The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[UKMikey]

It looks like no matter how many times one posts that song in this thread, people don't get it despite the lyrics being as clear as they could possibly be.

 

[Famine]

Just to add to that concise but excellent post directly above this one, there's only two possibilities here.

1. Either two people who love each other is a 'transgression of divine law' (the definition of a sin)

OR

2. The "divine law" that states that two people loving each other is a God-forbidden crime is, well, utter bollocks.

There is a third possibility - which doesn't actually preclude possibility #2. The idea that it's a sin is itself utter bollocks, and a deliberate bit of cherry-picking from the men who dress as women and rape children.

Here's everything Jesus, as quoted by the Bible, ever said about homosexuality:

...

 

[UKMikey]

I think I have an idea on what Christians would say about that one. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Presumably this includes Leviticus 20:13 which explicitly calls for the death of people who indulge in gay sex. I guess He wasn't a mixed fabrics fan either (19:19).

Of course, this didn't prevent the Good Lord from doing a bit of cherrypicking Himself when He felt like it but hey... mysterious ways.

6 Times Jesus Contradicted The Old Testament

A friend recently told me that Jesus would never contradict the Old Testament scriptures. In response to that statement, I'd like to offer this list of

www.patheos.com

 

[LeMansAid]

I just did a little bit of looking up about what The Bible states regarding homosexuality. By chance I came across it explained by Christians that the reason eating shellfish is disallowed is because they're bottom feeders.

 

[merseyxshore]

that is your decision

This implies that one 'chooses' to be gay, which is not how it works.

 

[TexRex]

I just did a little bit of looking up about what The Bible states regarding homosexuality. By chance I came across it explained by Christians that the reason eating shellfish is disallowed is because they're bottom feeders.

But then halibut are bottom feeders as well, and they have both scales and fins. It's all arbitrary. It's all stupid.

 

[LeMansAid]

But then halibut are bottom feeders as well, and they have both scales and fins. It's all arbitrary. It's all stupid.

Stupid but not arbitrary. Like with so many other homophobes, they're obsessed with bottoms. Feeding at the bottom, feeding to the bottom......

Halibut is surely out, then, considering its last syllable.

 

[TexRex]

Stupid but not arbitrary. Like with so many other homophobes, they're obsessed with bottoms. Feeding at the bottom, feeding to the bottom......

Halibut is surely out, then, considering its last syllable.

It's still both.

The prohibition is on seafood without fins or scales.

Per the Old Testament, "Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."

That necessarily excludes shellfish and mollusks. These are frequently (though not consistently--squid aren't and neither are contemporary cultivated bivalves) bottom feeders. Lots of bottom feeders have fins and scales. Flounder is another example.

Arbitrary and stupid.

There is no "divine" and so there is no "divine law" to transgress, thereby necessitating absolution either through some sort of ridiculous arbitrary cleansing ritual or by an arbitrary spiritual leader in order to be granted access to some arbitrary afterlife.

It seems based heavily on Jewish dietary law (also frequently arbitrary), which makes sense, though Christians don't seem as keen to follow rules established for them. A big part of Christianity is picking and choosing. Eel isn't kosher because its scales can't be removed easily without tearing the flesh, but then the OT was translated from Hebrew in Europe where eel was once a very important, inexpensive food source, and so the defiance is...justified? Sturgeon (and its roe), which comes from majority Orthodox Christian regions, also isn't kosher for the same reason as eel. Again, an exception is made. I get it, caviar is ****ing awesome.

I can totally get behind some aspects of what makes food kosher. It often includes care of animals that is not only morally preferable to me but also yields a better product because of the reduced stress. That's not so arbitrary. I prefer animals whose meat I consume have just one bad day.

...

Look, as a purely personal choice, I can kind of understand not wanting to consume crustaceans or bivalves because of what they consume--which typically includes detritus--and I suppose that personal aversion got wrapped into an arbitrary code. Obviously that aversion to detritus wanes as you get farther away from original consumption (though "original sin" doesn't similarly wane--weird) because lots of fish with fins and scales themselves consume crustaceans and bivalves. These fish tend to be bottom feeders themselves and they don't typically consume detritus directly. Squid consume crustaceans and bivalves as well (again typically not consuming detritus directly), and there are fish with fins and scales that consume squid.

