Homosexuality serves no useful purpose

Homosexuality serves no useful purpose

Dear G-d in Heaven,
I shall forebear from making snippy comments (in agreement with this title).

Yes we were given free will, but we were also given guidelines to live by.

That's certainly true.

But, we don't get credit for following the guidelines unless failing to follow the guidelines is also an option.

I believe harm is coming to our society in ways we can't even yet imagine.

Can't really argue that one.

Animals do not practice homosexuality. I have raised show dogs for 34 years and have never seen, heard of this nonsense.

Animals live by instinct not reason. That is a gift given only to humans. Animals can think in their own relm, as their instincts guide them.

The world is going to hell in a hand basket. Be ready for the glorious return of our Master, Savior Jesus. It won't be long now!!!

Unfortunately, I do think a great deal more about this topic than I would prefer. Sadly, advocates of homosexual behavior will not allow it to be otherwise.

Consider the following: Homosexual advocates initiate lawsuits against the Boy Scouts demanding that the organization change to accommodate homosexuals despite nearly a century of that organization’s service to this nation in providing outstandingly responsible and productive citizens through the program that belongs solely to that private organization. They demand society change the definition of marriage that is millennia old, purely on the basis of “they want it” regardless of any potential negative impacts or what a majority of their fellow citizens may want. They demand to be treated with respect despite the fact that, as a group, huge percentages of that group haven’t earned respect with honorable and principled actions. In fact, if there is evidence of any justifiable opinions about homosexuals as a group on the basis of the empirical evidence, it is not respect that a huge percentage of this group has earned, it is just the opposite, contempt. They hold ludicrously lewd celebrations at a family oriented place like Disney World in front of families with small children and assert that if any one is be offended they are “homophobes” and “hate mongers,” etc. They organize parades through public streets in states of dress (or lack thereof) and actions that are indecent in anyone’s definition. They refuse to condemn an organization such as NAMBLA which dedicated to pedophilia.

Do you think that normal citizenry should not be thinking about this topic and formulating principled responses to counter it?

..definition of marriage that is millennia old,,

Jesus said (in Hebrews 8 I believe) that he was replacing some of the old Hebrew laws with new laws. He was doing this because the hearts of men in Jesus' time were less hard than they were in the previous millenium. For example, live sacrifices would no longer be required.

Jesus recognized that as people grow more civilized they can live under less restrictive laws. Just because something was required a thousand years ago does not mean that it is correct now.

In Genesis 16, Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar. Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command. Do you believe that in 2003 your wife can give you permission to rape your maid?

Numbers 5:11-31 describes a magical ritual that pregnant women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly and have a miscarriage (forced abortion). Do you advocate men treating their wives this way in 2003?

This is an interesting debate but you still have not addressed the issue of my original statement: homosexuality serves the useful purpose of exposing bigots.

. Now, I can't speak for God and what God intended

I can, at least on this issue. He made very clear what he intended on this matter by dictating it to writers who wrote it in a book. It's called the bible.

It would best to let Him sort these things out if they are ultimately bad.

He has already sorted it out somewhere back in eternity past before he created the world. His intention is explained in the bible. It is one man for one woman until death breaks that bond. It is NOT one man for one man or one woman for one woman. Any sexual activity outside the marriage of a man and a woman is contrary to his intention.

There's no excuse for anyone with access to a bible to be ignorant regarding God's attitude toward homosexual acts and/or marriage. It's very clear, and it's available for anyone to read who really wants to know.

To followers of this thread other than Jeff: This reply is a long one… Sorry ‘bout that. Nonetheless, you may find it entertaining. As Jeff noted, this is an interesting debate.

For the sake of clarity in the discussion of the “usefulness of homosexuality in exposing bigotry,” let’s define the term, “bigot” and look at its etymology:

big·ot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[French, from Old French.]
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Now, let’s look at the logic of your statement with its implied conclusion that “homosexuality is useful for identifying bigots.” Your statement with its implication, restructured in the form of a syllogism, would appear something like what is shown below:

Premise: There can be no logical or factual grounds for objecting to homosexuality.
Premise: Anyone who objects to something without logical or factual grounds is a bigot.
Therefore: Anyone who objects to homosexuality, regardless of proffered rationale, is a bigot.

