The Crime Of Homosexuality

[vicente]

Although many argue that homosexuality somehow undermines the "institution of marriage", a recent Pew poll shows that few people opposing gay marriage offered that up as the main reason. Instead, most said that gay marriage and homosexuality violated their religious beliefs. So what exactly are those religious beliefs? Their Ministers generally point to the following:

Gen 38
6Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
The fundamental issue appears to be one of non-procreative sex. Homosexuals are seed spillers.

The Sin of Homosexuality, a crime punishable by death according to the Abrahamic religions, upon close examination, is really no different than the sin of masterbation, oral sex, protected sex, sodomy or sex among people generally over 50, who no longer have the capacity to produce offspring.

What amuses me the most however, is how many gay and lesbians support Republicans and attend Churches of the Abrahamic religions.

Personally, from all my observations, homosexuality can be viewed astrologically, that is, the Spiritual vibration they are born with. And, as astrology is, through that Spiritual vibration, how we interact with the universe, to deny ones gayness, is nothing less than the denial of their own Spiritual authenticness.

Beliefs deny, suppress, disempower, disconnect, etc. Thus in my view, anyone against Gay Marriage, denies not only Spirit, but the Source upon which their life extends.

Vicente

[sahyo]

so?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 20 2003, 06:39 PM
so?
One 'so' that comes to 'my' 'mind', asheera, is that vicente's clear-vision straight-shootin' might open some myopia-blinded eyes straight ('straight' not used as 'opposite' to 'gay' here, of course <_< ). And then again, myopic/ignorant/simplistically-thinking folks in the audience might not 'see' and therefore totally fail to appreciate the 'depth' of the 'truth' his shared-vision 'reveals'.

Whatever the case, really nice bulls-eye there, bro. Great truth-picture painting!

Maybe he 'painted' it for the same kinds of 'reasons' (or nonreasons) that you paint pictures, asheera. Then again, maybe not.

Just some speculatin' in response to your 'so?' stimulus - thanks for the backhanded 'poke' - David :lol:

[sahyo]

:)


And then again, myopic/ignorant/simplistically-thinking folks in the audience might not 'see' and therefore totally fail to appreciate the 'depth' of the 'truth' his shared-vision 'reveals'.


thinking is simplistically?

david thinks
they are born with,
how we interact with the universe,
gayness,
thus in my view,
the Source upon which their life extends,
is 'depth' of the 'truth'?

'reasons' (or nonreasons)?

backhanded 'poke'?

[rich]

To keep any species like fish, fowl, animals, mammals, reptiles, bugs and veggies, the eco system needs a union between male and female of each species.

Of course, if some human-beings are not too happy with the choice of living in a world ran by many tyrants, and facing a dismal looking future, each individual must make his/her personal choice, on how to deal with life.

My personal thoughts on this matter, is if we want life to continue, it will not, if all are homosexuals. :unsure:

[vicente]

Whoa Rich,...I think you missed my points. For example, when's the last time you had an orgasm without the intent of procreating? Are you a seed spiller? Even once can get the death penalty from god.

My queston to you. Why would you think, as your post suggests, that if gay marriages were not condemned, that the whole species would die out? It seems your suggesting that if homosexuality was legal, than everyone would become homosexual. LOL

It most likely would take a few generations for such an occurance as total Collective homosexuality,...probably enough time to evolve a species of human hermaphrodites.

:)

[rich]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 21 2003, 02:58 PM
Whoa Rich,...I think you missed my points. For example, when's the last time you had an orgasm without the intent of procreating? Are you a seed spiller? Even once can get the death penalty from god.

My queston to you. Why would you think, as your post suggests, that if gay marriages were not condemned, that the whole species would die out? It seems your suggesting that if homosexuality was legal, than everyone would become homosexual. LOL

It most likely would take a few generations for such an occurance as total Collective homosexuality,...probably enough time to evolve a species of human hermaphrodites.

:)
Vicente,

You are reading things into my post, that I never said, or just misinterpreting my post.All I was trying to say is knowledge which most grade school students know as fact. If
responsible adults wish to multiply, the normal way is through love making and marriage of the opposite sexes. Of course, if they do not, they can take the other course if they feel inclined that way. It does not bother me at all which style is their preference. It is none of my business, however, what I personally think is my business, and that is about all I have to write at the moment. :huh:

[vicente]

On the other hand,...when some responsible people wish to multiple (I heard of numbers as high as 14%), they cannot do it the "normal" way. My youngest sister was one of those,...her spouse had slow swimmers,...so she got artificially (that's a terrible sounding word) inseminated,...three times,...producing three lovely little nieces for me, whom my spouse loves to shower with gifts. My kids, two sons and a daughter are adults, the youngest being 23.