I'm not personally deterred by animals' consumption of detritus. Preparation includes removing entrails, so it's fine. My wife loves shellfish and mollusks. She still can't get into escargot--no matter how much I tell her they're basically a vehicle for butter and garlic--but it's fine. I occasionally still get them when we go to a nice restaurant that serves them and I don't have to share. Yay.

As a purely personal choice, I kind of get it. As a supposed transgression of "divine law," it's arbitrary and stupid.

 

[Liquid]

It's persecution for the halibut.

 

[LeMansAid]

It's still both.

The prohibition is on seafood without fins or scales.

Per the Old Testament, "Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."

That necessarily excludes shellfish and mollusks. These are frequently (though not consistently--squid aren't and neither are contemporary cultivated bivalves) bottom feeders. Lots of bottom feeders have fins and scales. Flounder is another example.

Arbitrary and stupid.

There is no "divine" and so there is no "divine law" to transgress, thereby necessitating absolution either through some sort of ridiculous arbitrary cleansing ritual or by an arbitrary spiritual leader in order to be granted access to some arbitrary afterlife.

It seems based heavily on Jewish dietary law (also frequently arbitrary), which makes sense, though Christians don't seem as keen to follow rules established for them. A big part of Christianity is picking and choosing. Eel isn't kosher because its scales can't be removed easily without tearing the flesh, but then the OT was translated from Hebrew in Europe where eel was once a very important, inexpensive food source, and so the defiance is...justified? Sturgeon (and its roe), which comes from majority Orthodox Christian regions, also isn't kosher for the same reason as eel. Again, an exception is made. I get it, caviar is ****ing awesome.

I can totally get behind some aspects of what makes food kosher. It often includes care of animals that is not only morally preferable to me but also yields a better product because of the reduced stress. That's not so arbitrary. I prefer animals whose meat I consume have just one bad day.

...

Look, as a purely personal choice, I can kind of understand not wanting to consume crustaceans or bivalves because of what they consume--which typically includes detritus--and I suppose that personal aversion got wrapped into an arbitrary code. Obviously that aversion to detritus wanes as you get farther away from original consumption (though "original sin" doesn't similarly wane--weird) because lots of fish with fins and scales themselves consume crustaceans and bivalves. These fish tend to be bottom feeders themselves and they don't typically consume detritus directly. Squid consume crustaceans and bivalves as well (again typically not consuming detritus directly), and there are fish with fins and scales that consume squid.

I'm not personally deterred by animals' consumption of detritus. Preparation includes removing entrails, so it's fine. My wife loves shellfish and mollusks. She still can't get into escargot--no matter how much I tell her they're basically a vehicle for butter and garlic--but it's fine. I occasionally still get them when we go to a nice restaurant that serves them and I don't have to share. Yay.

As a purely personal choice, I kind of get it. As a supposed transgression of "divine law," it's arbitrary and stupid.

I appreciate the effort you've gone to but I was only ever making juvenile butt and bottom jokes.

 

[Imari]

Arbitrary and stupid.

Sort of, but maybe also accidentally genius. The dietary restrictions that some religions seem to have could well have worked in their favour in the ages before refrigeration, food cleanliness, germ theory and modern health care. In such a time, some foods are just going to be flat out more risky to consume than others.

A group of people that chooses to routinely forgo foods that have the potential to be dangerous or unsanitary are probably going to be more fit (in the Darwinistic survival of the fittest sense) than people who just stick anything in their mouths. Whether groups arrive at this list of banned foods through critical observation or through pure luck is not super important, and the list is unlikely to be 100% great choices. But I can see how it could potentially help.

There are things in the Abrahamic texts that are straight up dumb, but the food restrictions I'm willing to give a pass as at least potentially just good societal rules for the time they were written. In an age where the distinction between religion and government is often shaky at best, I'm okay with some religious food safety rules even if from a modern perspective they seem ridiculous. And are ridiculous in the modern age, because the reasons why these foods might be avoided no longer really exist.

