The Law and homosexuality

[edwest2]

I saw that documentary. Crude as it was, it was also daring to show something like this on television. Gay males were all stereotyped as effeminate, sleazy, criminal, mentally ill, and morally evil. They were called fags, faggots, fairies, and queers by most straight people in mainstream society, and not only behind closed doors. And no, gay people of that era did not “do what they wanted.” The ones who went to bars (and who knows how many did not frequent the bar scene) did the only thing they could do to meet other people similar to themselves: they congregated together to talk, to drink, to laugh, to share their troubles, and to have sex. But the sex they had “out in the open,” as you put it, was also not what they wanted to do. Rather, it was the only way for them to have sex. They could not easily bring people home to their family and neighborhood, or perhaps did not trust the partner they had sex with. The sleaziness of the bar scene thus became the norm for gay sexual behavior. In it was darkness and anonymity, lack of attachment, no love, just sex to relieve the built-up tension and some limited social interaction. Gay women did not even have this. There was no real leadership in the gay community for either men or women.

A lot of assumptions here. Even today, the CDC points out that men who have sex with men have a higher incidence of STDs relative to the population as a whole. I have seen a period film of gay women dancing with other gay women. You obviously aren’t aware of the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis from the 1950s. Anyway, my point about controlling personal sexual behavior is the key.

And there was nothing to stop gay people from having private visits at wherever they lived.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

I have seen a period film of gay women dancing with other gay women. You obviously aren’t aware of the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis from the 1950s. Anyway, my point about controlling personal sexual behavior is the key.

What does dancing together have to do with personal sexual behavior? Are straight people also not supposed to dance with each other in public?

 

[meltzerboy]

A lot of assumptions here. Even today, the CDC points out that men who have sex with men have a higher incidence of STDs relative to the population as a whole. I have seen a period film of gay women dancing with other gay women. You obviously aren’t aware of the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis from the 1950s. Anyway, my point about controlling personal sexual behavior is the key.

And there was nothing to stop gay people from having private visits at wherever they lived.

Ed

What incidence of STD’s do women who have sex with other women have? Not so high, I imagine. So why does the incidence of STD’s matter to your argument? I would also bet the incidence of STD’s is lower if two partners, whether straight or gay, are in a monogamous relationship. Using this logic, we should all applaud gay marriage provided the people involved are faithful to one another.

I am aware of these two societies; but what kind of leadership did either exercise? And how many gay people of the period were aware of them?

Your main point is well taken. We do have to exercise some kind of control over our sexual drives (and non-sexual drives). I just wanted to point out that gay people have had a particularly rough history, as have other groups. Thus, when they are finally brought out from the shadows into the sunlight by gay leadership, they are more anxious than many to fit into mainstream society in a whole variety of ways, including equal rights in the workplace, in housing, and in marriage. Such rights are long overdue.

 

[Peter_J]

Gay or straight, the biggest problem is believing that sexual behavior cannot be controlled.

Yes!

I think we all, whether straight or gay, are more alike then we are different inasmuch as we don’t choose our orientation but we can choose whether to be sexually active or not.

But many people, both on the liberal side and on the conservative side, don’t get that: either they’ll be against gay people just for being gay, or they’ll think that we can’t condemn “gay sex”.

 

[mikekle]

Gay or straight, the biggest problem is believing that sexual behavior cannot be controlled. The State and the Church are not, then or now, telling anyone when to have sex or with who. The great tragedy that has been promoted is the lie that each of us has no control over our own sexual behavior

Ed

You are so right about this, its going to be the springboard for all sorts of craziness in the years to come too. the mindset of ‘who has any right to tell me what is right or wrong in regards to what kind of relationships/ sex someone can engage in’ is going to get more and more deprived. The exact same methods and tactics will be used to justify other sexual immoralities in the future, I can actually see that taking place right now, things that were once shocking and unheard of, are now almost commonplace.

I think polygamy and pedophilia are going to be the next things that are tolerated and eventually accepted, we will be apologizing to those groups for persecuting them for so many years, calling them terrible horrible people, all due to something they have ‘NO CONTROL’ over, they were born this way after all, they cannot be cured or rehabilitated, etc…its the exact same route homosexuality took.

