I am homosexual, what the Bible says

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
boomer47's picture
In Petronius' 'The

In Petronius' 'The Satyricon', one of the protagonists observes that neither the sex nor species of one's sexual partner mattered. That the sensation was the same

Me? .Well l lost interest about 5 years ago in terms of the mechanics. Have never considered sex with another species.. Just as well, bestiality is a crime in this state.

Whitefire13's picture
I prefer consenting human

I prefer consenting human adults .... just poking fun at the other species out there ... you know a little speciesism

Joy--'s picture
“Are you aware that the

“Are you aware that the female clitoris has as many nerves as a male penis, and it's sole function is purely to deliver pleasure? Why did your god put it there?”

Because part of the nature of the marital act is pleasure. The nature of sex is both pleasure and procreative. Makes sense to me.

“Joy: "However regardless of demonstrated negative consequences, we can argue lesbian sex is still immoral because we can reason that two women were not intended to engage in sex together because their sexual genitalia are not compatible. Shape/form says something about a thing’s purpose/function."

Wow, just ... wow.

But what if two lesbians find happiness and love with each other?”

Couldn’t we say the same thing about two siblings? About a man and his dog? About a polygamous relationship? Surely, deriving pleasure or feeling happy is not the only criteria in whether someone should engage in a certain behavior or not.

Joy--'s picture
“Do you have any close gay

“Do you have any close gay friends you socialize with frequently?”

I guess not close. My sister’s maid of honor in her wedding is a lesbian. She is a long time family friend. She has been married to another woman for at least 10 years now. We no longer live in the same state, so I don’t see her, but we exchange Christmas cards every year. She knows where I stand. Years ago when she first came out I sent her some information on a group called Courage and left it at that. As well as praying for her. She had a difficult home life. Her mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer when she was in high school and her Dad left her mother around this same time. Her brother was also a drug addict.

I also had a friend in high school who tried the lesbian thing in college, but now is married with 2 kids. She was kind of messed up at the time – doing lots of drugs.

And then a good friend of mine’s oldest daughter is queer as she describes her and just got married. They did not have a big wedding – got married at a justice of the peace so only immediate family was invited. I was actually wondering what I would have done if I had been invited. I do not think I could have attended. I still send the mother articles via email and she sends me stuff. So far we are still friends on FaceBook.

I get the feeling you think I would treat someone differently if I found out they were gay? I don’t think I would. I wouldn’t even bring it up, unless I did feel I was close enough to do so or if it came up and they wanted to talk about it. And if that happened I would certainly let them know what I felt about it. Despite what you might think about me, I like to think I could have a discussion with someone about this over beers and remain friends.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Joy - I get the feeling you

Joy - I get the feeling you think I would treat someone differently if I found out they were gay? I don’t think I would.

LOL, you put that message in a post where you described how you treated someone differently because they were gay.

Joy--'s picture
LOL, you put that message in

LOL, you put that message in a post where you described how you treated someone differently because they were gay.

How so? I tell straight people what I think about same sex relations And I tell gay people. I drink beer with gay people and I would drink beer with straight people. What’s different?

Sheldon's picture
Joy "How so? I tell straight

Joy "How so? I tell straight people what I think about same sex relations And I tell gay people. I drink beer with gay people and I would drink beer with straight people. What’s different?"

Your bigoted prejudice against people who happen to be born gay is what is different.

Joy--'s picture
“Joy: "acknowledgement of

“Joy: "acknowledgement of the order"
Please define "order". And who determines this "order"?”

The order we see in the world we live in. The way the world works. You have to admit we are able to observe how things work/function in the world.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Joy

@Joy

You told us there is an order that can't be denied; then you decline to define it? Dirty pool.

Kevin Levites's picture
The problem with religious

The problem with religious objection to certian things comes down to--I believe--whether there is a reasonable interpretation of right vs. wrong depending upon the circumstances, or right vs. wrong that's an absolute.

I tend to think of morality and ethics as situational. It is wrong for me to assault a woman by grabbing her hair and pulling her . . . yet I was a lifeguard when I was younger, and I will grab any drowning person by their hair if that's what I have to do to rescue this person.

The world is different today than it was thousands of years ago.

If more people were gay, then there would probably be fewer people born to contribute to overcrowding on this planet. In classical times, more people died from disease, war, starvation, and so on . . . so a high birth rate was desirable.

This is no longer the case.

So, we're still trying to apply a morality into a context where it doesn't belong. To clarify this point, it would be very wrong for a devout Hassidic man to eat pork or shellfish ("Trayfe meat"), yet--if he was stranded on some remote desert island and pork and shellfish was all that he could find--then eating such things is morally and ethically acceptable.

