The Gay Agenda - from cd set "Goodbye Religious Liberty?" (a small portion of speech)

We find homosexuality strictly forbidden in the Mosaic Law. Why?

Moses wasn't a priest; he was a general in pharaoh's army. This is how Josephus described him im his book Jewish Antiquities. And this conforms to what egyptologists know concerning the education that male children received who were reared in Egypt's royal court. They learned egyptian mythology, but the main focus of their education centered on military matters. They learned how to use the weaponry of that era properly, and how each weapon could best be used in battle. They learned the military tactics of that era, which were actually much more complex than modern-day movies portray. They learned what the proper attitude of egyptian soldiers was to be toward their opponents, so that they would be effective in battle.

But the most important information they learned was how to tell whether a society that they had 'set their sights on' would be an easy opponent to destroy, or whether it would be a formidable enemy to be respected. Those that were easy didn't last long. They would be attacked, their citizens killed or enslaved, and their riches taken back to Egypt. Those that were formidable would be given a wide berth, or even negotiated with.

Years later this general finds himself in charge of an entire society that has no 'rule book' to go by. So what will he teach them, and why? He will teach them what he himself learned as a child in Egypt's royal court. He will teach them that there are certain actions which should be practised conscientiously, and which we now identify as the 248 positive laws and commandments of Torah. He will also teach them that there are certain actions which are violations of those correct actions, but they are minor, so the consequence of their violation is to be a sin offering. These are part of the 365 negative laws and commandments of Torah.

He will also teach them that there are certain actions which will lead to the total destruction of their society if they are tolerated. The military commanders of other societies which surround the Hebrews will immediately recognize such actions as weakening a society to such an extent that it will be a 'quick kill'. What he recognizes as signs of a society that can be conquered and destroyed easily, the other military commanders will also see as signs of a society that can be conquered and destroyed easily. And included in this category is homosexuality.

And why was homosexuality seen as such a dangerous threat? It's due to its practitioners dying of the consequences of its practice from the very time when it began. Peritonitis, as well as other injuries to the digestive tract, have been killing or crippling those who thought that they could practise it with impunity for thousands of years. People don't use parts of their body for sexual gratification which were never intended for such use without paying a truly horrific price for their foolishness. As the saying in the commercial goes, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." Those who think that they can use their bodies however they wish soon find that there is a very high price to be paid for their arrogance.

Nice, insightful, and educational answer Harry3142. Awaiting the "so Moses taught discrimination" quip.

sorednax said:

Not discrimination. A man/wife relationship that is legally endorsed ensures the stability and future of a community. Friendships, one-night stands, and neighbors don't do that....

...Explain how a same sex relationship endorsed by the state ensures the continued survival of a community?

Click to expand...

Well, I guess my response would be that all good relationships serve as social glue and community mortar, not just marriages. So, if marriage helps heterosexuals bind together, I do not see why homosexuals should be denied the consolation of an overtly recognised partnership and the privileges that go along with that.

sorednax said:

If the baker said "I don't serve homosexuals", than I'd agree with you. That would be discriminating.

But his objection was being involved with a gay marriage, not gay customers.

let's put it this way, if I owned a bakery and three white guys wanted some cake, I wouldn't have a problem. Now, what if they said that they're throwing a party for a local chapter of the KKK. I wouldn't want to be involved in that, and thus refuse service for that event. By evidence of your own argument, you would say I was discriminating against white people. So your argument is unfounded and inconsistent.

Click to expand...

Well, actually your analogy is less strong than you seem to think. The KKK were/are a repugnant organisation engaged in criminal activity aimed at oppressing black people. It would not be 'discriminating against whites' to refuse them service - on the contrary, if you didn't, you would be aiding and abetting illegal activity. Marriage, however, between consenting adults, oppresses no-one, and is increasing in legality even for homosexuals, nation state by state and gradually. So, where it is legal, the only remaining possible reason for failing to supply would be discrimination on grounds of sexuality. Perhaps you think that justified, but I think it neanderthal.

sorednax said:

So now, I want you to try and do something you've thus far been unable to do, answer questions. Not deflect, pick apart, or evade. Why does a state/government endorse a man/wife relationship, but not a friendship, one night stands, live-in lovers, etc? What fundamental gain does it get by doing this. Again, we're talking a myriad of cultures, faiths, practices and time periods. Yet the endorsement of man/wife in any civilization has been endorsed. why?

