A snapshot of blind hatred, and the great divide within the U.S...

This is a printed conversation I had with a number of people on a public Fox News blog forum concerning equal rights for homosexuals… Although their comments are sometimes humorous in their simplicity, some are extremely violent as well.  I believe it shows the long road ahead we have to eradicating these type of typical misinformed beliefs about gay people.  Their statements are in bold, and mine are in normal type-face and blue.  My screen name is ‘aaglaas’.   Since I like to believe that all human beings, no matter how indoctrinated by a certain form of religion, or geographically isolated they might be, still retain the ability to use their mind and their reasoning, I am posting this.  I need to notify you that this is a VERY long post by the way.  If you lack the mental capacity and cannot take the time to read anything you'd like to refute, then don't take the time to make a comment that is probably already addressed in this post.  Just ignore it and go on to easier reading.  I invite any comments you might care to give, but only after reading the entirety of it which includes both historical, and biblical points to consider.  Thank you and have a great day.

Aaglaas, the last time I read the constitution, it was very evident that our nation has been, from the very beginning, founded on CHRISTIAN principles. If you look at our legal system, our laws are in fact, based on the Dreaded 10 Commandments. Morality has always been the strong suit, if not of our elected officials, at the very least, the majority of our unelected population. You can read in both Leviticus (old testement for you non-readers), and in the apostle Paul's letter to the Romans,
that the practice of homosexuality is an abomination to our God. My point is this....
we have for too many displays of immorality in
front of our young people now, with throwing
flamer in front of them too. Excersize your
christian principles.....Love the person, but
HATE the action. I prove my po int.......we are now the "hateful" ones according to Democrats. Yes, I am proud to be "hateful" too.......I hate the sin, as does God. I just wish I could hate all sin like he does. I`m human and still sin in different areas. The difference? I know it is sin and repent and try again to do right. I don`t go in the streets protesting for my right to enjoy sin. You guys just want to drop your drawers and make all of us see your sinful behavior and try to take away our right to own guns. You are abnormal and sinful.

Your reading of our Constitution is incorrect.  The Founding Fathers were not blindly religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "..a wall of separation between church and state."  John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans (the Christian fundamentalists of their day) would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast."

The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, and as Jefferson wrote " the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

The argument here is that you can believe that that is a sin because your own church or faith tells you so, but what you cannot do, is force that religious view on someone who does not view themselves as a 'sin'.
That's why our country is special as in it guarantees in the totality of our Constitution the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as originally stated in the Declaration of Independence.
My particular pursuit of happiness would have been to grow up in a country where I didn’t have to go to some special area of a major city just to be able to safely meet someone with the same feelings as myself.

 Try for even a few seconds to imagine some stranger trying to separate you from your wife or girlfriend because in their religious views, your relationship is a sin.... hopefully you would rise up and demand justice if that were tried upon you.
You are not my God, your religious views are not my own, and the White House, and this country's laws, are not a white church, and a bible.
Governments and countries that have tried to enforce one religion are contrary to our American values and ethics.

Let me make this as clear as possible. Unless you view the fact of you being able to first openly meet, then date, then marry, share a life with your wife, have a sexual relationship as well, and all the other integral human needs of having that essential relationship in your life as a 'right'... then you take it for granted.
The only way to understand is for you to try to imagine that 'right' being denied or taken away from you. It's inconceivable I know.
But, let's say in some alternate universe that were done, and the utter anguish, rage, and bewilderment you would feel over another human trying to deny you that.
You're talking about apples and oranges man. This isn't about 'dropping drawers' or owning a gun, or something that a 'majority vote' even should have the right to vote on. You are supporting the notion that this most integral need to have a 'mate' same-gender or not, can be 'allowed' or 'taken-away' by a group of citizens who find it a 'sin' based on their own personal religious beliefs.
You have stated that you do not have a degree or are a student of history. You've seen enough of my posts to hopefully know that I'm not a bull-shitter and I tell you this: the 'abnormality' on this subject is the current time-period, and the last 1600 years or so. The 'normal' view of this subject, based upon the entire scope of human history, which has been my passion and area of study, is that this is something entirely natural. The 'ancients' would have been puzzled to the point of bewilderment at the thought that this is something that can legislatively be denied a group of humans.

