military has a tough time maintaining good order and discipline when it comes to homosexual behavior. Why? Because our military is just a cross section of America and America does not accept homosexuality as normal, at best they only tolerate it.

By this argument, the military should never have been integrated. Most Americans had a terrible time living and working with those of another race. Lots of problems arose because of military integration.

IOW, I don't think this argument works. It sounds sort of like the speed limit argument -- "everybody else breaks it, so I should do it, too, so that I don't mess things up for everybody else."

I know that isn't what you meant, Ron. I'm just saying that's how it sounded.

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34986 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 12:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
PD said
By this argument, the military should never have been integrated. Most Americans had a terrible time living and working with those of another race. Lots of problems arose because of military integration.

IOW, I don't think this argument works. It sounds sort of like the speed limit argument -- "everybody else breaks it, so I should do it, too, so that I don't mess things up for everybody else."

I know that isn't what you meant, Ron. I'm just saying that's how it sounded.


Phantom, would you have a problem taking a shower with a group of men? I know the answer as that was more of a rhetorical question though feel free if you wish.

Point is most men in the military have a problem being in close quarters to men who are potentially attracted to them and specially when you are taking showers together. Put simply, I'd no more want to take a shower with a woman who is not my wife than I would with a homosexual.


Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34989 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Phantom, would you have a problem taking a shower with a group of men?

Probably, but it would depend on the circumstances. Anyway, I'm middle-aged and going to seed. Most men won't get warm for my form if they see it in a shower. :-)

Point is most men in the military have a problem being in close quarters to men who are potentially attracted to them and specially when you are taking showers together. Put simply, I'd no more want to take a shower with a woman who is not my wife than I would with a homosexual.

There already are gay people in the military. Somehow most of them manage to control themselves in the shower. Sexual attraction does not make somebody a sexual predator.

I think the strongest argument against gays in the military is the blackmail argument -- that is, that if one is not allowed to be gay and in the military, one will be more susceptible to being blackmailed and might reveal military secrets. But if it's okay to be gay, blackmail is not an issue.

I take it you are also against women in combat positions alongside men? I'm not slamming you, just extrapolating.

None of this is a hot issue for me. I'm just stating my opinions.

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SBXJavadude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34993 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Hello Ron,

I do not know you very well, but I have read all your posts regarding this topic, as well as the links you were so good to provide. Throughout your posts, you refer to your distaste for "homosexual lifestyle/behavior." Then you also say you do not hate gay people. Of course you back this up with the hate the sin, love the sinner comment.

To be perfectly frank, I think you are deeply troubled with homosexuality. You may know some gay people(though that really makes no difference to me). So I wonder how they feel when you talk about his issue? Is it just sexual acts that bother you? If so, why does it even concern you? Why should you care what two consentling adults do behind a closed door?

As for the military, I think it is a darned shame you think gays should not serve. Gays have served their country well, and should be allowed to serve openly.
No one can blackmail you if you are allowed to be open. As for the whole shower analogy, you are assuming a great deal. Most people I know who take showers, do just that - take showers. They do not use the shower as their own personal peep show, whether they are gay or straight.

You also talk about the religious nature of our country's founding. Yes our country's morals stem from a purtian background. The arguement can be made about homosexuality and the Bible, and is frequentley done so on this board.

I think the Bible is not as cut and dried as some on this board believe. I think that topic, as many topics in the Bible are open for interpretation, and understanding. I understand I am in the minority on that, but so be it. I accept that.

While I think it is very good to discuss whether or not gays should serve in the military, remember this.....they already are, and doing very well thanks!

Regards,
Charlie



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: nematoo Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34995 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 3:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
By this argument, the military should never have been integrated. Most Americans had a terrible time living and working with those of another race. Lots of problems arose because of military integration.

IOW, I don't think this argument works. It sounds sort of like the speed limit argument -- "everybody else breaks it, so I should do it, too, so that I don't mess things up for everybody else."

I know that isn't what you meant, Ron. I'm just saying that's how it sounded.

phantomdiver

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

See, this is where the problem is: homosexuality should not be related to race, as race is not a sin; and never has been. It cannot be a sin to be yellow or red or brown or black or white. This is definitely like relating apples to beef! There is absolutely no comparison there.

Does it make sense to say, "I don't hate you; but I think you need to change your color."? No one can change his race. One cannot stop being oriental or caucasion or negroid. One can stop being homosexual, if by no other means than just stopping the act. One cannot abstain from being Jew or Gentile; but one can abstain from sexual behavior.

in Him,
Wanema

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SBXJavadude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34996 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
One can stop being homosexual, if by no other means than just stopping the act.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This will come as no surprise, but I disagree. If I have followed the many threads about homosexuality on this board(and they have been many). Many of you seem to want to say it is the acts which are forbidden. Let's use that arguement for a minute.

You say God condemns homosexual acts(of course no one here has ever answered any of my questions about this from a couple of weeks ago). Yet, is that saying being gay is wrong? No. It is saying the acts are wrong.

So if we use your arguement, you CAN be gay, and not participate in homosexual acts.

Now we need to define what those acts are. Are we talking about homosexual rape? Are we referring to peagan rituals of the time? Are we talking about heterosexual men participating in homosexual acts? These are just some of the questions I posed a couple of weeks ago.

I would like to know some of the answers some of you have.

Thanks,
Charlie




Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35008 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 6:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"I would like to know some of the answers some of you have."

Do you really Charlie? Every time this comes up you get our honest answers and then go off in a huff claiming we are hateful and unloving and that you don't think you want to be a Christian because of us and maybe this board should be shut down. Hasn't this scab been picked enough? We know what you think and you know what we think. Why get into it yet again?

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SBXJavadude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35011 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 7:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dear Rich,

I'm sorry that is the feeling you have had. I don't think I have called anyone hateful, though I may have questioned some people's comments. You can not deny some comments on this board have hurt various people. If I have called someone hateful I apologize. Though I try to be mindful of that.

Has this topic been covered ad nauseum? Oh most certainly. Of course I am not the one who brings it up. But I will certainly respond, if I feel a need to. You know the surprising thing is I know I am not alone in my thoughts and feelings on this board. I just happen to be one of the more vocal people.

Yes, Rich, I know what you think. You have made your point time and time again. I am sorry my questions seem to bother you. But to be honest, no one has really answered my questions. It is one thing to recite Biblical verses, but it is another to reasonably answer a question about the context those verses were written. I have no problem with people using the Bible, but the questions I have asked extend beyond that.

God has granted me free will. He also expects me to question the world around me. But if someone else wants to jump in and ask questions which need to be addressed, go for it. I have no trouble with that.

Perhaps this arena is not the place to find my answers. I know I have had a few discussions with my pastor on this, and he does not seem to get all bent out of shape. So if you want me to stop questioning, I am fine with that. I am happy to go back to reading more of the more interesting threads on this board.

Reagards,
Charlie

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35015 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 7:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Now we need to define what those acts are. Are we talking about homosexual rape? Are we referring to peagan rituals of the time? Are we talking about heterosexual men participating in homosexual acts? These are just some of the questions I posed a couple of weeks ago.

Okay, I'll bite. As you know, Charlie, I'm still working on this issue for myself, so I don't have a clear sense yet of what is absolutely proscribed.

However, rape is always wrong. Always, always, always. Doesn't matter if the two parties involved are married. It's just wrong to force sex on anybody.

Pagan rituals? Sex as a ritual act in the context of a religious service? I dunno, but I'm about 90% leaning towards YUCK!!!!

Heterosexual man participating in homosexual acts? If they're straight, why are they doing gay stuff?

What it comes down to, for me, is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Is it the worst thing you can do? No, of course not. But it's definitely a sin.

Which begs the question: should gays be allowed to marry each other? I just don't know. Civil unions already allow this, in effect, at least in Vermont and DC. It doesn't seem to have strained our moral fabric there any worse than the tons of straight couples living together have. Actually I think it could improve matters by allowing the couples in question to be more a part of the larger community.

Go ahead, guys, flame me. I'm getting used to it. Keep in mind that I have still not made up my mind fully. As always, polite disagreements carry a whole lot more weight with me than insults.

phantomdiver

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35016 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 8:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I know I have had a few discussions with my pastor on this, and he does not seem to get all bent out of shape.

So what did he say? Tell us!!

So if you want me to stop questioning, I am fine with that.

I'm not. I don't see why we should stop discussing this. It's a vitally important issue in the Church today. We must discuss it -- prayerfully and lovingly. That's the challenge! ;-)

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jennycats Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35023 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 9:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There already are gay people in the military. Somehow most of them manage to control themselves in the shower. Sexual attraction does not make somebody a sexual predator.

While I agree with the above statement, I think the argument bypasses the basic issue: is it homophobic for a person to not want to be naked around a gay person of the same sex?

I'd say, no. Just like I would not like to shower or change around a bunch of guys, I would not like to shower or change around a bunch of lesbians--if I had that knowledge. I don't think that's homophobia--it's modesty. Sitting in a predominantly gay coffee shop? No problem.

-Jennycats



Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35026 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 9:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I would not like to shower or change around a bunch of lesbians--if I had that knowledge.

Wouldn't bother me. And considering all the girls I showered with in junior high and high school gym, I'm sure I must have showered with some lesbians. Nobody ever jumped me, which is all I care about.

And that's the whole issue, as far as I can see. Sexual attraction is one thing and really doesn't matter much. We can all keep our attractions private, right? We don't have to pant over people in public? Seeing a member of the sex to which we're attracted, even in the shower, doesn't make us all throw caution to the winds and jump that person's bones? Of course it doesn't!

Sexual activity is another matter altogether. Unwanted sexual advances are always bad. And they can be dealt with by law and military regs and all that stuff. So there's really no problem.

Unless there's a problem with straight men and straight women serving together. It's the same deal, isn't it?

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35032 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 10:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
While I agree with the above statement, I think the argument bypasses the basic issue: is it homophobic for a person to not want to be naked around a gay person of the same sex?

