|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 7:40 pm
 |
|
|
 |
NOCTVRNVS Sin-of-Malice I'm bi and damn ******** proud. But that question's just like asking if Heterosexuality is wrong...damn, there's no difference. And it's not a sin; even in Christian's terms. They just don't actually stop to read or study their bibles. -sighs- But love is love; no matter who it is. Prove to me being in love, fighting my life to protect and do my damnest to take care of someone is horribly wrong and then I'll consider it. = =" Yes that's all very nice on the surface, although you obviously never realized that the same could be said by a ******, necrophile, bestialist, incestuous and just about every other deviance from the sexual norm. Justifying acts of homosexuality by saying that it's okay because "it's love" makes very little difference. If you loving another man makes your lifestyle choices okay, then a man loving a cat makes his lifestyle choices okay. Not to mention, while of course the involuntary attribute of being gay isn't condemned in the Bible, acting upon it and committing acts of homosexuality absolutely IS condemned. You are a bit misleading.
CONSENTING ADULTS
What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults. Understand? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:40 pm
|
|
|
|
Efstathios NOCTVRNVS Sin-of-Malice I'm bi and damn ******** proud. But that question's just like asking if Heterosexuality is wrong...damn, there's no difference. And it's not a sin; even in Christian's terms. They just don't actually stop to read or study their bibles. -sighs- But love is love; no matter who it is. Prove to me being in love, fighting my life to protect and do my damnest to take care of someone is horribly wrong and then I'll consider it. = =" Yes that's all very nice on the surface, although you obviously never realized that the same could be said by a ******, necrophile, bestialist, incestuous and just about every other deviance from the sexual norm. Justifying acts of homosexuality by saying that it's okay because "it's love" makes very little difference. If you loving another man makes your lifestyle choices okay, then a man loving a cat makes his lifestyle choices okay. Not to mention, while of course the involuntary attribute of being gay isn't condemned in the Bible, acting upon it and committing acts of homosexuality absolutely IS condemned. You are a bit misleading. CONSENTING ADULTS What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults. Understand?
The "consenting adults" argument in support of homosexuality is so irrelevant, it really is. I mean who are YOU to say that ONLY consenting adults can engage in sexual acts? People always thought that only consenting men could have sex with only consenting women, but that had to be changed so that homosexuality would be accepted. So if we have to change our standards of who can morally engage in sex for society to accept homosexuality then there is NO reason it can't change to accept any of the above lifestyles -- and it inevitably will. It was never "okay" for a man to have sex with a man but that has changed. The line separating "allowed" and "forbidden" has already been broken, now there is no logical reasoning keeping it back other than "morality". But it's pretty obvious that morality has no effect on the issue anyway.
So why does it have to be consenting adults? Why not just "consenting"? Wouldn't that be more logical really and allow for "more equality"? I mean really you're saying that age determines maturity but that isn't very fair, it's a generalization. It doesn't make much sense that retards with an IQ of 27 can make the decision to have sex, but a 12-year-old genius can't! Saying that you can't enjoy sex because of your age is a violation of human rights. As long as he or she consents then sex should take place at any age, just like we say at our protests "sex before eight, or it's too late". Remember when homosexuals were protesting a very similar issue in the 80s just like we are now? Gee maybe in 20 years time we will make another "step forward" for human rights and allow children and infants (or as I like to call them "age-challenged") to enjoy the wonders of sexual companionship.