 Nov 8, 2008 | 11:00 AM

Aaglaas, for those of you who keep comparing this homosexual rights issue to the civil rights movement concerning blacks you need to find a new platform. First of all the civil rights movement was made on the behalf of all persons oppressed, women, blacks, hispanics and any other minority groups who were being blocked from reaching their full potential. You guys want special rights, not equal rights!
This putting together homosexuals and blacks and bring up the topic of civil rights is used as a platform by homosexuals and people who support their lifestyle. I don’t want homosexuals to start marrying which will affect all normal marriages.  It’s agains God’s law.

Me getting married to another guy or anybody else getting married to the same gender doesn't affect you at all except for your own personal ignorance and hatreds. Unless you spend your time peeping in people's windows, or having some listening device so you can hear if the neighbors are engaging in a 'God-approved' style of sex... this doesn't affect you at all!! Do you worry endlessly about your heterosexual married neighbors, and how their marriage affects your own? Of course not.

This affects ME... this affects anyone like me... this doesn't affect you. You cannot say 'choose a better platform other than the Black civil issue in the past'... they were beaten, they were killed, they were arrested. Your party was on the wrong side of history then, and gave the same arguments you're giving now, and your party is once again on the evil and wrong side of history on this issue, using the same old religious arguments to validate your own hatred and prejudices against other American citizens... the election has shown that, and I only try to enlighten you so that your grandchildren will not be ashamed that you allowed your life this time period, to be on that wrong side... that hateful side.... Your party hasn't been on the right side of history on social issues, since the Civil War. The Republican Party today has fallen away from its former greatness.

It would be interesting for the ones mentioning that every society that embraced homosexuality has fallen to list their examples. I'd like their list of those 'societies', how they fell, and how it related at all to homosexuality. I have a strong feeling they might mention Greeks or Romans (or more likely the Sodom story), but not really be able to say more. As to 'special rights'... The day I can walk into any courthouse in any state and legally get married to the person I want to spend the rest of my life with, then I will need no 'special rights'. They probably aren't even aware that this is a moral issue the major churches are grappling with… with more and more realizing they have been wrong. Don't mention Leviticus unless you're willing to kill any shellfish eaters, or wearers of mixed-fiber clothes. A very few passages before the one you're mentioning, lists those as 'abominations' in the eyes of 'God' as well, and the penalty is death. I'm starting my weekend now. Have a great one people, even the hateful and misguided ones. :-)

aaglaas: taking scripture out of context is the answer. LOL With past societies it is from the spiritual level they were allowed to fall in the natural. Man sins and God will bring consequences. What may appear to stem from a natural source totally unrelated to the sin is usually caused by that very sin. One example is the sins of the fathers being passed down to the children and a few more generations after that. Sin isn`t just isolated to the original sinner many times. In ancient times when something bad would befall a person the first question asked many times would be, what did his father or grandfather do? The tower of Babel shows us what happens when humans try to go past God’s law.. Please take a good bible study course before you attempt to dissect and argue scripture with well known propaganda.  Do you think you’re a Christian or something?

No, I no longer call myself a Christian, although I have always had, and have, a deeply spiritual life.  How could I align myself with a religion that tells me that what I was born, is an abomination or a sin? Your particular religious beliefs cannot be forced upon other American citizens. There are many religions with no concept of 'sin', and as the freedom to practice whatever religion is best suited to your nature is enshrined in the Constitution, you do not have the right to use your concept of sin to deny my human rights…the right to join with a partner being foremost amongst them. Mentioning the tower of Babel, some Old Testament law, or anything else from the Bible holds no weight over me, because it's just one religion out of many. If I started using Vedic scripture to dictate how you should live your life, I'm sure you would resist, so don't try to do the same to me or anyone else with your particular religion.

Since you have a very dim grasp of human history, I'm including some knowledge for you concerning the original Native Americans, famous life-long partners from Greece, China, and Japan, although I could go with a list of every human civilization. It goes on and on. You have no idea of history because all you know is what your pastor has told you, and the poor fare offered in public high-schools prior to university. I doubt you'll take the time to read this, but here are many examples proving that you are the ones mislead about the normalcy of homosexuality:

NATIVE AMERICANS:

Gay traditions were prevalent in most American Indian tribes. There are reports of both women and men living in same-sex marriages, of women who dressed and acted as men and men who acted and dressed as women.

