I Would Like to Know... (Who Here is Gay?)

[Disney Duster]

Oh, Chernabog_Rocks, that was lovely! Great find! Thank you very much!

Unfortunately some of those rules may have been thrown out or ignored in the New Testament which was where Jesus made the old rules irrelevent, and people didn't have to follow them anymore. Or something like that, I'm not sure, but I know a lot of Old Testament rules aren't needed to be followed anymore accorrding to the New Testament. Also unfortunately, homosexuality is still indicated as bad in the New Testament.

If it's so bad it's kept troughout the Bible, I can see how people would still hang onto their hate for it. The problem is people aren't thinking about everything, about all the messages about love and all the innacuracies and contradictions and hypocricies within the Bible.

[Lazario]

Came across this in my travels, thought it might be worth sharing or at least worth a read through.

"An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes."

I found it rather interesting, any thoughts?

Does anyone here want to hear what I have to say about this?

[Escapay]

Does anyone here want to hear what I have to say about this?

Only if you can do so without insulting/offending those of us who believe that the Bible is a series of stories that have some basic truth in the themes/lessons presented, are metaphoric in nature, and provide allegories to the human condition (as opposed to those who take what it says literally and would in fact cut off the hand of someone who stole from them).

Unfortunately some of those rules may have been thrown out or ignored in the New Testament which was where Jesus made the old rules irrelevent, and people didn't have to follow them anymore. Or something like that, I'm not sure,

He doesn't necessarily call the old ones irrelevent (it's not like he's throwing them out and saying, "these are the new rules, follow these now and forget the others!"). It's more of a "that was then, this is now, but some of the basic principles are the same." For example, comparing the Beatitudes to the Ten Commandments shows that one says "don't do this, don't do that", while the other says "be like this, be like that". They're not really offering the same "rules", they're both pretty much two types of guidelines on how to live, with one based more on action and deeds while the other is based on faith and character.

Scaps

[Lazario]

Only if you can do so without insulting/offending

You take the fun out of everything.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Does anyone here want to hear what I have to say about this?

I was hoping to hear your thoughts actually

[mikemgmve]

Saw a special on.. Discovery, or the History channel. Bible Scholars studied some of the earliest versions of the bible, in its original language. The whole Sodom and Gomorrah saga, which is where I believe most of the religious view of homosexuality being wrong comes from, supposedly was translated over and over and changed to reflect the increasing anti-homosexual attitude. I'm sure there are plenty sites, but i did find this synopsis from another site:

Genesis 19: 1-28
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where certain sex acts have become referred to as "Sodomy". The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: "Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: 'Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must accept the fact that the entire city consisted of homosexuals. If we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising "I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten" (verse 33). God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten "righteous men" could be found I the city. If we are to accept this logic, this would mean that the "righteous men" referred to were heterosexuals. At this point, we need to ask ourselves: What would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual? The obvious answer is: Impossible.

If homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated men is 'enowsh which, literally translated, means "mortal". This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
The passage translated as "Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them" needs further examination as well. Other Bible translations read "so that we may know them". The Hebrew word herewith translated as "have intercourse", or "know" is yada. This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity. The correct translation, therefore, should be rendered something to the effect of: "Where are the mortals who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them."

So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey? Two verses elsewhere in the Bible sum up the story this way: "Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]" - Ezekiel 16: 49, 50. It is commonly assumed that the "detestable thing" referred to in this passage is homosexuality. In fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow'ebah, which translated literally means "to commit idol worship". This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: "Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes." One must ask: If Lot's house was surrounded by homosexuals, why would he offer the mob women? Note that these women were virgins. Note also that the Sodomites were pagans. Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice Sodom. Therefore, it can be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: "and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come". This corroborates Ezekiel's summation, once again showing that these were "ungodly persons", in other words, idolaters, not worshippers of the true God.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is a condemnation of idol worshippers, a greedy and inhospitable society. The judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!

[mikemgmve]

I suppose what bothers me most, is that in a world so full of problems that need fixing, people prefer to fight and stand in the way of two people who just want to express their love in a legal, and equal way as the majority of society.

I bought the 2-disc version of Hairspray (2007) and I was pleased to see in a documentary-feature on the original "Corny Collins and The Nicest Kids in Town" that the whole movie/musical was based off of - to see interviews with kids who lives that experience, but then appreciate the movies, and what they meant for civil rights. One of the women, an older white woman, whom you would think fits the mold of a typical conservative mid-west housewife, makes the connection to how the issue of segregation back then is just like gay marriage in todays society. I forget her exact words, but basically makes a comment about what's wrong with finding love?

oh wellz....

[Disney Duster]

You know mikemgmve, I had heard that homosexuality didn't appear in the Bible until later and originally it was more general "perverse" or odd sex or something like that.

Anyway, what you posted was wonderful, and thankfully makes a lot of sense! Unfortunately, some things might not work. Like when the author says it's impossible for the whole city to be homosexual. It's known that the Bible tends to exaggerate and how many men showed up could have been a vast approximation, but other than that I wonder if it wasn't so much that the men were homosexual but they just wanted to have sex with anyone. Then again God did burn the entire city, and the Bible wouldn't exaggerate that, God burnt all the people, and it was considered a good thing (or a lesser evil) for Lot to offer his daughter instead of a man (so my one religion teacher said), so maybe it was specific to homosexuals. Hmmm, I suppose it may be true that it was all about idol worship and changed to be about homosexuality.

