Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Serious or not, you are still a troll, and apparently oblivious to the concept of consent.
The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Serious or not, you are still a troll, and apparently oblivious to the concept of consent.
I don't think the sexuality is the issue, but it opens the kid up to pre-loaded bullying at school, where the "normal" (see "quote marks") thing of, Male = dad, Female = mum, doesn't
I feel bad given Ringo's history in this thread, but this post makes sense to me
Last edited:
Maybe you would like to respond to my suggestion of multiple partners before just labelling people as a troll whenever you have no answer.
My argument is somewhat different, BunnyKillBot, being based solely on the Christian bible (since the point is to talk to Christians about their religion).
A quick summary:
Top priority for how a Christian should view something is the teachings of Jesus, obviously. Who said nothing at all about homosexuality. So a Christian could skip the rest and just say "If it didn't bother Jesus, there's no need for it to bother me."
Next priority is the new testament. There are 3 segments in it that are currently generally interpreted as condemning homosexuality. All from Paul, whose writing is noted as being difficult to interpret. Unless you go with the idea that the Timothy segment was written a century later and wrongly attributed to Paul. Anyway...all three interpretations rely on very dodgy translations or outright fabrication.
Two of them (Corinthians and Timothy) hang on the word 'arsenokoitai' (transliterated Greek) which has no known meaning. Over the centuries, people have "translated" it into different things, essentially just whatever they didn't like and wanted their bible to condemn. ~100 years ago, for example, it was generally being "translated" as 'masturbators' because at the time there was raving hysteria against masturbating. Nobody knows what the word actually means. Having a guess based on probable roots doesn't help - you get something along the lines of "bed men", which could mean all sorts of things. Assuming that the etymology was actually Greek and the split does go where that tentative etymology puts it.
The third (Romans) is taken out of context, is unclear even in the translations designed to condemn homosexuality and has some dodgy translations. For example, the Greek words translated as "unnatural" don't really mean that. They're used elsewhere in the bible to refer to things such as long hair or Jews and Gentiles being together peacefully. "unusual" would be a better translation. Besides, the whole passage is phrased in terms of people doing something they wouldn't normally do, apparently in connection with something ritualistic for another religion. So it simply doesn't apply to homosexuality in general.
Next priority is the old testament. That's a more complicated argument over translation (e.g. "abomination" is not a good translation of "to'ebah'") due to the greater differences between ancient Hebrew and modern English, but it can all be ignored unless you happen to find a Christian who can give an internally consistent explanation of which OT rules Christians should obey, which they shouldn't and why. Even if the OT does condemn homosexuality (which isn't clear), it equally condemns numerous other things that Christians are almost always unbothered by, such as mixing meat and dairy (e.g. cheeseburgers, lasagna, etc), wearing clothes made of different fabrics, planting two or more types of plant in the same field, etc, etc.
A quick summary:
Top priority for how a Christian should view something is the teachings of Jesus, obviously. Who said nothing at all about homosexuality. So a Christian could skip the rest and just say "If it didn't bother Jesus, there's no need for it to bother me."
Next priority is the new testament. There are 3 segments in it that are currently generally interpreted as condemning homosexuality. All from Paul, whose writing is noted as being difficult to interpret. Unless you go with the idea that the Timothy segment was written a century later and wrongly attributed to Paul. Anyway...all three interpretations rely on very dodgy translations or outright fabrication.
Two of them (Corinthians and Timothy) hang on the word 'arsenokoitai' (transliterated Greek) which has no known meaning. Over the centuries, people have "translated" it into different things, essentially just whatever they didn't like and wanted their bible to condemn. ~100 years ago, for example, it was generally being "translated" as 'masturbators' because at the time there was raving hysteria against masturbating. Nobody knows what the word actually means. Having a guess based on probable roots doesn't help - you get something along the lines of "bed men", which could mean all sorts of things. Assuming that the etymology was actually Greek and the split does go where that tentative etymology puts it.
The third (Romans) is taken out of context, is unclear even in the translations designed to condemn homosexuality and has some dodgy translations. For example, the Greek words translated as "unnatural" don't really mean that. They're used elsewhere in the bible to refer to things such as long hair or Jews and Gentiles being together peacefully. "unusual" would be a better translation. Besides, the whole passage is phrased in terms of people doing something they wouldn't normally do, apparently in connection with something ritualistic for another religion. So it simply doesn't apply to homosexuality in general.
