<p>People who believe an old book's teachings as applicable standards for today just don't get it ClaySoul. Dbate is from a place similar to where I'm from. NOT being a Christian makes you an outcast. I'm sure Dbate would not fit in with his/her family if he/she came out and said she didn't believe in the Bible as God's infallible word. That's what I had to deal with anyway.</p>
<p>modest hit the nail on the head.</p>
<p>lol, he usually does</p>
<p>Wolfman jack you don't know squat about me, where I am from I am from the suburbs of houston, where there is every religion and lack of religions, my friends are jewish, athiest, agnostic, hindu, muslim and Christian, there are some Buddhists but not alot. Don't you dare try to say some bull about me not being able to treat ppl a certain way bc if you knew about Chrisitianity, you would know we are not to treat ppl diffferently. And more importantly you don't know me, don't open your mouth and try to make comments about who i am, when you don't know anything about me. We obviously aren't from the same place, bc where i live there are ppl from all walks of life heck the principal of my mom's school is gay, as are ppl that i work and go to school with. Here's a tip try not to be so prejudice.</p>
<p>Dbate: the bible DOES has multiple interpretations, and your blatant misunderstanding of your own religion is rather disturbing. (if the bible didn't have multiple interpretations, there wouldn't be different sects of christianity). To prove your ignorance, let's take a look at Sodom, you claim that God destroyed it because of homosexuality, but that's not what the bible says:</p>
<p>"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
-Ezekial 16:49</p>
<p>You also claim that in corinthians it says that "homosexual offenders" or "homosexuals" will not inherit the kingdom of God. However, that is only one translation of that passage. Did you know the King James Version uses the words "abusers of themselves with mankind"-which could mean anything considering mankind refers to both men and women. Other versions use the word "effeminate"-not every gay man is effiminate. the only versions that use the word homosexual in this passage are versions of the bible that came out after 1950.</p>
<p>Your ignorance about Christianity is outstanding. The fact that you would claim that there is only one intepretation of the bible on homosexuality is clearly false and I have just shown that to you. Every verse in the bible that seemingly dubs homosexuality as sinful has an equaly valid interpretation that it is not sinful and my two examples should be enough to prove that to you. You do not have to agree with these interpretations but they DO exist and they ARE SUPPORTED by biblical quotes, just as much as yours are.</p>
<p>oh, and on a side note.:</p>
<p>quote from Dbate:"The Bible tells that if you harm a slave then the master shall be harmed"</p>
<p>you obviously didn't read my quote from the old testament. It blatantly stated that a master shall only be harmed/punished if the slave dies. As long as the slave makes it out ok after a few days, a master is allowed to beat him/her as much as he/she desires without any repercutions as sanctioned by God.</p>
<p>you tell me not to try to twist the words of the bible by taking these slavery passages out of context, but that is exactly what you are doing now with the bible passages regarding homosexuality. Think about it. I'm not the only one who has found these biblical quotes concerning slavery, in fact, southern slave leaders used these quotes to defend themselves against abolitionists similar to how many modern day christians use the bible to defend their stance against homosexuality. However, over time people began disregarding these slavery passages and in the same way will future generations disregard the passages used to condemn homosexuality (which as i have shown do not necessarily condemn homosexuality)</p>
<p>Hippo, don't insult and try to talk about stuff I already knew, inhospital thing as to why Sodom was destroyed clearly ignores the explict instance right before Sodom was destroyed when the men of the city try to get Lot to bring out the angels so that they could sleep with them. He tried to offer his daughter but they did not want her. But more over your quote from Ezekiel that is only a reference to one of the sins that Sodom had committed, heck even the word sodomy is from Sodom, common sense much? And moreover quoting Ezekiel is weak bc Ezekiel wrote well after Sodom had been destroyed. That would be like trying to offer a source from 1990 as a primary reference for the crusades.</p>
<p>But Christianity is based largely in the idea that the divine wrote or directly inspired all that is written in the Bible. Incongruities in the Bible are imperatives that had to be intentional. So you can't write off any interpretation based on any kind of information contained in the Bible based on chronology.</p>
