Welcome to Gaia! ::

1) True, but I didn't point that one out. wink

2) Eh, again I didn't point it out

3) Did you even read the links?
And I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Some children of divorced parents might do well, but as a whole they don't do as well as their peers who have both parents. Google it if you don't believe me. And personally speaking, my parents are divorced too, and it was the healthiest decision for our family but it still made things hard. My mom is constantly stressed over financial difficulties, my sister misses the fact she barely has a father, and on the whole it sucks for all of us.

4) Again, links. And at the rate I think there is a correspondence, plus infidelity does hurt children and the people it occurs to. It matters.

5) Link. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxt-show=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=26&first page=657&journalcode=intjepid

6) You're basing this opinion on personal experience. You gotta look at the majority of the people who practice a lifestyle to know if it's healthy. And again, there's links there you missed.

7) Again, link.

cool That's why I didn't point it out.

9) Eh, didn't like that one for debate. It's too hard to defend.

10) I think it's true. If man wants to marry man, then why should it stop there?

11) If nothing's wrong, and nothing's right, then why can't people act arrogant, and why must we be polite? Right and wrong have to be defined.

12) And again you missed the links.

13) There is a branch. It's rather small, and I don't care for their pro-homosexuality arguments.
Otherwise I wouldn't want a homosexual man turned away from a church, but I certainly think it's a sin.
And I don't think as much of it is religious as you think, but think what you like.

14) Because if they aren't 'born gay' then their 'sexual orientation' wasn't forced on them. They can choose another way.

15) Go ahead and say it. It's not going to stop me, but the thing is this isn't my rule, it's God. That means it's not the same.

=============================================
According to you, and I was just trying to offer some non-religious arguments. It's fine if you disagree. ^_^

I don't see what the cute anime has to do with homosexuality. It seems more like black and white marriage to me.

1st: It's supposed to be sacred and holy. Sex outside of marriage is wrong too. He does want us to enjoy them, but in with the partner He has for us, and in the union of marriage.

2nd: Where's it say that God detests reproduction?

True, but those are the ones I feel obligated to defend, unless someone says something really interesting on a different one.
I think they explain things better and back up the argument more. What do I know though?

It is because God has the power to define the world we live in and what is right and wrong. That right belongs to the Creator.

We're allowed to choose. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences, or that one choice isn't wrong.

What do you mean? Can you restate that please?

===============================================
Convincing ones? I'm not sure there are ones for an atheist. Without God, morals don't matter, so the best ones are for Christians or any other religion where it's a sin. There's a few good health and psychological ones out there, but it really doesn't matter much if there's no God because nothing matters much if there's no God. We all live ad die, and whatever effect we have on each will be lost, so nothing counts. (Sorry I tend to get stuck on this. sweatdrop )

If I see any convincing ones though, especially if they aren't religious, I'll definitely post them. ^^

At your request, we will begin with one of the “Classic” passages in used in modern and medieval accusation of Homosexuality, the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis 18-19. Reference passages that will be important for interpretation of the Scripture are also found in Ezekiel 16:48-50, Jude v 6-7, and also Judges 19-20. Hebrews 13:2 will be referenced, but not in the classical fashion. Rather, it will serve as an illustration of a classic interpretation that bears significant problems.

A useful text to pick up, if you wish to familiarize yourself with an overview of homosexual behavior in the ancient world is Martii Nissinen’s “Homoeroticism in the Biblical World.” It holds a traditional and orthodox stance in general, but posits most issues in an objective and straightforward fashion.

-

On to the actual text. The classical interpretation, and please forgive me for a slight ‘straw man’ here if I get this interpretation wrong in some details. You are welcome to correct me regarding specific nuances. The following elements are found in this interpretation:

1) The angels arrive in secret, their natures unknown to Abraham, Lot or the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
2) The chief sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is sexual perversion, specifically a desire to fornicate with men. This is compounded by other ungodly behaviors, the sum total of which is seen in the assault upon the secreted angels of God, leading to a final judgment of the towns and their subsequent destruction.
3) Only Lot and his family are spared this divine wrath after the pleading and intercession of Abraham with God upon his revelation of his nature.
4) This position is considered to be upheld by an interpretation of Ezekiel 16:48-50 that relies upon the term “To’evah” in Hebrew, citing it as being the same abomination referenced in Leviticus chapters 18 & 20. It further feels that the notion that the Angels are secretly present is upheld by Hebrews 13:2 and considers Jude v 7 to stand behind the notion that the principle sin is a general sexual perversion, noted by most as being homosexuality.