Personally, I like the hermaphrodite idea. That way no one would know who was homosexual, bisexual or "straight". And some, the reclusive types, could, as many others in the animal kingdom, impregnate themselves. I heard that as high as 4% of international births are hermaphrodite, but in most cases, especially in the Christian Countries, they orchidectomize them when infants.

In the meantime, I wouldn't hold too dear those ideas implanted onto grade school students,...heck, when I was in grade school they use to say that atoms were the basic building blocks in nature, LOL.

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

asheera says, david thinks (quoting vicente): "they are born with, how we interact with the universe, gayness, thus in my view, the Source upon which their life extends,"[/color] and asheera asks david, quoting david: is 'depth' of the 'truth'?

David answers that asheera's quote of vicente is a 'hack' job (not like the 'real' hack here) which does injustice to what was actually said, to wit: "to deny ones gayness, is nothing less than the denial of their own Spiritual authenticness. Beliefs deny, suppress, disempower, disconnect, etc. Thus in my view, anyone against Gay Marriage, denies not only Spirit, but the Source upon which their life extends." asheera makes 'bad' distortion here, not a 'pretty' reflection this, what asheera-spirit is about.

David also answers, "Yup, as far as he can see, that is very 'deep' truth-perspective -- his saying 'the depth of truth' is an english-idiomatic way of expressing this; unless asheera is from another language-based culture, she is perfectly capable of 'knowing' the meaning of such 'idiomatic' usage; that she chooses to 'hide' such 'knowing' in her questioning mode is also not a 'pretty' reflection of what asheera-spirit is about -- in David's mirror, that is; in other mirrors it may refelct as the 'fairest' of them all."

asheera questions: 'reasons' (or nonreasons)?

David answers: "Yup. And there's enough info in the rest of sentence which that was 'hacked' from for you to 'know' what David was trying to get at. Denial of such 'knowledge' also not a pretty reflection of what asheera-spirit is about in David's mirror."

asheersa questions: backhanded 'poke'?

David answers: "Yup. David himself has used the 'So?' (or 'So what?') questioning tactic, so he knows that it's a 'backhanded poke'. In this regard, asheera 'reflected' as being like David in David's mirror, except that David knows and acknowledges to those he's 'poking' that he's 'poking' at them when he does so."

Does that make things clear[er]? :ph34r:

[sahyo]

asheera says, david thinks (quoting vicente): "they are born with, how we interact with the universe, gayness, thus in my view, the Source upon which their life extends,"[/color] and asheera asks david, quoting david: is 'depth' of the 'truth'?




which was posted was:

david:

And then again, myopic/ignorant/simplistically-thinking folks in the audience might not 'see' and therefore totally fail to appreciate the 'depth' of the 'truth' his shared-vision 'reveals'.


asheera:

thinking is simplistically?

david thinks
they are born with,
how we interact with the universe,
gayness,
thus in my view,
the Source upon which their life extends,
is 'depth' of the 'truth'?

[sahyo]

David answers that asheera's quote of vicente is a 'hack' job (not like the 'real' hack here) which does injustice to what was actually said, to wit: "to deny ones gayness, is nothing less than the denial of their own Spiritual authenticness. Beliefs deny, suppress, disempower, disconnect, etc. Thus in my view, anyone against Gay Marriage, denies not only Spirit, but the Source upon which their life extends." asheera makes 'bad' distortion here, not a 'pretty' reflection this, what asheera-spirit is about.


the response wasn't 'about' "Gay Marriage", david :)


his saying 'the depth of truth' is an english-idiomatic way of expressing this; unless asheera is from another language-based culture, she is perfectly capable of 'knowing' the meaning of such 'idiomatic' usage; that she chooses to 'hide' such 'knowing' in her questioning mode is also not a 'pretty' reflection of what asheera-spirit is about -- in David's mirror, that is; in other mirrors it may refelct as the 'fairest' of them all."


wasn't-isn't 'about' "idiomatic' usage"

haps when david ceases thinking"mirrors" ;)