The European chroniclers who first came across such behavior and customs descri bed them in terms that belonged to their own world. So American Indian homosexual men were called 'berdaches' - French for 'slave-boys', used to refer to passive male homosexuals. The name stuck - although its servile connotations were quite inappropriate in the Native American context where berdaches were accorded considerable social prestige.

Indeed, gay transvestites were often the shamans or healers of the tribe. Sometimes they had specific religious duties. Among the Crow Indians, for example, the tree that was used in the Sun Dance ceremony would be cut down by homosexual men. Berdaches were regarded as having special intellectual, artistic and spiritual qualities.

They were also reputed to be hard workers. Their ability to combine female and male qualities often put them into the role of mediators between the sexes. When asked 'when you die ... what will you be in the spirit land? A man or a woman?', one Sioux 'winkle' naturally replied 'both'.

It appears to have been fairly easy for women in North American Indian societies to take traditionally male roles and live as men. Girls in the Yukon who declined marriage and child-bearing would dress as men and take part in hunting expeditions, reported Edward Carpenter in the late nineteenth century. This was also true of Sioux women who became warriors and married women. In the Kaska Indian families of Canada, parents would raise one of their daughters to become a warrior. Her sexual experiences would be with other women. Indeed, if there was sexual contact with a man it would ruin the lesbian's luck with game.

But it was not all hunting and war-making. The Kutrenai Indians of the Plateau speak of a woman who left the tribe for a year and married a white man. When she returned she had changed her name to 'Gone to the Spirits' and from then on behaved 'as a man'. She went on to achieve fame not only as a hunter and warrior, but also as a shaman, healer, prophet and guide.

The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual was not always clear or constant. Friendship rather than identity could determine the course of events. As women spent most of their time with women and men with men they were often emotionally closer to members of their own sex than to members of the opposite sex. A nineteenth-century army officer, who studied Indian customs closely, reported on male pairs, saying: 'They really seem to fall in love with men and I have known this affectionate interest to live for years.'

The union of two men was often publicly recognized in a 'friendship dance'. Historian Walter M Williams argues that these friendships were not necessarily homosexual, but that for all males who felt erotic attraction to other men, these relationships provided a natural avenue for same-sex behavior. He cites a report from the 1920s saying that for the Yumas: 'Casual secret homos exuality among both men and women is well known. This is not considered objectionable.'

GREEKS:

Here, then are textual references for long-term (in some cases life-long) homosexual relationships in the Greek texts.


Orestes and Pylades,
-Orestes is the hero of the Oresteia cycle. He and Pylades were bywords for faithful and life-long love in Greek culture.
-see Lucian (2nd C. CE): Amores or Affairs of the Heart, #48
Damon and Pythias
-Pythagorean initiates
-see Valerius Maximus: De Amicitiae Vinculo
Aristogeiton and Harmodius
-credited with overthrowing tyranny in Athens.
-see Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, Book 6
Pausanias and Agathon
-Agathon was an Athenian dramatist (c. 450-400 BCE). He was famous as an "effeminate" homosexual. It was in his house that the Dinner Party of Plato's Symposium takes place.
-see Plato: Symposium 193C, Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae
Philolaus and Diocles
-Philolaus was a lawgive at Thebes, Diocle s an Olympic Athlete
see Aristotle, Politics 1274A
Epaminondas and Pelopidas
-Epaminondas (c.418-362 BCE) led Thebes in its greatest days in the fourth century. At the battle of Mantinea (385 BCE) he saved the life of his life-long friend Pelopidas
-see Plutarch: Life of Pelopidas
Members of the Sacred Band of Thebes
-see Plutarch: Life of Pelopidas
Alexander the Great and Hephasteion
-Atheaneus, The Deinosophists Bk 13

CHINESE:

The names of the emperors, with their acknowledged favorites were recorded in the official histories of the period by Sima Qian and Ban Gu.

The Ten Han Emperors [with "favorites"]
Emperor Gao r.206-195BCE and Jiru
Emperor Hui r.194-188BCE and Hongru
Emperor Wen r.179-141BCE and Deng Tong, and Zhao Tan, and Beigong Bozi
Emperor Jing r.156-141BCE and Zho Ren
Emperor Wu r.140-87BCE and Han Yan, and Han Yue, and Li Yannian
Emperor Zhao r.86-74BCE and Jin Shang
Emperor Xuan r.73-49BCE and Zhang Pengzu
Emperor Yuan r.48-33BCE and Hong Gong, and Shi Xian
Emperor Cheng r.32-7BCE and Zhang Fang, and Chunyu Zhang
Emperor Ai r.6BCE-1CE and Dong Xian