Sorry, Jennycats -- I thought the question was whether the US should allow openly gay persons to serve in the military. If we're talking about showers, that's something else, of course. I'm not sure why it matters, so I guess I'll bow out of that particular discussion for now.

phantomdiver



Print the post Back To Top
Author: RahmYtsami Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35033 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 11:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ron,

I pretty much agree with everything you've posted. As far as the military, I won't comment since I am a conscientious objector type of guy. However, in addition to the verses you mentioned, a few that I would also consider applicable are as follows:

Matt 13:47-50 The kingdom of heaven is like what happens when a net is thrown into a lake and catches all kinds of fish. When the net is full, it is dragged to the shore, and the fishermen sit down to separate the fish. They keep the good ones, but throw the bad ones away. That's how it will be at the end of time. Angles will come and separate the evil people from the ones who have done right. Then those evil people will be thrown into a flaming furnace where they will cry and grit their teeth in pain.

James 1:14 We are tempted by our own desires that drag us off and trap us. Our desires make us sin, and when sin is finished with us, it leaves us dead.

Praise God,
Brother Andrew

PS: With respect to MI port woes… remember, greed is a sin too. So, don't let it get the better of you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jennycats Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35036 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 11:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sorry, Jennycats -- I thought the question was whether the US should allow openly gay persons to serve in the military. If we're talking about showers, that's something else, of course. I'm not sure why it matters, so I guess I'll bow out of that particular discussion for now.

Yeah, you nailed me. I changed the subject. :-)

I actually had a longer post that tied it back to the military discussion, but then it seemed too long, so I cut and decided to just let my main point stand.

I think it's silly to keep gays closeted in the military. However, I also think it's valid to say that having gays be "out" will make social dynamics in the military more complex--in ways that should not be blithely dismissed as homophobia. Just as the complexity caused by women in the military isn't all about sexism.

And part of that complexity is caused by the fact that there is sexism; there is homophobia.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: RahmYtsami Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35037 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 11:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So if we use your arguement, you CAN be gay, and not participate in homosexual acts.

Now we need to define what those acts are…


Charlie,

I see that phantomdiver tried to answer your questions here, and I agree with her. However, I believe that we could also loosely define the acts of concern as any which are perversions. In general, this would be any sexual act that includes birth control or violence. Never the less, it'd be wrong to be get overly legalist about it and have a lot of explicit definitions. The reason being that ultimately, it is God who will judge.

Praise God,
Brother Andrew

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jmls Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35039 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/26/2000 11:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dear RahmYtsami,

In general, this would be any sexual act that includes birth control or violence.

Birth control is sinful?

Best,

Lleweilun Smith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nematoo Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35043 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 12:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I would like to know some of the answers some of you have.

Thanks,
Charlie

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:24-27
Therefore GOD gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about GOD for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason GOD gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35046 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 1:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Wouldn't bother me. "

Say your daughter joins the army. And the rules require her to live with 18-24 year old men in quarters close enough that she would have to shower with these young men. Is that OK, no problem, with you?

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35048 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 4:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I know that isn't what you meant, Ron. I'm just saying that's how it sounded.

phantomdiver,

You're right, that's not what I mean. But, it sure does sound like it. It was hard trying to put many posts together in a short paragraph.

When it comes to good order and discipline the issue with the gays is the same as it probably was with the blacks. I would even go out on a limb and say the biases were even worse with the blacks. You are correct if that was the only issue but it is a small issue of a much bigger problem. If that were the only issue, I would say make it happen. However, unlike skin color biases, moral attitudes are much tougher to deal with at many different levels.
When the military integrated blacks our country had, as a majority, supported civil rights. Same with the woman issue -- you don't see any problems with woman integration. Most of the young kids today don't even understand why it was ever such a big issue. Blacks and woman have always been in our military. Their roles were just expanded with most of America supporting it. Not the case with Gay Rights. If America's attitude changes towards the gay lifestyle and behavior, and it becomes such a majority, as the blacks and woman did, then I have no issue with them in the military. My point, that started this whole thing was, the military is not the place to be changing society's attitudes.

Anyway, thanks for the correction.

Ron


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: youngfod Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35049 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 4:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Which begs the question: should gays be allowed to marry each other?

PD,

I think before answering that question you have to ask what is marriage. From my own viewpoint, because I have never looked it up, it being self evident to me, then marriage is where two people come together for lifelong love and to fulfill the convenant we have with God to produce children. It may be that they find they are unable to have children, such as my sister, and that is a great sorrow, but the intent is there. If the intent is to thwart God's will then it is a bad act. Obviously there are times of extenuating circumstances such as when a woman would become very ill or even die if she were to become pregnant. I am not sure I would count money as an extenuating circumstance. I know from personal experience that whenever my wife became pregnant I was motivated to get another job with more money. Marriage can be a thing of great happiness both for God and for man. God gets more souls and we get each other, and with Gods help some wonderful children. As an aside I have had all six of my grandchildren here this weekend, hard work but so worth it.
YF


YF



Print the post Back To Top
Author: youngfod Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35051 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 5:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The reason being that ultimately, it is God who will judge.

Praise God,
Brother Andrew


Bit late by then Andrew.

YF



Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35052 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 5:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hello Charlie,

First I want to apologize to all if I turned this discussion into a Gays in the miltary thread. I know political issues are not something usually discussed on this board. Want I wanted to do was open up a dialogue on what the Bible said on homosexuality.

Anyway, to answer Charlie's points, here goes:

Throughout your posts, you refer to your distaste for "homosexual lifestyle/behavior." Then you also say you do not hate gay people. Of course you back this up with the hate the sin, love the sinner comment.

To put it in simpler terms, there are many prison ministries. Does that mean the people doing it hates the people in prison -- I say absolutely not. Do they hate murder? Absolutely.

To be perfectly frank, I think you are deeply troubled with homosexuality. .... So I wonder how they feel when you talk about his issue? Is it just sexual acts that bother you? If so, why does it even concern you? Why should you care what two consentling adults do behind a closed door?

Yes, homosexuality and it's acts do bother me, just like murder, theft, etc. The reason it concerns me is because, I believe it is unnatural, and is against the moral fiber of this Nation. If we continue to allow this type of un-natural behavior in our soceity, it only adds to the already moral decline of this nation.

As for the whole shower analogy, you are assuming a great deal. Most people I know who take showers, do just that - take showers.

I didn't make that analogy but I think it is an accurate one. We in the military live in close quarters. We can't always go to our private homes at night. I have seen first hand, in the military, gay men come on to straight men. I have seen it as recently as a few months ago. It causes havoc. Now, I will admit, that I don't see the same situations with gay women and straight women as I do with straight and gay men. One reason is our moral standard on the issue is different for women. Why? I think because the Bible doesn't talk about woman lying with women. Smart folks, correct me if I am wrong.

The arguement can be made about homosexuality and the Bible, and is frequentley done so on this board.

I guess I should have read past posts. This was the topic I was hoping to discuss.

I think the Bible is not as cut and dried as some on this board believe. I think that topic, as many topics in the Bible are open for interpretation, and understanding. I understand I am in the minority on that, but so be it. I accept that.

Although, I do agree that some issues in the Bible may be open for interpretation. However, I don't agree with those who say the Bible is not the inspired word of God and the writers put their own spin on it. It is us that put the wrong spin on it. Hence, why study is important. However, I do think it is pretty cut and dry on the homosexual issue but I am willing to hear other interpretations from many smart people on this board.

While I think it is very good to discuss whether or not gays should serve in the military, remember this.....they already are, and doing very well thanks!

Yes, they are because know one knows. Just like adulterers and thieves. Adulters do great work and have for many years. Yet, the military will terminate a career for adultery in a nanno second. What is the difference between an adulterer and a homosexual? We have rules, many of those rules are to maintain a moral standard. Our moral standards are generally Biblically based. Our society is not a do as you please society, although there are some that are trying to make it that way. IMHO, don't ask don't tell works just fine. Of course, you then have the blackmail issue.

Thanks for the post. Again, sorry to get way OT for this board. It was not my intention.

Ron



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35053 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Andrew,

Thanks for the post. I think they are good verses. Although to be honest with you, I feel bad opening up a scab that has been opened here before. I didn't intend to do that, it was my laziness to read past posts but I also directed fishfinder here because he sort of questioned the validity of the Bible regarding homosexuality. I am not schooled enough, as many are here, to make counter arguments. I believe it is cut and dry but I know there are others that don't.

PS: With respect to MI port woes… remember, greed is a sin too. So, don't let it get the better of you.

Oh I don't let it get the better of me. I actually think it is pretty funny because I just started MI in July. Yet another reason why I should never gamble -- my luck is terrible. :-)

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35054 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well said Jenny. This subject has gone off into many different directions. However, the way you state the problems with the military being used for social experiments is well done. As you can imagine, IMHO, I agree. Thank you.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SBXJavadude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35055 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Thanks for the post. Again, sorry to get way OT for this board. It was not my intention.

Ron


Oh Ron,

This board is frequently OT...no problem. While I have never understood how my committed relationship with a person of the same sex contributes to the "moral decline" of this country, I won't argue that fact.

As to the others who tried to answer some of my questions, I say thanks. Though I think on this board it can be diffiuclt to get some answers, due to the wide range of religious natures. I appreciate the effort taken.

Ron, while you detest homosexuality, I will pray for you that one day you will be more accepting of gay people.

Cheers,
Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35056 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yeah, you nailed me. I changed the subject. :-)

Not meaning to nail you. I must've been more tired than I thought -- I sounded awfully curt. I'm sorry!

However, I also think it's valid to say that having gays be "out" will make social dynamics in the military more complex--in ways that should not be blithely dismissed as homophobia. Just as the complexity caused by women in the military isn't all about sexism.

Yeah, that's a valid point. Just as the problems caused by military integration weren't all about bigotry, either. But an awful lot of them were.