Our world is overpopulated and--so far--is the only place we have to live. Species are going extinct in record numbers, there's serious concern about a part of an Antarctic glacier that's as big as Texas breaking off and causing a drastic rise in the sea level, and so on.

Morality and ethics exist for mankind, mankind doesn't exist to satisfy a self-destructive, damaging moral code that's being applied out of its proper context.

Birth control and homosexuality are good things.

Joy--'s picture
“The problem with religious

“The problem with religious objection to certian things comes down to--I believe--whether there is a reasonable interpretation of right vs. wrong depending upon the circumstances, or right vs. wrong that's an absolute.

I tend to think of morality and ethics as situational. It is wrong for me to assault a woman by grabbing her hair and pulling her . . . yet I was a lifeguard when I was younger, and I will grab any drowning person by their hair if that's what I have to do to rescue this person.”

That’s really not an argument against moral absolute. Absolute morality does not NOT take the situation into account. That’s silly. It simply means given the same situation, what is right and good vs. wrong and bad would be the same. Grabbing a woman to save her would not be considered assault.

“The world is different today than it was thousands of years ago.”

Some things are and some things aren’t. Moral truth remains the same.

“If more people were gay, then there would probably be fewer people born to contribute to overcrowding on this planet. In classical times, more people died from disease, war, starvation, and so on . . . so a high birth rate was desirable.
This is no longer the case.
So, we're still trying to apply a morality into a context where it doesn't belong.”
No and seems like a poor example. Even if you can show some good can come out of something (though I even debate your premise that more deaths from disease, starvation, etc are good because it helps reduce the population), it doesn’t mean said thing is right/good/or moral.

Once can’t say homosexual acts are good because it helps reduce the population – that doesn’t logically follow. Also, I take issue that we even have a population problem – more like a distribution of resources problem.

“Our world is overpopulated”

Some places are actually experiencing failing to reach replacement levels. Their entire race will become extinct.

“Morality and ethics exist for mankind”

Yes, I agree with this.

“ mankind doesn't exist to satisfy a self-destructive, damaging moral code that's being applied out of its proper context.”

I agree again, but disagree on what you seem to see as ‘damaging moral code’. Morality can’t by its nature be damaging. That’s like saying love, loyalty, and friendship are damaging.

“Birth control and homosexuality are good things.”

I disagree. They are contrary to the moral order. Man is settling to accept such things and such things will not bring peace and happiness that man deserves.

Whitefire13's picture
@joy. “ Despite what you

@joy. “ Despite what you might think about me, I like to think I could have a discussion with someone about this over beers and remain friends.”

I’d have a beer with you! Despite some of our differences, I think we’d find a lot in common - and a lot to laugh about.

Joy--'s picture
“I’d have a beer with you!

“I’d have a beer with you! Despite some of our differences, I think we’d find a lot in common - and a lot to laugh about.”

Cool.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I used to drink copious

I used to drink copious amounts of good red wine while playing a vicious game of croquet with Fr F.

Fortunately he had no problem with reading and understanding actual history and could spot an apologetic at two hundred metres on a cloudy day. Which is why we were fast friends.
He smoked Du Maurier cigarettes, chain smoked as we all did back in the day, the research room (no computers back then) was a fug of smoke,concentration and hundreds of books.

He made no excuses for the lies of the Church, and, in fact was known to pick them up, wriggling, and hold them to any new curate's nose who had the temerity to preach the party line at him..LOL.

It was the job that the Church gave him that killed him. Sitting on the Marriage tribunal.

Now that was a Catholic you could have a beer with. Erudite, fearless and willing to look at facts without bias.

Joy--'s picture
“Point of order; Catholics do

“Point of order; Catholics do not claim Adam and Eve were literally the first humans, or didn't when I was at school. We were taught that the Book Of Genesis is allegorical, including the Tower Of Babel and Noah. It is only pig ignorant evangelicals who claim bible is the literal, inerrant word of god, as far as I know. .”

I approve this message.

“@Jumping for Joy Re: "Most people would frown upon a 45 year old man getting it on with a 19 year old girl..."
What can I say but ; censored, censored ,censored, censored you arrogant twat.

It's none of 'most people's" , or your business.”

You along with most others missed my point. Someone commented that I shouldn’t stick my nose in other people’s bedrooms and I was trying to say, fair enough, but that in fact IS something we all do and I might add, rightly so. I tried to use examples like if your 19 year old daughter came home and said she was dating a 47 year old guy, I am presuming a red flag would go up. Any normal person might think – hmmmm . . . . that sounds sketch. They are generations apart. What is the maturity level of a 47 year old being interested in a 19 year old? We might wonder if someone might be being taken advantage of in a situation like this.