The same can't be said for restrictions on same-sex intercourse. That's just arbitrary and for no obvious positive purpose to the society other than the men in power get squicked out by seeing another man's willy. Which is clearly ridiculous, the penis is a majestic organ.

 

[TexRex]

Sort of, but maybe also accidentally genius. The dietary restrictions that some religions seem to have could well have worked in their favour in the ages before refrigeration, food cleanliness, germ theory and modern health care. In such a time, some foods are just going to be flat out more risky to consume than others.

A group of people that chooses to routinely forgo foods that have the potential to be dangerous or unsanitary are probably going to be more fit (in the Darwinistic survival of the fittest sense) than people who just stick anything in their mouths. Whether groups arrive at this list of banned foods through critical observation or through pure luck is not super important, and the list is unlikely to be 100% great choices. But I can see how it could potentially help.

There are things in the Abrahamic texts that are straight up dumb, but the food restrictions I'm willing to give a pass as at least potentially just good societal rules for the time they were written. In an age where the distinction between religion and government is often shaky at best, I'm okay with some religious food safety rules even if from a modern perspective they seem ridiculous. And are ridiculous in the modern age, because the reasons why these foods might be avoided no longer really exist.

I can appreciate this. It's nothing to do with you, of course, but what's wrong with the direct approach? "Hey, so we've found that these things can be harmful if they're not handled properly or care isn't taken when consuming them, so you should be mindful of that. It's ultimately up to you and nothing bad is going to happen from our end, but we just thought you should know."

Periods of supposed "uncleanliness" following consumption are...weird. Especially if one has undergone some sort of cleansing ritual that also reasonably rids one of the harmful. Bathing and washing of clothes after handling a carcass (of anything, not just unclean animals) isn't such a bad idea, but again I think the direct approach of informing people is preferable.

Mixture of meat and dairy prohibition in Jewish dietary law doesn't make the same sort of sense. Meat and dairy can spoil separately and I guess technically that fact increases your chances of being harmed by consuming the combination, but prohibition?

Why retain the standard with contemporary refrigeration? Purely tradition? Seems silly. I think it's still about control, especially if lifting some prohibitions may cause adherents to question the reasoning for others.

Other cultures adopt food handling practices that are, as far as I know, separate from religious doctrine. Like smoking and drying fish to preserve it. It serves a legitimate purpose and sky daddy has no part in it.

The same can't be said for restrictions on same-sex intercourse. That's just arbitrary and for no obvious positive purpose to the society other than the men in power get squicked out by seeing another man's willy. Which is clearly ridiculous, the penis is a majestic organ.

Yes.

I appreciate the effort you've gone to but I was only ever making juvenile butt and bottom jokes.

I got that. It's still based on flawed reasoning.

It's persecution for the halibut.

 

[UKMikey]

It's persecution for the halibut.

Dunno why they have to skate around the issue though.

 

[Daz555]

Dunno why they have to skate around the issue though.

GT Planet is not the plaice for such discussions.

 

[UKMikey]

GT Planet is not the plaice for such discussions.

Probably just as well for me. Everyone else is brill at them whilst I just tend to flounder.

 

[Imari]

I can appreciate this. It's nothing to do with you, of course, but what's wrong with the direct approach?

You and I might go about it this way, but I've noticed that there's a lot of people (particularly those in authority) that are a big fan of the "do what you're told and shut up" approach. And to be fair, sometimes this has it's advantages when people are either incapable of correctly evaluating the situation themselves or are so beholden to another mindset that they're unwilling to believe anything else. The modern example of COVID and vaccine denialism parallel this nicely - some things simply had to be mandated for the greater good of society.

And if you're taking this approach, assigning the authority for the command to God rather than yourself really reduces the opportunity for argument. Which is why it's so hard to argue with fundamentalists about homosexuality, and why you get people who say things like "it's a sin, but nobody's perfect" and think that's somehow okay. Not only do they think that it's okay to say that a fundamental part of who someone is is sinful, they have the fallback position that it wasn't even them that said it, they're just passing along the word of God.

Why retain the standard with contemporary refrigeration? Purely tradition? Seems silly. I think it's still about control, especially if lifting some prohibitions may cause adherents to question the reasoning for others.