And what about people who can't speak properly? I guess they can't have sex either then
And then 10 more years and it's "bark once for 'I consent' or twice for 'not right now' Skippy"
Hell, for all I know it could BE legal in some places already neutral |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:07 am
|
|
|
|
NOCTVRNVS The "consenting adults" argument in support of homosexuality is so irrelevant, it really is. I mean who are YOU to say that ONLY consenting adults can engage in sexual acts? People always thought that only consenting men could have sex with only consenting women, but that had to be changed so that homosexuality would be accepted. So if we have to change our standards of who can morally engage in sex for society to accept homosexuality then there is NO reason it can't change to accept any of the above lifestyles -- and it inevitably will. It was never "okay" for a man to have sex with a man but that has changed. The line separating "allowed" and "forbidden" has already been broken, now there is no logical reasoning keeping it back other than "morality". But it's pretty obvious that morality has no effect on the issue anyway. So why does it have to be consenting adults? Why not just "consenting"? Wouldn't that be more logical really and allow for "more equality"? I mean really you're saying that age determines maturity but that isn't very fair, it's a generalization. It doesn't make much sense that retards with an IQ of 27 can make the decision to have sex, but a 12-year-old genius can't! Saying that you can't enjoy sex because of your age is a violation of human rights. As long as he or she consents then sex should take place at any age, just like we say at our protests "sex before eight, or it's too late". Remember when homosexuals were protesting a very similar issue in the 80s just like we are now? Gee maybe in 20 years time we will make another "step forward" for human rights and allow children and infants (or as I like to call them "age-challenged") to enjoy the wonders of sexual companionship. And what about people who can't speak properly? I guess they can't have sex either then And then 10 more years and it's "bark once for 'I consent' or twice for 'not right now' Skippy" Hell, for all I know it could BE legal in some places already neutral
Non-humans and children who have not reached the normal age of reproductive maturity cannot give consent(about 13, 12 used to be the legal age of consent, but they've raised it to 16). A kid who hasn't reached sexual maturity won't want sex and forcing a sexual act on a being that doesn't want it is immoral(including animals). Beings incapable of understanding the ramifications of sex are also not able to consent, including people with an IQ of 27.
Also it was always that consenting men could have sex with whoever they damn well pleased, regardless of that person's feelings on the subject, at least get your facts right. People used to buy wives, you think she had a say?
Homosexuality is as old as sex, there are homosexual animals and one of the greatest armies ever, the Spartans were homosexuals, they considered it great luck for lovers to be in the same battalion because a man would fight harder to show off for his lover.
Were the Greeks horribly immoral then? And apperently they exist in the future since it was "never" ok? So, I guess democracy should burn with Sodam and Gomorrah then... Since the Greeks were such 'immoral' 'sinners' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:03 pm
|
|
|
|
Efstathios NOCTVRNVS The "consenting adults" argument in support of homosexuality is so irrelevant, it really is. I mean who are YOU to say that ONLY consenting adults can engage in sexual acts? People always thought that only consenting men could have sex with only consenting women, but that had to be changed so that homosexuality would be accepted. So if we have to change our standards of who can morally engage in sex for society to accept homosexuality then there is NO reason it can't change to accept any of the above lifestyles -- and it inevitably will. It was never "okay" for a man to have sex with a man but that has changed. The line separating "allowed" and "forbidden" has already been broken, now there is no logical reasoning keeping it back other than "morality". But it's pretty obvious that morality has no effect on the issue anyway. So why does it have to be consenting adults? Why not just "consenting"? Wouldn't that be more logical really and allow for "more equality"? I mean really you're saying that age determines maturity but that isn't very fair, it's a generalization. It doesn't make much sense that retards with an IQ of 27 can make the decision to have sex, but a 12-year-old genius can't! Saying that you can't enjoy sex because of your age is a violation of human rights. As long as he or she consents then sex should take place at any age, just like we say at our protests "sex before eight, or it's too late". Remember when homosexuals were protesting a very similar issue in the 80s just like we are now? Gee maybe in 20 years time we will make another "step forward" for human rights and allow children and infants (or as I like to call them "age-challenged") to enjoy the wonders of sexual companionship. And what about people who can't speak properly? I guess they can't have sex either then And then 10 more years and it's "bark once for 'I consent' or twice for 'not right now' Skippy" Hell, for all I know it could BE legal in some places already neutral Non-humans and children who have not reached the normal age of reproductive maturity cannot give consent(about 13, 12 used to be the legal age of consent, but they've raised it to 16). A kid who hasn't reached sexual maturity won't want sex and forcing a sexual act on a being that doesn't want it is immoral(including animals). Beings incapable of understanding the ramifications of sex are also not able to consent, including people with an IQ of 27. Also it was always that consenting men could have sex with whoever they damn well pleased, regardless of that person's feelings on the subject, at least get your facts right. People used to buy wives, you think she had a say? Homosexuality is as old as sex, there are homosexual animals and one of the greatest armies ever, the Spartans were homosexuals, they considered it great luck for lovers to be in the same battalion because a man would fight harder to show off for his lover. Were the Greeks horribly immoral then? And apperently they exist in the future since it was "never" ok? So, I guess democracy should burn with Sodam and Gomorrah then... Since the Greeks were such 'immoral' 'sinners'
Well where to start...