 

[Thorolfr]

You are so right about this, its going to be the springboard for all sorts of craziness in the years to come too. the mindset of ‘who has any right to tell me what is right or wrong in regards to what kind of relationships/ sex someone can engage in’ is going to get more and more deprived. The exact same methods and tactics will be used to justify other sexual immoralities in the future, I can actually see that taking place right now, things that were once shocking and unheard of, are now almost commonplace.

I think polygamy and pedophilia are going to be the next things that are tolerated and eventually accepted, we will be apologizing to those groups for persecuting them for so many years, calling them terrible horrible people, all due to something they have ‘NO CONTROL’ over, they were born this way after all, they cannot be cured or rehabilitated, etc…its the exact same route homosexuality took.

Polygamy is not a shocking new thing. It’s quite an old thing. After all, Abraham and Jacob and Solomon and many other Old Testament patriarchs were polygamists. And God didn’t seem to disapprove of polygamy. And all the other “shocking” things you’re talking about just happened in secret.

 

[Peter_J]

Polygamy is not a shocking new thing. It’s quite an old thing. After all, Abraham and Jacob and Solomon and many other Old Testament patriarchs were polygamists. And God didn’t seem to disapprove of polygamy. And all the other “shocking” things you’re talking about just happened in secret.

Indeed. Polygamy is a shocking old thing.

Well, except in a discussion limited to US history. In that case polygamy could be considered a shocking new thing – slavery being the obvious example of a shocking old thing.

 

[jcrichton]

So what was the sin of the boy with hemophilia named Ryan White who got AIDS?

Hi!

…sorry, I don’t follow the news or anything else as an aficionado–I simply pick up things or do some light research… can you expand on this…

…however, if your argument is that some people who are not homosexuals are/have been contaminated with aids… well, it goes to behavior:

• homosexuals have transmitted the disease through sexual intercourse with non-homosexuals
• homosexuals polluted the blood drive way back in the eighties (it became a hush-hush news event)
• heterosexuals who “experiment” with multi-partners and who engage in try-sexual experiments have contracted and passed along all sorts of stds, including hiv/aids
• hiv (and other diseases) are transmitted by means other than sexual intercourse (sharing needles, and body fluids, such as saliva)
• not all who claim to be heterosexuals are (some are bi-sexual or “hidden” homosexuals)
• communicative diseases can be passed along through non-sexual encounters in various other forms through accidental exposure

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’ve always had this crazy idea where there was an end to both sodomy AND murder, but apparently that’s completely off the table. Humans have such a fondness for both. Oh well! Let’s just celebrate it all with a parade! :whackadoo::whackadoo::whackadoo:

Hi!

…wait, don’t they have like twenty of those per year?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I should clarify: for me the big issue is Fundamentalist Christians.

Hi, Peter!

…what? …do you think they are all calling for the death penalty for homosexuality?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

From the Jewish World Review.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

From the CDC.

cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm

Why are children as young as five exposed to gay story books like King and King? Why are parents not informed? Who convinced California officials to require LGBT history in school books?

cnsnews.com/news/article/alex-grubbs/california-soon-be-first-state-teach-lgbt-history-public-schools

Why did the US Supreme Court legalize "same-sex marriage? It was voted down twice in California and did not pass in many States. So this judicial end run was based on what?

Homosexual persons are persons but they flaunt their sexually by being “out and proud.” (?) And by holding “Gay/LGBT Pride Parades.” I noticed the Bisexuals are now joining in. There was a time when privacy meant privacy but privacy has been abandoned by LGBT persons and advocacy groups, including the LGBT media. Why are photos published to show the first bisexual woman to be chosen for a government position, for example?

I worked with LGBT people in the past. I worked at a major hospital that began performing “sexual reassignment surgery.” I sat down with the surgeons involved to learn more about the procedure and the screening process. One employee went from being a woman to looking like a man. There were no protests or outcry, but that was in the 70’s and early 80’s. We all got along.

Why was an out athlete permitted to appear on CNN and tell everyone watching to “stop being homophobic”? Who arranged such such a grossly broad brush painting of anyone watching? It was not logical.

Ed

Hi, Ed!

…I think it stems from the fear that if all people do not accept homosexuality as the great world dream billions of homosexuals will have to move to an isolated island to practice their liberties for fear of being killed by the couple of hundreds who do not engage or accept homosexuality as a God-supported lifestyle. [Translation: power corrupts and government power oppresses with impunity.]

