Why are homosexual/polygamous marriages illegal in so many countries?

[lemur]

Couldn't you more plausibly argue that there is more scope for transcendental reflection after basic needs are fully satisfied, since then they don't distract you? If you are really thirsty, hungry, or sleepy, you will have a hard time concentrating on your work or attaining any truly deep insights into anything because you are profoundly distracted by trivial things. So if you remove those petty distractions by satisfying them, you should become a much deeper thinker.

In my experience, it can work both ways. If I am hungry, I can be grumpy and distracted and this can be solved by eating. However, I can also intentionally fast for a period of time, during which I cross a sort of threshold where the hunger subsides and my body feels "tighter" in a way, or maybe "neutral" would be a better word. Then there is a sense of heightened consciousness, as if I was a little bit drunk on days when I eat normally and I sober up during the fast.

 

Arguably, religion directs us away from deeper reflection by making us obsess over all the basic drives which religion insists on frustrating. If I have free access to water I never think of anything so mundane as water or thirst, but if my water supply is severely restricted, I can think of nothing else but the petty servicing of my thirst.

Right, but what can happen is that by getting into a pattern of always satiating desires, it actually makes you that much more vulnerable for disturbances in your expectations of satiation, which have become psychosomatic responses. So, for example, if you're always used to stopping and getting drive-thru food whenever you feel like it, you might go through frustration if you for some reason had to limit your diet to two or three planned meals each day. However, someone who is used to regimenting their diet this way has less trouble (maybe) encountering fast-food restaurants. I say "maybe" because I think there are people who get that much more frustrated at the presence and constant patronage of such food because they are experiencing repressed desire. Still, the question is whether it would be better for such people to indulge whenever they have the urge or to practice controlling their desires and satisfaction of them. I think there are valid arguments for both approaches, and drawbacks to each.

 

If this is true, then we are thrown back on the 'Marxist' argument to explain religion's fixation on denying those it seeks to subject to its power the satisfaction of their basic urges other than in accordance with the power of the priesthood to prescribe rules.

Yes, that would be a good example - and this is, I think, the protestant complaint about the Catholic Church "selling indulgences" by allowing people to pay penance in economic contributions. Who knows, maybe it is all just a sublimated passive aggressive power game to subjugate people by controlling their access to the objects of their desires, but then that power game goes far beyond any church. The difference with religion is that there are at least some people who legitimately seek the (spiritual) benefit in things like fasting, poverty, etc. Regardless of what subconscious motives may be behind the ideology generally, such individuals are often pursuing spiritual practices "in good faith" as a form of discipline, similar to practicing yoga or golf.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

But my reading of the bible suggested to me that homosexuality is regarded along the same lines of all other sexual practices that aren't directly reproductive,

 

I've not seen any evidence that the Bible has anything to say concerning sex where the intention is not to reproduce. Please don't confuse the Catholic Church with the Bible.

 

including heterosexual fornication.

 

If you think people can't have babies if they're not married, I've got news for you.

 

I.e. Jesus says it's better to abstain completely (eunich is the ideal state according to him), but then he says that not everyone can and so marriage is the best.

 

The Apostle Paul is not Jesus.

 

In other words, I don't think carnal pleasure is viewed as any more legitimate within heterosexual relationships; it's just an inevitable evil to be minimized.

 

Don't confuse Victorian Era morality with the Bible either.

[lemur]

I've not seen any evidence that the Bible has anything to say concerning sex where the intention is not to reproduce. Please don't confuse the Catholic Church with the Bible.

How's this?

1 Corinthians 7 (Contemporary English Version)

 

 

 

1 Corinthians 7

 

Questions about Marriage

¹Now I will answer the questions that you asked in your letter. You asked, "Is it best for people not to marry?" ^[a]2Well, having your own husband or wife should keep you from doing something immoral. ³Husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex. ⁴A wife belongs to her husband instead of to herself, and a husband belongs to his wife instead of to himself. ⁵So don't refuse sex to each other, unless you agree not to have sex for a little while, in order to spend time in prayer. Then Satan won't be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ⁶In my opinion that is what should be done, though I don't know of anything the Lord said about this matter. ⁷I wish that all of you were like me, but God has given different gifts to each of us. ⁸Here is my advice for people who have never been married and for widows. You should stay single, just as I am. ⁹But if you don't have enough self-control, then go ahead and get married. After all, it is better to marry than to burn with desire. ^[b]10I instruct married couples to stay together, and this is exactly what the Lord himself taught. A wife who leaves her husband ¹¹should either stay single or go back to her husband. And a husband should not leave his wife.

