The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Solid Lifters]

Although that was posted sometime ago, I just feel I have to point out this Wikipedia page.

I noticed the bonobo are listed as 'endangered.' Well, duuuhhhh.

 

[Duke]

So are regular chimps, smartass!

 

[Pako]

I read that post before responding earlier. I still don't understand. I'm guessing that the reason it was left alone was because the two of you got tired of talking about it. I'm sure 5 years is enough time to rest.

I'm still tired. So what's wrong with consenting adults, brother and sister, that are sterile, in maintaining a sexual relationship? I think Duke said that incest was not acceptable because of ill effects, but I propose scenarios where no children could be born, but he still maintained that incest is bad, umkay? That's all I was trying to point out to neon_duke (who ever that was.....).

 

[CraftyLandShark]

There are a few interesting things that should be noted before this thread slips back into the depths.

Personally, I'm an atheist, but I was raised in a strict baptist environment, and as such, have a pretty solid command of the bible. Most of the sane arguments against the morality of homosexuality in this thread are scripturally based. I consider these arguments invalid on their face, as I don't believe the bible to be the word of God, nor do I in fact BELIEVE in such a God. Despite that, there is a significant amount of misconception on the attitudes of the bible to homosexuality, even within Christianity.

Gil came closest to bringing these to light when discussing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. It's pretty clear from an objective standpoint that God chose to destroy the city because of attempted RAPE, not the gender of the rapists or their intended victims. It seems equally likely that God would have destroyed the city had the rapists demanded Lot's daughters rather than his sons (and the fact that Lot OFFERED his virgin daughters to the rapists casts into serious doubt any belief that the Old Testament ideas of morality hold any water).

The only other specific prohibition of homosexuality in the bible is the other example from Leviticus, in the Holiness Code. Firstly, according to most biblical scholars, the Holiness Code isn't even applicable to modern Christianity, as the New Testament represents a new covenant between God and Man. Secondly, the Holiness Code, today, is ridiculous. In addition to condeming homosexuality, it prohibits eating shellfish, having sex with one's wife if she is on her period, masturbation, and specifically ALLOWS ownership of slaves, providing that they are "heathens".

I don't know about any of you, but the last time I was at Red Lobster, I saw plenty of married couples who were likely christians gobbling up shrimp by the bucketload. I would even venture to say that some of these couples went home and had sex later that night, and it's possible - VERY possible, that one of the wives may have been on her period. Likely, the men who found that disgusting waited until their wives were asleep, and masturbated. And I can say for a near certainty that none of them would condone owning slaves. The generally accepted assumption is that this was a separate code of laws written by the Jewish priesthood prior to the composition of Leviticus as a whole, and edited in later. Some of these laws made sense at the time - these were times when the Israelites were small in number and often persecuted nearly to the point of extinction. Shellfish could kill, boinking your wife on her period wouldn't get her pregnant, and having sex with a man could NEVER produce a pregnancy.

Beyond that, there ARE a few passages in the New Testament sometimes construed as prohibitions of homosexuality, the majority of which are found in the writings of Paul concerning the early church. Many early Christian churches combined old Pagan spiritual rites and practices into their worship in this 'new' faith, some of which included ritual practices of homosexual activity, usually intergenerational in nature. The morality of intergenerational sex of ANY kind has been shot down fairly handily earlier in this thread. Some historians also point out dramatic mistranslations of these passages that took specific Greek words and phrases that made this distinction much more clear and generalized them for the sake of readability - in the end, this, in many cases (not just on the subject of homosexuality), has obscured a LOT of the original context in which the bible was written.

So if you're a Christian, don't assume automatically that your God thinks it's a sin for two men or two women to engage in a sexual relationship. After all, any God worth his salt would be FAR more understanding and compassionate (and probably reasonable) than any man, and even with our "limited" capability for compassion OR reason as men, it's hard to find ANY grounds to condemn consentual homosexuality.