You obviously missed my whole point because you are still defending homosexuality with the fact that it's ILLEGAL, currently, to have sex with certain entities. Let me restate it then -- HOMOSEXUALITY was illegal, remember? So how can you defend homosexuality with other legal boundaries? The same boundaries that homosexuals fought, and won, against? You call that a justice, why wouldn't the removal of these other barriers be a justice?
And next, you tell ME I've got my facts wrong when I wasn't even talking about "buying wives" (wherever that came from), and then you say something like the ole "Greeks were homosexuals you know". Yeah, no, that's brainwashing bulls**t and I'm sorry you believe it. Somehow you don't even question the concept that an entire army comprised of men, selected at BIRTH, and raised to die as fighters protecting the purity of Greece, were all homosexuals? Not to mention the fact that it was each Spartan's duty to raise a child who would pass on the lineage of the Spartans through each generation, meaning they would have to marry a woman. Also consider the point that a Spartan would only be called to war when the time came that his son could support himself in the case that his father was slain.
Here's a better example of a society of homosexuals: Egypt. I wonder why you didn't mention that one? O wait, they were the most brutal and sadistic race in the entire known ancient world, and their "gods" all supposedly originated from the severed genitalia and removed innards of other gods, they had a god that "cooked and ate" gods weaker than it, and thought that a serpent living on the other side of the planet tried to swallow the sun every night to harness its destructive power and use it to wipe out all humanity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:46 am
|
|
|
|
NOCTVRNVS Well where to start... You obviously missed my whole point because you are still defending homosexuality with the fact that it's ILLEGAL, currently, to have sex with certain entities. Let me restate it then -- HOMOSEXUALITY was illegal, remember? So how can you defend homosexuality with other legal boundaries? The same boundaries that homosexuals fought, and won, against? You call that a justice, why wouldn't the removal of these other barriers be a justice? And next, you tell ME I've got my facts wrong when I wasn't even talking about "buying wives" (wherever that came from), and then you say something like the ole "Greeks were homosexuals you know". Yeah, no, that's brainwashing bulls**t and I'm sorry you believe it. Somehow you don't even question the concept that an entire army comprised of men, selected at BIRTH, and raised to die as fighters protecting the purity of Greece, were all homosexuals? Not to mention the fact that it was each Spartan's duty to raise a child who would pass on the lineage of the Spartans through each generation, meaning they would have to marry a woman. Also consider the point that a Spartan would only be called to war when the time came that his son could support himself in the case that his father was slain. Here's a better example of a society of homosexuals: Egypt. I wonder why you didn't mention that one? O wait, they were the most brutal and sadistic race in the entire known ancient world, and their "gods" all supposedly originated from the severed genitalia and removed innards of other gods, they had a god that "cooked and ate" gods weaker than it, and thought that a serpent living on the other side of the planet tried to swallow the sun every night to harness its destructive power and use it to wipe out all humanity.
I'm not talking about the law, someone who cannot fully understand the ramifications of their actions does not have the right to take those actions. That's mere common sense.
Hellenic cultures were all homosexual, they were married to women, had sex with their wives, and also had sex with other men. doublecheck your sources
You cannot pretend you've never heard of arranged marriages, bride prices, etc. You were saying it used to be between two consenting heteros, that was not always the case.