David answers: "Yup. David himself has used the 'So?' (or 'So what?') questioning tactic, so he knows that it's a 'backhanded poke'. In this regard, asheera 'reflected' as being like David in David's mirror, except that David knows and acknowledges to those he's 'poking' that he's 'poking' at them when he does so."


which thought'imagined' "so?" as though "backhanded poke" :)

[DavidS]

asheera: the response wasn't 'about' "Gay Marriage", david

I didn't think it was, asheera.

wasn't-isn't 'about' "idiomatic' usage"

Then it wasn't about anything I said either, I guess - sorry, I thought you were talking to me about something I said.

haps when david ceases thinking"mirrors"

mirror-speak just an analogy-tool, asheera, to image·in·native·ly 'show' anyone with and 'I' that 'sees' know what my 'I' 'sees'. IMO, you take my 'thinking' far too seriously, conventiently using it to ignore my 'seeing', or so it 'looks' to me..

which thought'imagined' "so?" as though "backhanded poke" :)

No; which 'saw' "so?" as being something which just might possibly be intermind-communicated using "back-handed poke" as an image·in·native 'analogy'.

Is what I 'saw' any clearer to you now? I hope so, 'cuz there's nothing more I can say about it: me-which don't image·in any better than this. :)

[sahyo]

mirror-speak just an analogy-tool, asheera, to image·in·native·ly 'show' anyone with and 'I' that 'sees' know what my 'I' 'sees'.


:blink: ;)



IMO, you take my 'thinking' far too seriously, conventiently using it to ignore my 'seeing', or so it 'looks' to me..


:lol:

no

[sahyo]

No; which 'saw' "so?" as being something which just might possibly be intermind-communicated using "back-handed poke" as an image·in·native 'analogy'.


wasn't

:)

[sahyo]

wasn't-isn't 'about' "idiomatic' usage"

Then it wasn't about anything I said either, I guess - sorry, I thought you were talking to me about something I said.


um? :)

[sahyo]

me-which don't image·in any better than this. :)


:)

[Hellas-goldie]

I really got confused reading these posts about homosexuality.
I could never understand why we have to complicate things so much when it's about sex.
''My bed is my bed and your bed is your bed'', it's so simple.

[sahyo]

Not daring to face the truth is like having money but not daring to spend it..

then dare, sweet hellas/hellinas,
which not "my" or "your"

:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Hellas-goldie@Nov 28 2003, 04:07 PM
I really got* confused reading* these* posts about* homosexuality.
I* could never understand* why* we have to complicate* things* so much when it's* about* sex.
''My* bed* is my* bed* and* your* bed is your* bed'', it's so* simple.
Hi HG - my 'sense' is that in the not so 'good', tribe-based society 'old days', the "my bed is my bed and your bed is your bed" principle you cite, along with other 'personal' 'free-choice' principles and practices, were completely subordinated to what was seen as the 'survival interest' of the group. 'Reproduction' (i.e. 'child-bearing') by family 'units' was considered absolutely critical for the group's 'greater good'; thus things like masturbation and homosexuality, even remaining 'single' (except for 'priestly' group-service maybe), were viewed and treated as unacceptably anti-social 'practices'; and, assuming one was a 'more fortunate' male, 'husbanding' many wives and concubines and having huge numbers of children (the Old Testament has many 'accounts' of this) was considered a very socially 'upstanding' thing to do.

The same "group-interest trumps personal-interest" phenomenon is also apparent in many 'traditional' societies where women are more or less regarded and treated as child-bearing-n-rearing 'chattel'. The 'principle' that a woman has the right to choose her own mate and whether to have children (or not) is a relatively new development, historically speaking. Far from seeing it as 'simple' (i.e., the way you see it), 'traditional' thinkers, who 'go by the book' and don't understand and acknowledge that 'tribal-propagation' is a totally obsolete 'value', continue to regard the "my bed is my bed and your bed is your bed" principle as extremely (and unacceptably!) complicating.

I hope you understand, I'm just 'explaining' insofar as I can, not 'justifying', their royal complicatingnesses. :)

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by DavidS@Nov 29 2003, 10:59 AM
I hope you understand, I'm just 'explaining' insofar as I can, not 'justifying', their royal complicatingnesses. :)


Yes I do understand what you are saying but you didn't tell me if you agree with me.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Hellas-goldie@Nov 29 2003, 10:53 AM
Yes I do understand what you are saying but you didn't tell me if you agree with me.
That I most certainly do, HG. The 'group interest' thang has continued to 'obscenely' (IMO) burgeon to the point where it is used to 'justify' thangs like mass production (which, in effect, turns laborers into mere machine 'cogs', and disposable ones at that, massively exploits-n-degrades the environment); mass education (which, in effect, disregards and shortchanges 'individual' sensitivites and talents and turns kids, if not into 'clones', into clone-wanna-ken-n-barbie-be's, etc.); massive overcrowing, overpopulation, etc. ), Etc., Etc., Etc.