 

[Danoff]

I'm still tired. So what's wrong with consenting adults, brother and sister, that are sterile, in maintaining a sexual relationship?

I don't see anything wrong with it. What does it have to do with homosexuality?

I think Duke said that incest was not acceptable because of ill effects, but I propose scenarios where no children could be born, but he still maintained that incest is bad, umkay? That's all I was trying to point out to neon_duke (who ever that was.....).

Ok, you don't wanna talk about it. Got it.

 

[superberkut]

I don't see anything wrong with it. What does it have to do with homosexuality?

Well, I guess it's the fact that having sexual relations with a sibling is considered unorthodox because of the nature of most offspring produced.

 

[Danoff]

Well, I guess it's the fact that having sexual relations with a sibling is considered unorthodox because of the nature of most offspring produced.

...and what does that have to do with homosexuality?

 

[superberkut]

Well, both are seen as unacceptable in religion and in some parts of society, and the notion of marrying one's cousin is now a stereotype for country folk.

 

[Danoff]

Well, both are seen as unacceptable in religion and in some parts of society, and the notion of marrying one's cousin is now a stereotype for country folk.

Uh... I don't see how any of the above really helps group incest and homosexuality together (aside form the fact that religious people don't like them and that they have to do with sex).

 

[superberkut]

I see then. I figured that you were asking for any similarity between the two, rather than grouping incest and homosexuality together.

 

[Duke]

I see then. I figured that you were asking for any similarity between the two, rather than grouping incest and homosexuality together.

No, what we're saying is this: Pako (and many other) religious/moralist "opponents" of homosexuality often seem to lump homosexuality and incest together, as if they were the same. danoff (and many other) non-religious non-"opponents" of homosexuality are completely baffled as to why they do that.

So, while you took us for another lap around that track, it didn't really answer the question.

 

[Small_Fryz]

i personally dont have a problem with them.

Its their own business and who am i to critize them. As long as they dont hurt others and both are consenting then who cares.

 

[Touring Mars]

There are a few interesting things that should be noted before this thread slips back into the depths.

Personally, I'm an atheist, but I was raised in a strict baptist environment, and as such, have a pretty solid command of the bible. Most of the sane arguments against the morality of homosexuality in this thread are scripturally based. I consider these arguments invalid on their face, as I don't believe the bible to be the word of God, nor do I in fact BELIEVE in such a God. Despite that, there is a significant amount of misconception on the attitudes of the bible to homosexuality, even within Christianity.

Gil came closest to bringing these to light when discussing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. It's pretty clear from an objective standpoint that God chose to destroy the city because of attempted RAPE, not the gender of the rapists or their intended victims. It seems equally likely that God would have destroyed the city had the rapists demanded Lot's daughters rather than his sons (and the fact that Lot OFFERED his virgin daughters to the rapists casts into serious doubt any belief that the Old Testament ideas of morality hold any water).

The only other specific prohibition of homosexuality in the bible is the other example from Leviticus, in the Holiness Code. Firstly, according to most biblical scholars, the Holiness Code isn't even applicable to modern Christianity, as the New Testament represents a new covenant between God and Man. Secondly, the Holiness Code, today, is ridiculous. In addition to condeming homosexuality, it prohibits eating shellfish, having sex with one's wife if she is on her period, masturbation, and specifically ALLOWS ownership of slaves, providing that they are "heathens".

I don't know about any of you, but the last time I was at Red Lobster, I saw plenty of married couples who were likely christians gobbling up shrimp by the bucketload. I would even venture to say that some of these couples went home and had sex later that night, and it's possible - VERY possible, that one of the wives may have been on her period. Likely, the men who found that disgusting waited until their wives were asleep, and masturbated. And I can say for a near certainty that none of them would condone owning slaves. The generally accepted assumption is that this was a separate code of laws written by the Jewish priesthood prior to the composition of Leviticus as a whole, and edited in later. Some of these laws made sense at the time - these were times when the Israelites were small in number and often persecuted nearly to the point of extinction. Shellfish could kill, boinking your wife on her period wouldn't get her pregnant, and having sex with a man could NEVER produce a pregnancy.

Beyond that, there ARE a few passages in the New Testament sometimes construed as prohibitions of homosexuality, the majority of which are found in the writings of Paul concerning the early church. Many early Christian churches combined old Pagan spiritual rites and practices into their worship in this 'new' faith, some of which included ritual practices of homosexual activity, usually intergenerational in nature. The morality of intergenerational sex of ANY kind has been shot down fairly handily earlier in this thread. Some historians also point out dramatic mistranslations of these passages that took specific Greek words and phrases that made this distinction much more clear and generalized them for the sake of readability - in the end, this, in many cases (not just on the subject of homosexuality), has obscured a LOT of the original context in which the bible was written.

So if you're a Christian, don't assume automatically that your God thinks it's a sin for two men or two women to engage in a sexual relationship. After all, any God worth his salt would be FAR more understanding and compassionate (and probably reasonable) than any man, and even with our "limited" capability for compassion OR reason as men, it's hard to find ANY grounds to condemn consentual homosexuality.

Quoted for awesomeness...

 

[Sniffs]

and now, an opinion from the OTHER side of the fence.

it's religion, they brook no questioning of any kind whatsoever. which is why there is currently a holy war going on against America. also, everyone follows the traditions they were raised with and of their generation. it's a "put up and shut up" situation.

 

[Danoff]

also, everyone follows the traditions they were raised with and of their generation.

I see, so what you're saying is that since I was raised Quaker, I can't be an atheist.

 

[Diego440]

since when does homosexuality = incest?

Or rather, when did homosexuality become such a sin as incest.... sounds better there

 

[Pako]

since when does homosexuality = incest?

Or rather, when did homosexuality become such a sin as incest.... sounds better there

What's wrong with incest?

 

[Famine]

It's a game for all the family...

 

[Pako]

It's a game for all the family...

That adds a whole new dimension to twister doesn't it?

 

[TheCracker]

It's a game for all the family...

It's also relatively enjoyable...

 

[Diego440]

What's wrong with incest?

You can't marry

Dictionary: sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry (as between a parent and a child)


Also, incest is just a little bit deviant, dontcha think? Not to mention socially restricted and in many ways, a sort of sexual abuse, thus illegal.

I understand you'd ask it, coming from Montana, though.

 

[Danoff]

You can't marry

Same with homosexuality.

Also, incest is just a little bit deviant, dontcha think?

Same with homosexuality.

Not to mention socially restricted and in many ways

Same with homosexuality.

a sort of sexual abuse

I don't see it.

No the problem with incest is that it's abusive to any offspring that come from it.

 

[Pako]

Run when you hear the banjo. *ever see deliverance?*

My point is, you can rationalize incest to be ok between consenting adults, especially where deformed offspring is not possible, but you just know it's wrong. Your moral guideline won't allow you to accept incest as a social norm, it's just not right, and you know it in your gut to be wrong. That is the parallel I am making to help convey my opinion.

 

[Duke]

Well, I have reasons (thankfully not personal reasons) for thinking incest is abusive, even without the question of offspring. I've outlined them above.

Robert Heinlein makes a reasonably compelling case for the acceptability of incest in Time Enough For Love, though it still weirds me out.

Pako, I see what you are getting at, but to me the whole family dynamics issue raises questions about the real consensuality of incestuous sex, regardless of whether both parties are adults or not. To me, anyway, which is why I have zero problem separating homosexuality from incest.

 

[Danoff]

My point is, you can rationalize incest to be ok between consenting adults, especially where deformed offspring is not possible, but you just know it's wrong. Your moral guideline won't allow you to accept incest as a social norm, it's just not right, and you know it in your gut to be wrong.