Following emperors from later periods also had open homosexual relationships:

Pei Kai 237-291
Yu Xin 513-581 and Wang Shao
Zhang Hanbian c.265-420 and Zhou Xiaoshi
Emperor Jianwen c.550
Emperor Xizong r. 874-889 and Zhang Langgou
Emperor Wuzong r.1506-1522
Emperor Shenzong r.1573-1620
Emperor Xizong r.1621-1628
Emperor Pu Yi - the last Qing [Manchu] emperor

JAPAN:
SAMURAI TRADITION

A well-known example of samurai 'bonding' is Oda Nobunaga, one of Japan's most revered and powerful daimyo. He was killed in an ambush in 1582, along with his teenaged lover, Mori Panmaru.  This is but one example in a long history of same-sex relationships between daimyo and their "beloved retainers". (Leupp, 42)

The love of the shogun has been referred to as "martial homosexuality" (Leupp, 27), developing out of relationships of fealty between warriors and their younger page-boys. Often, these lord-vassal relationships were valued above those between men and women, since dandoshi  or 'male bonding' extended to the loyalty of the sword-bearer, who would fight--and even die--for his lord. During this period, the Chinese characters (ai - love) and  (chu - loyalty/fealty) were nearly interchangeable. (Tanaka et al) In exchange for loyalty, the you nger partners received education and military training.

There is some evidence that the younger partner in these relationships assumed a 'feminine appearance'--a possible precursor to the androgyny of the later Tokugawa period. Furthermore, the importance of same-sex relationships may have flourished, in part, due to the lack of female influence in the battlefield. Nevertheless, many of the lord-vassal relationships among the samurai were highly valued, and exhibited strong commitments and bonds between the men. Furthermore, they built on a long history of same-sex traditions that existed in monastic communities.

MONASTIC LOVE:

"By the time of increased samurai ascendancy from the thirteenth century, there was already a well-established homoerotic tradition in Japanese monasteries in which boys, not women, were constructed as fitting objects for adult male desire, a tradition which was well suited to the masculine ideals of an increasingly militaristic society."(Jnanavira)
Even before its adoption by the samurai, male-male love was a common practice in the Buddhist monasteries. Sexual relationships between a monk and his acolyte were widespread. These acolytes or 'boy-lovers' were also known as chigo, and a collection of stories known as chigo monogatari ("acolyte stories") details many of these relationships. "Though the Buddhist code of discipline prohibited monks from any sexual activity, many monks felt that this did not apply to same-sex relationships. This inspired art and literature centered on the young male ideal and the love which sprang between monks and youths."

Although chastity among monks is one of the precepts of Buddhism, in Heian era Japan this came to be understood as sex with women. Sex between monks and their acolytes came to be viewed as the 'beautiful way' (bido), and the idea developed that homosexuality was "a reasonable and forgivable compromise between heterosexual involvements and complete sexual abstinence" (Leupp 35). Because Japanese Buddhism often focused on the intentions or outcomes of acts, rather than the acts themselves, same-sex involvements could be identified as a way of communicating with the Buddha.

The prevalence of monk-acolyte relationships in monastic communities, particularly in the Buddhist centers of Mt. Koya and Mt. Hiei, is said to have originated with the monk Kukai (774-835), also known as Kobo Daishi, who brought back Buddhist teachings from his travels in China to found the Shingon sect. Folk tales accrediting Kukai with the beginnings of shudo  or 'The Way of the Young' did not emerge until the 11th century, but Kukai's insistence on celibacy makes such assumptions questionable. However, the fact that China itself had a long history of revered same-sex relationships suggests that such beliefs may have been imported from the mainland. At the same time, as Buddhism blended with the existing Japanese indigenous beliefs, so did the acceptance of homosexuality. ("Kukai)

So, although those are probably too many examples for you to take in, it just goes to show you that your limited understanding of homosexuality throughout human history is extremely flawed, not to mention skewed. It's your very recent view of it as a 'sin' that is the abnormality, the norm is quite apparent to anyone who knows history.

Nov 10, 2008 | 1:11 PM

aaglaas...so all of these 'societies' are in existence and flourishing today? you are right i do not know my history well...and correct me if i'm wrong...but aren't these societies with the indigenous people almost non existent today? if in fact they are...i believe former_detroit was correct in her statement that all homosexual embracing societies fall. i don't believe that just because something has been around for a long time, makes it right...Satan for example.