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Maybe gay people did not complain so much in those years (I would say in the 1950’s and 1960’s rather than the '70s and '80s) for two reasons. One is that they were afraid of retaliation by the police, by their boss, by their family, by strangers. The second reason is that there was no one to complain to: no gay leaders and no one in the mainstream straight community or government who would listen to them. They were hardly on anyone’s radar. So instead of complaining, they went about their daily lives and suffered in silence or led a double life.

And when a group of people, such as gays, are despised for so long (and let us not pretend they were not since the nuances within Catholicism and Judaism to hate the sin and love the sinner are often not understood by many people), when they are finally given an opportunity to have legal rights like everyone else, they will jump at the chance and demand such rights. This has been true of other groups as well: racial, religious, gender groups.

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…please do not be offended, as I am attempting to convey my thought without any intent to offend…

…as a Jew, a person who not only belongs to the Hebrew culture but also to the Judaic religion (hope I expressed this correctly), do you believe that you are entitled to sin as you wish and appeal to the good intentions of society in order to mitigate your punishment or culpability?

If we are to raze the sin of homosexuality from Scriptures we might as well raze the whole Ten Commandments.

Having rights and demanding that a sin not be a sin are two different things.

I cannot go to your house, strip you out of everything of value and show up to you local synagogue the next Sabbath and thank you for your contribution to my impoverished state…

I would have transgressed several of the Commandments–and if all the correction I will receive is: ‘you’re entitled to have since you did not have before…’ well thank you for condemning me to lifetime of breaking and entering in complete oblivion to my responsibilities to my self, with God and with my fellow man.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’ll give you an example of how false your statement is. Ronald Reagan didn’t say anything about AIDS until May 31, 1987 near the end of his second term. By then,** 36,058 people had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 of them had died of it. We all know that if 20,000 straight people had died of some new disease, the president would have said and done something much sooner**. To give another example, when there was an outbreak of Legionnaire’s Disease in 1976 and 221 people fell ill and 34 died, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) launched a massive investigation. They spent millions of dollars and 20 agents from the epidemiological division and many others at the state level were committed to finding the cause of this outbreak. There were 86 articles in the New York Times about it in the first month alone. By contrast, seven months after the first AIDS cases were reported and even though the death toll among gay men was four times greater than for Legionnaire’s Disease, the CDC had mounted an apathetic response and only six short articles about it had appeared in the New York Times.

Hi!

…do you see how you disprove your own argument?

…in that same period, how many non-homosexuals died or were infected by aids?

…as the sin of immorality (which includes drug and alcohol abuse and extramarital affairs [inclusive of all legitimate and illegitimate unions) was embraced by the culture (and there were other factors, of course) the demographic exploded.

…though I have not made any research on this, I doubt that the issue of hiv/aids is as concentrated amongst non-homosexuals and drug/alcohol abusers as it is within the homosexual/drugs and alcohol abusers communities (US only–don’t know about the rest of the world).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I saw that documentary. Crude as it was, it was also daring to show something like this on television. Gay males were all stereotyped as effeminate, sleazy, criminal, mentally ill, and morally evil. They were called fags, faggots, fairies, and queers by most straight people in mainstream society, and not only behind closed doors. And no, gay people of that era did not “do what they wanted.” The ones who went to bars (and who knows how many did not frequent the bar scene) did the only thing they could do to meet other people similar to themselves: they congregated together to talk, to drink, to laugh, to share their troubles, and to have sex. But the sex they had “out in the open,” as you put it, was also not what they wanted to do. Rather, it was the only way for them to have sex. They could not easily bring people home to their family and neighborhood, or perhaps did not trust the partner they had sex with. The sleaziness of the bar scene thus became the norm for gay sexual behavior. In it was darkness and anonymity, lack of attachment, no love, just sex to relieve the built-up tension and some limited social interaction. Gay women did not even have this. There was no real leadership in the gay community for either men or women.

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…so you are intimating that a woman should allow her husband to bring in several other females into her home so as to not demoralize and stop her husband from enjoying a “different” kind of sexual experience?

It was the culture.

The problem is not about homosexuals rights to have homosexual sex; the problem is about homosexual sex and what Yahweh God has Taught through out the Sacred Scriptures… you sin – you die.

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: ditto goes to heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of their marriages: you do it at your own peril!

 

[goout]

This is a pretty controversial topic so I fully expect some strong disagreement which is welcome. Moderators please feel free to move this thread (I didn’t see a hot topics section) or even delete if you feel you need to. I won’t be offended.

