Gays May Be Prosecuted at 2014 Olympics

[gnosisofthomas]

Love does not mean having sex with someone. I love my Mom… I do not have sex with her etc. You can love your follow man w/o having sex with him.

The Bible was written by God thru man. God said homosexuality is a sin… therefore it is a sin.

Those with ssa should at the very least live a chaste lifestyle so as to not offend God.

Well, first of all, where did I mention sex? I was talking about Russia not being loving by using religion to foster the persecution of gay people. Gay people are being tortured and beaten over there, while the government turns a blind eye saying that these “activist groups” are merely trying to uphold morality – and some of these incidents are leading teenagers to commit suicide. If this what God’s morality looks like, I’d rather burn in hell than worship a god like that.

Homosexuality does not equal sex. Homosexuality means being attracted to members of the same sex, which may or may not lead to a sexual act, but you’ve no right to make assumptions one way or another.

If my concern for the safety of gays and equal rights supports in Russia offends God, then so be it. He gave me a conscience, and I intend to use it.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I know, you’ve said as much on another thread here a while back. You applaud that your wife’s nation is turning a blind eye to the beating of innocent people? You applaud that teenagers who may or may not even be gay are getting gay bashed, some even driven to suicide? You applaud that Russians and non-Russians can be arrested, fined, and imprisoned for merely holding hands or wearing a rainbow pin lest it offend straight people?

 

[Publisher]

Please by all means…press the “red button”…no where did I imply YOU held those views…but…report away friend…won’t be the first time I was reported…and I’m sure here at CAF it won’t be the last…so press away friend, “utilize” to your hearts content…

 

[jmcrae]

I know, you’ve said as much on another thread here a while back. You applaud that your wife’s nation is turning a blind eye to the beating of innocent people?

How does “no gay pride parades” translate to “go ahead and beat people up”?

You applaud that teenagers who may or may not even be gay are getting gay bashed, some even driven to suicide? You applaud that Russians and non-Russians can be arrested, fined, and imprisoned for merely holding hands or wearing a rainbow pin lest it offend straight people?

Again - how does a law against the public promotion of the homosexual lifestyle translate into any of that?

 

[Ridgerunner]

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509605/Gay-flamingos-are-both-family-men.html
now.msn.com/researchers-find-bisexual-and-exclusively-gay-dolphins
livescience.com/16138-gay-animals-bonobos-dolphins.html

Intollerance is a human disorder only, homosexuality is actually quite prevalent in the wild.

Neither is true.

Humans are intolerant of many things, and rightly so. Cancer, murder, theft, being disemboweled, there are a million things. Intolerance of evil of any kind is not a disorder. Insisting that evil is good is disordered.

Real homosexuality is nonexistent among animals. Every one of your cited articles is nothing but conclusory; utterly without foundation. In one of your articles, one of the cited experts even admitted that seemingly homosexual activity among birds is short-lived if birds of the opposite sex become available.

Homosexual activity is common in prisons, too, including among people who would be otherwise exclusively heterosexual, rather like the “homosexual penguins” of recent, but now discredited fame, who seemed homosexual until females were made available. Lock almost anything up for a long time and it will eventually act abnormally. Killer whales don’t pull people out of boats to drown them, either, but as the recent killing at Sea World demonstrates, you can expect abnormal behavior from abonormal circumstances.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those passages which many claim deals with homosexuality does not. Those passages do not deal with our modern understanding of human sexuality in any way. Those passages deal with ritual uncleaness and or cultural prohibitions based on their understanding of human reproduction. Except for a reference in Romans, lesbianism is not addressed at all…because women were considered simply recepticals of the male seed which grew within them as a seed grows in fetile ground.

Genetics and DNA were not even on the “radar” 3500-2000 years ago when those “clobber passages” were written.

Modern understanding of human sexuality was not even considered. Tribal, magical, mythical understandings of human reproduction were “fact”. The male “seed” contained all there was to have a child…women were nothing but incubators of the “male seed”…they contributed nothing to the genetic makeup of the child they bore…simply because they had no knowlege of human reproductive physiology, DNA, genetics etc.

It was a “sin”, read the story of Onan, to spill one’s seed…why? Not because masterbation was necessarily wrong, but because everything that was “human” was contained in the “male seed”…concepts of the “female egg/ovum” were unknown.

Two men together were ritually unclean…“abomination” in Leviticus passages does not imply “sin” but “ritually unclean”…human bodily fluids from the reproductive organs made one “ritually unclean” for religious service.

Women were seen as “property”…vessels only to be “sold” by the father to the husband for the “bride price” in order to carry on the family line of the son…women were commodities…to be used and discarded if for some reason she could not bare a son for her husband…this continued up thru the middle ages with the European kings who needed a son to carry on the royal line…little did the king know if his wife bore him no sons, it was his “fault”…not hers as he only had “female swimmers”…something unknown until modern times.