 

If you think people can't have babies if they're not married, I've got news for you.

Obviously, but I think the idea is that people should have sex for the sake of maintaining positive relationships and shouldn't spend unnecessary energy on achieving sexual pleasure. I think that people are supposed to be married to have babies is so that both parents support each other's role of supporting the child as well as possible. It's basically putting the well-being of the child above the egos of the parents, imo.

 

The Apostle Paul is not Jesus.

What does it matter? If Paul said something you disagree with you would question it but not if Jesus did? What makes you assume that Jesus hasn't been misquoted or words attributed to him by people who wanted to exploit the uncritical submission of dogmatic Christians?

 

Don't confuse Victorian Era morality with the Bible either.

No, I agree that expressions of scripture are interpretations or "translations" and only the original text is truly the text and no one has true access to it because even if you're reading the original words in the original language, you're still interpreting it within you own intellectual framework(s). I think this view is actually derived from Islam, but it makes sense to me.

 

 

[Iggy]

Hitting your father and murdering someone are equal evils in God's view (going by the Bible).

 

Prov. 6:16-19 might be of interest -- a list of sins that God hates. I guess, implicitly, they would be sins that he hates more than others.

 

I do understand where you're coming from though (e.g. James 2:10) and I agree with Mr. Skeptic's interpretation--the pregnancy metaphor.

 

Actually, Christ's lines in the Bible are supposed to be held in a higher regard than those of his disciples, or the apostles. Only Jesus' words are the word of God.

 

I could see a different argument to that.

 

In his "I send you forth as sheep amidst wolves" speech, Jesus told his apostles, "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Matt. 10:20).

 

Also, Lemur was quoting Paul from I Corinthians and in the same epistle he tells the Corinthians, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Cor. 14:37) effectively attributing the epistle to Jesus--at least in a theological sense.

 

If I recall correctly, Peter also invoked that kind of authority in one of his epistles, but I can't find where right now. In any case, I think a good argument could be made for not regarding any scripture as privileged.

 

But my reading of the bible suggested to me that homosexuality is regarded along the same lines of all other sexual practices that aren't directly reproductive, including heterosexual fornication... I think the idea that homosexuality is bad because it's 'unnatural' comes from a secular culture of homophobia.

 

I think true Christianity would not want to "convert" people to heterosexuality. It would probably just tell people to attempt to resist sexual desire in favor of higher spirituality,

 

Your interpretation seems--enlightened--for lack of a better word. It feels better, or at least more fair, to condemn all promiscuity equally. But, I'm sure I couldn't interpret the bible that way.

 

In the new testament homosexuality is called unnatural, shameful, and perverted, and death considered its due penalty.

 

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

(

Rom 1:26-27

)

 

Since the only reference to homosexuality in the bible is to strongly condemn it, I don't think it can be interpreted as commensurate with heterosexuality -- even in the sense that both are immoral if they are lustful.

 

I don't, personally, consider homosexuality immoral and I can't logically reconcile that with the bible so I’m forced to reject the bible as a source of morality.

 

As for homophobia coming from secular culture -- homosexual acts were widely considered acceptable in the Greco-Roman world. That changed when the culture became Christian and homosexual marriages, followed by homosexual acts, became illegal and punishable by death. I believe it was a direct Christian adaptation to the culture.

 

Arguably, religion directs us away from deeper reflection by making us obsess over all the basic drives which religion insists on frustrating. If I have free access to water I never think of anything so mundane as water or thirst, but if my water supply is severely restricted, I can think of nothing else but the petty servicing of my thirst.

 

That sounds sensible to me.