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35059 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Say your daughter joins the army. And the rules require her to live with 18-24 year old men in quarters close enough that she would have to shower with these young men. Is that OK, no problem, with you?

This is hypothetical, right? Because the military doesn't require coed showers AFAIK. And same-sex showers, even with a horde of lesbians, are just not the same thing.

Okay, so to answer your question -- would it bother me for her? Yes, because she is vastly better looking than I am and has a better figure than I ever had or will have. As I said, it's a completely different issue.

None of my kids wants to go into the military, though. I'm an Army brat and I deeply respect and appreciate what the military does and has done for us -- but I'm an Army brat and I know how hard it is for them. I have not encouraged my kids to go into the military, and they've heard many stories about it that probably discourage them from considering it.

phantomdiver


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35060 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ron, while you detest homosexuality, I will pray for you that one day you will be more accepting of gay people.

Hello Charlie,

Please don't think that I detest gay people. That is a common accusation made against people who do not agree with the homosexual movement or lifestyle. I do not detest them, as people, just as I don't detest murders, adulterers, people who practice witchcraft, etc. We are all God's children and he loves us all deeply. However, does that mean, he approves of everything we do? No he does not, just as I don't approve of the lifestyle that gay people lead. I am one that believes the Bible is very clear on that and it is cut and dry. I do plan on going back and reading the other posts to see what the other viewpoint is and how they back it up Biblically. You mentioned in an earlier post that God gave us Free Will. Yes, my friend, he did. But, free will does not mean we can do as we please, when we please. There are things that he considers sin and wrong. He has given us moral standards to live by and that is what I use to judge right and wrong, good and evil. That is what, I believe society, uses to judge the same. Does that mean society always gets it right -- nope. Do we always live by those standards? Some may, but I assure you, I am not one of them. I faulter more often than I would ever want to admit but I know the ultimate sacrifice was made.

Anyway, again, please don't confuse my distaste for homosexual conduct/lifestyle as a distaste for the gay person. I accept them as people, their conduct and lifestyle I do not. I appreciate the prayers on this matter. I am sure the Lord will change my way viewpoint if he deems necessary.

GB,
Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35061 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PD,

This is hypothetical, right? Because the military doesn't require coed showers AFAIK.

FWIW, it is strictly forbidden by the UCMJ and severely punished if it happens. The military goes to great extremes to ensure there are no COED bathroom facilities.

. I have not encouraged my kids to go into the military, and they've heard many stories about it that probably discourage them from considering it.

Also FWIW, the military is quite different today. A matter of fact, it is quite different than when I signed up 22 years ago. I think you would be surprised and quite impressed what the military can do for young folks today especially for those trying to find themselves (not saying your children are in that category). For me, I would encourage my children to go in the military, but that's me. Before any comments come my way -- No, I'm not a recruiter. :-)

Anyway, my two cents worth.

Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35062 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My point, that started this whole thing was, the military is not the place to be changing society's attitudes.

But that's exactly what the military has done. It takes situations that are kind of marginal and makes them work. When the military integrated, a majority of Americans did not support equal civil rights for blacks, IMO. Even those who did had no idea how to live with blacks as their neighbors, how to work with them as equals. It was a struggle to make this work, and the military did it -- by and large.

phantomdiver


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35063 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
PD,

But that's exactly what the military has done. It takes situations that are kind of marginal and makes them work.

Although that may be true, I don't think that homosexuality is marginal in this Nation quite yet. There are many out there who may want you to think so. Much spin is put on it my people in the Gay Rights Movement. I don't believe for a second that most of America embraces homosexuality as a natural acceptable thing. Female integration, that was marginal and the military has made it work. Homosexuality, IMHO, is not quite there yet. I think the resistence and opposition to homosexuality in the military is much stronger than woman. I have been there for both. They are apples and oranges.

When the military integrated, a majority of Americans did not support equal civil rights for blacks, IMO.

I would disagree with you there. When integration happened, there were already blacks serving in the military -- openly. They were mostly just segregated or only is non-combat units. Also, not 90 or so years before we fought a war over slaves. I think most of the country was for integration. There were some states that had very strong feelings about it. You can compare the women issue with the blacks issue, but neither can be compared to homosexual issue. One is race and gender and the other is behavior and lifestyle. Two different animals. One you can't control, the other you can.

Ron




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35064 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Much spin is put on it my people in the Gay Rights Movement.

Sorry folks that should read:

Much spin is put on it BY people...

I don't have MY people in the movement. :-)

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35068 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Also FWIW, the military is quite different today. A matter of fact, it is quite different than when I signed up 22 years ago.

That's what I hear, too, and I'm very glad of it. Also, I have to admit that my feelings about the military are filtered through my experience, which was not as positive as that of many other brats.

I think you would be surprised and quite impressed what the military can do for young folks today especially for those trying to find themselves (not saying your children are in that category).

That's always been true! The military was wonderful for my parents -- both for my dad, who served, and for my mother, who served by supporting his career, which was the way it was done back then.

For me, I would encourage my children to go in the military, but that's me. Before any comments come my way -- No, I'm not a recruiter. :-)

Maybe you should be! You do a good job of it without even trying! :-)

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35070 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I would disagree with you there. When integration happened, there were already blacks serving in the military -- openly. They were mostly just segregated or only is non-combat units. Also, not 90 or so years before we fought a war over slaves.

We're on the same page here.

I think most of the country was for integration. There were some states that had very strong feelings about it.

I don't know about that. I was there as a child, and it didn't look to me as if most parents really, truly wanted their kids to play with kids of another race.

I remember when my dad became post commander for a little post in Germany in 1963. There was the usual Hail and Farewell party. For the first time in my dad's career, AFAIK, there were black officers on post working with and living next to white officers. My dad's top man was black.

Naturally my mother would have to dance with him and other black officers. She had never danced with a black man before -- she and my dad came from small farming communities in central Illinois, and there just weren't many blacks around. Even though this was 20 years into my dad's career, and the Army had been integrated for a while, somehow this issue had never arisen.

My dad saw that she was a bit nervous. She knew that his right-hand man (LTC Cartwright) was a fine, decent man and a terrific officer, but she thought some of the younger black officers might get over-excited at the opportunity to dance in public with a white woman -- and without retribution, too. (I'm just telling the story. Don't blame me for what my mother thought, please.) My dad told her, "Honey, you can have a headache one time." She understood. She was going to dance with black officers, and that was that.

Of course she had nothing to worry about. LTC Cartwright (later BG Cartwright) didn't want any trouble, either, and he watched carefully over the younger officers.

You can compare the women issue with the blacks issue, but neither can be compared to homosexual issue. One is race and gender and the other is behavior and lifestyle. Two different animals. One you can't control, the other you can.

You've made an excellent point. You can't change the race or sex you have any more than you can change your sexual orientation. What can be changed is behavior. And that's where the military excels. So if homosexual behavior was a problem, the military could and would do something about it.

Still, maybe it's all far in the future to have openly gay military members. I don't know. I do know that we have many fine gay folks in the military now.

phantomdiver

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jmls Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35079 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 10:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Dear y'all,

nematoo: Concerning your quotes, I think the argument could be made that the OT verses are superseded by the NT. Concerning the NT (Romans) verse, is it obvious that it refers just to homosexuality?

hortonron: First, IMHO it is unfair to compare homosexuality to murder, theft etc. In a murder, someone is hurt (the guy who is murdered!). In a theft, someone is hurt (the guy who has stuff stolen from him). How is anybody hurt by homosexuals?

Second, as a tangential comment. I cannot comment on what the "lifestyle" of a gay person is; but I believe that the media portrayal is very stereotyped (a la "Will and Grace"). I personally enjoyed "Survivor" because the winner, Richard Hatch, is NOT a stereotyped gay person who enjoys interior decorating etc., but a very strong (Machievellian!) character. (I have no idea how gays perceived the show though).

Best,

Lleweilun Smith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frecs Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35080 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 11:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
First, IMHO it is unfair to compare homosexuality to murder, theft etc. In a murder, someone is hurt (the guy who is murdered!). In a theft, someone is hurt (the guy who has stuff stolen from him). How is anybody hurt by homosexuals?

Hummm, I don't recall that God tells us that only those things that hurt others are sins. Gluttony only hurts me but that is a sin.

Be careful not to become Wise in your own eyes and forget that God's wisdom and God's Truth is what we should be seeking, not what feels right to us.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jmls Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35081 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 11:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dear Frecs,

Hummm, I don't recall that God tells us that only those things that hurt others are sins. Gluttony only hurts me but that is a sin.

I do agree that gluttony isn't good for you! But is it really a sin? At least, it was Dante who listed it as one of the seven deadly sins I think, not the Bible.

Yet the first part is true. Sins don't have to hurt others to be a sin. To this I would say that if they are sins against God, let God punish.

Best,

Lleweilun Smith



Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35086 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 11:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
PD,

Naturally my mother would have to dance with him and other black officers.

My dad saw that she was a bit nervous. .....My dad told her, "Honey, you can have a headache one time."

You're Mom and Dad are admiral people and I applaud them. I would ask you though: What would your Mom think or other soldiers think if your Dad was dancing with BG Cartwright? I would guess your Mom would not say as you Dad did when she danced with BG Cartwright.
Race and skin color are completely different than sexual orientation/behavior.

So if homosexual behavior was a problem, the military could and would do something about it.

Who's behavior do we change the couple gay guys or the whole unit's?

Still, maybe it's all far in the future to have openly gay military members. I don't know. I do know that we have many fine gay folks in the military now.

That's my point. America is not ready for this, hence the military is not ready. It should not be force fed as a social experiment. Yes, I am sure there are many fine service members who are gay. Nobody ever questioned their ability to do the job. It's the many other issues that arise because of it. And your right, it's probably not the gay persons problem. It also isn't his problem that society does'nt accept his lifestyle either but they don't.

Good post. Thanks.

Ron


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35087 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 12:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Thank you PD. I have really enjoyed this exchange with you.

both for my dad, who served, and for my mother, who served by supporting his career, which was the way it was done back then.