The Egyptions were a highly advanced society, they were the greatest architechts anywhere, ever. The perfection with which they built the pyramids is still unachievable today. They left a wealth of knowledge and culture, thanks for the great example. Your God hasn't the greatest track record either... He didn't try to get power to wipe out humanity, he has it and has used it on all but a single family according to abrahamic traditions. There's plenty of incest, rape, mutilation, and murder in your holy stories too, not to mention the repeated mass murder of "heretics" "pagans" and "witches" as for sadistic, one name: Tomas De Torquemada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:30 pm
|
|
|
|
Efstathios NOCTVRNVS Well where to start... You obviously missed my whole point because you are still defending homosexuality with the fact that it's ILLEGAL, currently, to have sex with certain entities. Let me restate it then -- HOMOSEXUALITY was illegal, remember? So how can you defend homosexuality with other legal boundaries? The same boundaries that homosexuals fought, and won, against? You call that a justice, why wouldn't the removal of these other barriers be a justice? And next, you tell ME I've got my facts wrong when I wasn't even talking about "buying wives" (wherever that came from), and then you say something like the ole "Greeks were homosexuals you know". Yeah, no, that's brainwashing bulls**t and I'm sorry you believe it. Somehow you don't even question the concept that an entire army comprised of men, selected at BIRTH, and raised to die as fighters protecting the purity of Greece, were all homosexuals? Not to mention the fact that it was each Spartan's duty to raise a child who would pass on the lineage of the Spartans through each generation, meaning they would have to marry a woman. Also consider the point that a Spartan would only be called to war when the time came that his son could support himself in the case that his father was slain. Here's a better example of a society of homosexuals: Egypt. I wonder why you didn't mention that one? O wait, they were the most brutal and sadistic race in the entire known ancient world, and their "gods" all supposedly originated from the severed genitalia and removed innards of other gods, they had a god that "cooked and ate" gods weaker than it, and thought that a serpent living on the other side of the planet tried to swallow the sun every night to harness its destructive power and use it to wipe out all humanity. I'm not talking about the law, someone who cannot fully understand the ramifications of their actions does not have the right to take those actions. That's mere common sense. Hellenic cultures were all homosexual, they were married to women, had sex with their wives, and also had sex with other men. doublecheck your sources You cannot pretend you've never heard of arranged marriages, bride prices, etc. You were saying it used to be between two consenting heteros, that was not always the case. The Egyptions were a highly advanced society, they were the greatest architechts anywhere, ever. The perfection with which they built the pyramids is still unachievable today. They left a wealth of knowledge and culture, thanks for the great example. Your God hasn't the greatest track record either... He didn't try to get power to wipe out humanity, he has it and has used it on all but a single family according to abrahamic traditions. There's plenty of incest, rape, mutilation, and murder in your holy stories too, not to mention the repeated mass murder of "heretics" "pagans" and "witches" as for sadistic, one name: Tomas De Torquemada
OK, that's your opinion of the Egyptians, if you wanna think they were no more sadistic or perverted than Christians then you can, I don't really care. However the truth from which your misconceptions of the Greek militaries stemmed is in actuality the Band of Thebes, an esoteric military experiment that was not plainly homosexual -- but pederastic (adult men fighting alongside teenage boys who were their alleged lovers). Ironically, and quite opposite of what you had stated, the Band of Thebes was only 150 men (and boys, LOL) large and they were completely annihilated in (this is gonna be spelled wrong) the battle of Chareonea in a single day. Failed experiment I guess.
Okay, so your bottom line about the actual topic (homosexuality) is that, anyone can have sex with anyone as long as they both consent and have the ability to understand the cause and effect of their sexual acts. As far as I can tell...
But this still doesn't explain why age is a factor. Some people at ten years old are more intelligent and mentally-developed than many people EVER achieve. And I don't understand why animals can't consent to sex, or even marriage. Obviously animals DO understand relationships and sexuality, in fact it's in their instinct, so why can't they "consent" to sex? Can someone who can't talk or write have sex? Yes.
Furthermore, why does consent have to be granted? I mean that is only a moral issue, you can't force your morals on all of society after all. If we did that then homosexuals could not have sex in the first place. Why isn't it that we consent by default instead of the other way around?