Click to expand...

Well, basically because fathers wanted to be sure they were bringing up their own children, and no-one else's, I guess. But I would argue that the institution is intrinsicly valuable, and needs no such patriarchal, expedient justification. So, that intrinsic value leads me to believe that no adult should be denied the right to marry, and marry whoever they want.

So, now I'm still waiting to find out why you all seem to think homosexuality is wrong.

Edit. Just spotted Harry's post. /End Edit

Best wishes, 2RM.

Harry3142 said:

He will also teach them that there are certain actions which will lead to the total destruction of their society if they are tolerated. The military commanders of other societies which surround the Hebrews will immediately recognize such actions as weakening a society to such an extent that it will be a 'quick kill'. What he recognizes as signs of a society that can be conquered and destroyed easily, the other military commanders will also see as signs of a society that can be conquered and destroyed easily. And included in this category is homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, however, we no longer inhabit a world where societies are destroyed for tolerating homosexuality. Does this mean that Moses' teaching is now obsolete and irrelevant and observing it anachronistic? I think so.

Harry3142 said:

And why was homosexuality seen as such a dangerous threat? It's due to its practitioners dying of the consequences of its practice from the very time when it began. Peritonitis, as well as other injuries to the digestive tract, have been killing or crippling those who thought that they could practise it with impunity for thousands of years. People don't use parts of their body for sexual gratification which were never intended for such use without paying a truly horrific price for their foolishness. As the saying in the commercial goes, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." Those who think that they can use their bodies however they wish soon find that there is a very high price to be paid for their arrogance.

Click to expand...

1. Actually, the choice is theirs to make, not yours.

2. Do you have any actual evidence to back up this claim of a truly horrific price (presumably medical) to be paid for engaging in sexual activities of which you do not approve? Or is this just something you find it congenial to believe?

Best wishes, 2RM.

So, if marriage helps heterosexuals bind together, I do not see why homosexuals should be denied the consolation of an overtly recognised partnership and the privileges that go along with that.

Click to expand...

Because a same sex relationship can produce no progeny. Hence, while it would offer stability, it wouldn't ensure survival. Same if a heterosexual engaged in one night stands and affairs, he would ensure survival, but no stability. The man/wife relationship does both these things. (and don't get started on the whole elderly or infertile couples argument. The man/wife relationship still holds to that principle, even if some cannot produce)

Well, actually your analogy is less strong than you seem to think. The KKK were/are a repugnant organisation engaged in criminal activity aimed at oppressing black people. It would not be 'discriminating against whites' to refuse them service - on the contrary, if you didn't, you would be aiding and abetting illegal activity.

Click to expand...

Well, repugnant to you and I, but not to those involved. Yet a gay marriage may be repugnant to the baker's beliefs. You may not agree with them, but why can't his feelings be respected? How is catering to a Klan party an "illegal activity"? Again, you and I find what they stand for disgusting, but they have constitutional rights to assembly. So the argument is strong.

So, now I'm still waiting to find out why you all seem to think homosexuality is wrong.

Click to expand...

fair enough. I speak for only myself, but let me be as clear as possible. While I find homosexuality to be wrong, I do not hold the homosexual in contempt. So let's clear that up.

A homosexual has the right to conduct his life freely without reprisal. I object to the lifestyle personally, but would not begrudge him that right to live how he wants to live.

That being said, the act of homosexuality can produce no fruit on its own. It is sexually gratifying and can stabilize a same sex relationship, but the ultimate purpose of sex is to reproduce. In that regard, homosexuality is likened to inappropriate behavior with animals and pedophilia, insomuch as it is an attraction to that which cannot offer reproduction. Yet one would argue that pedophilia is different because it involves children and they're too young to give consent. Says who? That is the established norm of today's Western European cultures, but there are other cultures, now and in times past, where child brides or "educating young men" are the norm. Again, not talking legality right, just humanity.

In a free society, we've established legal ages of consent, and what 2 people do in their bedroom is their business. I don't deny them that. What I do deny is the intrusion that says "our alternate lifestyle shall have the same recognition and title as yours, yet still retain our alternate lifestyle." It's the metaphor of having your cake and eating it too.