Quite different today. Most spouses (notice spouses not wives) have careers of their own. I actually support my wife's career -- her career is way harder than mine -- she raises my two children. :-)

Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35088 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 12:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
What would your Mom think or other soldiers think if your Dad was dancing with BG Cartwright? I would guess your Mom would not say as you Dad did when she danced with BG Cartwright.

We have to take this on a case-by-case basis. My parents are straight. Dad would never have danced with BG Cartwright; he danced with Mrs. Cartwright. (Dad loved to flirt!)

Still, I have a cousin who is openly gay, and my parents have had her and her partner stay at their house, in the same room. They have no problem with that at all. Well, okay, maybe the "ewww" problems of their youth -- the same ones my mother had when she knew she'd be dancing with a black man -- but they got over that.

So if homosexual behavior was a problem, the military could and would do something about it.

Who's behavior do we change the couple gay guys or the whole unit's?

Whoever's behavior is causing the problem. Got a straight man making unwanted passes at women? Discipline him. (Educate him, too.) Got a gay guy making unwanted passes at men? Do the same thing. It's a behavior problem, not an attitude problem.

I know I'm never going to be faced with the issue of serving in the military with gays, so I do bow to the military's right to do what it sees fit. And while I deeply respect those who serve in the military, I don't always agree with what individual military folks believe and do. That's one reason we have this board.

phantomdiver

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35089 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I actually support my wife's career -- her career is way harder than mine -- she raises my two children. :-)

It's great to hear about a parent who supports the stay-at-home parent's career! My husband stays home with our four, too. We do what we can to support each other.

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: reader99 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35090 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Say your daughter joins the army. And the rules require her to live with 18-24 year old men in quarters close enough that she would have to shower with these young men. Is that OK, no problem, with you?


My XSIL is in the Army. When they go on field maneuvers the whole unit does everything together. They tried keeping the women in separate tents but found they needed to be with their unit to get the job done properly. She doesn't seem to feel threatened by this. I don't recall if she mentioned showers.


Reader99

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DiabloQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35091 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 12:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
I think before answering that question you have to ask what is marriage. From my own viewpoint, because I have never looked it up, it being self evident to me, then marriage is where two people come together for lifelong love and to fulfill the convenant we have with God to produce children. It may be that they find they are unable to have children, such as my sister, and that is a great sorrow, but the intent is there. If the intent is to thwart God's will then it is a bad act. Obviously there are times of extenuating circumstances such as when a woman would become very ill or even die if she were to become pregnant. I am not sure I would count money as an extenuating circumstance. I know from personal experience that whenever my wife became pregnant I was motivated to get another job with more money. Marriage can be a thing of great happiness both for God and for man. God gets more souls and we get each other, and with Gods help some wonderful children.

Youngfod gave a good description of the Christian sacrament of marriage. However, I think a distinction needs to be made between the Christian sacrament of marriage, as defined above, and the state's interest in regulating marriages.

Why should the government care if a couple is fulfilling God's covenant to have children? If the government cares about couples fulfilling God's covenant to have children, why do they let senior citizens, who are well past their child bearing years, get married? And what about couples that don't believe in God? Heck, heterosexual couples can go to Las Vegas and get married without even having to show a driver's license.

What is the government's interest in having people pair off and make commmitments to each other? One reason is that it helps promote stability.

If the government will let a couple of pagan old folks that can't/won't have kids get married, why should they care if two young folks that can't have kids (because they're the same gender) want to make a lifelong committment to each other and enjoy the same legal benefits as the pagan old folks?

If two consenting gay adults want to get make a lifelong commitment to their partner, I don't see why the government should deny them the same legal rights that my husband and I have. Of course I think it'd be wrong for the government to force churches to have to have religious ceremonies for this -- churches should be free to deny the sacrament of marriage to whoever they choose.

-- Fran



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RahmYtsami Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35092 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 12:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Lleweilum,

About birth control. Please consider the 28th verse of Genesis where God talks to humans for the very first time:

Have a lot of children!

Praise God,
Brother Andrew

PS: Icelanders thought there were all descended from Vikings until genetic test showed that about 1/3 of the population are descended from Irish slaves.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nematoo Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35093 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 1:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ron,

Romans 1:26 speaks directly to the women/ homosexuality issue. I am sure there are others. This one is just off the top of my head. It is as wrong for women as it is for men; and just as much a problem, if not more so.

Women seem to be sneakier about it. I had a friend who lost his wife to a lesbian. He was almost destroyed. The female who went after his wife did so at a low time in her life - her brother had just died a horrible death from cocaine rupturing his heart. She was very vulnerable and the female knew that; and took advantage of it. That is not to say they would all be like this person was; but it is the first time my life was touched directly by this abomination[GOD's word for it].

I had nightmares about it for a long time. Can you even imagine how he felt?

Wanema

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steveness One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35094 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When I and my squad deployed, we did so as a "co-ed" unit. All in one tent. Showers rarely happen in the field, those that do happen with a fair amount of privacy.

It's my experience that no one ever even tried sexual behavior while in the field. Everyone dirty, and sweaty, and smelling less than good...not exactly romantic. Plus, very little privacy, and a good healthy dose of "the 1st SGT will destroy anyone who even thinks about breaking the rules regarding fraternization."

There are some darn good reasons not to get involved on maneouvers, not the least of which is people die when they loose focus in combat. Thus, "couples" are never allowed in the same combat teams.

Now, back in baraks...let's just say that all of the above does not apply.

steveness

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Shadowfen Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35098 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 3:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
One can stop being homosexual, if by no other means than just stopping the act.

This does not make sense to me. Can you stop being heterosexual by becoming celibate??

Shadowfen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: youngfod Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35104 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 5:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
-- she raises my two children. :-)

Ron


Hi Ron,
I guess they were being good when you wrote that. When there is a small problem they become "our children". When they are bad they become "your daughter or son".

:-))

YF



Print the post Back To Top
Author: youngfod Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35105 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 5:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If the government will let a couple of pagan old folks that can't/won't have kids get married, why should they care if two young folks that can't have kids (because they're the same gender) want to make a lifelong committment to each other and enjoy the same legal benefits as the pagan old folks?

If two consenting gay adults want to get make a lifelong commitment to their partner, I don't see why the government should deny them the same legal rights that my husband and I have. Of course I think it'd be wrong for the government to force churches to have to have religious ceremonies for this -- churches should be free to deny the sacrament of marriage to whoever they choose.

-- Fran


Marriage is by its very nature religious. A promising of two gays to each other is not. From the Governments point of view there may be little to choose between them in style, but it is not marriage, it could be called partnership. There is little purpose in registering it in any other way than a legal partnership deal which includes property rights etc and which any solicitor could do. The "love and to hold until death do us part" would be pointless since there will be no children to live in a stable marriage.

YF







Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35110 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Point is most men in the military have a problem being in close quarters to men who are potentially attracted to them and specially when you are taking showers together. Put simply, I'd no more want to take a shower with a woman who is not my wife than I would with a homosexual.

And a good number of them probably think any homosexual would want to try to have sed with a naked man if he saw one.

What percentage of the time do men shower in communal places?

And what makes you think a given homosexual is going to try to have sex with any given naked man? Would you, as a man, want to have sex with any naked woman you saw?

When I was in high school I was more afraid of being laughed at for how I look(ed) than anything else.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35111 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 5:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Originally posted by Wanema:

One can stop being homosexual, if by no other means than just stopping the act.


Reasoning behind this? By that statement my gay roommate is no longer gay and my bisexual friends are no longer bisexual. Bet they'll be shocked to hear this:)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35112 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Marriage is by its very nature religious.

Youngfod, I don't think so. Why would atheists or agnostics ever get married if marriage is religious by nature?

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35114 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Birth control is sinful?

Depending. It's a Catholic thang.

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35115 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Don't mind me, just had to fight ignorance:)

Originally posted by PD:

Heterosexual man participating in homosexual acts? If they're straight, why are they doing gay stuff?


Some people like to experiment.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Apostrophy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35116 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Some people like to experiment.

That is almost funny. ( it is true, though)
I've known boys from my neighborhood who have prostituted themselves (to gay men) for drug money.

I must say in all candor, I believe this issue has been beat rather severly. I am begining to think some of you find the topic of homosexuality exciting.


A

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35117 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
There was also a time when blacks were seen as subhumans and a time when blacks were seen as inferior . . . people thought (and still think, in some places) that things were cursed or hexed or somesuch when a black person touched them.

Ignorance can get in the way of a lot of things, but what it comes down to is this: do you, ultimately, care if the person who saves your country is a white straight man or black bisexual woman? Does it really make that much of a difference to you? They both can carry a gun and fight for their country. Their blood is made of the same stuff.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35118 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"This is hypothetical, right? Because the military doesn't require coed showers AFAIK. And same-sex showers, even with a horde of lesbians, are just not the same thing. "

Why are they not the same thing? Maybe it doesn't seem the same to you because women are not generally as sexually aggressive as men and men tend to focus more on physical attractiveness while women generally focus more on emotional attachment.

But now let's shift to the case of a straight man forced to live is such close proximity with gay men. The discomfort comes from being in such close living proximity to people who view you in a sexual way. Straight men, and I assume gay men as well, view those of the gender they are attracted to in a sexual way. Say your daughter works for a company and as a condition of her employment she has to shower with her male boss every day. That would be illegal sexual harassment even in the absence of any overt move on the bosses part to turn the relationship into a sexual relationship. Or to take the power out of it, say she is required to shower with a male co-worker who is not her boss, but again the male co-worker takes no overt action beyond the showering. The problem is that a climate is created which makes her sexually uncomfortable. How would you or she like it if you were just told "Get over it!" as those who advocate full open participation by gays in the military seem to want to say to straight men who are also being put climate where they are made to feel sexually uncomfortable. What's sexual harassment in the workplace should be national policy just because we're talking about the military? I just don't see it, and I have a great deal of sympathy for straight men in the military who have to live under these conditions that most of us, if subjected to them in the workplace, would sue over.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Apostrophy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35119 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
They both can carry a gun and fight for their country. Their blood is made of the same stuff.