Above all I think it is a rude generalization to say that children are incapable of understanding sexuality and the effects thereof. If restricting homosexuals from interacting with each other sexually is a violation of human rights, then so is restricting children. In fact this is the argument that many homosexuals do use, in the dozens of existing organizations such as NAMBLA that are fighting for such rights as we speak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:52 pm
|
|
|
|
For those who don't have a bible handy or simply wish to brush up on what the bible supposedly says about homosexuality, heres a link to a breakdown of all the places in the bible where arguments against homosexuality arise form:
The Bible and Homosexuality
(the first part is a stint about different interpretive styles, and if you scrol down you can find links to info about every line concerning the issue )
What you'll find there are direct quote from the various bible translations as well as the origional lines in Hebrew or Greek as appropriate (OT vs NT)
From my own readings of the bible in its many incarnations, I find that it isn't as cut and dry as many christians believe. Contrary interpretations of the same lines that are used to condemn homosexuality show that in no way is homosexuality "absolutely" or "clearly" forbidden in the bible. Oftentimes, the interpretations that condemn homosexuality are based off of mistranslations and issues of understanding between words and practices in prior societies.
The lines in Leviticus used commonly end up being more ambiguous when looked at in Hebrew and through the eyes of the culture leviticus was meant for. On top of that, Letviticus in general is not valid in terms of applying to our lives today.
Deuteronomy 23:17 ends up being a mistranslation of a term that referred to pagan ritual prostitution practices in churches, and has nothing at all to do with homosexuality.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah ends most likely being about angelic beastiality and rape coupled with lust for power and not quite having hospitality, and not about homosexuality. And even if it was meant to it isnt clear about it in any sense of the word.
anywho, basically there's translation issues and ambiguous interpretation issues up the wazoo, whether you want to agree with my take on it or not, but its to the point of my being confused when anyone says that the bible is "absolutely clear" about condemning homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Buroabenteuer For those who don't have a bible handy or simply wish to brush up on what the bible supposedly says about homosexuality, heres a link to a breakdown of all the places in the bible where arguments against homosexuality arise form: The Bible and Homosexuality(the first part is a stint about different interpretive styles, and if you scrol down you can find links to info about every line concerning the issue ) What you'll find there are direct quote from the various bible translations as well as the origional lines in Hebrew or Greek as appropriate (OT vs NT) From my own readings of the bible in its many incarnations, I find that it isn't as cut and dry as many christians believe. Contrary interpretations of the same lines that are used to condemn homosexuality show that in no way is homosexuality "absolutely" or "clearly" forbidden in the bible. Oftentimes, the interpretations that condemn homosexuality are based off of mistranslations and issues of understanding between words and practices in prior societies. The lines in Leviticus used commonly end up being more ambiguous when looked at in Hebrew and through the eyes of the culture leviticus was meant for. On top of that, Letviticus in general is not valid in terms of applying to our lives today. Deuteronomy 23:17 ends up being a mistranslation of a term that referred to pagan ritual prostitution practices in churches, and has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah ends most likely being about angelic beastiality and rape coupled with lust for power and not quite having hospitality, and not about homosexuality. And even if it was meant to it isnt clear about it in any sense of the word. anywho, basically there's translation issues and ambiguous interpretation issues up the wazoo, whether you want to agree with my take on it or not, but its to the point of my being confused when anyone says that the bible is "absolutely clear" about condemning homosexuality.
Well first off I'd like to say I find that site disgustingly offensive in that not only is it full of outright deception, but that it is so horribly biased. Looking for information about homosexuality on a site called "religious tolerance" is like looking for information about Rudolf Hess on a white supremacist site; it's gonna be there for sure in nice amounts, but it's written by people who idolize the man.