 

Buddha, they say, just about starved himself to death searching for enlightenment. After eating and regaining his strength and his mental faculties he realized that he was more likely to find truth if he wasn't so deprived of human necessities. (Buddha’s Fasting)

 

"Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire" -Ecc. 6:9

[Marat]

Since Lemur's reply implies that deliberately taming and disciplining biological drives can be both distracting from spirituality and promoting of spirituality, depending on a number of contingent factors, then why is religion always so consistently endorsing the restriction of biological drives? It would seem that once again we can only explain this consistency by admitting that religion is trying to enhance its psychological control over people by inserting itself between them and their physical needs, so that the Church can dominate and program them by allowing physical satisfaction only through its offices.

[mooeypoo]

I guess that is somewhat accurate. But my reading of the bible suggested to me that homosexuality is regarded along the same lines of all other sexual practices that aren't directly reproductive, including heterosexual fornication. I.e. Jesus says it's better to abstain completely (eunich is the ideal state according to him), but then he says that not everyone can and so marriage is the best. I think this would apply to homosexuality as well as heterosexuality, personally. My point, though, is that I don't see the bible itself (regardless of how people apply/interpret it) as regarding sexuality as natural or unnatural and therefore good or bad. It's more that all sexuality is natural, but it is advisable to resist it as much as possible for spiritual purposes. I think the idea that homosexuality is bad because it's 'unnatural' comes from a secular culture of homophobia.

Not sure what bible you're reading, but the "Old" testament has this to say on the matter:

 

• Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."
• Leviticus 20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
• Deutronomy 22:5 "A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God. {P}"
• Deutronomy 23:18-19 "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel; Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. {S}" (Sodomites are biblical names for homosexuals, according to most interpretations, both Jewish and Christian).
• Isaiah 3:9 "The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have wrought evil unto themselves." (not only have the sodomites existed, they were 'out in the open', God forbid).
• Daniel 11:37 [the chapter describes the "antichrist"]: "Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all."
  It's worth noting that there are quite a few preachers who use this verse to state the antichrist is gay.
• Joel 4:3 "And they have cast lots for My people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk."
• And of course, the story of Sodom and Gamorah, whose adults were wiped out of the face of the Earth for, among other things (but this one emphasized):
  - Gen 19 4,5: "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'" (the aramaic/hebrew word for knowledge - "Yada" - is sexual context, everywhere in the biblical texts).

Source for biblical quotes: http://www.mechon-ma...rg/p/pt/pt0.htm

(Chosen because it features both languages side by side).

 

[There are more references, but I think the above list makes the point properly.]

 

We can argue about the historical and tribal origin of these biblical laws, but there's very little doubt how the bible *treats* homosexual acts in terms of rules. These are also the references that are used by the vocal and politically influential religious christians (from varying denominations) and jews to claim that homosexuality should be banned by law.

 

The secular view of the "unnatural" aspect of this came later. Secular societies are more prone to not really caring about homosexuality either way (north-western european states which are secular by nature are the most tolerant for gay marriage, for instance) and looking back historically at, say, the greeks, who despite having a polytheism worshipped the human body and built secular government ("Democracy" rather than theocracy), practiced and *celebrated* the sexual act of homosexuality and polygamy and many others.

 

When we discuss why *countries* ban gay marriage and some ban gay acts as well (even some states in the USA still have actual laws against "sodomy" and sexual acts) we can't talk about PERSONAL interpretation, we need to talk about the accepted interpretation of the leading politically-influential religious bodies in this country. So, even if religious individuals find ways to interpret the biblical laws differently, that doesn't quite explain the laws of the state which absolutely are religious, historically speaking.

 

Seems to me that you're putting forth your own feelings about what the bible says, which is fine, but that doesn't mean the bible is tolerant (even by treating it as not "a bad" sin) to homosexuality. The rule is to kill homosexuals. You might argue definitions here, but I don't think anyone would define the world "tolerance" anywhere close to that.

 

 

Prov. 6:16-19 might be of interest -- a list of sins that God hates. I guess, implicitly, they would be sins that he hates more than others.

 

Just a comment on this one - the bible is full of "the most important rules for God!" lists that are not ENTIRELY consistent.

The "Ten Commandments" are *the* rules of God. These appear twice, in slightly varying order/meaning. Other than that, there are about 3 or 4 other lists of "most important laws" all throughout the old testament.

 

It's one of the evidence secular readers pose to show the bible was written by people, as a cultural/historical manifesto and was completely affected by the time it was written. Just saying.