True enough. But are they fighting for the same personal freedoms? If they knew that there was no possible way for homosexuality to be accepted, and no possible way for black people to be given the same opportunities as white people, do you think they would risk their own blood?
Just a question.

A

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35120 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Originally posted by hortonron:

You can compare the women issue with the blacks issue, but neither can be compared to homosexual issue. One is race and gender and the other is behavior and lifestyle.


Pardon me for being naive here, but since when does being a woman not mean a different lifestyle than being a man?

In addition to that, you can't, IMHO, stop being black any more than you can stop being homosexual. You can avoid doing "woman" things, but you're still a woman. How do you magically unbecome non-heterosexual? And yes, I've seen people on here say that if you don't engage in homosexual activities and you were gay, you're not gay anymore. How do you defend that statement?

Re: integration of the army: http://www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/desegregation/large/deseg1.htm

So it would appear that the late 40s was when integration was officially introduced. Lynchings continued into the 50s (I don't have a site for this, just the word of a priest I knew in high school who was very much pro-everybody having rights. Bless his soul).

And to this day we have people who are arguably targeted for crimes because of their race. People killed or attacked for existing as something that is not white, or is not black, or whatever. There are still an awful lot of people who don't like the equality we give, and the equality we theoretically give.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35124 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Maybe, re: homosexual behavior in the military, we're, some of us, ignoring the fact that when men are caught sexually abusing women in the military, and in general, most often they're punished. I know there have been a few cases in the past few years where a man has done improper things to an unconsenting female (in or out of the military) and faced severe penalties.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35126 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
When the military integrated, a majority of Americans did not support equal civil rights for blacks, IMO.

PD,

Not sure I agree with this. Remember what I said in another post. Many in the south didn't support equal rights but as a whole America did. Additionally, the world, as a whole, supported civil rights. Also, blacks have always served in the military. What the military did was expand that to other areas. Very similiar to women and the military. The main difference with woman was it came down to a strength issue. Now, for the record, I have no issue with women in the miltiary. If they can do the job, it doesn't matter just as long as we don't change the standards. Unlike homosexuality, it is their lifestyle that goes against the moral fiber of our society. That was not true of blacks or woman. They were discrimiated against purely because of gender and skin color. Again, civil and woman rights was a different issue than gay rights.

Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35127 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 6:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Originally posted by YF:
The "love and to hold until death do us part" would be pointless since there will be no children to live in a stable marriage.


Given any civil union involving persons A and B, how can you say, unless they have explicitly stated that they do not want to have children and will not have kids, that there won't be any? Gay men can adopt. Lesbians can go through an egg-splitting-type of thing or adopt of get artificially inseminated or any number of other things.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35128 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Originally posted by Apostrophy:

I am begining to think some of you find the topic of homosexuality exciting.


I want to fight ignorance. There are some on this board who, for whatever reason, believe some things to be true. I don't think those things are true, so I'm trying to explain why that is. I don't have a fascination with homosexuality beyond why people have a problem with it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35129 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Originally posted by rbednarski:

But now let's shift to the case of a straight man forced to live is such close proximity with gay men. The discomfort comes from being in such close living proximity to people who view you in a sexual way.


Some people probably don't much care about being viewed in a sexual way. When I was first told by a gay friend of mine that he found me attractive, yeah, it did weird me out . . . but that was because I didn't think anyone could find me attractive. These days I don't care if people find me attractive so long as they don't go overboard or unwantingly advance upon me. That goes for anyone, regardless of if they like men, women, or bald squirrels.

Originally posted by rbednarski:

Straight men, and I assume gay men as well, view those of the gender they are attracted to in a sexual way.


Maybe, but that doesn't mean they're goingn to do anything about it. I'm not attracted to every woman I run across during my daily travails. I don't have deep, lurid thoughts about making tender love to her the way I have for the past 30 years - wait, I'm channeling Al Gore.

Originally posted by rbednarski:
The problem is that a climate is created which makes her sexually uncomfortable.


I have several female friends who have no problem showering with anyone, male, female, or reptilian. One of my best friends used to walk around in a bra and jeans around her friends becase that's how she was most comfortable. They didn't mind and according to her and them it didn't create any sort of sexual environment more than what was already there with her being female.

Originally posted by rbednarski:

How would you or she like it if you were just told "Get over it!" as those who advocate full open participation by gays in the military seem to want to say to straight men who are also being put climate where they are made to feel sexually uncomfortable.


Some of those guys are going to be uncomfortable whoever's showering with them. There are some people who like as much privacy as possible. There are others who truly do not care. When I cared about people being homosexual, it was because I thought they'd jump me because I was young and weak. Now that I've A. learned this isn't the case and B. gotten a lot stronger, I truly don't care so long as they don't try to do anything to me I don't want.

And again, as has been said before, privacy is a concern in the army. I don't really know a lot about showering in the army, so I can't say the stuff you're raising isn't valid, but I at least remember in MASH that showering wasn't communal.

Originally posted by rbednarski:

I just don't see it, and I have a great deal of sympathy for straight men in the military who have to live under these conditions that most of us, if subjected to them in the workplace, would sue over.


What sort of conditions? Showering with women? That's already been covered, I believe. Unwanted sexual advances? Right now, that's illegal in most places except the presidency (jk). An unwanted sexual advance, whether you're male or female, is not legal.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35130 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Originally posted by Apostrophy:

If they knew that there was no possible way for homosexuality to be accepted, and no possible way for black people to be given the same opportunities as white people, do you think they would risk their own blood?


I think they would . . . as soldiers in the Civil War and WWI did. They were black, some of them, and knew they would not be accepted after the war, but there was a greater good for which to fight.

I also think they'd raise hell about the inequality present.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35131 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
jmls,

nematoo: Concerning your quotes, I think the argument could be made that the OT verses are superseded by the NT. Concerning the NT (Romans) verse, is it obvious that it refers just to homosexuality?

I would say just the opposite. The new testiment justifies what was said in the OT.

hortonron: First, IMHO it is unfair to compare homosexuality to murder, theft etc. In a murder, someone is hurt (the guy who is murdered!). In a theft, someone is hurt (the guy who has stuff stolen from him). How is anybody hurt by homosexuals?

You are right. I knew someone would raise that point. Not all sin is the same. I was attempting to illustrate a point on how, it today's world, one can hate the sin and love the sinner. I used the extreme of murder because if you can still love a murderer you can easily love the gay person. People often confuse the dislike for a certain behavior with a dislike for a person. That's what many people insinuate of me on this topic. I used an extreme to illustrate a point. IMHO, murder, theft, homosexuality, are all wrong but that doesn't mean I hate the person.

Second, as a tangential comment. I cannot comment on what the "lifestyle" of a gay person is; but I believe that the media portrayal is very stereotyped (a la "Will and Grace").

I agree. It was the same way with blacks. However, when people see two men kissing or holding hands it goes against the moral fiber we were raised on. Most people would say "What is wrong with this picture?" You see, you can't openly allow gays in the military and say they can't hold hands, etc. just as you can't tell a guy and girl they can't hold hands. Problem is, if you are one that thinks homosexuality is perfectly natural, Biblically sound, and see nothing wrong with two men kissing and being with each other like a man and woman, this argument is futile. If that is acceptable to you, then you don't think it adds to the moral decline of this nation. I personally think it is wrong, unnatural, forbidden by God, and contributes to the moral decline of America.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35132 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Originally posted by hortonron:

However, when people see two men kissing or holding hands it goes against the moral fiber we were raised on.


Not all of us were raised to believe that homosexual activity is immoral. Furthermore, some of us who were now disagree with that notion.

And . . . there are those who, back in the day, thought a union of black and white or whatever wasn't natural and contributed to the moral decline of this nation as well. I know you don't equate homosexuality to skin color, but you're talking about moral declination here.

Originally posted by hortonron:

I personally think it is wrong, unnatural, forbidden by God, and contributes to the moral decline of America.


But what's in the Bible and what's legal is not always the case. Yes, I know this is a Christian board, but various things being forbidden by God don't make them illegal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jmls Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35133 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dear RahmYtsani,

About birth control. Please consider the 28th verse of Genesis where God talks to humans for the very first time:

Have a lot of children!


Hmmm... I guess, as worded, "go forth and multiply" doesn't to me say that "birth control = sin". Genesis 1:28 also says to "fill the earth and subdue it." I would not conclude that this means "tree-hugging environmentalists are sinners because they aren't letting men subdue the earth."

PS: Icelanders thought there were all descended from Vikings until genetic test showed that about 1/3 of the population are descended from Irish slaves.

I'll take your word for it, as I have zero insight into the genetic makeup of Icelanders :) So then I guess there are really no "pure" nations around to my knowledge.

Best,

Lleweilun Smith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35135 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 7:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We have to take this on a case-by-case basis. My parents are straight. Dad would never have danced with BG Cartwright; he danced with Mrs. Cartwright. (Dad loved to flirt!)

OK, say BG Cartwright was openly gay. Why would he never have danced with him? BG Cartwright lifestyle would have been completely natural and normal - right?

Still, I have a cousin who is openly gay, and my parents have had her and her partner stay at their house, in the same room. They have no problem with that at all.

OK, what if they were both men? I can't back this up, but I also think the public perception is much different when it comes to gay men. I think it is probably a macho thing. Yes, military men like to believe they are macho. Your parents also have a much deeper love for your cousins than society does. Love such as that overcomes many obstacles.

So if homosexual behavior was a problem, the military could and would do something about it.

Whoever's behavior is causing the problem. Got a straight man making unwanted passes at women? Discipline him. (Educate him, too.) Got a gay guy making unwanted passes at men? Do the same thing. It's a behavior problem, not an attitude problem.