The only degradation of those cultures, which aside from the Greek and Roman ones, all exist today, is from Western cultures forcing their morals, military might, or colonization upon them. Homosexuality itself had and has nothing to do with it. Your argument has no foundation or basis in fact.

Again.... your concept of 'Satan' and/or religious beliefs are yours to hold in your personal life, not to inflict or force upon other American citizens who have different religious beliefs than yours. This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia where the government is a theocracy and can inflict harm or force to make people conform to a religious doctrine. If you attempt to do so, you are as bad as they are.

Another strong point: Those civilizations flourished for thousands of years with homosexuality being either an honored part, or well-accepted part of humanity, and in the Native Americans' case, for tens of thousands of years. This country is barely over 200 years old. The case that homosexuality brings down a civilization holds no weight at all.  You might mock the knowledge of history, but you cannot rationalize the comparison of our fledgling civilization's current view on this topic to ones that lasted so many thousands of years without having a problem over it.

Nov 10, 2008 | 1:56 PM

well i don't know where setting guidelines if you will, is inflicting harm. no one is talking about killing or maiming homosexuals here. i just don't want a 'sin' to be embraced as being normal. and you are right that it is my religous beliefs which leads me to the conclusion that the act of homosexual sex is a sin...but without such beliefs and morals...where do you draw the line? Who decides what is right and just? You? Me? No One?

Again... 'normal' ?? I've just given you a small slice of the majority of human history showing you that homosexuality is completely 'normal', but to religious fanatics such as you, it's as if you don't even see what is before your very eyes.

You are perceiving an entirely natural variant of humanity as a 'sin'... 'You' or some church does not get to decide what is right or wrong for American citizens. If you haven't noticed, this hold-over from the Christian past of burning people at the stake for being 'heretics', or killing them for daring to translate the Bible into English, or saying the world isn't flat, or all the other injustices that have been perpetrated upon certain groups of people for perceived 'sin' and in the name of Christianity has been cast aside by most modern nations in Europe,  Canada, and two very enlightened states, that I must point out were two of the founding entities of this great nation.  I believe the spirit of true liberty flourishes naturally on that harsh but beautiful coastline..

Christians of your type were against woman being able to vote, and were against blacks being given true equality. You can see that educated and fair-minded people here in this country have realized that stigmatizing homosexuals, and their right to share in the full benefits of life-partnership is morally wrong, and goes against our Constitution. You can think it's a sin all you want, but since it is not a sin to people who do not believe as you do, and as to what our Constitution says, our right to live our lives as openly as you do will be protected in the future. You are on the wrong side of history if you keep clinging to the old hatreds that Christianity has fostered. The election has shown that most Americans are ready to move forward into an enlightened society, and not one where one religious group gets to meddle in the private lives of others.

I don't see Christians marching to oppress murderers, thieves, adulterers, shell-fish eaters, people who wear polyester and cotton clothing.... all the multitudes of 'sins' listed in the Bible, it's okay for your children to see that all around them, and yet this one 'sin' is the one you pick out of all of them to scare each other over. Question where that fear comes from on this one particular issue. Most likely you are afraid of facing the empathy you will find inside you.

Nov 10, 2008 | 2:58 PM

you still haven't addressed the question (neither has detroitlover)...where do you draw the line? who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable? you? me? no one? the government? who? what kind of society do you have without laws?

I, and Americans who want our country to be true freedom and justice for all, will draw the line at religious extremists attempting to interfere with mine, or anyone else's human rights to openly find, love, and spend my life with a mate, with the same legal benefits and honor accorded towards a heterosexual couple. Since there is nothing abnormal about it, or sinful, that is where the line will be drawn.

It will be the same as allowing blacks to have full equality, women to vote, and reason and education to speak openly without a particular religion's attempts to suppress it, and after that legislation has been passed, it will take another couple decades before the hate and irrationality that you spout, to be erased, and the younger generation to accept all natural variants of humanity as equal. I have addressed the question, but you didn't see it.

Hopefully this is so glaringly clear and simple that you can finally 'get it'. The laws will be the exact same in nature as the Civil Rights act of 1964, except for that they will be specifically addressing homosexuals' rights to full equality in all aspects of life as you get to enjoy so unthinkingly.