Variations will be found in many cases, and most individuals who I speak with concerning Sodom and Gomorrah are actually unfamiliar with any ‘related’ passages such as Jude, Ezekiel or Hebrews, simply considering it to be rather “obvious” that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is homosexual sex, hence the medieval terminology upheld to the modern era: Sodomy, referencing illegal sex acts (esp Gay a**l sex between men.).

-

The problems with Sodom and Gomorrah:

The following list of issues crops up when interpreting the passage as being a direct condemnation of homosexuality, or even being related to homosexuality itself. The overall picture of the passage, in consideration of the following issues, becomes the condemnation of a deeply depraved, violent and xenophobic region lost in its obeissances to gods that YHWH finds abhorrent, practices that appear to have continued even into the period of Joshua and the Judges, a reality that suits one of the strong motivations for YHWH’s order of the destruction of the Canaanite people, their behavior now falling in line with those of their predecessors… because when the Israelites don’t do it, it appears that it becomes habit forming, nearly leading to the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin.

1) Hebrews 13:1-3, “Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.” (NIV)

Study Bibles will frequently include references indicating Hebrews 13:2 should be associated with Genesis 19-20. However, there is a distinct difficulty that crops up here. The only major reason for doing so is not found in Hebrews 13, as there is no actual reference to Abraham in that chapter, nor the previous one. Furthermore, the view that the passage in Genesis 19 may indicate a secret does not fly with Genesis 19:3’s choice of terminology for the figures. When addressing the supposedly secret God and angels, Abraham instead refers to the head as “Adonai,” a term which technically may have a meaning as a human superior of high authority, and which is listed by the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon as the single ‘uncertainty’ case among the vowel pointings of the noun (p 11). However, given the context of the passage, and the fact that all three are revealing miraculous signs of their authority immediately, and no reference is made to them concealing their nature at any point, it seems unlikely and even completely inappropriate to view this as being a human sense to the term. Technically, it is possible, but doing so may be related to a very real problem:

http://appliedmythology.com/baucis.html

Rabbinical traditions, in the period of the Sadducees’ rise in prominence, gained some linkage to Roman and Grecian philosophical thought. Though I cannot recall the specific citations from the Talmud or Midrash, if there are any, it is my view that it is incidents such as Baucis which lead mid/late rabbinical writings pre-Christ to interpret this event as a “Secret Visitation.” However, given that among the first acts of the angels in Sodom and Gomorrah is the mass blinding (19:11) of the mob of Sodom, given that “Adonai” is also used to refer to non-human divinity by Lot upon meeting them, it becomes increasingly unlikely that anyone is unfamiliar with their nature. The simple usage of “men” or “Anoshim” is a base pronoun which may indicate easily “the people,” (BDB 60) either indicating a non gendered referent to those as yet unseen, or a pronoun referent not showing strong concern with gender. What this means is that, if the classic view that this is a “Secret Visit” stems from rabbinical teaching that shows signs of pagan influence, this interpretation is subject to a mingled and false teaching towards both separate traditions. This visitation is nothing like Baucis’ visitation by Zeus and Hermes or any similar incident, though both are used as moral lessons in their respective tradition, and mingling the two is foolish regarding both religions.

2) Jude 7’s use to link Sodom and Gomorrah to gay sex becomes extremely problematic when it is considered within the context of the full passage, especially the preceding verse: “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 6-7, NIV)

The first half of this passage, the actual greek showing no splitting of sentences clearly, is linked to the others as being a similar incident. While it does not specify the linkage directly, the incident in v 6 relates to Genesis 6, and the account of the book of Enoch, cited also in verses 14-15 directly. The account regards a band of angels who took human women for wives, had monstrous children and were punished, just as Jude mentions, bound in chains until the end of time, their condemnation given to them by Enoch (refer to the Book of Enoch for details of the account if you like). This incident, having two singularly distinct individual bodies (Angels with human women and a mob attacking angelic guests who are likely not hiding their natures.), makes it unlikely that this is a referent to gay sex as the issue. If anything, the condemnation regards these incidents as similar and the only clear linkage is not only sexual impropriety but the congress of the divine with humanity, the mingling of the base with the ‘holy.’ This is stated in connection with a reminder that God destroyed the unbelievers, those who showed no faith in him, an accusation both to the rebellious angels of Enoch’s tale and to the vengeful Sodomites.