 

 

Obviously, but I think the idea is that people should have sex for the sake of maintaining positive relationships and shouldn't spend unnecessary energy on achieving sexual pleasure. I think that people are supposed to be married to have babies is so that both parents support each other's role of supporting the child as well as possible. It's basically putting the well-being of the child above the egos of the parents, imo.

Homosexuality is not just about sex, just like heterosexuality is not about sex. Homosexual couples stay together for love just like heterosexual couples do. The sex is a bonus.

 

I don't quite see any difference between a homosexual couple or a lesbian couple that stay together for love and adopt a child to a heterosexual couple that either bears a child or adopts one. Truly, I fail to see the difference other than some imposed social stigmas that could (and I pose: should) be changed.

[lemur]

Not sure what bible you're reading, but the "Old" testament has this to say on the matter:

Source for biblical quotes: http://www.mechon-ma...rg/p/pt/pt0.htm

(Chosen because it features both languages side by side).

Nice list of citations. Did you come up with them all on your own? The only thing I can say is that they're all old testament quotes and, while there's nothing wrong with seeking enlightenment in the old testament, it reminds me of when Jesus says that divorce was allowed in the old testament because men were hard-hearted but that a person who truly understands love and forgiveness would not divorce. He also makes it a point to prescribe marriage as a pragmatic approach to lust, i.e. better to marry than to burn with lust, so why would he say that people should indeed burn with homosexual lust? It seems logical to me that Jesus' point was to temper lust with social/marital responsibility and committed love. I sincerely doubt that he would then turn to homosexuality and say, "burn in hell."

 

We can argue about the historical and tribal origin of these biblical laws, but there's very little doubt how the bible *treats* homosexual acts in terms of rules. These are also the references that are used by the vocal and politically influential religious christians (from varying denominations) and jews to claim that homosexuality should be banned by law.

I don't know how often I have to say that just because someone claims to be Christian or Jewish that their beliefs/actions speak for other people who claim the same faith. Ultimately, each individual chooses to interpret and apply their faith in their own way.

 

The secular view of the "unnatural" aspect of this came later. Secular societies are more prone to not really caring about homosexuality either way (north-western european states which are secular by nature are the most tolerant for gay marriage, for instance) and looking back historically at, say, the greeks, who despite having a polytheism worshipped the human body and built secular government ("Democracy" rather than theocracy), practiced and *celebrated* the sexual act of homosexuality and polygamy and many others.

One explanation for this is that north-western EU cultures tend to be strongly post-Christian secular, so much of public policy seems to based on Christian morals combined with redemptive pedagogical approaches to undesirable behaviors (sins). So, it seems like a lot of behavior is allowed to go on as it is seen as "youthful mischief" that people will learn from and change on their own. I think what has changed in recent years is that some people have claimed full legitimacy in behaviors that were once considered deviant, while others are moving toward stronger intolerance because in their opinion, cultural traditionalism is losing ground and needs to be protective. It is all very passive aggressive, imo, but I don't think you should underestimate European homophobia any more than xenophobia. It's just that it gets expressed more covertly out of fear for being labelled paternalistic, since this is associated with the strong right-wingism of nazism. If you look carefully, though, you will see that many people are more concerned with being labelled nazi-like than with actually doing away with the cultural preferences behind nazism, so such people tend to get angry about high profile extreme rightism, but if you examined their feelings closely, the reason they don't like it is because it's like looking in a mirror where they don't like what they see, imo.

 

When we discuss why *countries* ban gay marriage and some ban gay acts as well (even some states in the USA still have actual laws against "sodomy" and sexual acts) we can't talk about PERSONAL interpretation, we need to talk about the accepted interpretation of the leading politically-influential religious bodies in this country. So, even if religious individuals find ways to interpret the biblical laws differently, that doesn't quite explain the laws of the state which absolutely are religious, historically speaking.

No, the thing that explains that is the same thing that explains the relationship between terrorism and religion. When someone is seeking power/control over others, they piece together a power-apparatus that includes whatever ideology they think can legitimate their desired results. So if someone dislikes homosexuality because they're homophobic, and they're clever and educated in religion, they can appropriate that ideology for their political purposes and garner lots of public support by others who share their feelings. Just because people claim to do the things they do in the name of Jesus or the bible doesn't automatically make them saints.

 

Seems to me that you're putting forth your own feelings about what the bible says, which is fine, but that doesn't mean the bible is tolerant (even by treating it as not "a bad" sin) to homosexuality. The rule is to kill homosexuals. You might argue definitions here, but I don't think anyone would define the world "tolerance" anywhere close to that.

The rule is actually not to kill, period. Regardless of my personal feelings, I was just explaining what makes sense to me with regards to the reasoning expressed by Jesus with regard to the relationship between sexual desire and marriage as prevention of greater sin. I think this same logic can be extended to every form of sexual sin and probably to other sins as well. The general premise of Jesus' teachings is to continue forgiving people for sin so that they'll become convinced of how great the love of God is and desire to redeem themselves and others out of longing to "spread the good news of salvation." True, there is unwaivering recognition and condemnation of sin for what it is, but that doesn't preclude forgiveness - and supposedly there is no limit to how often you can be forgiven. The reason people seem to dislike this approach is that they want their actions to be declared totally pure and non-sinful in the first place, but I think the logic of sin is what it is and it would be lying to call something that's a sin not a sin. Nevertheless, I think you have to understand the logic of sin as something more than an arbitrary list of punishable acts before you can come to terms with why Jesus is trying to redeem people and change their behavior (for their own good).

 

Just a comment on this one - the bible is full of "the most important rules for God!" lists that are not ENTIRELY consistent.

The "Ten Commandments" are *the* rules of God. These appear twice, in slightly varying order/meaning. Other than that, there are about 3 or 4 other lists of "most important laws" all throughout the old testament.

If you go through the bible in search of contradiction in order to undermine its overall legitimacy, you will succeed. If you go through it in search of wisdom/insight/guidance, you will also find that. "Seek and you shall find," is the line that comes to mind.

 

It's one of the evidence secular readers pose to show the bible was written by people, as a cultural/historical manifesto and was completely affected by the time it was written. Just saying.

I think people make too much out of the claim that the scriptures are authored by God. They are in the sense that people wrote them under inspiration that they truly experienced as direct revelation from God (I assume) but from a materialist standpoint, it makes sense to acknowledge that their "divine revelation" was a spiritual state they were in when receiving their revelations and no one, including they themselves, had any kind of physical evidence/proof that some kind of external being was communicating with them (this is why I say you have to be satisfied with God's existence as an (spiritual) artifact of faith, or you're always going to demand proof that you're not going to get.

 

Homosexuality is not just about sex, just like heterosexuality is not about sex. Homosexual couples stay together for love just like heterosexual couples do. The sex is a bonus.

I know. That's why I think Jesus would have prescribed monogamy and true love and support in the form of marriage. The only thing I think he would have also said is that when homosexuals use someone of the opposite sex as a donor/surrogate to make babies, that person would also be treated as a spouse with the same level of love and responsibility for their well-being. In other words, I think the logic of marriage attributed by Jesus was that it prevents people from washing their hands of each other after they get whatever it is they want from them.

 

And, actually, I think Islam prescribes a slightly higher level of social responsibility in sexuality by requiring men to marry their mistresses and limit the amount of sexual partners they have in a lifetime by marrying them all and not marrying more than 4 times. I think this would also be a reasonable rule to apply to homosexual partners and surrogates/donors. Perhaps each homosexual couple should be married to a heterosexual couple in a family-arrangement that covers all bases. I've heard that homophobia is as strong or stronger among muslims as anyone else, but I have also read that men can become publicly recognized as women in Oman so I don't know how much diversity among muslims the media ignores in favor of demonization and stereotyping.

Edited April 4, 2011 by lemur

[mooeypoo]

I didn't say anything about your beliefs, lemur, I said that when we talk about how religion affects POLITICS (which we are) then it's no longer about individual interpretations and more about the interpretation of the leading vocal religious groups.

 

 

 

Other than that, and ignoring the slight snipiness in your initial comment, I did not come up with those citations myself; I checked my notebook for them. After 12 years of studying the bible in hebrew/aramaic, stuff stick with you, and you have a lot of notes.