I wonder what really religious people would say to it if they sat down and actually read it? I tried to come up with excuses and failed.

But the big question is why did they change it to homosex? Because they had enough stories about idol worship, and they could spare to change this one? Why are they changing God's word, or was it a "whisper down the alley" sort of thing and the story changed over time until it got to the writers?

It's hard being a gay man who's also trying to believe in God and the Bible.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

^ I've heard it was Homosexual Prostitution that was a sin not Homosexuality itself, althought I might have misread, or the person telling me was wrong........

[jeremy88]

It's hard being a gay man who's also trying to believe in God and the Bible.

Amen to that.

[Escapay]

But the big question is why did they change it to homosex? Because they had enough stories about idol worship, and they could spare to change this one? Why are they changing God's word, or was it a "whisper down the alley" sort of thing and the story changed over time until it got to the writers?

I'm nowhere near a researched theologian, but I think part of it had to do with the Roman treatment of Christians in the early AD years (you know...persecuting them...). Think about it: the Romans were generally known for having "a god for everything but pre-ejaculation (though I hear that's coming quickly)", and also for being pretty much pansexual and humping everyone but the animals. To the Romans, the human body was (and obviously is) a beautiful thing, regardless if it's a male or female. Homosexuality was pretty commonplace for them (though lesbianism seemed limited to secret gatherings), one reason why the Olympics was so popular was because all the athletes were fit and naked (only men were allowed to attend and compete). And at the other end of the spectrum was Christianity, which was everything that the Romans' gods weren't. There was only one god, the body was sacred, and sex was for procreation, not recreation.

It wasn't until Nero came along that Christians were getting persecuted by the Romans, and so many Christians had to worship in hiding. Perhaps some shrewd Christian thought to "adjust" the original stories in the Old Testament in ways that would mirror their enemies or any "bad guy" as having Roman qualities. Sodom and Gomorrah especially. The two cities were idol worshippers, and like the Romans, there was rampant sex all around.

Therefore, when it came time to make addendums to the Bible (which really wasn't a "book" in the traditional sense that we know), some Christians likely adjusted the S&G stories to better reflect Rome by insisting that there was a great deal of gay sex.

It wasn't until the fourth century that Constantine established "religious freedom" and had Rome adopt Christianity as their religion. So after about 200+ years or so, Christians were finally allowed to openly worship God, but the changes made (turning S&G into a homosexual hotspot, making Mary Magdalene a prostitute, rejecting the "Gnostic Gospels": Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Mary, etc.), remained. Over the years and centuries, the Bible's been adjusted, re-translated, etc. several times over and some things remain consistent, while others don't. I just think it's funny how some people will always hold the Bible true when it comes to homosexuality, but will brush off several other antiquated sins (like the one that Cherny mentioned) since today it seems laughable to be forbidden to shave (and I think I remember reading one of those stories which mention how in the Bible, a man can sell his daughter in the market...)

Scaps

[Disney Duster]

I'm just gonna give a big THANK YOU to Escapay.

I still don't perfectly understand how God can just change his mind about rules since he knwos everything (I'm talking about the loss of rules, the adding of new ones, the old testament ones not needed according to the new testament, etc.). But this isn't the place to talk about it. Pm or E-mail me if you want, I will still think that because men wrote the Bible, inspiration or not, they got things wrong, but God's main points are there.

[Ting Ting]

I am. And I'm not gonna make a big deal out of it, because it's not <i>who</i> I am, it's just <i>something</i> that I am.

Anywho, I just figured it was time to let you all know, considering I'm letting everybody else know too. So there ya have it!

[MickeyMouseboy]

omg prince ali is gay! hehe lol

[Prudence]

Prince Ali, fabulous he, ha ha and ha ha.

In all seriousness, I applaud your honesty.

I truly wish people would stop assuming bisexuality, especially bisexuality in females, is not real. That seems to be a very debated topic among those I know lately, which I have done my best to stay out of. Still, the assumptions are hurtful!

[jeremy88]

I truly wish people would stop assuming bisexuality, especially bisexuality in females, is not real. That seems to be a very debated topic among those I know lately, which I have done my best to stay out of. Still, the assumptions are hurtful!

Yeah, me too. A lot of gay and straight people debate that topic on how they think its not real...It's kinda like you have to be it in order to understand it...and those who assume its not real should just worry about themselves...I feel like yelling out "I'M ATTRACTED TO BOTH GENDERS! GET OVER IT!"

[The Little Merman]

I am. And I'm not gonna make a big deal out of it, because it's not <i>who</i> I am, it's just <i>something</i> that I am.

Anywho, I just figured it was time to let you all know, considering I'm letting everybody else know too. So there ya have it!

A little bird named Ashlee Simpson had already told me.

[Disney Duster]

A little bird named Ashlee Simpson had already told me.

And a little bird named...everything about you has told me. So why don't you officially come out here? I remember you saying you weren't gay before and being so dissapointed.

[Prudence]

A little bird named Ashlee Simpson had already told me.

And a little bird named...everything about you has told me.

Now I'm inclined to wonder if people could have guessed the (sexual) orientations of others on this board, had they never been stated. I know a number of us think that a particular member who insists on being hetereosexual is not entirely so, but as to the rest of us...
I wonder.

[SpringHeelJack]

Wait, Prince Ali wasn't gay? I'm so confused anymore.