Obviously you just took all of this (mis)information for granted... Please show me first of all proof that this term "Quadesh" means what they say it means on the resource you cited because frankly I think they're full of it. Anyone knows what a "sodomite" is, despite the millions of different ways "religious" apologists try to pass it off as something else. A sodomite is a HOMOSEXUAL, the city of SODOM was named after those who lived within its walls -- SODOMites. It is not "complicated" like these people try to make it seem, it's actually very simple. You know what "sodomy" means. Does it mean to have sex in a pagan temple with young boys? No, it means to stick your p***s into a man's a** for enjoyment. I hate when people try to explain this fact away, but you just know they have to because they can't say "the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality" without first saying "sodomite doesn't mean gay". And plus, they're taking their verses from the (very modernized) KING JAMES version, I mean when people do that no wonder you always hear "the Bible is lost in translation". It's gonna be if we keep that up. These versions of the Bible are made ASSUMING that readers are already learned in the teachings of the Bible, so that they are easier for people speaking modern English to read. Yes, in the midst of this they use some inaccurate words but I mean, that's like translating Mein Kampf, you can't do it with complete accuracy because some words just don't exist in modern English and vague substitutes must be used. This is why one cannot simply "read" the Bible but must truly study it.
Not clear-cut enough for you? Well then how's this:
"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers... Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind [and in other versions the word "sodomite" is used here], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."
That seems pretty straightforward to me.
How naive, the conclusion to all of this is that "the authors of the Bible were not aware of modern homosexual unions and so there's nothing written in there about them". That is just about the stupidest excuse for support of homosexual Christians I have ever read and that's saying something. It's true though, there is nothing about homosexual unions as far as I'm aware -- obviously God has no problem with two men LIVING TOGETHER AND LOVING EACH OTHER, in fact I'm quite sure that's what Christ WANTS of us to do considering that's almost the best way to summarize His entire teaching. So, no, the Bible does not condemn "same-sex unions". However, since it does condemn homosexual acts, I hope "Christian homosexuals" don't intend on ever having sex while they're joined in their union. What a pathetic excuse.
Here's another funny one:
Quote: The first creation story in the Bible is seen in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. It describes that God's stated plan was for humanity to "Be fruitful and increase in number." (NIV, Genesis 1:2 cool . The second creation story appears in Genesis 2:4 to 2:25. It states specifically that a man will unite with his wife. (NIV, Genesis 2:24). One must interpret these sayings carefully. They obviously do not apply to all people...
And another classic favourite -- "the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality!! It was simply inhospitality," LOL!!! Wow, how horrendously incorrect. Even if for one simple fact that is always overlooked; the fact that the men that demanded to satisfy themselves by sodomizing the (male) "visitors" TURNED AWAY the offer to instead rape young women. The ENTIRE POINT of this verse is to make very clear the sin of Sodom. If the men were just "lusty" and "inhospitable" there is no reason they wouldn't take the offer of two young, defenseless virgin girls instead of raping two men. Plus there's the fact that cities across the entire world saw "mass-rape" daily and it was the mens' idea of a fun afternoon. Yet God didn't notably destroy THESE cities. There was a reason that Sodom became so popular -- because it was a haven for SODOMITES. Those who were shunned because of their homosexual practises would simply travel there where they knew they could meet thousands of others like themselves. It was a city OF homosexuals and there is absolutely no question about it despite what people like this would like us to believe.
And finally, the classic question, "why do you think sterile people are allowed to have sex while homosexuals are not?"
Well for one, sex between a man and a woman where one is sterile is never forbidden in the Bible, while it is so, SO obvious that homosexuality IS. Second, it's made very clear that men are meant to find partnership with women, which was pretty much the point of the whole Adam & Eve thing. And finally, who says I DO think that sterile people should have sex? If they do it must not be to satisfy lust either way; and after all not everyone NEEDS to have sex according to God -- after all Christ never did, and he encouraged celibacy to those who did not feel they needed to have sex.