Next priority is the old testament. That's a more complicated argument over translation (e.g. "abomination" is not a good translation of "to'ebah'") due to the greater differences between ancient Hebrew and modern English, but it can all be ignored unless you happen to find a Christian who can give an internally consistent explanation of which OT rules Christians should obey, which they shouldn't and why. Even if the OT does condemn homosexuality (which isn't clear), it equally condemns numerous other things that Christians are almost always unbothered by, such as mixing meat and dairy (e.g. cheeseburgers, lasagna, etc), wearing clothes made of different fabrics, planting two or more types of plant in the same field, etc, etc.
Why do gay people, men or women care so much about being allowed to marry anyway? just get on with your life, and enjoy being with that significant other, religion shouldn't come into it, and imagine the wedding photos
1 girl in a dress, 1 in a suit
1 guy in a dress, 1 in a suit
urgh
1 girl in a dress, 1 in a suit
1 guy in a dress, 1 in a suit
urgh
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
I never said that you said you were wrong
Only for assuming that homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic preference.I 100% agree with you on this. Although let's not get off topic.
To have the freedom and diversity of choice..
I never said that you said you were wrong
How can it not be a choice?! you either choose to like **** or not. It is not built into peoples brains, if it was then you could argue that pedos have it built into them
Whether or not people have an in-depth knowledge of any religious writings doesn't matter here.
As I've said before and many people have backed me up, marriage was never a religious matter. They've essentially managed to get away with making it "theirs" and subsequently banning whole groups of people from getting married.
Religion and state should be separated and as such, marriage should be a state matter not a religious one.
This keeps popping up, as well as homosexuality not being 'natural', however homosexuality has been observed in nature in all species. There's pretty compelling evidence to suggest that it is indeed genetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Dolphins seem to have some fun!
So where did marriage come from? Who invented it? Mr Marriage presumably?
So you think it wouldn't be a breach of 'equal rights' to remove the right from religious people to have a religious marriage?
It's a bit like racism only being racism if black people are the victims... equal rights only applies to the minorities who shout the loudest.
If, for example, Twilight formed the basis of a near-global power base that played a massive role in shaping modern society, I'd be interested in it even if I thought it was silly fiction. It has nothing to do with how true or fictional I think it is. It's about power, not truth.
If the generally accepted interpretation of some passages in Twilight was something I disagreed with and I wanted to change the mind of some believers, I wouldn't do it by telling them it was all silly stories that don't matter. That would be counter-productive. I'd study the subject and see if there were other interpretations valid within the framework of Twilight.
Dolphins are very intelligent, as you probably know, they are one of the only other animals to have sex for pleasure, so it's only natural that some of them explore what doing it with the same gender feels like, probably is, you can't exactly ask them lol, so I guess you can't prove or disprove it as being a choice
Well at least you make an effort to look at what it actually says unlike most on here who simple say, 'lolreligion', 'lol fairy tales', 'lol Jesus', 'lol bible bashers', 'lets abolish religion and the world would be better'. The same people who are banging on like this are the same people who call religious people bigots, and yet in the same paragraph demand that religion is abolished. You would think that might notice even a few 'particles' of hypocrisy.
Only for a minority (Ms Nixon, SitC for one), most notice their inclination fairly early on but then struggle to accept this because there are very few role models to identify with. Some people even change orientation later in life, so it's quite a complex set of influences contributing to someone's preference.
Interestingly she was severely criticised by gay activists for saying as much because choosing to be gay is not the concept that they want people to consider. Bigotry exists on both sides, even down to slight variations of orientation.
Meanwhile, if we wish to redefine marriage for one group, then we will eventually have to acknowledge Poly relationships and allow men to marry two women if they wish. I don't think it's still condoned by Mormons but such relationships do exist. There was one woman who wanted to marry the Berlin wall (and did). If homosexuality is an accepted aberration which society wants to support in normalising via marriage, then it behoves them to do the same for other expressions of love.
I watched that Berlin wall programme and I have no doubt that what she was feeling was love, but normalising that is not something that would bind a society together, rather it erodes the unity of marriage.
Last edited:
So you have to resort to the animal kingdom now really? Maybe humans should do the same. Maybe we should look to penguins for how to live our lives. I'll bear that in mind.
In that case some more questions:
- Is there such a thing as a moral code?
- Do animals have the same knowledge or normal v abnormal?
- If there is a moral code where does it come from?
- In the UK a guy cannot marry his sister, why is this? Who sets the rules? What code does it follow?
Last edited:
hahahhahah you cant be "brought up" gay any more than you can be brought up as a goose. He will be brought up knowing there is nothing wrong with being homosexual but it wont make him gay.