Ritual sexual practices was not unknown in ancient times…‘ritual sex magic’…again…modern understanding of the mechanics and physiology of human sexuality was unknown…in fact their understanding of reproduction was incorrect…their science was incorrect…their cosmology was incorrect…their geography of the nature of the Earth and cosmos was lacking and incorrect.

The earth did not float on a great sea…the earth did not have 4 corners…the earth was not the center of the universe…the earth was not the center of the solar system…the earth was not covered by a canopy that allowed the lesser lights shine thru to light the evening…nor did the sun move thru the sky to be halted by a miracle in order for a war victory for Joshua to occur.

Snakes and donkeys did not speak, sickness was not caused by “sin”, angels did not mate with humans, people did not get turned into salt, nor did post-menopause women of some advanced ages give birth.

The diversity of creation is MORE…MUCH MORE…than the ancients even thought possible.

Human sexuality is much more complex than their minds could comprehend.

The Bible DOES NOT ADDRESS the modern understanding of human sexualtiy…history may not have had same sex marriages…but since the earliest times it had other “institutions” we do not share today.

Cultures outside the Judeo-Christian influence DID honor those who today would be called “gay”. Greek history had their Gods and Goddesses in same sex relationships. Many European cultures had thier Gods and Goddesses also take same sex partners. Some cultures counted it an honor for it’s bravest warriors to choose a same sex partner for one night…it would have been and insult to refuse the warriors advances as it was counted an honor.

Our understanding of marriage has changed thoughout the centuries and millenia…how we implement “marriage” in various society has changed…what constitues “marriage” has also changed.

For the ancient Hebrews…the “husband” paid the “bride price” and on an appointed day arrived at the home of his “bride” and claimed her…took her to his house…slept with her and…they were married. Nothing overtly religious occured…just a bunch of parties followed.

That some religious groups have a more modern understanding of biblical teachings rooted and grounded in culture, time and history tends to broaden the understanding of human sexuality…they are not denying what the Bible says…they are understanding it differently due to historical understandings.

Yes, yes, yes. We know Protestants feel themselves free to interpret the bible however they choose. Catholics don’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

My stars! I find myself agreeing with Jharek. Is this the first time Jharek? Kind of seems so to me.

I’m not too crazy about the leaders of the Russian Federation, as you know unless you ignored my past posts about it on other issues, but I join you in applauding them for this. Every major religion on earth supports their point of view, and they should not feel compelled to abandon their convictions just to please an increasingly pagan West.

 

[Publisher]

My response was claiming “the Bible says” or “don’t you read the Bible” does not settle the question of what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality. One’s religious beliefs cannot and do not make public policy.

Unless one believes their chosen faith tradition cannot be in error when interpreting scripture pretty much limits one’s understanding of scripture…no matter what history, archeology, culture of the time and dare I say “common sense” declares to the contrary.

Since neither Protestant nor Catholic belief systems, all “based on scripture” to one extent or another, are at odds with one another, civil law is not necessarily based on religious belief…in the past is was…but we are for the most part past that stage of human development in our modern age.

No reasons have been presented that carries any weight against gay people has been voiced with our judicial system to refuse gay men and women equal rights under the rule of civil law.

Religous rhetoric has been refused consideration by our lawmakers…and rightly so.

Russia will eventually change it’s views and laws once it divorces itself from the influence of the Orthodox church upon society…it will occur…just as in this country no one really gives too much credence to the “Jerry Falwells” or the “Pat Robertsons” in our government.

Laws change…societies grow and develope and are challenged by modernity…Russia is still in a stage of transition…the struggle of religious beliefs against modernity is alive and well in many parts of the world…modernity will eventually win out.

 

[jmcrae]

My response was claiming “the Bible says” or “don’t you read the Bible” does not settle the question of what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality. One’s religious beliefs cannot and do not make public policy.

Unless one believes their chosen faith tradition cannot be in error when interpreting scripture pretty much limits one’s understanding of scripture…no matter what history, archeology, culture of the time and dare I say “common sense” declares to the contrary.

Since neither Protestant nor Catholic belief systems, all “based on scripture” to one extent or another, are at odds with one another, civil law is not necessarily based on religious belief…in the past is was…but we are for the most part past that stage of human development in our modern age.

The date on the calendar has nothing to do with being right or wrong.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One’s religious beliefs cannot and do not make public policy.

Absolutely untrue. Even the Unform Commercial Code is based on recognizable biblical principles. You ought to read it sometime.

If you look back at older legal cases, establishing precedents we still follow in many things, they openly based them on religious principles. They don’t admit to that now, but they still follow the old decisions.

And western law is very different from that in Islamic states, and for that very reason.

If you don’t think religious beliefs make public policy, you are utterly mistaken.

What people now think is “secular” law is religious law increasingly based on a religion other than Christianity; that’s all.

 

[Publisher]

The date on the calendar has nothing to do with being right or wrong.

Our understanding of right and wrong does change with time as we grow as individuals and a society.