Look at the opener on that page you linked to. Right off the bat it's basically saying that they only consider the LIBERAL perspective on the Bible -- pretty much the nice way to say "Bible apologist". The very Bible ITSELF says that it is the word of God, it is a blasphemy and an insult to say that you believe it is untrue and yet still call yourself a Christian. They are quick to apologize for their faith by saying that it's justified because "some silly old man wrote it" and that each iota of the books are not divine. They are people who fear God's wrath and yet, like cowards, betray their religion in favour of their reputation in the eyes of society, holding the flawed values of the corrupt world over the timeless texts of their faith and justifying it accordingly. These people are not Christians at all but heretics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Quick note, the term sodomy comes from the alleged homosexuality at Sodom, not the other way around.
NOCTVRNVS OK, that's your opinion of the Egyptians, if you wanna think they were no more sadistic or perverted than Christians then you can, I don't really care. However the truth from which your misconceptions of the Greek militaries stemmed is in actuality the Band of Thebes, an esoteric military experiment that was not plainly homosexual -- but pederastic (adult men fighting alongside teenage boys who were their alleged lovers). Ironically, and quite opposite of what you had stated, the Band of Thebes was only 150 men (and boys, LOL) large and they were completely annihilated in (this is gonna be spelled wrong) the battle of Chareonea in a single day. Failed experiment I guess.
I really hate to ask this, but can you tell me where you got that?
NOCTVRNVS Okay, so your bottom line about the actual topic (homosexuality) is that, anyone can have sex with anyone as long as they both consent and have the ability to understand the cause and effect of their sexual acts. As far as I can tell... But this still doesn't explain why age is a factor. Some people at ten years old are more intelligent and mentally-developed than many people EVER achieve. And I don't understand why animals can't consent to sex, or even marriage. Obviously animals DO understand relationships and sexuality, in fact it's in their instinct, so why can't they "consent" to sex? Can someone who can't talk or write have sex? Yes.
Age is a factor because someone who hasn't reached the healthy human age of reproductive maturity cannot consent to an act they have no physical reason for desiring, their pituitary gland has not yet inforned their testosterone glands (male and female) to produce the hormones that create feelings of lust. The only reasons for someone of such an age to desire sex are one of two, 1) curiosity and 2) cohersion. An animal can't understand the law, cannot understand STIs, and thus cannot consent.
NOCTVRNVS Furthermore, why does consent have to be granted? I mean that is only a moral issue, you can't force your morals on all of society after all. If we did that then homosexuals could not have sex in the first place. Why isn't it that we consent by default instead of the other way around?
Because your rights end where someone else's begin. You have the right to do as you please, others have the right to not be taken advantage of.
NOCTVRNVS Above all I think it is a rude generalization to say that children are incapable of understanding sexuality and the effects thereof. If restricting homosexuals from interacting with each other sexually is a violation of human rights, then so is restricting children. In fact this is the argument that many homosexuals do use, in the dozens of existing organizations such as NAMBLA that are fighting for such rights as we speak.
Children are capable of understanding sexuality and that's why it's so important to teach them. Young children though, below the rebellious teenage years are usually afraid to go against the wishes of an adult and can be easily coherced. Peer sex is a seperate issue, I know someone who first had sex at the age of five (with a 7 yr old) and didn't do it again for more than a decade because he took no pleasure in it, he was too young. Children aren't even physically capable of enjoying sex, I don't see how it's restricting their rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:04 pm
|
|
|
|
Sure animals aren't capable of understanding sexually-transmitted diseases, but on the other hand they likely aren't capable of getting them either.
I don't know why you'd say young teens have no physical desire for sex. I and just about every other male have often experienced sexual lust since the pre-teens. All that adults require to be able to have sex is lust, so I don't see the moral difference. There is no logical reason that children can not have sex if homosexuals can.
Furthermore, why is sex grouped with driving a car and buying alcohol & cigarettes, in that you can only do so when above the age of majority, if not for reasons purely moral? I mean theoretically someone under the age of 13 would be WAY less likely to contract or pass on an STD than an adult in the first place, so diseases must not be the answer. Besides, it's not like children are barred from most other activities that might give them diseases (like being in a hospital, or eating grass, or playing with frogs). The whole reason children can't have sex is because that would be horribly immoral. Yet clearly that is an easy line to break.