3) Ezekiel 16:48-50, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
I cannot count the number of times that “Detestable things” has immediately been returned to me, with the citation that it is “To’ebah,” the same term used in Leviticus 18 & 20 as a descriptor for homosexual sex in the context of the sex cults of the Canaanite people. There are two basic problems with any interpretation that forcibly says which of the various abominations this ‘must be.’ The first is straightforward. The context of the passage does not appear to deal with sexual congress as the specific sinful behavior being noted here. Arrogance, haughtiness, cruelty to the poor and needy, are the issues, followed by the general note of detestable things. Moving swiftly to gay sex is a stretch at best, and bespeaks a 20th century re-insertion, given the current political climate and a desperate move to silence a potential problem, namely the second issue: What constitutes a To’ebah.

The list of things that are an Abomination to YHWH (BDB, 1072-1073): ‘Unclean Food (Deut 14:3), Worshippers of Idols (Is 41:24), Child Sacrifice (Deut 12: 31), Idolatrous Practices (Deut 13:15 & 17:4, Ez 16:50 & 18:2, Malachi 2:11), Idolatrous Objects (2 Chronicles 34:33),’ … among these and other sundry false practices are included the violations of chapters 18 & 20 of Leviticus, the sexual improprieties of the surrounding people, related to their worship practices (as mentioned in 1 Kings). However, it’s worth noting that idolatrous practices are viewed as being linked at least by several key scholars (hence the BDB reference to it) as being the source of “To’ebah” in Sodom and Gomorrah (see reference above).
The sins listed in Ezekiel 16:48-50 indicate that Israel, being condemned for behavior worse than those cities, is given Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of hideous behavior they have surpassed, hideous behavior that appears to have nothing to do specifically with gay sex.

Which leads us to… what exactly was going on?

5) Open up Judges, chapters 19-20, the tale of the Benjamites. This is, by far, the least referenced tale in the judges, and one that is brushed over and with good reason. It is noxious and deeply unpleasant. However, I’ll give you the basic gist:

A Levite goes to reclaim his unfaithful concubine.
On the way back, they choose to stop in Gibeah, as it is an Israelite city.
An old man insists the two stay in his house, rather than the square.
A mob of Benjamites descends, demanding exactly what the people of Sodom did before.
The old man offered his daughter, which was refused, along with the concubine.
The Levite threw his concubine out at them, and they raped her until she died.
He tore up her body into little bloody pieces and sent them to the various tribes.
They descended on the tribe of Benjamin with a brutal vengeance, nearly decimating them.
Ultimately, wives had to be afforded the few remaining Benjaminites by the surrounding tribes so that they were not lost forever.

Here’s the rub: The incident is almost the same, and in readings of incidents such as these it becomes clearer what this behavior is, especially in light of Ezekiel 16:48-50 – Xenophobia. The Canaanite people (citation lacking) were known for this sort of behavioral problem. Tribal to their core, they attacked each other constantly, assaulting the various other tribes and cities, raping their enemies to prove that they were the dominant force (there are several Grecian urns from the Peloponnesian War depicting the Greeks doing the same thing to the defeated Persians. Quite graphic, cited in Nissinen’s work.).

Sodom and Gomorrah? These cities were arrogant, horrendously anti-YHWH, worshipping their false gods (likely the Ba’al and Asherah cults referenced throughout the Bible, largely local fertility cults known for child sacrifice, child prostitution and prostitution cultism, referenced as such by Scripture on numerous occasions.). They were cruel to their poor and needy, and so horrendously depraved that, when guests entered their city, they formed a mob and demanded the right to rape them.

And one day, God told the people of Israel that Canaan’s sins were great enough to destroy them, to require that destruction, for the sake of Israel’s very souls. They didn’t destroy them, and oh look… the Benjamites did the same thing that the people of Sodom did. The fact that they happily raped a woman to death is proof enough that this wasn’t about them being gay.

This was not about gay sex. It was about a cruel, vindictive and horrible pair of cities who brutalized their neighbors and citizens, violating and proving that they were the chiefs of all. It had everything to do with an arrogant, vile and horrid people who were themselves fully against all that YHWH wished His people to hold dear.

-

However… nowadays… it’s all about the gay schmex.

1. People have told me that Homosexuality is a choice, not what your born with. No one can tell me how love is anywhere near a choice yet. >: