Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
-- Patrick Henry
Homosexuality does enter into the plot there as one element that characterizes the decadence of Sodom. It is by no means the major factor as both men and women are living lives of disobedience in many ways.
It is always lack of faith and failure to obey God that are the major issues in the Bible; behaviors of various kinds are treated as less significant than the submission of the will to God and what is good.
It's good to see some thoughtful exegesis of the Bible on this forum.
Last edited by Tim; 11-12-2010 at 02:00 AM.
You are very new here and if you want to be taken seriously under all the rococo gilding, it might be a good idea to state what you really believe before you wander off the path into your own word games.
Personally I find it entertaining, but if you really are a man of honor - which I take very seriously - you need to make that clear, because you are causing considerable bewilderment and disgust.
I don’t believe it’s that simple. There most likely is a gene trait that acts as a catalyst, but I would think it needs to be triggered.I was speaking with a friend of mine and an interesting hypothetical scenario came up:
Lets say at some point in the future medical science discovers that homosexuals are genetically born that way, and it is not a choice or learned behavior. Lets also say that, in conjuction with this discovery, they have also found a way to test an unborn child for whatever this physical trait may be. Now, go one step further, and say that they are also able to 'treat' this trait, ie able to ensure that a child is not born a homosexual. Should this be something that is allowed? Is it something that you, if ever faced with such a choice, would consider doing? Do you think it would be used a lot, or a little, by other future parents?
Anarchism: From Theory to Practice
By Daniel Guérin
- If you enjoy having weekends off, thank a socialist.
- If you appreciate the eight-hour work day, thank a socialist.
- If you approve of minimum wage, thank a socialist.
edit: But of course I wouldn't. My nephew suffers from a true developmental disorder and no matter how much it hurts to watch him struggle with the idiocy of our society I love him. I'll turn my well educated contempt towards the society that needs the 'fix' instead.
I don't think we - people, governments - are wise enough to pick & choose genetic destinies based on ideologies. If we ever get to the point that we unravel all our genetic inheritance & the interactions contained there, & how they play out in the World, we can start to consider the issue. But even then, the temptation to play God will be hard to resist.
The only way I would consider it, tongue in cheek, is due to the severe homophobic attitude many people carry and the accompanying anxiety, depression, etc. homosexuals, as well as intersex, feel in a society with ignorant views. The so called moral conservative view towards the repeal of DADT and the possibility of recognizing gay marriage is an affront to reason.
I could really care less if I had a child that was straight or gay in regards to that child. Whether or not an individual is gay or straight means no more than if they are black or white, left handed or right handed, freckled or not, it doesn't matter.
I want people to be healthy physically and mentally.
Speaking of genetic "disorders" and morality, The Bible actually says more about left-handedness than it does about homosexuality. I wonder why people don't embark on the same crusade against the moral perils of left-handedness as they do about homosexuality?
Here's a good article I found.
Left-handedness, the Bible, and Homosexuality | Gather
Being left-handed occurs with about the same frequency as homosexuality. There is also a range for the preference, from pure left handed to ambidextrous to pure right handed. Attempts to get the person to change *might* be possible, but doing so invariably damages the person seriously. People have hated lefties because they are "different". There is nothing to being left handed that harms anyone, but people have been ashamed of being left handed, and have been tormented by others for being left handed. There are cultures where being left handed receives condemnation at least equal to the condemnation given to homosexuality. Just try waving to someone in one of those cultures with your left hand, or even (horrors!) *eat* with the left hand. There is even a word meaning devious and evil that comes from the term for being left handed -- sinister. Being left-handed is the "sinister" sin.
People have used the Bible to justify hatred of lefties, including condemning them as witches just because they were left handed. These are actually a lot more convincing than the ones used to try and support a misdirected effort to condemn homosexuals.
"And now if ye will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me: and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand, or to the left."
The connection would be that "dealing kindly and truly" would be related to "turning to the right hand", and NOT dealing truly and kindly would be associated with turning to the left (hand). On the other hand, think how the fundies would use the passage if the last reference was to marrying a woman or marrying a man. Assume it had THIS wording: "And now if ye will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me: and if not, tell me; that I may marry a woman, or must marry a man." I could not imagine this being overlooked as a gay-bashing passage.
Genesis 48:14 "And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn. 17And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. 18And Joseph said unto his father, Not so,my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head."
Here the left hand is clearly shown as being lesser than the right hand. If the only mentioned difference between the two was that one was gay and the other straight, with the implication that the lesser blessing should go to the gay, I cannot imagine it not being used as a gay-bashing passage to show that gays are "inferior" to heterosexuals, and that they do not "deserve" approval or blessing. Or, assume for the moment, that the father was giving each in marriage -- one to a woman, and one to another man. It would show the sons fighting to NOT be married to a man, and therefore would be a major gay-bashing passage.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left."
Again we have a clear condemnation of what is at the left hand. You can see here how people could use this to abuse lefties, claiming they are "fools". Imagine for the moment that the passage had said" "A wise man's heart is to love a woman, but a foolish man's heart is to love a man." Can you imagine that NOT being used as a major gay-bashing verse?
So why not start a crusade to get rid of lefties and "save" them from their "sin"? Why not make it illegal for lefties to marry?