I’m working on a coherent Christian theology that upholds the old Law/Torah observance not as salvation but as an indentation for sanctification, faith in action, and discipleship.

However the Torah forbids homosexuality pretty clearly in Leviticus. You could argue Paul does as well.

It is my opinion that the church spends way too much energy on this topic.
…

Can you see the irony here?

 

[jcrichton]

What incidence of STD’s do women who have sex with other women have? Not so high, I imagine. So why does the incidence of STD’s matter to your argument? I would also bet the incidence of STD’s is lower if two partners, whether straight or gay, are in a monogamous relationship. Using this logic, we should all applaud gay marriage provided the people involved are faithful to one another.

I am aware of these two societies; but what kind of leadership did either exercise? And how many gay people of the period were aware of them?

Your main point is well taken. We do have to exercise some kind of control over our sexual drives (and non-sexual drives). I just wanted to point out that gay people have had a particularly rough history, as have other groups. Thus, when they are finally brought out from the shadows into the sunlight by gay leadership, they are more anxious than many to fit into mainstream society in a whole variety of ways, including equal rights in the workplace, in housing, and in marriage. Such rights are long overdue.

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…you’ve just hit on it… if I were to have sex with my wife (man and woman) and we would have the fidelity of the monogamous relationship which God affords us, there would be no stds… however when two same sex people have the same monogamous relationship they still suffer damaging changes in their bodies… with the males it is accelerated because the system predicates upon the natural cycle of the sperm which must fight the female’s natural combatting agents who identify the sperm as an intruding force… since there’s nothing in the male to kill the sperm the constant assailment on the body reduces the natural defenses; hence: acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

…on the female it is different… it has to do with the male hormone which both female lack and cannot share… so through prolonged exposure or lack thereof issues arise within the female bodies (we can open a thread on this and do some heavy research).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…please do not be offended, as I am attempting to convey my thought without any intent to offend…

…as a Jew, a person who not only belongs to the Hebrew culture but also to the Judaic religion (hope I expressed this correctly), do you believe that you are entitled to sin as you wish and appeal to the good intentions of society in order to mitigate your punishment or culpability?

If we are to raze the sin of homosexuality from Scriptures we might as well raze the whole Ten Commandments.

Having rights and demanding that a sin not be a sin are two different things.

I cannot go to your house, strip you out of everything of value and show up to you local synagogue the next Sabbath and thank you for your contribution to my impoverished state…

I would have transgressed several of the Commandments–and if all the correction I will receive is: ‘you’re entitled to have since you did not have before…’ well thank you for condemning me to lifetime of breaking and entering in complete oblivion to my responsibilities to my self, with God and with my fellow man.

Maran atha!

Angel

Which of the Ten Commandments does homosexual behavior, particularly a loving homosexual relationship, and better yet a same-sex marriage, transgress? I am the Lord thy G-d, thou shalt have no other G-d before me? No. Thou shalt not make graven images? No. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy? No. Honor thy father and thy mother? No. Thou shalt not murder? No. Thou shalt not steal? No. Thou shalt not commit adultery? No. I think you get the idea. The Ten Commandments still remain.

Ah, but what about the details within the Law? What about Leviticus? Well, what about it? The Law forbids and also requires a lot of things which most non-Jews do not participate in, with no one commandment more important than another: such as the laws of purity in dietary matters, the law of observance of the Sabbath Day (also one of the Ten Commandments, as you know), the laws regarding the major Holy Days and festivals, and so forth. These laws are violated on a daily basis by both Jews and non-Jews alike. So should we throw out the Law altogether, particularly since it has been either fulfilled or superseded by Jesus and His commands? I think both Jews and Christians would say no. Why not? Many Christians might say because Jesus created a New Covenant, which is at once the fulfillment and embodiment of the Old Covenant, and we follow this. Some Jews might say because it gives us something good to strive for, an ideal, even if we fall short. Other Jews might say because certain moral principles are still worth following, such as those listed in the Ten Commandments, while some of the details of the Law can be interpreted in different ways, just as Jesus, a revolutionary rabbi, interpreted the Law in a different way. Homosexuality is one of these topics that may be and have been interpreted according to the Hebrew Bible in more than one way. I have discussed this on several threads (maybe even this one) and therefore I will not go into detail here. However, Christians might then protest: but what of Jesus’ interpretation of homosexuality in the Gospels? What of it? Christians are not bound by the details of the OT, and Jews are not bound by the details of the NT. And so on.