You are right we can deal with things such as behaviorial problems. However, it is not the same, to consider a guy making a pass at a girl, as a guy making a pass at a guy. Two guys slow dancing together have a much more dramatic impact than a guy and a girl. Society considers one natural and the other not natural. In the military, we just can't say - "OK a man and woman can slow dance, but two men can not." If we let one do it, we have to let all do it. BTW, for the record, unwanted passes are unacceptable in military standards. We do punish harrassment severely.

so I do bow to the military's right to do what it sees fit. And while I deeply respect those who serve in the military,

Thank you. I appreciate your respect for the military. However, you have made the point I am trying to make in other posts. It should be the military who should decide what is best not some politician looking for votes and using the military in that quest. Now, I will agree, that if public opinion changes on an issue, and the military doesn't get it, then our civilian leadership should step in and give them a nudge. Homosexuality is not there. Public opinion does not support homosexuals in the military. Keep in mind, when I say this, that the military is a cross section of America. America's view is generally the view of those in the military when it comes to moral issues. I would venture to say, that, at this time, if they forced gays in the military, there would be a mass exodus of personnel. I can't back that up with statistics or some cool article. It's just a gut feel of someone who has been in the military since graduating from High School. Is that what America wants?

Thanks for the post.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35136 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"What sort of conditions? Showering with women?"

Oh, please, you know that is not the point. The condition I am obviously talking about is having to live in close physical, even intimate (in the nonsexual sense) with someone who views you in a sexual way. If it is OK to subject straight men to this vis a vis gay men then it should be OK to subject women to this vis a vis men. And if it is not, as it most certainly is not in this society, (and should you ever have a daughter you will be glad for this) then it is the height of societal hypocrisy to have such a difference in standards for men and women. It is a blatant double standard to require straight men to live in such close quarters with gay men while not similarly requiring women to live in the same close quarters with men.

And it does not take an unwanted sexual advance to create a hostile environment. Simply hanging a picture may do it. Why don't all companies have policies that co-workers traveling together have to share a hotel room regardless of whether they are the same gender. If they had such policies how long do you think it would be before they would be slapped with a sexual harassment suit even if no unwanted sexual advances had occurred?

You seem to want to disavow any parallel between the situation of a straight man in the presence of gay men and the situation of a woman in the presence of men, whereas I see these as, for all intents and purposes, analogous.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jmls Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35137 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Dear hortonron,

I would say just the opposite. The new testiment justifies what was said in the OT.

Then should we eat pork ("unclean" in the OT)? Similarly, we have decrees such as Lev. 19:18, which forbids planting fields with two kinds of seeds, or wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material.

However, when people see two men kissing or holding hands it goes against the moral fiber we were raised on.

I would say that there are different "we's". Not everyone finds two men kissing or holding hands offensive! I don't know whether you are correct about the "most people" or not (I grant you that you may be though; I would say that there are less people today that would find it strange than in the past). FWIW, from the short time I have spent in Europe, two people of the same gender holding hands says nothing about their sexuality; and kissing friends is a common form of greeting.

Back to the morality of America. I have no way of measuring the "moral level" of the country; but IMHO it is rising. In the 1900s there was a lot of discrimination against ethnic groups such as the Irish and Jews, segregation was legal, and women's rights were much less than today. America, for all of its problems today, is a much more open and tolerant society than back then.

Best,

Lleweilun Smith

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35138 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
They tried keeping the women in separate tents but found they needed to be with their unit to get the job done properly.

R99,

Are you saying the Army lets males and females stay in the same tent together? I find that really hard to believe. There is a big difference between sleeping in the same tent and having tents in the same area. We have COED barracks also, but they don't stay in the same room. I'll have to ask a friend of mine who is an Army General about that one. I would be amazed if that were true.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35140 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hello Wanema. BTW, I have been trying to respond to your email but it keeps coming back rejected.

Romans 1:26 speaks directly to the women/ homosexuality issue.

Mmmm, interesting.. I took those unnatural acts by women as being with animals not other women. I use Lev 18:23, 20:16 to support that.

Can you even imagine how he felt?

No I can't. I can only imagine if my wife did that I would be crushed. It's sad.


GB,
Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35141 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When I and my squad deployed, we did so as a "co-ed" unit. All in one tent. Showers rarely happen in the field, those that do happen with a fair amount of privacy.

Wow, amazing. I know the Navy would never even consider that but then again we don't live in such extreme conditions.

Though, I would say that, going COED in a large group is much easier to control than two or four person tents. I am not in the Army so I can't speak with any credibility on that. However, I will talk to some of my Army friends on that.

Thanks for the enlightment. R99, I guess I stand corrected.

Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: RickBrooks Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35142 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Wanema, Like Ron, I've tried to e-mail you directly and thru TMF. All have been returned to me as undeliverable. Please check out your e-mail provider. I've some information for you concerning my past and present involvement with the music industry.
Good fortune. Rick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35143 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Youngfod,

How's things in the land of big clocks? I bet you are all getting quite a rise out of our recent election?

I guess they were being good when you wrote that. When there is a small problem they become "our children". When they are bad they become "your daughter or son".

LOL, ahhh so true! However, deep down, they are always our children. :-)

Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35144 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Does it really make that much of a difference to you? They both can carry a gun and fight for their country. Their blood is made of the same stuff.

Punha,

Not the issue. As I have said many times before, capability has nothing to do with. The argument is the military should not have social experiments, done for political gain, forced upon them.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35146 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What's sexual harassment in the workplace should be national policy just because we're talking about the military? I just don't see it, and I have a great deal of sympathy for straight men in the military who have to live under these conditions that most of us, if subjected to them in the workplace, would sue over.

Rich, well said. I appreciate your comments and examples. You do a much better job getting the point across than I ever could. You hit on the crux of the original issue. I don't think the military should be used as a social lab because of political agendas. That was the comment that started this discussion on the Political Asylum board. It evolved to the homosexual issue.

Thank you,
Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35147 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Punha,

Pardon me for being naive here, but since when does being a woman not mean a different lifestyle than being a man?

I never said it was. Let me re-phrase lifestyle to "unacceptable lifestyle according to the moral standards of this country". A woman's lifestyle is not considered unacceptable to our society.

And yes, I've seen people on here say that if you don't engage in homosexual activities and you were gay, you're not gay anymore. How do you defend that statement?

I don't defend that statement. You may still be gay, but your unnatural lifestyle (according to society) ceases when you do not participate in it. Again, as I said before, if you are one that thinks homosexuality is as natural and accepted as heterosexuality is, then this discussion is mute. I do not think homosexual lifestyles are acceptable or natural.

So it would appear that the late 40s was when integration was officially introduced. Lynchings continued into the 50s....

And to this day we have people who are arguably targeted for crimes because of their race....


True statements. But, you are taking the actions of groups in a very small minority, many being radical, and saying their unacceptable actions are condoned by society. That simply is not true. The great majority of society in America or the world do not condone such actions.

Ron



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35148 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I know there have been a few cases in the past few years where a man has done improper things to an unconsenting female (in or out of the military) and faced severe penalties.

Yes, their careers were terminated. Large sums of money were taken from them, and they were demoted a rank or two for retirement. That demotion, fiscally, means a great deal.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35150 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 8:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Gay men can adopt. Lesbians can go through an egg-splitting-type of thing or adopt of get artificially inseminated or any number of other things.

That may be true, but it is not a normal occurrence. if it does come to fruition, it is after a long legal battle. American society does not embrace this. Youngfod can speak regarding Europe.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DiabloQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35152 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 9:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So it would appear that the late 40s was when integration was officially introduced. Lynchings continued into the 50s (I don't have a site for this, just the word of a priest I knew in high school who was very much pro-everybody having rights. Bless his soul).


The most famous lynching of the 1950's was the Emmett Till lynching.
http://members.aol.com/deverysa/page2.html

A few sites about the history of lynchings:
WARNING: some of the details are rather graphic
http://www.africana.com/tt_374.htm
http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics2/carnival/
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/01/18/lynching.photography/
http://www.ci.duluth.mn.us/city/police/website/history/lynching.htm

-- Fran






Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35154 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 9:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Punha,

Not all of us were raised to believe that homosexual activity is immoral. Furthermore, some of us who were now disagree with that notion.

True, but you are in a vast minority when it comes to the general American public.

I know you don't equate homosexuality to skin color, but you're talking about moral declination here.

Blacks and whites marrying was never Biblically support. Couldn't hold up to scrutiny. See comments below for why I think that is significant.

But what's in the Bible and what's legal is not always the case. Yes, I know this is a Christian board, but various things being forbidden by God don't make them illegal.

I have posted this many times before, but here goes. What is legal and what is considered moral standards are two completely different things. America's moral standards were, have been, and are Biblically based. Whether you believe the Bible or not is irrelevent. The fact is that's where we got and get our moral standards.

Ron




Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35155 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 9:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
jmls,

Then should we eat pork ("unclean" in the OT)? Similarly, we have decrees such as Lev. 19:18, which forbids planting fields with two kinds of seeds, or wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material.

And we do! Please reference the NT verse that say we should not. The NT clearly says homosexuality and men being with men, women being with animals, etc. in unclean and unacceptable -- a sin.

I would say that there are different "we's".

And your "we" is not the majority "we". To my six year old "we" is his family. When I talk about "we" I talk about the vast majority of Americans.

FWIW, from the short time I have spent in Europe, two people of the same gender holding hands says nothing about their sexuality; and kissing friends is a common form of greeting.

Please, there is a big difference between a greeting peck on the cheek and a passionate kiss on the mouth. I don't recall seeing forgeign dignitaries sticking their tongue in another man or females mouth as a greeting.

In the 1900s there was a lot of discrimination against ethnic groups such as the Irish and Jews, segregation was legal, and women's rights were much less than today. America, for all of its problems today, is a much more open and tolerant society than back then.

You are confusing race,color, creed issues with lifestyle/behaviorial issues. Apples and oranges. Read my past posts for comments on this.