Let's be careful when we use words like oppression. The gay community having been never able to marry is not an oppression. Blacks, once free men, enslaved, having their rights stripped away, and being sold as property, that's oppression. Not being able to marry is not an oppression (in fact, gays CAN marry, just to a partner of the opposite sex). This idea that the institution must be changed to accommodate them only serves to diminish the institution, not strengthen it. That it now means man and wife, or man and man, or woman and woman.

I believe in civil unions. I believe a same sex relationship given testimony before the court that they intend to remain faithful and stable should be afforded the same rights that married couples receive. This of course is where people argue different but same doesn't work, uhhh, yes it does. I have a right to use a public restroom, so does my wife. But she does not have the right to go into a men's room nor I the ladies. Different but same.

So, in my perfect world, gays would be treated with the same amount of respect and dignity for who they are as people. They would have civil unions if they chose so. But I would not redefine marriage to accommodate their relationship in an institution that calls for a couple of opposite sexes. That's my line in the sand. Apparently, the G&LC not only expect to cross that line, but I must allow it with a joyful noise less I be labelled prejudice and homophobic. This is an act of a bully, and I despise bullies.

Just as every pitbull is a dog, but not every dog is a pitbull, let's understand that disagreeing with gay marriage does not mean a hatred or oppression of gays.

Now, that's the mankind/political side of me.

But I am also a man of faith.

In the end, we're all sinners, and will be judged accordingly. I notice you keep this discussion going but asking us not to use the bible. Well, this is a message board for the Christian faith, and if one believes the word of God is within the bible than he/she must follow that to the best of their interpretations, even if it doesn't always make sense or they agree with it. I'm still baffled why we don't eat meat on Friday's. I doubt it's a big deal. But I'd hate to stand before the Lord and say, "I heard what you said, but didn't think it was a big deal." Probably won't go over well.

Thankyou for explaining your thinking to me. I truly appreciate it, and understand a little more now, just where you are coming from.

I have just three points to raise, in reply.

1. The purpose of sex. I don't think we can argue that because sex (sometimes) causes offspring, that is it's purpose. Consensual sex between adults has many effects, like strengthening the relationship bonds, pandering to ego, relief of tension, satisfying lust, developing intimacy, demonstrating love, continuing the species, enriching the genetic pool, and so on. Are these effects all purposes of sex? There is a significant difference between a result and a purpose. Nature doesn't have purposes, God's purposes are inscrutable, and the individual actors' (even heterosexuals!) purposes are more often the pursuit of a simple pleasure than consciously seeking to conceive. So, if purpose is expunged from the equation, why should homosexuality be wrong?

2. The oppression of gays. There are still nations in the world where homosexuality is illegal, as it has been in most countries and cultures throughout history. Offenders are often imprisoned, sometimes even executed. And there is still, in even the more advanced nations, often a deep hostility to homosexuality that you only need to read this board, indeed, this thread, to see expressed. Any kind of support for this hostility increases an environment of antipathy, and so the chances of truly oppressive casual or deliberate violence against homosexuals. While the objection to gays being married is not oppression on the scale evidenced by, for example, contemporary Muslim nations, it is indicative of a wider cultural bias against them, and an acceptance of discriminatory practices that has no place in the modern secular world, and should have no place amongst Christians, either.

3. Not going to the Bible. I take it we are all aware of the relevant passages in the Bible; rehearsing them serves no need in this discussion. All I ask for is for someone to explain to me why the Bible says what it does. Harry3142's contribution is useful in that regard, being a plausible theory, but we still await his response to my response.

Finally, just to round up; this is the philosophy forum. Philosophy is not about unexamined thought; what is required is rigorous, reasoned justification for positions adopted. Arguments need to be tested and defended to be validated, not just accepted on the basis of 'I believe X is God's Word on the matter, therefore everyone should agree with me about X'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Just spotted this:

sorednax said:

EDIT - additional:

And the other thing I want to ask you is what is it that makes homosexuality a sin, in your opinion? Why is homosexuality a sin? Don't quote the Bible at me - I want to know why Paul, and Leviticus, say what they do on the topic. (They don't give any reasons I can see).

Click to expand...