As for the Band of Thebes such information can be gathered from much reading and a rabid fascination for all things ancient. The thing is, the Greeks had a very different perspective on sexuality and man, that most find very hard to understand given our modern standards of sexuality. Basically the Greeks saw young men as the most beautiful form of life, and the male body as the symbol of perfection. I don't think that men actually united with boys in a sort of homosexual union but rather in a purely romantic relationship. One reason that the Greeks would find such fascination with the male body perhaps is that, like almost all cultures of the time, they realized men as physically superior. This is reflected very obviously in Greek mythology, all of the major gods being men as well as the Titans, with goddesses playing subserviant or lesser roles (Zeus cracked his head open to birth a goddess simply because he wanted to relieve his headache, I mean come on). Also in Greek mythology women and goddesses often were "tricked" by male gods and in fact some say that the word "female" comes from a Greek phrase for "easily fooled". Also noteworthy is that politics were run mainly by men in a council, who would apparently use women called "oracles" to see that they got their way. Despite all of this however, it's interesting how much the Greeks did respect women as their equals. But where I'm going with this is, the male body was worshiped. Males were rarely ever NOT nude during work or play, or even combat. All of this obsession over the appearance of men led to very intimate socialization between each other, which was likely where things like the Band of Thebes began. It was not so much that they would theoretically fight better because of the audience of their young "lovers", but that the morales of young men would be overwhelmed at the sight of the male body in its greatest glory -- the clash of war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:17 pm
|
|
|
|
Humans can carry animal diseases just as animals can carry human dieases. You don't have to be able to suffer from a disease to be a carrier.
I wasn't talking about young teens, that's what early sex ed, parents, and peer sex laws are for. I was talking more about 3 yr olds.
Why exactly would someone younger be any less likely to contract an STI? Kids are born with hepatitis, herpes, HPV, etc. Also, parents shouldn't expect the law to replace responsible parenting. If a kid has reached the age of reproductive maturity (usually around 13) then it's up to their parents and their sex ed class to make sure they're properly informed and hopefully will decide to at least hold off 'till they have an income of some sort, but it's up to the kid even now, kids sneak off.
I read about ancient history a lot, that's how I got MY facts...*search engine*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:25 pm
|
|
|
|
This Band of Thebes?
wikipedia They became, in effect, the “crack” force of Greek soldiery, and the forty years of their known existence (378 – 338 BC) marked the pre-eminence of Thebes as a military and political power in late-classical Greece. The Sacred Band under Pelopidas fought the Spartans at Tegyra in 375 BC, vanquishing an army that was at least three times their number. It was also responsible for the victory of Leuctra in 371 BC, called by Pausanias the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks. Leuctra established Theban independence from Spartan rule, and laid the groundwork for the expansion of Theban power, though possibly also for Philip II's eventual victory.
Ooooh
Plato Wherever, therefore, it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in sexual relationships with men, this is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice in the part of the governed
I always did love Plato
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Efstathios This Band of Thebes? wikipedia They became, in effect, the “crack” force of Greek soldiery, and the forty years of their known existence (378 – 338 BC) marked the pre-eminence of Thebes as a military and political power in late-classical Greece. The Sacred Band under Pelopidas fought the Spartans at Tegyra in 375 BC, vanquishing an army that was at least three times their number. It was also responsible for the victory of Leuctra in 371 BC, called by Pausanias the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks. Leuctra established Theban independence from Spartan rule, and laid the groundwork for the expansion of Theban power, though possibly also for Philip II's eventual victory. Ooooh Plato Wherever, therefore, it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in sexual relationships with men, this is due to evil on the part of the rulers, and to cowardice in the part of the governed I always did love Plato
Yes, that band of Thebes, a small unit of men that lasted for a mere 40 years, likely the shortest lifespan of any Greek army of the time.
Also I believe that page severely exaggerates the Band's role in the battle of Leuctra, in which they fought alongside nearly the entire Theban army if I remember correctly. At any rate it's pretty obvious they didn't fight and win against a Spartan invasion by themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