Ron






Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RickBrooks Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35156 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 9:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ron,

<Blacks and whites marrying was never Biblically support. Couldn't hold up to scrutiny.>

I'm probably reading this incorrectly but does the Bible really state that blacks and whites can not marry? I've heard this from members of the Christian Identity movement before but was not convinced. This is possibly because they have such low credibility with me that I didn't pay close enough attention to their Scriptural ciatation(s).
Good fortune. Rick



Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35157 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 9:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hello Rick,

I'm probably reading this incorrectly but does the Bible really state that blacks and whites can not marry? I've heard this from members of the Christian Identity movement before but was not convinced. This is possibly because they have such low credibility with me that I didn't pay close enough attention to their Scriptural ciatation(s).

No, as far as I know, it doesn't Rick, that's my point. I said "was never supported". I'm not a Bible scholar, if it does, maybe someone could point us to the verses. That's why it never held up to the scrutiny. The ones spouting this had no credibility with main stream America.

Regards,
Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35158 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 9:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The main difference with woman was it came down to a strength issue. Now, for the record, I have no issue with women in the miltiary. If they can do the job, it doesn't matter just as long as we don't change the standards.

Ron, I could not agree with you more! You'll get fewer women in certain positions, and that's just fine with me. We can't compromise our standards when national defense is at stake.

Just wanted to agree with you for a while. :-)

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35159 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 9:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The "love and to hold until death do us part" would be pointless since there will be no children to live in a stable marriage.

By that argument, only marriages with children would count. That doesn't make sense to me.

phantomdiver



Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35160 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 10:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
OK, say BG Cartwright was openly gay. Why would he never have danced with him? BG Cartwright lifestyle would have been completely natural and normal - right?

I still doubt very much that my dad would have danced with him! See, you get to choose who you're gonna dance with. If you're straight, why dance with somebody of your own sex? If you're gay, why dance with somebody of the opposite sex?

OK, what if they were both men? I can't back this up, but I also think the public perception is much different when it comes to gay men.

I guess. But that doesn't make it right.

You are right we can deal with things such as behaviorial problems. However, it is not the same, to consider a guy making a pass at a girl, as a guy making a pass at a guy. Two guys slow dancing together have a much more dramatic impact than a guy and a girl. Society considers one natural and the other not natural.

This is where I'm having trouble understanding your point. You have problems with homosexuality on both a religious level and on a personal level -- that is, on the level that says that American has a problem with homosexuality. Can we discuss one at a time? See, if society has a problem with homosexuality, okay, maybe it's wrong to force the issue in the military just yet. But if it's just a moral issue, and you'll clearly always, always be against it, that doesn't mean that the military cares.

In the military, we just can't say - "OK a man and woman can slow dance, but two men can not." If we let one do it, we have to let all do it.

Sure. But weren't we talking about unwanted sexual advances?

BTW, for the record, unwanted passes are unacceptable in military standards. We do punish harrassment severely.

Exactly as it should be! And that's my point! Unwanted sexual advances -- harrassment -- are the problem, not people's sexual orientation and even actions.

It should be the military who should decide what is best not some politician looking for votes and using the military in that quest. Now, I will agree, that if public opinion changes on an issue, and the military doesn't get it, then our civilian leadership should step in and give them a nudge.

Nudges have to start somewhere. Even on this board. :-)

I would venture to say, that, at this time, if they forced gays in the military, there would be a mass exodus of personnel. I can't back that up with statistics or some cool article. It's just a gut feel of someone who has been in the military since graduating from High School.

So maybe it isn't time yet. But it's time to think about it, for sure.

I always enjoy your posts, Ron. Even when you are at your most vehement, you respect the other party in a discussion. It's very refreshing. Thanks!

phantomdiver

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: phantomdiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35161 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 10:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The condition I am obviously talking about is having to live in close physical, even intimate (in the nonsexual sense) with someone who views you in a sexual way. If it is OK to subject straight men to this vis a vis gay men then it should be OK to subject women to this vis a vis men.

Lots of women put up with this. Daily. Constantly. We learn to live with it. It involves standing up for oneself sometimes and ignoring what's going on other times. It works.

In any case, if the attraction turns to action, then that's an offense punishable by discipline. But attraction by itself does not have to be a problem.

phantomdiver

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35167 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 10:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"Mmmm, interesting.. I took those unnatural acts by women as being with animals not other women. "

If you look at the verse following Rom 1:26 I think it is clearer:

(Rom 1:26-27 NASB) For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, {27} and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Since it says "in the same way" and then goes on to describe male homosexuality it is a reasonable inference that what is being talked about in verse 26 is female homosexuality.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35171 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 10:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"I don't recall seeing forgeign dignitaries sticking their tongue in another man or females mouth as a greeting."

Al Gore notwithstanding, I don't think this kind of kissing is ever appropriate in public no matter who is doing it: male-male, male-female, female-female, or other-other.

FWIW

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35172 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 10:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Lots of women put up with this. Daily. Constantly. "

Really? In what context?

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35174 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 10:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PD,

I still doubt very much that my dad would have danced with him! See, you get to choose who you're gonna dance with. If you're straight, why dance with somebody of your own sex? If you're gay, why dance with somebody of the opposite sex?

But why wouldn't your Dad? Just because it was another man? I am sure your Dad danced with other women besides your Mom. If homosexuality is such a natural thing and acceptable than it should not matter whether he dances with male or female. I am sure he had the utmost respect for BG Cartwright. Did your Dad not dance with Black woman or German women? Is it only sexual orientation that was the problem? If so, why? Being Black is no different than being gay according some posters. I'm using your argument to illustrate my point on social attitudes.

This is where I'm having trouble understanding your point. You have problems with homosexuality on both a religious level and on a personal level -- that is, on the level that says that American has a problem with homosexuality. Can we discuss one at a time? See, if society has a problem with homosexuality, okay, maybe it's wrong to force the issue in the military just yet. But if it's just a moral issue, and you'll clearly always, always be against it, that doesn't mean that the military cares.

Your right. I am talking three different issues. The first issue I am defending is why military personnel have a problem with homosexual conduct and why it leads to good order and discipline and credibility problems. Reason: Society does not embrace homosexuality, our military is a cross section of American society. The second issue is why I don't think the American society embraces homosexuality. Reason: Our moral standards are Biblically based. The third issue is why I don't embrace homosexuality. Reason: My moral standards are also Biblically based and I think it is unnatural and forbidden by God. The second and third issues sort of tie in together because I consider myself main stream America. Sorry for getting you confused. I have posted so many posts to different people on this issue, the issues are running together.

Exactly as it should be! And that's my point! Unwanted sexual advances -- harrassment -- are the problem, not people's sexual orientation and even actions.

It's not the orientation or person that is the issue. If no one knew, then it probably wouldn't be a problem. It's the unavoidable acts, behavior, and lifestyle that come with it. Just as you can't control normal relationships, you can't control homosexual ones. It's the acts and behavior that America and people in the miltiary have a problem with. People can say, all they want, that what a person does on his/her own is their business. I agree, however, in the military, the conditions under which we operate do not allow a "when I'm home, I'm home" mentality. If you openly allow gays in the military, we will have men holding hands with men, gay men taking showers with straight men, etc. This is threatening and goes against the moral principles by whic most of us were raised and that causes a problem.

Nudges have to start somewhere. Even on this board. :-)

Yes, when the time is right and public opinion support it. Nudges come about, whne it is only the military who don't get it.

So maybe it isn't time yet. But it's time to think about it, for sure.

Exactly my point. The military should not be a lab. Like I said before, face it it, the Gay in the Military has nothing to do with rights of people. It is purely a political agenda. Our military is not the place for that.


Anyway, I also enjoy your posts. But, I have been repeating myself so often it makes my head hurt. :-) You may want to search my threads for amplification of some of my comments and counterpoints to counterpoints. As you pointed out earlier, this are three separate issues. That's why the original was posted on the Political Ayslum board (Issue 1 + 2), another on the Military Fools board (Issue 1), and the third here on the Christian Fools board (Issue 3). Unfortuneatly, all three places ended up discussing all three at the same time.

Anyway, warmest regards,
Ron

P.S. What I really need to do is - Do what Al Gore refuses to do -- Pack my bags and go home. :-). Sorry political editorial comment. :-)


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35175 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 11:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Since it says "in the same way" and then goes on to describe male homosexuality it is a reasonable inference that what is being talked about in verse 26 is female homosexuality.

Thanks Rich. Very interesting. I never thought of it that way.

GB,
Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35176 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 11:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Al Gore notwithstanding, I don't think this kind of kissing is ever appropriate in public no matter who is doing it: male-male, male-female, female-female, or other-other.

Rich,

I agree. The point I was attempting to make was a greeting peck on the cheek is much different that a kiss on the mouth/lips by two people sharing a relationship. I have done the peck greeting thing with people of other nationalities. I have certainly not kissed them on the lips as I would my wife.

GB,
Ron


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35177 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 11:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why thank you PD. It's nice that we can agree on an issue. Now, I will tell you that there are many who do not agree. There are people in the military and society who think we need to make women fully integrated into all military assignments. Changing the standards if need be. They also will use the Civil Rights movement as an example of lowering standards. I disagree because we never lowered the standards for the Black American, although many people have tried. A matter of fact one of the greatest Naval Officers I ever had the honor to serve with was a woman. She was smart, feminine, beautiful, and one hell of a leader. But, she met the same standards as every male did. Military people have no issue with that. But, before you go there, remember what I said about homosexuality and woman's rights. Behaviorial and Gender.... Apples and Oranges..... :-)

GB,
Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35178 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/27/2000 11:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Originally posted by PD:

Lots of women put up with this. Daily. Constantly. We learn to live with it. It involves standing up for oneself sometimes and ignoring what's going on other times. It works.


Let me add (not to detrach from her point):

Men deal with this, too. To a degree it involves believing people will be decent. When they're not, you fight back. Sometimes you don't.