 

I don't use my "Jewishness" to claim I know better. I merely pointed out that while you seem to claim there's no basis in the bible for anti-homosexual sentiments, you are, in fact, mistaken. Here are the anti homosexual sentiments.

 

I agree that some (most, probably) of these could be interpreted differently. In fact, the bible also has some very POSITIVE stories about homosexuality like Ruth and Naomi and David and Johnathan. But we were talking about how the vocal religious groups that affect politics takes advantage of THEIR view of the biblical texts to influence politics and laws --- I posted what *they* use.

 

The fact you disagree with it doesn't mean they disagree with it. They are using those and more to claim homosexuality is a sin just like murder and rape and hence should be punished and banned by law. If you don't believe me that this is what they do, I suggest you go on some googling of your own and check out their websites.

 

Start with the republican congressmen/women and their view on homosexuality. Surprising how it should be "secular" and yet each and every single one of them claim God in their excuses for denying gay marriage.

 

 

 

~mooey

[lemur]

I didn't say anything about your beliefs, lemur, I said that when we talk about how religion affects POLITICS (which we are) then it's no longer about individual interpretations and more about the interpretation of the leading vocal religious groups.

Why would I privilege some other interpretation over the one that I think is more correct just because it has a high public profile or broad following? Would you argue the same thing if leading popular scientists promoted interpretations of scientific knowledge that were incorrect?

 

Other than that, and ignoring the slight snipiness in your initial comment, I did not come up with those citations myself; I checked my notebook for them. After 12 years of studying the bible in hebrew/aramaic, stuff stick with you, and you have a lot of notes.

Sorry for the snippy tone. I was just curious if you were really that personally interested in scripture or if you had some kind of publication you had read that cited all those quotes. It was an impressive compilation of pertinent citations - not exactly the most friendly to sexual diversity but certainly relevant to it.

 

I don't use my "Jewishness" to claim I know better. I merely pointed out that while you seem to claim there's no basis in the bible for anti-homosexual sentiments, you are, in fact, mistaken. Here are the anti homosexual sentiments.

Why should theological discussion be any different than any other discussion? The only thing I take offense to is when you say I should subordinate my interpretive argumentation to popular opinion. I respect your reading and argumentation of the bible and I wouldn't tell you that you have to drop it because some church is more influential than you are in your humble "Jewishness." (edit: please don't be insulted by me saying "humble Jewishness." It was just in response to your comment - I can see how it might sound like some kind of sarcastic jab, but it's not meant to be).

 

I agree that some (most, probably) of these could be interpreted differently. In fact, the bible also has some very POSITIVE stories about homosexuality like Ruth and Naomi and David and Johnathan. But we were talking about how the vocal religious groups that affect politics takes advantage of THEIR view of the biblical texts to influence politics and laws --- I posted what *they* use.

If you want to talk about people who use religion to promote homophobia, that's your prerogative. I just entered this thread to express my opinion that homophobia is something that is brought into theology from secular homophobia. You have shown evidence that such homophobia can be directly supported by biblical quotes. My response was that the new testament's approach to sexuality and marriage explicitly questions the "hard heartedness" of old-testament men. Now if you want to discuss how many modern day people are on the homophobia bandwagon, that's a different discussion to me.

 

The fact you disagree with it doesn't mean they disagree with it. They are using those and more to claim homosexuality is a sin just like murder and rape and hence should be punished and banned by law. If you don't believe me that this is what they do, I suggest you go on some googling of your own and check out their websites.

I know what opinions people have and what they do with them. I think the difference between you and I is that when lots of them organize, you view that as reason to elevate their opinion over other people's. I'm an individualist. When multiple individuals harmonize their opinions and express them in terms of collective solidarity, all I want to know is how many of them are actually thinking for themselves independently and how many are just conforming to what they hear from others because there's some form of social validation in it for them.

 

Start with the republican congressmen/women and their view on homosexuality. Surprising how it should be "secular" and yet each and every single one of them claim God in their excuses for denying gay marriage.