<p>Quote: 'Hippo, don't insult and try to talk about stuff I already knew, inhospital thing as to why Sodom was destroyed clearly ignores the explict instance right before Sodom was destroyed when the men of the city try to get Lot to bring out the angels so that they could sleep with them"</p>
<p>Did you forget the fact that the angels were there to begin with because God had ALREADY DECIDED to destroy Sodom? The incident with the angels had no bearing on God's desire to destroy the city; He was already planning to do so! And besides, the men of the city (and as I recall-the entire town showed up and there is no way in hell the entire town could be gay due to your own darwinistic approach) were going to RAPE the angels and Lot, being the hospitable host that he was, was willing to sacrifice his daughters to the mob as a rape victim so his honorable guests would not be raped. </p>
<p>The story of Sodom should never be used as a guide to sexual morality, especially considering that after Lot left his two daughters had sex with him (albeit while he was sleeping) and got pregnant from it-something God never condemns. </p>
<p>Really, Sodom has nothing to do with a consensual, adult, homosexual relationship.</p>
<p>And once again this brings me to my point of MULTIPLE VALID INTERPRETATIONS. It is NOT a fact that homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, it is merely one interpretation. And as Modestmelody said, you cannot just write off Ezekiel as having written that too far in the future because according to the bible, the bible is infallable and thus whatever Ezekiel said must be true.</p>
<p>dbate</p>
<p>is it an insult if it's true? Or if it's a reasoned argument? no one here said that you personally and you alone mistreat people, only that it is impossible to not accept a person's "lifestyle" and treat them equally as I and Modest have addressed. And if you fit into this category, period, end of story. You can always leave this category. </p>
<p>The sad thing, Hippo, is that so very many people feel this way about both the bible and it's laws on sexuality. </p>
<p>What cracks me up is why I am allowed now to wear poly-cotton blend or disobey my parents, sins deemed far more severe or and directly from the mouth of God, yet cannot morally sleep with someone of the same gender. </p>
<p>I think it's important to note that most if not all quotes that supposedly condemn homosexuality aren't addressing homosexual love as much as homosexual lust. And lust is condemned across the board.</p>
<p>Umm...I think this had gotten way different than I intended. If i offended someone then i apologize because that is not what i intended to do. I think i got caught up in the arguement (I am a debater :) ) But really i don't have problems with gay ppl i just disagree. And i guess we will just have to agree to disagree. May THE LORD bless you all!</p>
<p>So when your theology fails you back down to a message of love? That's weak for any kind of debater. </p>
<p>It was clear you offended long before this point.</p>
<p>I like how you end the conversation with "let's agree to disagree", effectively clearing you of any obligation to counteract any of the arguments put forth that prove you wrong. Very weak move indeed. </p>
<p>Oh well then. But I wouldn't want you leaving this debate without having learned anything. So bear this verse in mind whenever you feel the need to enforce your prejudiced and blatantly wrong "one view of the bible/homosexuality is wrong" point of view:</p>
<p>"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
- II Tim. 3:16</p>
<p>I'm really into bashing people for bad spelling but a self proclaimed debater who can't spell the word argument correctly is somewhat amusing to me.</p>
<p>*not........</p>
<p>I rarely agree to disagree with people who are wrong. </p>
<p>If you think something is immoral about a person then you have something against them.</p>
<p>Man, I can't believe no one brought up the best way to disprove the "I think homosexuality is wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm treating them differently." What happens if a person who acts like that has a kid who says to his parent "Mom, Dad, I think I may be gay" or "Mom, Dad, it's so good to be back home for christmas. I've got big news to tell you..." and then proceeds to come out, and mention that "the friend" who's flying in for christmas is their partner they've been dating for 6 months.</p>
<p>They will usually respond on here that things won't change, but deep down, they know they'd absolutely hate/resent it. It's usually better to do this one in person where you can see their reaction as they process.</p>
<p>That's a great example</p>
<p>I told my dad i was dating someone
he got really happy and excited, and says "oh?"