The person who wins is not always the person who's right.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: iampunha Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35180 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/28/2000 12:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Originally posted by hortonron:

If homosexuality is such a natural thing and acceptable than it should not matter whether he dances with male or female.


That it's a natural thing doesn't mean everyone is. For example, it's natural for some people to have brown hair. That doesn't mean everyone has it.

I personally don't have a problem with non-heterosexuality (as should be blatantly obvious, but anyway). I think a lot of people have problems with it not because it is intrinsically wrong but because that's what they've been taught. One of the reasons I believe in God is that it's what I've been taught. You've been talking about the moral fiber of this country, and I think that's also something that's been taught.

Society does not embrace homosexuality, our military is a cross section of American society.

Society doesn't embrace any number of things. And this society might not, but other societies have very much embraced not being straight. Right now society doesn't embrace what it (not we) considers being fat and ugly. Does that mean there's something intrinsically wrong with being fat and ugly by this society's standards?

The second issue is why I don't think the American society embraces homosexuality.

Reason: It never has. It wasn't forced to, and as such it didn't. It takes a lot of people yelling and screaming for a very long time to change much legally, let alone in this society. Black people are legally the same as whites, but there are still a lot of people who don't much care about the law. Hell, anyone who isn't rich and white and male is legally the same (except for certain circumstances), but in practice society doesn't embrace much of anything.

I think it is unnatural

If it's so unnatural why do you see God talking about it so early in the Bible? And why are there so many people who are not straight? Something like 15 percent of this society isn't straight. That's 3 people out of every 20. Seems to me that not being straight is a lot more natural than not being over 6"5' tall, for example.

If no one knew, then it probably wouldn't be a problem.

It wouldn't be a problem for you, but I'd bet it'd be a problem for whoever it was, and his or her friends and family. Imagine having to hide something like that and hang around with people who would bash you without caring. BDTD, own the patent on the t-shirt:)

. Just as you can't control normal relationships, you can't control homosexual ones.

Why on earth do you need to control them? Let them be! They're not going to hurt you, honest:) Just give them the same rights and respect you'd give someone with a "normal" sexual orientation and have done with it.

It's the acts and behavior that America and people in the miltiary have a problem with.

1. Not all of us have a problem with it. America as a whole might, but that's changing.

2. I think there is, in general, a lot of ignorance wrt homosexuality and not being straight in general. I think a lot of the military's unwillingness to embrace not being straight has something to do with that.

And yes, I realize that's a blanket statement, but I also think it's true.

If you openly allow gays in the military, we will have men holding hands with men, gay men taking showers with straight men, etc.

Dude, we've already got that. Bit too late:)

This is threatening and goes against the moral principles by whic most of us were raised and that causes a problem.

And 100 years ago people were raised with the notion that black people were inferior and that women were genetically weaker and should not be allowed to do much of anything under law. And all sorts of other things.

That you were raised one way doesn't make it right.

Yes, when the time is right and public opinion support it.

Public opinion didn't support America's involvement in Asia. Public opinion didn't support Christianity back when Constantine made ti oaky to be Xtian. Public opinion probably didn't support a whole lot of things I think we can safely say benefited this country.

Like I said before, face it it, the Gay in the Military has nothing to do with rights of people. It is purely a political agenda.

Gays in the military has plenty to do with the rights of people. You're here forbidding someone to serve their country in the military because they'd rather have sex with a man than a woman (or a woman than a man, or maybe they don't care so long as it's a warm, clean body). What difference does it make who they go to bed with? Are they going to get cooties? Are they plotting to take over the world? Are they not as good soldiers? Do bullets go through them quicker?

It's become a political agenda because people treated it as such. People wanted to know if their presidential candidate supported gays in the military. They wanted rights.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jmls Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35184 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/28/2000 1:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Dear hortonron,

jmls said:

Then should we eat pork ("unclean" in the OT)? Similarly, we have decrees such as Lev. 19:18, which forbids planting fields with two kinds of seeds, or wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material.

hortonron said:

And we do! Please reference the NT verse that say we should not. The NT clearly says homosexuality and men being with men, women being with animals, etc. in unclean and unacceptable -- a sin.

First, where in the NT is there a reference about women and animals?

I cannot clearly find a reference in the NT to not wearing clothing made from two kinds of material. I did find though the following from Jesus:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.(NIV Matthew 5:18).

I can believe that, in various places though, the NT does supersede the NT. Several places Paul says that he doesn't feel any food is unclean; and he says that we live under grace, not Law.

For what its worth though, Paul explicitly forbids women to braid their hair:

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.(NIV I Timothy 2:9).

Later, Paul says that women are saved through childbearing:

But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.(NIV I Timothy 2:15).

Paul also says that women should cover their head, but men should not, in prayer:

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. (NIV I Corinthians 11:6-7).

Paul seems to be saying to me that if I pray wearing a hat, I am a sinner; if a woman wears braids in her hair, she is a sinner; and a woman needs to have children to be saved. Would you agree with these statements? Not me!

When I talk about "we" I talk about the vast majority of Americans.

Well, you may be in the majority, but I am pretty certain you are not in the "vast majority". From what I understand, something like 15% of Americans are gay (I don't have statistics to back this up, but I have heard this number in other places); and I'm sure there is some percentage of non-gays who support gay rights. Even if you only put the latter group at a few percent, you are still talking close to 1 in 5 Americans are gay or support gays; and I would guess (admittedly without any statistics) that the latter group is more than a few percent.

Please, there is a big difference between a greeting peck on the cheek and a passionate kiss on the mouth. I don't recall seeing forgeign dignitaries sticking their tongue in another man or females mouth as a greeting.

Sorry, I guess I didn't see that the male/male kissing referred to a passionate kiss on the mouth or foreign dignitaries. You are correct that the European greeting is in general a light kiss on the cheek. I stand by my point though that two men or women holding hands in Italy (I was in Trieste for a few weeks) is not a sign of homosexuality or offensive in the least.

You are confusing race,color, creed issues with lifestyle/behaviorial issues. Apples and oranges. Read my past posts for comments on this.

I was addressing your comment about the moral decay in America. You may say that I am wearing rose-coloured glasses, but I don't think that America is experiencing a moral decay. I think that America is getting better!

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on some points. Respectfully,

Lleweilun Smith

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35185 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/28/2000 1:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Punha,

Everyone of your comments has been addressed elsewhere, numerous times. You are missing my point on everything and it is futile to discuss it further. This discussion is no longer productive. I am not going to rehash and rehash everything. You have joined this discussion way into it and have not brought anything new to the table. If your interested, go back and read all my posts on this board, Political Asylum board, and Military Fools board. Sorry if this sounds mean it is not intended to be but everything has already been said over and over again.

Next topic.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jeffreyw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35186 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/28/2000 1:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>PS: Icelanders thought there were all descended from Vikings until genetic test showed that about 1/3 of the population are descended from Irish slaves. <<

Interesting. I didn't know genetic testing could determine a person to be slave or free.

Jeffrey

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hortonron Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35189 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biblical Principles Date: 11/28/2000 3:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
jmls,


Thanks for the post. This is the discussion I was hoping to generate. Although, as I found out, it has been already discussed in depth on this board and I have inadvertently opened a scab.

First, where in the NT is there a reference about women and animals?

Romans 1:26 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for un-natural ones". Sexual perversions are being discussed here.

I believe that verse references Lev: 18:22,23 - "Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is perversion". Now, if you think having sexual relations with animals is not unnatural, then this discussion is mute.

Later, Paul says that women are saved through childbearing:

Paul also says that women should cover their head, but men should not, in prayer:

For what its worth though, Paul explicitly forbids women to braid their hair:

I think you are taking these verses out of context without looking further into what Paul was saying. Stand alone I see how you can think what you do. Taking verses out of context is what many people do to use the Bible to prove their point. However, IMO, if you reference it to other verses, study deeper, or look at what was going on at the time you may get a better understanding of what was being said. I'll give you an example below.

Paul seems to be saying to me that if I pray wearing a hat, I am a sinner; if a woman wears braids in her hair, she is a sinner; and a woman needs to have children to be saved. Would you agree with these statements? Not me!

I don't think Paul was saying that was a sin but a ruling he had to make when conflict among the churches arose. FWIW, I'll give you my viewpoint. Others may chime in and give you theirs. Anyway, in those days no woman would appear in public unveiled. The veil represented safety and respect at the time. However, there were differences in Greek and Hebrew customs when it came to prayer. Greek women, as well as men, prayed bareheaded. Roman and Jewish men and women prayed with their heads covered. The Christian church needed a ruling. It was causing problems.

The ruling Paul gave rested on the relative roles of men and women in the created order. He was also concerned not to flout current social convention and so bring the Christians into dispute. Bottomline, he came up with men would pray bareheaded and women would pray veiled. It wasn't a sin before God, it was a ruling in the Church of the day.

Needless to say, homosexuality and sex with animals is not the same thing. They are clearly laws of God, not church rules.

I stand by my point though that two men or women holding hands in Italy (I was in Trieste for a few weeks) is not a sign of homosexuality or offensive in the least.

Probably true, but in main stream America two men or women kissing as one would with someone in a relationship is considered offensive and homosexual. Also, two men (not women), walking down the street window shopping in America, holding hands or arms around waists is considered offensive and would give most people the impression they were homosexual. We're talking America, not Italy.

I was addressing your comment about the moral decay in America. You may say that I am wearing rose-coloured glasses, but I don't think that America is experiencing a moral decay. I think that America is getting better!

This my friend, we will have to agree to disagree on. Time will tell. Only thing I would suggest is take a look at Rome and the Roman Empire. See where they were and were delcining to when God destroyed them.

I personally believe, the only reason that God has not destroyed America, is because of the overwhelming amount of Christians in our country and we were built on four simple words - "In God We Trust". But, that's only my opinion. I know many will disagree.


Anyway, this got long as I usually do. Great discussing with you.

Warmest regards,
Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Apostrophy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35192 of 195928
Subject: Re: Homosexuality an