While the logical progression is correct, the first premise is seriously flawed which makes the conclusion similarly flawed. Consequently, one must conclude that your assertion (without some modification/qualifiers or additions) that homosexuality is useful for identifying bigots suffers the same serious defect in reasoning. To further illustrate the point, examine the parallel syllogism below:

Premise: Half of the Jewish population is not circumcised.
Premise: Jewish custom/religious law commands that all males be circumcised.
Therefore: Half of the Jewish population is in violation of Jewish custom/religious law concerning circumcision.

Again, the logical progression is correct. However, as with the first syllogism, the first premise is seriously flawed, again, making the conclusion similarly flawed. Half of the Jewish population is female and therefore not subject to circumcision, i.e., there is a valid reason for a member of the Jewish population not to be circumcised.

Let’s address the remainder of your assertions in a similar fashion.

<< Jesus said (in Hebrews 8 I believe) that he was replacing some of the old Hebrew laws with new laws.>>

I am unsure, but surmise that the passage to which you are referring is as follows:

Heb 8:8-9
8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. RSV

In light of the above quote, note that the change(s) to which you refer are future tense. Second, note that the passage (including the portions I did not quote) refer to a “covenant” that specifies that laws are to be written in “hearts.” The passage does refer to any changes in those laws only that change as to where they are located. Additionally, before examining the logic of your statement in light of the above quote, consider the following quote which directly challenges the validity of your assertion in its entirety:

Matt 5:17-18
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. KJV

However, beyond the validity of your assertion, let us examine the logic of your statement and its implications:

Premise: Jesus changed some Jewish laws.
Premise: Jewish laws prohibited homosexuality.
Therefore: Jesus’ changes to Jewish laws no longer prohibit homosexuality

Even if we assume that your assertion (the first premise) is true and accept on the basis of research that the second premise is also true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow, as the Jewish laws prohibiting homosexuality may not have been among those changed. Therefore, the syllogism is logically faulty, as is your implication.

For your next point: << Jesus recognized that as people grow more civilized they can live under less restrictive laws.>>

I can find no reference in any translation of the New Testament to any acknowledgement that Jesus recognized that people grow more civilized. On the contrary, one can infer just the opposite from Christ’s comments on a “generation of vipers” and the things that Moses permitted because of the “hardness of heart” of that generation’s ancestors.

In general terms, unless your definition of “civilized” refers only to technological advancement, a serious argument can be posited that people (in general) are no more “civilized” in the modern era than at any preceding time including Christ’s era and before. Consider that every type of depravity and evil deed cited in both the Old and New Testaments (and a some that didn’t exist then such as modern nuclear, chemical and biological warfare) continues today and is, if anything, even more widespread than in ancient times.

For your next point: << Just because something was required a thousand years ago does not mean that it is correct now.>>

Unless you are Mormon or Muslim, etc., you can make no argument that there have been any new Divine revelations in approximately the last two thousand years. Therefore, absent such new spiritual information, it is safe to conclude that Divine guidance that was relevant nearly two millennia ago is still current. Consequently, if something was spiritually “required a thousand years ago,” it remains spiritually “required” today.

For your next point: << In Genesis 16, Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar. Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command. Do you believe that in 2003 your wife can give you permission to rape your maid?>>

Note that “Sarah’s permission” is not Divine permission. Additionally, this situation is not cited as Divinely approved anywhere in the scriptures. The only reference even of Divine acknowledgement of this situation is of angelic guidance to Hagar after Sarah had mistreated Hagar and Divine mercy later after Abraham banished Hagar and her son, Ishmael, to the desert where he was about to die as a boy. Abraham had been Divinely promised that his descendants would be as numerous as grains of sand or stars. Consequently, that promise is reiterated even concerning his descendants through this unsanctioned union as much as through his marriage. As an aside, note that the Ishmael’s descendants (Arabs) are trying to destroy descendants of his half brother, Isaac, (Jews) even today… hardly evidence of Divine approval.