Maybe my gut is broken. Even if I did agree with this, I'd say that my reaction to it was based on instinct having been shaped by the fact that incestuous relationships do not produce good offspring.

But no, I don't simply "know it in [my] gut to be wrong".

 

[Diego440]

Same with homosexuality.

er... yes you can.

Same with homosexuality.

Just because it's to you, doesn't mean it's to the rest of the world.

Same with homosexuality.

Again, because it's like that in your circles, doesn't mean it is in the rest of the world.

I don't see it.

So deviant, unconsented (sp?) sex isn't abuse... okay.

 

[Pako]

Well, I have reasons (thankfully not personal reasons) for thinking incest is abusive, even without the question of offspring. I've outlined them above.

Robert Heinlein makes a reasonably compelling case for the acceptability of incest in Time Enough For Love, though it still weirds me out.

Pako, I see what you are getting at, but to me the whole family dynamics issue raises questions about the real consensuality of incestuous sex, regardless of whether both parties are adults or not. To me, anyway, which is why I have zero problem separating homosexuality from incest.

So you think that because of prior relationships and the dynamics they presented, they can't truly be consensual, regardless of age? Boy gets molested by father. Boy grows to be a man, but subconsciously pursues homosexual relations to gain a distorted since of approval from the father that didn't love him. Would that also fall into the same question of real consensuality of that union? I think there are a lot of reasons why people do what they do, and feel the way they feel. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's a fine line to walk when we judge the motivation behind the action.

 

[Danoff]

er... yes you can.

er... no you can't. At least not that I'm aware of.

Just because it's to you, doesn't mean it's to the rest of the world.

It's deviant with respect to nature.

Again, because it's like that in your circles, doesn't mean it is in the rest of the world.

It's restricted in some form or another almost everywhere.

So deviant, unconsented (sp?) sex isn't abuse... okay.

I don't see why it has to be unconsented. And I don't see why "deviant" makes it abusive.

So you think that because of prior relationships and the dynamics they presented, they can't truly be consensual, regardless of age? Boy gets molested by father. Boy grows to be a man, but subconsciously pursues homosexual relations to gain a distorted since of approval from the father that didn't love him. Would that also fall into the same question of real consensuality of that union? I think there are a lot of reasons why people do what they do, and feel the way they feel. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's a fine line to walk when we judge the motivation behind the action.

👍

 

[Diego440]

wait, we're talking homosexuality here, right?

er... no you can't. At least not that I'm aware of.

Spain allows for same sex marriage. So does Holland, Belgium, Canada, South Africa and I think two states in the US... Massachussets and... Iowa?

It's deviant with respect to nature.

I agree it's uncomfortable, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it deviant.

It's restricted in some form or another almost everywhere.

Incest yes. Homosexuality no. Same sex marriage... er... debatable, especially as more and more countries seem to be opening to it.

I don't see why it has to be unconsented. And I don't see why "deviant" makes it abusive.

Whenever I think of incest, I think of abusive parents, for some reason (Freudian slip?)... although I could argue that sibling sex is perhaps more strongly a social taboo than homosexuality.

 

[Danoff]

Spain allows for same sex marriage. So does Holland, Belgium, Canada, South Africa and I think two states in the US... Massachussets and... Iowa?

I'm not familiar with South African law, but I thought that Massachussets allowed civil unions rather than "marriage".

I agree it's uncomfortable, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it deviant.

Deviant - a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

It's deviant with respect to nature.

Incest yes. Homosexuality no. Same sex marriage... er... debatable, especially as more and more countries seem to be opening to it.

Homosexuality is actually illegal in some states. I'd say that more than categorizes it as restricted. Few areas have provisions for homosexual marriage, or adoption etc. etc.

Whenever I think of incest, I think of abusive parents, for some reason (Freudian slip?)... although I could argue that sibling sex is perhaps more strongly a social taboo than homosexuality.

You shouldn't arbitrarily restrict incest to abusive parents for this discussion.