Truth does not change, but our understanding of Truth certainly does…that’s called “growth”.

 

[Publisher]

Glad to give you a trip down memory lane.

 

[Publisher]

Absolutely untrue. Even the Unform Commercial Code is based on recognizable biblical principles. You ought to read it sometime.

If you look back at older legal cases, establishing precedents we still follow in many things, they openly based them on religious principles. They don’t admit to that now, but they still follow the old decisions.

And western law is very different from that in Islamic states, and for that very reason.

If you don’t think religious beliefs make public policy, you are utterly mistaken.

What people now think is “secular” law is religious law increasingly based on a religion other than Christianity; that’s all.

Biblical principals, Greek principals, Eastern principals are Universal principals recongnized.

One of the Friends in my meeting always asks…“Is it true because it’s in the Bible or is it in the Bible because it’s true?”

Just because or economic and governing philosophy of our nation has principles found in scripture does not mean they were founded on scripture…but that scripture has many common sense and noble truths our founding fathers recognized. Just because our judicial architecture, administrative architecture and military ranking is pulled from Greek, Masonic, Roman, and “Pagan” culture does not mean it’s Greek, Roman, Pagan or Masonic…Truth is found in every culture…in every belief system…our government has chosen to take the “gold” of such beliefs and leave behind the “dross” of dogma, doctrine and oppression of minorities some of these beliefs and dogmas tend to foster.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Laws change…societies grow and develope and are challenged by modernity…Russia is still in a stage of transition…the struggle of religious beliefs against modernity is alive and well in many parts of the world…modernity will eventually win out.

So, you oppose religious beliefs. I think we get that.

But for “modernity” to “win out”? What’s “modernity” but the subjective judgments of the elites of the moment? Want to live with “Islamic modernity”? With Chinese modernity? “Modernity” is a straw in a windstorm, and one who dedicates his allegiance to “modernity” is a slave to the wind.

But I doubt you really believe it. If suddenly things changed and the “modern” notion was Puritanism, would you still want to follow it? (In some ways, e.g., in terms of food fads and some other things, Puritanism is definitely alive and well)

 

[Tucker_R]

By you saying homosexuality is not a sin. Being chaste is not a sin… being a practicing homosexual is… that is my point.

Well, first of all, where did I mention sex? I was talking about Russia not being loving by using religion to foster the persecution of gay people. Gay people are being tortured and beaten over there, while the government turns a blind eye saying that these “activist groups” are merely trying to uphold morality – and some of these incidents are leading teenagers to commit suicide. If this what God’s morality looks like, I’d rather burn in hell than worship a god like that.

Homosexuality does not equal sex. Homosexuality means being attracted to members of the same sex, which may or may not lead to a sexual act, but you’ve no right to make assumptions one way or another.

If my concern for the safety of gays and equal rights supports in Russia offends God, then so be it. He gave me a conscience, and I intend to use it.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I’m not creating a strawman, this is precisely what the law has led to. It’s what happens when you criminalize the very existence of an entire group of people. It happened to Christians off and on throughout the history of the Soviet Union.

 

[Publisher]

So, you oppose religious beliefs. I think we get that.

But for “modernity” to “win out”? What’s “modernity” but the subjective judgments of the elites of the moment? Want to live with “Islamic modernity”? With Chinese modernity? “Modernity” is a straw in a windstorm, and one who dedicates his allegiance to “modernity” is a slave to the wind.

But I doubt you really believe it. If suddenly things changed and the “modern” notion was Puritanism, would you still want to follow it? (In some ways, e.g., in terms of food fads and some other things, Puritanism is definitely alive and well)

No, I do not oppose religious beliefs…so I don’t know “what” you “get”.

I am against one set of religious beliefs set above others in governing it’s population.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, got to go now folks. Got things to do.

Be of good cheer!

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, I do not oppose religious beliefs…so I don’t know “what” you “get”.

I am against one set of religious beliefs set above others in governing it’s population.

said as he seeks to impose his on me and supress mine by the strong arm of the state…

Goodbye, now.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Publisher:

because women were considered simply recepticals of the male seed which grew within them as a seed grows in fetile ground.

Women were seen as “property”…vessels only to be “sold” by the father to the husband for the “bride price” in order to carry on the family line of the son…women were commodities…to be used and discarded if for some reason she could not bare a son for her husband…this continued up thru the middle ages with the European kings who needed a son to carry on the royal line…little did the king know if his wife bore him no sons, it was his “fault”…not hers as he only had “female swimmers”…something unknown until modern times.

Both of these statements are false, I should add. Show me someone who’s willing to die to defend the honor of his “receptacle” or “property;” There was a rigid gender-based system division of labor; women were not considered property any more or less than men were. Your misunderstanding of gender relations throughout history is due to your failure to consider the socio-economic, technological, and biological background that made anything remotely resembling gender equality utterly impossible before the industrial revolution.

Not sure how any of that’s relevant to the thread, but I felt compelled to correct you.