 Nov 10, 2008 | 5:32 PM

well aaglaas...i don't know why you accuse me of being hateful...i haven't called you names...I only have a different opinion than you...Proposal 8 was defeated...so I guess I and America have drawn the line...and for now you'll jusst have to deal with it.

Your kind has been on the wrong side of social issues every single time. People like you have been prominent in the Inquisition, in beating down blacks, in suppressing women... some character flaw inside you can't stand the notion of someone who doesn't share your particular beliefs of religion or sin as being looked-upon as a fully equal human being. You can't just live your life, practice your religion in private, and allow others to live their lives without endlessly worrying about how they love or have sex with each other. You are not God, you are not Jesus, you are not the only religion in the world. You do not have the right to interfere with my life, or any person's like me.

You will not get it, since you've already been brainwashed from an early age in a virulent form of Christianity, and all the past examples of people like you oppressing people like me in the name of your religion flies in one ear and out the other. I don't worry about it. I and anyone like me have had to put up with people like you every day of our lives. You can see when states, judiciaries, and entire countries are finally agreeing with what I'm saying, that you are again on the losing side of history. It's only because people like you in the 50's and 60's were forced through legislation to respect Americans that were a different color or gender, that you cannot act that way today, because that hate has been greatly eradicated by the passage of time, and children growing up here being taught that it is wrong to hate someone of a different color. It will be the same with legislation being enacted now and in the near future.

 Even your Republican governor of that state is speaking out against the passage of Proposition 8, and you can rest assured that with our new Democratic Party in power, these type of legislations that deny equal rights to all Americans will be struck down, and on a Federal level. I'm not worried in the slightest. The time of your party and attempting to mix your extreme form of religion with government has ended.

Nov 10, 2008 | 6:14 PM

you are right aaglaas....Jesus said there would be a great falling away before his return...

You've fallen away from Christ's message long ago..

I have never found anyone, in print or in person, who follows through on the argument that all the laws in the Bible should be observed. By this, I do not mean that people fail, from human weakness, to observe the commands in their own life. Rather, I refer to the universal practice of rejecting some laws while insisting on others. Those who argue that homosexual proof texts must, without question be obeyed, will, often in the same argument, wave away other legal texts.

Proof-texting is common, and done by all political persuasions. The conservatives are easiest to skewer. Leviticus 18:22 says "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," and Leviticus 20:13 says "if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Yet, almost no conservatives favor enforcing the punishment, why? Where in the Bible does it say the punishment is not applicable? Leviticus 18:19 says "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness" and we all agree this is unimportant now, but where is the warrant for saying that verse 19 is irrelevant and verse 22 is God's holy word, tampered with at risk of condemnation?

Where are the literalists thundering about obeying God’s holy word at the church’s ignoring the “clear word” on treatment for leprosy (Lev. 14) or shaving the edges of beards (Lev. 21:5)? One verse certainly implies that a fetus is not a person (Ex. 21:22, in imposing a reduced punishment for causing a miscarriage), yet it has not stopped those who oppose abortion.

Even more amazing is Proverbs 11:1: "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but an accurate weight is his delight." Why does the word "abomination" mean in Leviticus a situation on which our whole faith stands or falls, but when the same Hebrew word appears in Proverbs it is "politics" or "social action" and therefore to be waved away? This is all the more significant as there are more verses in the Old Testament devoted to false weights than there are verses devoted to homosexuality.

Various figures in the Old Testament are allowed moral practices that would not be considered acceptable by those opposed to homosexuality: multiple wives, aggressive military campaigns, and slaves. Strangely, no one seems to think there is any problem with rejecting these practices, yet they are in the "law book" of scripture.

Conservatives tend to advocate strict application of the rules on homosexuality, but do not tend to feel that way about “economic” texts that command tithing (Deuteronomy 14:22) or the forgiveness of debts (Deuteronomy 15:1)
Flogging when done by followers of Islam many consider to be primitive or ungodly, yet it is commanded for certain offenses by Deuteronomy 25:1-3.

Nor is your selective application limited to the Old Testament. What opponent of homosexuality considers Matthew 5:39 (“… do not resist an evildoer…”) normative, either for personal conduct or for a nation’s foreign policy?


