If you think it's wrong, jstates1, don't do it. The only people you
have the right to make value judgements for, besides yourself, are
those who ask you to make their decisions for them.

Quite right. And I am a very tolerant person. I have never sought to shove my perspective down someone's throat. But I do have a right to express my perspective. I don't really expect non-Christians to follow the code of ethics I am called to, but that doesn't mean I will condone immoral behavior.

@ debbyski:

Yes, I am against homosexuality because it is an unnatural use of sex. I am also against it because God says it is wrong.

But I am also against it (and I am also against sex outside of marriage...

If you think it's wrong, jstates1, don't do it. The only people you
have the right to make value judgements for, besides yourself, are
those who ask you to make their decisions for them.

Quite right. And I am a very tolerant person. I have never sought to shove my perspective down someone's throat. But I do have a right to express my perspective. I don't really expect non-Christians to follow the code of ethics I am called to, but that doesn't mean I will condone immoral behavior.

@ debbyski:

Yes, I am against homosexuality because it is an unnatural use of sex. I am also against it because God says it is wrong.

But I am also against it (and I am also against sex outside of marriage as well) because of a very practical reason called AIDS.

You do realize that if people practiced Biblical morality that the spread of STDs would be pretty much halted, and Herpes, Ghonnerea (sp?), AIDS, and suchlike would become rarities?

Common sense.

Well Jstates1,
If one starts with the premise that the only legitimate sex act is between a married man and woman, for the purpose of procreation, then so contraception, oral sex, anal sex and masturbation is also wrong in addition to homosexuality. I must admit, that one can find plenty of ammunition against homosexuality in the Bible. But a careful examination of scripture makes the biblical case against homosexuality hard to prove. As a result, many of the passages taken today as condemning homosexuality in general are in fact speaking of acts that are always repugnant such as ritual sex in temples, prostitution, group orgies, rape, and child abuse.
As far as people practicing "crotch ...

Well Jstates1,
If one starts with the premise that the only legitimate sex act is between a married man and woman, for the purpose of procreation, then so contraception, oral sex, anal sex and masturbation is also wrong in addition to homosexuality. I must admit, that one can find plenty of ammunition against homosexuality in the Bible. But a careful examination of scripture makes the biblical case against homosexuality hard to prove. As a result, many of the passages taken today as condemning homosexuality in general are in fact speaking of acts that are always repugnant such as ritual sex in temples, prostitution, group orgies, rape, and child abuse.
As far as people practicing "crotch based" moral values, you are not going to stop people from making love. It's a simple as that.

Lynn Lavner said, "“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.”

debbyski, Lavner's frivolous quote is not that far off the mark. The number of passages which can be fairly reliably interpreted as referring specifically to relations between men are far fewer than those that refer specifically to men and women. Lesbian relationships appear to be absent. According to the New Testament, castration and celibacy seem to be the desired courses of action. In Matthew 19, we find the passage, "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, ...

Lynn Lavner said, "“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.”

debbyski, Lavner's frivolous quote is not that far off the mark. The number of passages which can be fairly reliably interpreted as referring specifically to relations between men are far fewer than those that refer specifically to men and women. Lesbian relationships appear to be absent. According to the New Testament, castration and celibacy seem to be the desired courses of action. In Matthew 19, we find the passage, "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs from the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

In I Corinthians 7, Paul says, "...it is good for a man not to touch a woman" and "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I." It doesn't take much to see Paul was more fervent about his misogyny as he was about his new-found faith.

As for what god says, there's an old Russian joke that goes, "Doc, why is it that when I speak to God it's a prayer, and when God speaks to me it's schizophrenia?"

P.S.: debbyski, ignore Clipperific. Whoever it is joined at 19:58, made two comments & left. Obviously someone trying to be annoying. It's a waste of a rather nifty handle.

Any bible verse you wanna throw down in their defense, I'd be happy to give you the correct interpretation.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the ...

Any bible verse you wanna throw down in their defense, I'd be happy to give you the correct interpretation.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


I think this passage is clear enough that interpretation is not necessary.