Of course it's silly, but it's entirely possible for a rule to be implemented for reasons that are at least sensible at the time, and be retained for reasons of power and control.

I think schools are a non-religious example of this. Once upon a time rigorous discipline was assumed to be important to bringing children up and this led to some pretty brutal and repressive systems (eg. Pink Floyd's The Wall). We now know better and have a much better grasp of what reasonable rights and needs look like even for children, but some teachers and schools still attempt to dictate if and when children can go to the bathroom, take medication, drink, etc. School rules would not look like they do if they were made from scratch, they have significant hangover from the last hundred years or so of child education.

I can't imagine what logic there might once have been to introduce rules that were profoundly anti-homosexual. But even assuming that there were some (because if we're honest humans have believed some pretty bonkers stuff in the past simply for the lack of knowing any better), we now know that it's garbage and the only reason to continue to hold those views is repression and control.

There's also that extreme conservatives see any change as negative simply because it is change. This is even less logical than doing stuff for power and control, it's essentially an emotional response and good luck arguing against that. Fundamentally it is as your signature suggests, a mental health problem. If someone is scared of change just because it's change, that's not healthy.

 

[Brett]

I'm not personally deterred by animals' consumption of detritus. Preparation includes removing entrails, so it's fine. My wife loves shellfish and mollusks. She still can't get into escargot--no matter how much I tell her they're basically a vehicle for butter and garlic--but it's fine. I occasionally still get them when we go to a nice restaurant that serves them and I don't have to share. Yay.

I tried escargot this past weekend for the first time. Good stuff. I also tried frog legs and turtle soup for the first time. The frog legs needed some more seasoning and that would have made them much better. I am not completely sure what to think of turtle soup. Each taste seemed to be a little different. I enjoyed the little sample of it that we had, but I am not sure I would want to order a cup or bowl of it, especially when gumbo is an option.

 

[TexRex]

I tried escargot this past weekend for the first time. Good stuff. I also tried frog legs and turtle soup for the first time. The frog legs needed some more seasoning and that would have made them much better. I am not completely sure what to think of turtle soup. Each taste seemed to be a little different. I enjoyed the little sample of it that we had, but I am not sure I would want to order a cup or bowl of it, especially when gumbo is an option.

I love frog legs. Haven't had turtle soup.

Escargot is so good, especially with a crusty bread. I will never understand why Sheila won't go near them when she loves clams, oysters and mussels.

 

[Danoff]

I tried escargot this past weekend for the first time. Good stuff. I also tried frog legs and turtle soup for the first time. The frog legs needed some more seasoning and that would have made them much better. I am not completely sure what to think of turtle soup. Each taste seemed to be a little different. I enjoyed the little sample of it that we had, but I am not sure I would want to order a cup or bowl of it, especially when gumbo is an option.

I love frog legs. Haven't had turtle soup.

Escargot is so good, especially with a crusty bread. I will never understand why Sheila won't go near them when she loves clams, oysters and mussels.

I feel like this is code for people experimenting with homosexuality, I just can't figure the code out completely...

[/s]

 

[UKMikey]

I feel like this is code for people experimenting with homosexuality, I just can't figure the code out completely...

I will never be able to watch Spongebob Squarepants in the same way again.

[also /s]

 

[UKMikey]

Today I learned respecting other people's right to marriage is an assault on the constitution.

We went through the same thing in the United Kingdom fourteen years ago, even though they weren't even allowed to call it marriage:

Despite recent controversy, civil partnerships have been a huge

Last month, a civil registrar who refuses to officiate at partnerships between same-sex couples, claiming it is "sinful" and against her religion, brought a legal case that could have implications for ceremonies nationwide. "As a matter of religious conscience," Lillian Ladele said she couldn't...

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Danoff]

Today I learned respecting other people's right to marriage is an assault on the constitution.

View attachment 1211955
View attachment 1211956

We went through the same thing in the United Kingdom foureen years ago, even though they weren't even allowed to call it marriage:

Despite recent controversy, civil partnerships have been a huge

Last month, a civil registrar who refuses to officiate at partnerships between same-sex couples, claiming it is "sinful" and against her religion, brought a legal case that could have implications for ceremonies nationwide. "As a matter of religious conscience," Lillian Ladele said she couldn't...

www.independent.co.uk

Heritage Foundation needs the clown meme as they go through this nonsense.