Sodom, Gomorrah and Sodomites:

The assertion is often made that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is primarily about homosexuality (as opposed to gang rape or inhospitality which is what the story actually refers to). We “all know” that it is about homosexuality, except that the Bible doesn’t seem to know this. When the story is referenced later in the Bible, the focus is not on homosexuality but usually using the fate of the city as a warning of the ultimate punishment God can inflict. Still more compelling is the point that if the attackers are homosexual, then the tactic of offering them a woman wi ll not likely be effective. Yet, because Sodom, in modern usage, is considered a synonym for homosexuality, it is common to assume these verses condemn homosexuality.

Here are the literal meanings of some translated words:

Certain words about prohibited sexual behavior do not always literally mean what they are assumed to mean. Examples would include the words often translated as “fornication” and “Sodomite.” “Fornication,” (ponhro,j,) then and now apparently means “sexual immorality.” We tend to assume that “sexual immorality” means what our society has traditionally condemned, but there is no explicit definition of this word in the Bible that would show it includes homosexuality. The word translated (especially in older English Bible versions) as “Sodomites” (avrsenokoi/tai, lit, “soft man”) is not a reference to Sodom at all. The underlying word likely refers to a type of homosexual behavior, perhaps specifically the man who is penetrated by another male, but the word is not a Greek form for “Sodom.” If you had asked someone in Biblical times what a “Sodomite” was, they simply would have said, “someone who lives in Sodom.”

Since most of you will use the argument that 'God' and 'Scripture' is against me to try to negate what I'm trying to share with you, here are some scriptures on which those Christians who find it so easy to hate can dwell upon instead to truly follow Christianity’s message.  If you can't follow these as well, you are not a 'Christian'....you would be a 'hypocrite'.... Here you go:

Isaiah 56. God’s welcome of foreigners and eunuchs into God’s “house of prayer for all
peoples.”
Book of Ruth and 1 Samuel 18 through 2 Samuel 1. A modeling for same-gender
couples in the love relationship heralded in scripture in the stories of Ruth and Naomi
(Ruth) and Jonathan and David (Samuel).
Micah 6:8. The emphasis of justice in the prophets: “God has told you, O mortal, what
is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God.”
Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18 and Luke 10:25-28. As other rabbis of his time
would have, Jesus blended Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (“Love God”) and Leviticus 19:18 (“Love
your neighbor as yourself”—note this comes between Leviticus 18 and 20!) in Matthew
22:34-40 as one of the greatest commandments, and the lens through which to interpret all of
the law and the prophets. To confirm this was a common pairing, see Luke 10:25-28, in
which Jesus solicits the same conclusion from an expert in religious law.

John 9. Jesus dissociates a human condition from a sinful cause when he declares a man
was not born blind because of his sin or that of his parents, but so that the glory of God
may be made manifest.
John 4. Jesus reveals his messianic identity to the outcast Samaritan woman at the well
who had had five husbands and was living with a man unmarried. She becomes the first
evangelist, bringing others from her village to meet Jesus.
Luke 10:25-37. The parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the most hated person to
Jesus’ listeners “loved his neighbor as himself” in helping a victim of robbers—what a
priest and a lay priest failed to do.
Acts 10 and 11. The full welcome of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church, whose
lifestyles were repugnant to the Jews.
 Galatians 5:1, etc. The many letters of Paul that assert freedom from law and custom in
Christ, such as Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free.”
1 John 4:16b. “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides
in them.” What follows repeats the theme emphasized throughout scripture to not be
afraid, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. … We love because God commands us to.

I do not call myself a Christian because of the reason stated before and because of all the people who call themselves Christians, and instead practice hate that I’ve encountered in my life, but wanted to see if you practice what you preach.  I not only invite you, but truly welcome you to bring at least the biblical portion of my post, to your pastor or priest because I do not believe he or she could refute them. 

The reason major churches are splitting apart right now over this issue, is because you cannot support your point any longer using Scripture on this, than self-professed Christians in the past who were ultimately unable to use scripture to justify slavery, racism, torture of heretics, or burning at the stake to civilized and rational-minded people any longer.

midevil
Nov 13, 2008 | 1:10 AM

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality that a sharp knife, a flat stump, a hammer and two nails, some fuel and a match wouldn't correct.

Just for insurance, a gun with 1 bullet to ease the transistion after the fire, the cut, and the bleeding.

Chuck_U_Farley
Nov 14, 2008 | 9:39 PM

aaglaas, what needs to be done with homosexuals is just like you would do with diseased livestock propagating maladies within the herd.

Put'em all in a pile and burn'em.