IMO, the 'overwhelming' amount of gross social-skills-'retardation' crime, war, and psychospiritual banality which we as a species are now contextually living 'in' can be 'traced' back to 'group interest' being placed 'higher' than 'personal interest' on most people's moral and aesthetic 'value' scales.

I would personally much rather live in a context where there were less 'social' 'benefits' (the kinds of thangs that 'serving' group-interest 'provides') and more 'room' for personal freedom-n-choice and thus, among other things, personal growth-n-development-and-psychospiritual-actualization (as well as 'failure' in such regards, I suppose).

I 'project' that this will be more the case in the future, but 'we' as a species are going to have to become thoroughly 'disillusioned' with the group-interest==>mass-society 'progression' (it's only a 'progression' in the sense of being a necessary step, so we can 'learn' from such 'mistake', along the way) -- humpty-dumpty has to 'fall' and 'break' into so many pieces that 'we' can't put HD back together again before people in general recognize this 'apparent' 'progression' for evolutionary boon-doggle that it (IMO) is!

Those who are self-governing will be the 'wave' of the future -- this, of course, means assuming full personal response·ability for what one does in one's own 'bed', and desiring-n-honoring that others 'do' likewise.

I assume that would be jes fine withchoo, too, HG. :D

[buzzlightyear1982]

That's interestin and I must admit you had captures my interest...however why did you phrase it as 'crime of homosexuality' ? Correct me if I'm wrong but this would give the impression that homosexuality is wrong :think:

[sonrisa]

Vicente was being sarcastic. He would do that sometimes.

[Michael]

Without being judgemental, homosexuality is a biological cul de sac.

[buzzlightyear1982]

How exactly do you come to that conclusion :think:

[Smurf]

Without being judgemental, homosexuality is a biological cul de sac.

so?

so is hetrosexuality

[buzzlightyear1982]

How do you feel about those clain the title of Biosexual :think:

[Kether]

Without being judgemental, homosexuality is a biological cul de sac.
Not any more: we now have artificial insemination, etc. And when we didn't, the fact that homosexuality lowered the population slightly has no bearing on the question of whether it is ethical. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is an effective evolutionary technique, the highest good does not consist of helping our genes to survive. The whole concept of 'natural law' is highly flawed: nature is totally and utterly amoral, and doesn't care about human beings and their whims. The only meaning and moral law that exists in the world is that which we dictate. In the words of Bertrand Russell, "nature is only a part of what we can imagine; everything, real or imagined, can be appraised by us, and there is no outside standard to show that our valuation is wrong. We are ourselves the ultimate and irrefutable arbiters of value, and in the world of value nature is only a part. Thus in this world we are greater than nature. In the world of value, nature in itself is neutral, neither good nor bad, deserving of neither admiration nor censure. It is we who create value and our desires which confer value. In this realm we are kings..."
The main argument against gay rights is that homosexuality is 'unnatural', and that 'unnatural' things are wrong. Firstly, it is likely that homosexuality has biological causes, in which case it would not be 'unnatural'. Secondly, 'unnatural' things are not morally wrong, according to my moral views.

[Smurf]

Thought I'd insert this here :P

http://www.baptistwatch.org/pics/01.jpg

http://www.baptistwatch.org/pics/protest.jpg

This is no joke, it is the Westboro Baptist Church

[sonrisa]

so true Smurfie, mental illness is nothing to joke about

(next day, 7/7)

some of those signs are really sick, like "thank god for aids" & I read somewhere that those so-called "church ladies" cuss like sailors & then some.
AIDS is not a "gay" disease. So- would it be divine providence if these "church ladies" all got it?
:badgrin:

just asking....

[poulenc]

A sign I saw in last month's Gay Pride march: God hates FIGS!

[CSwriter1]

Vicente,

The Sin of Homosexuality, a crime punishable by death according to the Abrahamic religions, upon close examination, is really no different than the sin of masterbation, oral sex, protected sex, sodomy or sex among people generally over 50, who no longer have the capacity to produce offspring.