Why is it surprising when people use religion to give weight to their secular opinions? People aren't stupid. They know that it carries more weight if they attribute their opinion to religious truth than if they use other kinds of reasoning. If people truly believe in good faith that their opinion on homosexuality is rooted in scripture and good will toward people and life in the creation, then I would be willing to listen to their reasoning. I just don't think that most people are capable of relinquishing their psychological need to make themselves feel superior by putting other people down. When I see documentaries on conversion therapy, I watch with interest because I'm curious if there is actually good-will involved with converting people to heterosexuality. When there is, it doesn't matter to me whether I personally agree with the idea of converting people's sexuality or not - I still find it interesting that someone has the good will to help others in a way that, at least for them, is truly a form of help. However, most of the homophobia I see expressed under religious pretense usually appears to be homophobia dressed up with artificial religious legitimacy. It might be prejudice on my part, but I often feel like I can tell the difference between when people are pursuing a cause or expressing something in true good faith or if they're just saying whatever they think they need to say to manipulate the discourse in their favor. Still, I have to admit that I cannot see their souls directly, only their words and expressions.

Edited April 4, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

Perhaps the Old Testament's fear and hatred of homosexuality came from its superstitious uneasiness with things that were ambiguous. Thus its dietary laws forbid eating things which crawl upon the bottom of the sea (since the sea is typically for swimming, while the land is for crawling), or things which fly out of the sea (such as a leaping swordfish was imagined to do, since flying is for the air, while the sea is for swimming), or things which eat and digest food in a way uncharacteristic of other animals with hoofs (like pigs).

 

Incidentally, the Bible has nothing against killing people. The actual language of the Old Testament says 'Thou shalt not commit a murderous act," not "Thou shalt not commit homicide." A 'murderous act' was criminal homicide, not all homicide. (Modern criminal law makes the same distinction, since many forms of legal killing of people in war, execution, protection of life, suppression of crime, self-defense, and the defense of necessity are recognized.) Otherwise the statement with respect to the Witch of Ensor, that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," or the killing by Moses of all those tribes blocking the route to the promised land, would have been sinful, as it was not.

[mooeypoo]

Perhaps the Old Testament's fear and hatred of homosexuality came from its superstitious uneasiness with things that were ambiguous. Thus its dietary laws forbid eating things which crawl upon the bottom of the sea (since the sea is typically for swimming, while the land is for crawling), or things which fly out of the sea (such as a leaping swordfish was imagined to do, since flying is for the air, while the sea is for swimming), or things which eat and digest food in a way uncharacteristic of other animals with hoofs (like pigs).

There are quite a lot of historical assumptions about where the biblical laws come from (Specially the "Kashrut" laws about what is and isn't Kosher). Your assumptions sound to me as good as any, though I personally lean towards the cultural aspects.

 

If you think about it, there aren't really many sea food creatures to eat in the middle east where the israelites were. I recently heard a theory that pigs were banned out of necessity in the desert; other animals like goats and sheep are herds that can move far distances in the desert, so the tribes could move with their herds. But pigs can't move that fast, so to make travel easier, the tribal leaders banned pigs.

I don't know if it's totally plausible to me, but I guess that works too.

 

Incidentally, the Bible has nothing against killing people. The actual language of the Old Testament says 'Thou shalt not commit a murderous act," not "Thou shalt not commit homicide." A 'murderous act' was criminal homicide, not all homicide. (Modern criminal law makes the same distinction, since many forms of legal killing of people in war, execution, protection of life, suppression of crime, self-defense, and the defense of necessity are recognized.) Otherwise the statement with respect to the Witch of Ensor, that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," or the killing by Moses of all those tribes blocking the route to the promised land, would have been sinful, as it was not.

 

That's absolutely right. The actual text in the (multiple versions) of the ten commandments says "murder" ('TirtzaH') and not killing. Also, the Israelites do quite a lot of killing that is sanctioned in the eyes of God.

 

However, sex is defined rather straight forward in the biblical laws. While Johnathan/David story seems to talk about love, David is still punished for it, and God speaks not very kindly about their love (neither does Saul).

 

So personal interpretation aside (and I have my own view of these, myself), we can't really ignore the fact that many of the larger groups of vocal religious folk use these to claim that homosexuality and other "non conventional" sex acts are sinful. These are used to change laws of state. I wish we could be all free to live in our own interpretations, but that is a bit unrealistic when laws that limit people's lives (like, say, mine) are created out of THEIR personal interpretation of the biblical texts.

 

 

 

~mooey