Kudos to the Senate for doing the right thing and passing a bill on gay marriage today. Kudos to the republicans that crossed the aisle to support it, and to the democrats for trying to get in front of the supreme court. I have seen a lot of handwringing about this bill over the fact that it doesn't force states to issue same-sex marriage certificates, they only have to honor those issued in other states, but hey, flying to vegas to get hitched doesn't seem like that bad a deal. Honestly, I think it's smart. It allows states to continue to parade how backward they are while affording gay people a national level of equality.

Well done, I hope the house signs it and sends it on its way.

Edit: The moronic Heritage foundataion rant there completely ignores the details of this bill or the provisions in it. It absolutely DOES NOT say what they claim, at least based on everything I've read so far. They appear to be baselessly fear-mongering. We have the crossover republicans to thank for the fact that the Heritage Foundation's little tantrum is pre-empted. Not that it stopped them at all.

 

[TexRex]

 

[shadow0460]

EDITED:
I removed repeat content I had posted some time ago. If you're curious, the older post is still there.

If you're LGBT, I'm going to interact with you like I would anyone else. I'll be happy to post my time trials on the same leaderboards as yours, and I'd be happy to share tunes, race strategy, etc. and run daily or custom races together.

As for politics, homosexuality is a non issue for me.

I'm just going to leave it at that, as arguing why it's wrong or what I do like swearing or double posting or whatever is wrong is just gonna get us angry with one another and what I'd really like to see is that we can still look forward to engaging in just about any other activity.

 

[UKMikey]

Homosexuality, etc. is wrong, end of story.

The above post is wrong.

 

[Joey D]

Homosexuality, etc. is wrong, end of story.

 

[TexRex]

God damn, the bitchfits these pathetic mother****ers throw are hilarious.

 

[Exorcet]

I have my beliefs as to what's right and wrong in marriage, but it's not my place to enforce them on anyone or try in any way to force anyone to follow them.

I suppose I can appreciate an attempt to not force your views onto others, but if something is morally wrong yet so unimportant as to not be fought, how can it be wrong in the first place?

We don't tolerate murder just because some people have differing opinions on it. Murder is intolerable because of the clear damage that it does. If homosexuality is presumably harmless enough to not warrant taking action against it, what makes it wrong? I think the answer is that there isn't anything wrong with it in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

It's a sin, but I'll start correcting everyone who commits it after I stop sinning myself. I know what I should and should not do, but I do the opposite and sometimes enjoy it! I seem to have an issue, so it could be a while.
I'm not perfect. If you're gay, this may be the only time you ever hear me tell you it's a sin. We can coexist and heck maybe even like each other.
It's no one else's decision to allow you to be gay or whatever else, that is your decision.
There's just not a lot of stuff worth getting worked up over.

I have my beliefs as to what's right and wrong in marriage, but it's not my place to enforce them on anyone or try in any way to force anyone to follow them.
Homosexuality, etc. is wrong, end of story. Keep reading, though, because you need to know that a lot of what I do is also wrong, too. I know what I should and should not do, yet I still do what I shouldn't do and sometimes I even enjoy it. How messed up is that!?
Even if I was perfect I'd have no right to prevent you marrying whoever you want.
If you're LGBT, I'm going to interact with you like I would anyone else. I'll be happy to post my time trials on the same leaderboards as yours, and I'd be happy to share tunes, race strategy, etc. and run daily or custom races together.

As for politics, homosexuality is a non issue for me.

I'm just going to leave it at that, as arguing why it's wrong or what I do like swearing or double posting or whatever is wrong is just gonna get us angry with one another and what I'd really like to see is that we can still look forward to engaging in just about any other activity.

You got some thoughtful responses last time you posted this, and moved none at all.

 

[shadow0460]

You got some thoughtful responses last time you posted this, and moved none at all.

I'd forgotten about that post. Yeah, I'm stoic about it.
I did say I wasn't going to keep harping on it, hang on, I'll edit the second post.