Hagar’s consent, or lack thereof, is not recorded and therefore your assertion is pure speculation and, thus, irrelevant. What my wife would permit, or not permit, is no more relevant to what Sarah permitted than is what Caesar’s wife permitted and none of these permissions are relevant to Divine law and any purported changes thereto. However, for the sake of comparison, note that true slavery continues to be documented in 2003 in parts of Africa and other places. Given the current existence of this condition of involuntary servitude and utter lack of human rights, it is not unreasonable to make the “cognitive leap into the unknown” that in one of those places some poor woman in 2003, in deed, may suffer Hagar’s fate.

For your next point: << Numbers 5:11-31 describes a magical ritual that pregnant women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly and have a miscarriage (forced abortion). Do you advocate men treating their wives this way in 2003?>>

Let me address this point in two parts, in reverse order. First, I will directly answer your question at the end. I advocate that men treat their wives with loving compassion as Christ treats his bride, the Church.

Second, your characterization of this reference as containing a “magical ritual” with the implication that it is a mistreatment of wives (women) reveals a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this reference. This reference is, in reality, a way of penalizing a husband’s unreasonable jealousy and giving a wife, wrongly accused of infidelity, a way of saving her marriage. Note that divorce was easy for the husband if he genuinely suspected his wife of an affair… he merely had to give her a “bill of divorce” and it was done.

Note that the passage specifies that only if there were no witnesses (i.e., that most probably nothing had happened), could this ritual be invoked by a distrustful husband. The husband was required to bring a “jealousy” offering (a penalty) identified in this reference as such. The wife was required to swear under oath that she had not slept with any other man than her husband and drink a mixture of tabernacle dust and water that the priest had put under a “curse for a miscarriage operative only on the condition that the wife had lied.” The involvement of the priest, the swearing under oath, the drinking of the muddy water and the “conditional curse” were aimed more at placating the unreasonably jealous husband than “magic.” However, given that such a curse was Divinely mandated, I do not doubt that it would have worked as advertised. Please note that the penalty was a miscarriage and not death by stoning, as would be the case for confirmed adultery.

I invite you to contrast the consequences of drinking muddy water “under a curse to cause a miscarriage” if the wife had participated in an affair with today when a similarly jealous husband demands that his wife take RU-484.

Very nicely done. Nice to see a clear mind and cool temper in this rather heated thread.

Gum

I surrender. You win.

Remember to present your sword hilt first.

Remember to present your sword hilt first.

Hmmm. Are there going to be any witnesses?

I shall have the entire unit turned out in parade dress/

I guess I had better do the honerable thing then...

My sword, sir.

bump

Bump!

You misunderstand me. To be human takes work, and is unnatural. The natural state of life is nasty brutish and short. I rejoice that capitalism has created opportunities for people like me with poor eyes. I rejoice in the complexities of life that are necessary with gratification deferred until complex acts are completed.

Humanity is unnatural. Just as G-d created, we in His image create. Tool making is a unique attibute of humanity. We create the manmade unnatural world as an extention of our tools. Law is a tool. A car is a tool. A road is a tool.

I reject homosexuality as reverting to the cheap and easy gratification that ruins family, home, honor, dignity, and decency, all unnatual acts which are uniquely human. Lately it has subverted Law.

I think you confuse chastity and celibacy.

Is Chastity refusal to have sex outside of marriage, and celibacy is refusal to be married. We have seen that celibate priests can be horrible child molesters (though the overwhelming majority are not) and married people can use chastity and go beyond that to abstinance within marriage to attain greater spiritual growth.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I apologize for my insulting words. From your comment about chimpanzees I thought you admired their lack of sense control and were holding them up as a good example of a happy life!

I agree with your point about celibacy and chastity, chastity being waiting for marriage, and celibacy usually involving a vow to remain unmarried or sexually continent. And many religions or spiritual traditions have chastity (or would it be celibacy) as a goal for marriage, often after children are grown. This is because human life is seen as having a higher purpose than immediate (or even postponed) satisfaction of the demands of the senses. If one sees the purpose of life to connect - or more accurately, re-connect with God, this is actually more deeply satisfying than any acts of the body or even mind.

So it looks as though we pretty much agree!

Lions do not kill their young. They kill the other lion's young.