 

[1neophyte]

Which of the Ten Commandments does homosexual behavior, particularly a loving homosexual relationship, and better yet a same-sex marriage, transgress? I am the Lord thy G-d, thou shalt have no other G-d before me? No. Thou shalt not make graven images? No. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy? No. Honor thy father and thy mother? No. Thou shalt not murder? No. Thou shalt not steal? No. Thou shalt not commit adultery? No. I think you get the idea. The Ten Commandments still remain.

You keep saying no, no, no, as if that settles it. It would take more time than I have to unpack all of the errors in this one little paragraph, so I’ll limit myself to the first commandment, regarding idolatry. There is a specific command, both in scripture and in self-evident nature, to be fruitful and multiply. When one’s sexuality is broken, and he/she chooses to obey the ‘god’ of his/her own desires, rather than the rightful command, the first commandment is broken.

As a quick bonus, you can find many parents who will make it very clear that they are certainly dishonored when their children engage in homosexual behavior.

But like I said, I don’t have time to enumerate all of the faulty conclusions here.

 

[meltzerboy]

You keep saying no, no, no, as if that settles it. It would take more time than I have to unpack all of the errors in this one little paragraph, so I’ll limit myself to the first commandment, regarding idolatry. There is a specific command, both in scripture and in self-evident nature, to be fruitful and multiply. When one’s sexuality is broken, and he/she chooses to obey the ‘god’ of his/her own desires, rather than the rightful command, the first commandment is broken.

As a quick bonus, you can find many parents who will make it very clear that they are certainly dishonored when their children engage in homosexual behavior.

But like I said, I don’t have time to enumerate all of the faulty conclusions here.

Well, make time! LOL I’m interested in knowing and learning. I did think of your second connection although many parents still love their children and some do eventually come to terms with them and begin to support them. It often depends on the relationship they had prior to their shameful and dark secret being revealed, if ever.

I have more trouble with your first statement. The stereotype is that homosexuals in love are worshiping the god of carnality rather than G-d and, by doing so, are breaking the commandment to worship only G-d. But this view is usually limited to people who cannot conceive of emotional and caring love between two members of the same sex in a committed relationship, and who believe that this kind of love cannot really exist. They believe that the relationship must be only sexual and lustful and selfish. This is not the case. True love can exist between members of the same sex. And these people are not devoid of believing in G-d, either. That is another assumption, namely, that they must all be secular atheists who worship only their carnal desires. This belief is really a demonization of gay people: they are evil and their wickedness is reflected in their immoral behavior. It is very difficult to love the sinner when people think like this. Please note I am not saying you think this way.

 

[1neophyte]

Well, make time! LOL I’m interested in knowing and learning. I did think of your second connection although many parents still love their children and some do eventually come to terms with them and begin to support them. It often depends on the relationship they had prior to their shameful and dark secret being revealed, if ever.

I have more trouble with your first statement. The stereotype is that homosexuals in love are worshiping the god of carnality rather than G-d and, by doing so, are breaking the commandment to worship only G-d. But this view is usually limited to people who cannot conceive of emotional and caring love between two members of the same sex in a committed relationship, and who believe that this kind of love cannot really exist. They believe that the relationship must be only sexual and lustful and selfish. This is not the case. True love can exist between members of the same sex. And these people are not devoid of believing in G-d, either. That is another assumption, namely, that they must be all secular atheists who worship only their only carnal desires. This belief is really a demonization of gay people: they are evil and their wickedness is reflected in their immoral behavior. It is very difficult to love the sinner when people think like this.

It is not a demonization! I can conceive of an emotional and caring committed love between a married man and a woman who is not his wife. Does that mean that if they engage in sexual activity, it is not adultery? I absolutely believe that two members of the same sex can emotionally care and love each other to the moon and back. Does that render their sexual activity ‘sinless’? No! You’re listing a lot of things here that may be true, but they are irrelevant. It is possible for someone to genuinely love, and still sin. It is possible for someone to believe in G-d, and still sin. Claiming that someone isn’t a secular atheist or that they are in a committed relationship is not an argument that homosexual activity is moral or harmless. It’s just a distraction from the actual issue: it is sinful.