You made one of the best arguements I have ever read.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"The Sin of Homosexuality, a crime punishable by death according to the Abrahamic religions, upon close examination, is really no different than the sin of masterbation, oral sex, protected sex, sodomy or sex among people generally over 50, who no longer have the capacity to produce offspring."

The cruel reality of it all is those punishments you talk about often depends on age, sex, race, and social standings B)

[sonrisa]

click here (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=421) to read an article about the Westboro Baptist Church

those people are sick :knockout:

[Smurf]

I know!!

our local satire show the Chaser's War on Everything has a "reporter" in the US, he went to one of their demonstrations :lol:

after asking a few questions he started to "hit" on one of the guys there. They were all like: "Hey you Fag Pervert!! That's my husband!" so funny, taking them on :D

[buzzlightyear1982]

The only way to abolish a problem is to face it dead on... B)

[sonrisa]

ok, then how would you face the Westboro Baptist Church head on?


Chaser's War on Everything, huh? I was wondering how Smurfie found out about the WBC. That show sounds interesting, too bad we don't get it here, infact the only Aussie show we get in the United States that I know of is Beyond Tomorrow, which is pretty cool most times.

[poulenc]

Re the Westboro Baptist Church: I knew a Gestalt therapist once who did a pioneering study of young men who were involved in gaybashing. I don't remember the exact number of the sampling but I think it was around 25-30 male teenagers who routinely beat up gay men. After following their lives for a decade or so, he found that 100% of them turned out to be homosexual. Without a single exception. His conclusion was that their self-hatred was so intense that it turned outward and served as "self-confirmation" that they, themselves, were not the hated other. Interesting, no?

How does this relate to the bigots at Westboro Baptist Church? Well, I'm sure you can figure that out. Even if they can't. It's really sad that so much self-hatred leads to so much violence not only against other people but against ourselves.

[sonrisa]

r u saying Fred Phelps is gay? Oh that's twisted!! :goodlaugh:
not ol Fred being gay, mind you, but his, um, reaction to it. He is unable to deal with that alleged aspect of himself & takes it out on those who can.

As for his kids & grandkids (the other members of his "church"/hate group) I would say they've been brainwashed by Phelps. That would be most unusual for a whole family- all of them- to be gay. I would say they hate gays becuz that's how they've been/are being raised.

[Smurf]

Ahh Beyond Tomorrow? That show is soooo tacky :P interesting stuff sometimes though

Here is the link: Chaser's War on Everything (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/)

so funny :D

[poulenc]

Sonrisa--I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say that all gaybashers are themselves homosexual (and God knows, I wouldn't want to claim Fred Phelps as a brother of mine). Yeah, I think you're right--if you're raised to hate and get constant reinforcement for hating, you're gonna hate. But in an amazing percentage of cases, it is internalized homophobia that's the cause.

So I guess the answer to that original question, "How would you face the Westboro Church head on?", the answer would be, "give them a mirror" then get out of the way, 'cause it ain't gonna be pretty.

[sonrisa]

the problem with holding up a mirror to those kind of people is they generally don't recognize themselves in it.


poulenc--but in an amazing number of cases, it is internalized homophobia that's the cause

-- oh I'm not disputing that. Get this- do you know Phelps has 13 kids? As in maybe he needed to "prove" to himself that he likes girls?
Who knows? But I doubt you'll have to worry about having to claim Phelps as a bro- your feelings for each other are mutual!! :D


Smurfie, thanx for the link. It is most interesting. I notice dubya's front & center on the site :D

you think Beyond Tomorrow is tacky? Does that make me tacky? I think some of those inventions are cool. I sure wouldn't mind having one of those big-az boats they were cruising around on the Mediterrean a few weeks back.

[Smurf]

you think Beyond Tomorrow is tacky? Does that make me tacky? I think some of those inventions are cool. I sure wouldn't mind having one of those big-az boats they were cruising around on the Mediterrean a few weeks back.

Oh I agree that the inventions are cool, but commercial television ... when there are alternatives

And I don't think you are tacky Sonrisa, well... not too much :D

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Oh I agree that the inventions are cool, but commercial television ... when there are alternatives..."

Inventions are cool, but some day they will replace us all...at the job...in the home...and even in nature. As far as commercial television, they only exist to fill network execitives pockets B)