Our society often has rules about doctors dating patients or teachers dating students. Yes, even if they are both are of the age of consent. Because we know there might be some power dynamics at play.

If we hear someone’s spouse had an affair, we make a judgment about that. That doesn’t mean we would gossip or bad mouth someone, but we instinctively can know that that is not right/good. Period. Yes, there might be circumstances we don’t know, but it still does not negate the fact/truth that adultery is wrong. It doesn’t mean we are overly concerned about what goes on in other people’s bedrooms. It means as humans we desire what is right and good and moral and have a distaste for the immoral and situations that have the potential to abuse/harm or hurt people.

This is something that takes place at the individual level and often at societal level in order to protect people and communities and rightly so.

I was trying to show how I hate the overused manta, #Love is love. People try to say well, if two people “love” each other that’s all that matters and it shouldn’t concern you. But that isn’t all that matters. Everyone knows that. There are many other factors that should raise concern. Again, we have rules against incest, polygamy, bestiality, age of consent, etc. And trying to say the reason a brother and sister shouldn’t have sex is because if they conceived their children might have a genetic mutation is lame and NOT the reason a brother and sister shouldn’t have sexual relations. Heck, there are unrelated couples that might have genetic markers that wouldn’t be great if they procreate. Not to mention, we could just say a brother and sister could have sex as long as they use birth control or agree to get sterilized, but since it is not about possible mutations we don’t. It has to do with what it means to be a family and family dynamics, which is why even if a kid is adopted we don’t say well then it is ok once they reach adulthood if they want to have sexual relations with their parent.

“The problem with dating younger women; you have to TALK to them.”

Confirming my original point that a 45 year old and a 19 year old aren’t likely to have a whole lot in common.

“AN entire generation of American teenage boys were extremely grateful to Bill Clinton. It was from him they learned that 'oral' isn't sex.”

But it is. As you can see, it caused Bill Clinton just as much problems had he had sexual intercourse with her and rightly so. Social research shows things like oral sex can be just as emotional/intimate/bonding as sexual intercourse. It would also be considered just as much sexual abuse if someone made someone perform oral sex on them as if someone raped someone – still sexual abuse because still sex! Again, the research shows (especially for girls) it is difficult to separate the emotional factor of sex – that is something much easier said than done, despite what the culture might like to pretend with its “friends with benefits” or “no strings attached” failed experiment.

Sheldon's picture
@Joy

@Joy

What objective evidence can you demonstrate that Adam or Eve were real people? How would their existence remotely evidence a deity or anything supernatural?

Joy "We were taught that the Book Of Genesis is allegorical,"

Why tell atheists, it's only theists who claim it is literally true. Though one wonders why a deity that possesses limitless power must deal in allegory at all, let alone allegory so far removed from the reality of species evolution. Why exactly is one species of evolved ape that only evolved a couple of hundred thousands years ago presupposed by theists to be the reason their deity created everything?

You do know that so called abstinence teaching by religions in the states is responsible for the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies and STD's recorded. If we want to stop unwanted pregnancies and STD's then there is plenty of objective evidence that shows teaching children facts about how to avoid them without the unnatural expectation they remain celibate is the best way, especially when coupled with free access to medical advice on the best forms of contraception.

Joy "It would also be considered just as much sexual abuse if someone made someone perform oral sex on them as if someone raped someone"

No it wouldn't, not by the law anyway, When we say something is immoral we are offering a subjective opinion, the fact these sometimes mesh with the subjective opinions of the majority doesn't change this, at all.

Joy " Not to mention, we could just say a brother and sister could have sex as long as they use birth control or agree to get sterilized, but since it is not about possible mutations we don’t."

Stop saying we, I don't share any of your views or beliefs, and I already asked you to explain why it is immoral for siblings to have sex if they use contraception? Just because I find something distasteful or even repugnant, doesn't make it immoral, indeed what I or anyone else finds distasteful is not a very sound basis for what is immoral. plenty of people find the idea of mixed race sex distasteful, as far as I am concerned that's their problem.

I base my morality at least in part, on the principle of empathising with the suffering of other humans, and to a lesser extent all other conscious animals. It makes sense therefore for me to find actions and behaviours that cause unnecessary suffering immoral. Sex between consenting adults of the same gender need harm no one, so I have no problem with it, persecuting gay people on the other hand is immoral precisely because it causes unnecessary suffering. The idea your prejudice has a sound moral basis in natural law is risible, do you think it a coincidence that the people who condemn or denounce people who happen to be gay are almost always religious? I have yet to see an atheist here who shares your bigoted homophobia, QED.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.