i told him it was a girl
he grunted
and mumbled into the distance</p>
<p>my dad is not very emotive. i don't get to hear that "oh?" tone of voice often. and i haven't heard it since. </p>
<p>my family is probably as accepting as it gets. my mom already knew, my sister didn't skip a beat. but my dad is uncomfortable, my mom tries to be hip and just ends up making bad jokes, and my sister tries to label me -- all because they don't know how to deal with it. so despite the fact that i want to share people in my life with them (i'm very, very close with my parents and sister -- the mom is on speed dial), i feel awkward doing so. Despite the fact that I'm accepted I'm still an other. </p>
<p>so these are people that accept me and still treat me differently. So I don't know how you can claim you have figured out how to think people are immoral for being who they are (i.e. a huge lack of respect) and still treat them like the next person. People are smart. They will pick up on your "real" opinion of them.</p>
<p>Food for thought to add to the debate: The link below is to a 2005 article that addresses the fact that up to some 40 years ago homosexuality was considered a "mental disorder" by the scientific community (according to Psychiatrist and Princeton law professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a graduate of M.I.T. (Humanities and Science), Harvard (Clinical Psychology), and Yale (Physics), with an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School, and referring to a University of Chicago study) and states that there has been no scientific evidence since then to prove that homosexuality is "an orientation over which individuals have no control." If this is true, then one could have issues with the homosexual lifestyle, not necessarily based on their Christian beliefs or their interpretation of the Bible or evolutionary theory or their definition of morality as discussed in this thread, but because they believe it is a behaviorial issue versus something like being born to a particular race. Of course it would not be right to disagree or be intolerant of a person because of their skin color, because this is something they cannot change--race discrimination. But people can disagree with a particular lifestyle and behavior, and still be loving and tolerant of the person, and it shouldn't matter what their basis for this disagreement is, religious or not, isn't everyone entitled to their feelings and opinions, even the people who disagree with you? Maybe the family treats you like an "other" because they are worried about you? </p>
<p>A Christian Views paper should not be remotely considered a scientific source by any means. Kentuckymom, you may have the best intentions, but you are in fact, sadly mistaken and spreading hatred and bigotry. Let's look at what the science really says:
The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are:</p>
<pre><code>The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.
The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981.
</code></pre>
<p>In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975.</p>
<p>There's a reason why these opinions have changed and it's not the lack of evidence, rather, it's the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. It's religiously intolerant individuals who consistently present their morals as the sole acceptable reality that continue to push out dated, unsupported, and at its heart, hate-inspired nonsense like "homosexuality is a disease". </p>
<p>No, it's not. Sure, trauma can be linked to a change in sexuality, but that's by far a minority of cases that are found often in juveniles who are abused by older men (in the case of male homosexuals) or other rape victims (often in prison).</p>
<p>The article contained numerous quotes by Dr. Satinover who referenced the University of Chicago study; it was not a Christian editorial, although the article was published in a Christian magazine. Based on his many credentials, I consider Dr. Satinover a reputable scientific source. And in the article he specifically discusses his problems with the American Physciatric Association's removal of homosexuality from its list. I'm not trying to "spread hatred and bigotry" as you say, I was explaining some other viewpoints on the subject from some very reputable sources. A quick internet search will show tons of other similar findings and opinions. Of course, anyone can find some kind of research somewhere to support most any view. I was just making the point that people can disagree with each other for reasons other than hate and bigotry.</p>
<p>People choose sources often based on their political views. Most educated people don't just read one person's opinion and call it science because the person has a degree. Uneducated people do which is a problem. So-called scientific "sources" aren't scientific and only represent a minority. People with an anti-gay agenda will latch onto that because it's anti-gay not because it's ACTUALLY credible. It's credible because they want it to be.</p>
<p>I might also add that Satinover was in the BS movie "What the bleep do we know" created by that lady who thinks she's a 35,000 year old reincarnated warrior. Ramtha FTL.</p>