This is almost laughable. Why is it a sin and don't quote the bible? Can you tell me where babies come from and don't use biology?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad you find it risible. It's nice to provide (even unintentionally) some amusement!

However, I think this the question that goes right to the heart of the issue.

The kind of answer I'm looking for is this. What, in general, makes a sin a sin? How is sin different from virtue? And how far does the specific case of homosexuality comply with this general profile of sin? You see, none of these questions require recourse to the Bible, just solid, independent, philosophical thought.

Cheers, 2RM.

1Feather said:

Gays are not equal to straights. They are deviant, immoral, pratice unnatural acts, spread disease, revoke and violate traditional family values and models, seek to turn a moral wrong into a civil right in insisting their unnatural sex act sets them apart from the standards of decency and thereby makes them entitled to the status of a protected class...
...Perversion having a right to perverse expression is not a civil right. It's a moral abomination.

Click to expand...

Oh dear.

I am not sure you have properly grasped the idea that Christianity is essentially about love, and unconditional love, not hatred. I see no evidence of Jesus' legacy to the world, here.

Best wishes, 2RM

2RM-

I had already been married for 14 years when AIDS first became noticed here in the USA. One of the first articles concerning it was published in DISCOVER, a scientific magazine, circa 1981. At that time they were still trying to find its source (virus or bacteria), but they strongly suspected that it was transmitted as a result of the tearing of the colo-rectal tract, which medical professionals stated was common as the result of sodomy.

A few years later a Gay Lib officer even stated matter-of-factly in a documentary that there was a gay sex toy store in San Francisco with a gynecologist and his staff on duty whenever the store was open for business. Their sole function was to sew people back up after "the fun was over", since this same store had an area where the customers could use the 'toys' which they had purchased there. And their "fun" nearly always ended with bloodshed and internal damage to many of the participants.

This is also one of the ways in which peritonitis is contracted, the other ways being a ruptured appendix, certain ulcers, and tears in the intestinal wall. William the Conqueror himself died of peritonitis when his horse stumbled and threw him against the edge of his saddle, damaging his intestinal tract. it is an extremely dangerous infection, with a 100% mortality rate unless treated within hours of its onset.

So what killed people in the time that Moses lived is still killing them today, and for the same reasons. Those who do not study history are indeed doomed to repeat it.

Yes, HIV/AIDs is a devastating disease, and disproportionately affects homosexual men. Partially, I suspect because of the nature of their sexual activities, and partially because they tend be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. But homosexuals are not going to stop being homosexual on account of this; we need to find ways of preventing transmission, mitigating the effects, and ameliorating the promiscuity. Gay marriage may well have a part to play in this latter, desirable, outcome. Incidentally, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is less in lesbians than in heterosexuals. Should we, therefore, allow only lesbians to marry, and not heterosexuals? We should not let the best be the enemy of the good, methinks.

I looked for details of the prevalence of peritonitis by sexuality, but could not find anything. However, the same train of thinking would, I suspect, apply.

Cheers, 2RM.

I thought it might be pertinent to consider this syllogism, which I take to be the thrust of some posts on this thread:

premise i) Homosexuals spread disease.
premise ii) Disease is bad.
conclusion) Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

The basic problem I have with this line of argument is as follows. There are plenty of diseases spread by heterosexuals, also. Gonorrhoea, Syphillis, Chlamydia, and Herpes are examples. We do not therefore presume heterosexuality is wrong. We simply advocate sensible precautions, and recommend against promiscuity. I do not see any reason why homosexuals should be treated any differently.

I also suspect there is an attempt to derive an ought from an is; Disease is noticed among homosexuals, a value judgement is made on that incidence, and then an attempt is made to derive a moral truth on the basis of a brute fact. The philosopher David Hume pointed out that this kind of argument is philosophically untenable. Even if homosexuals do spread disease, and even if disease is bad, it just does not follow that homosexuality is necessarily wrong. Badgers spread disease, but being a badger is not wrong.

My own belief is that promiscuity is the common thread linking the prevalence of STIs among both homosexuals and heterosexuals, and that the objections directed towards homosexuals would be far better directed at promiscuity in both persuasions without reference to sexuality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

1Feather said:

If you would read the Bible you would learn about God, God's law, Jesus, sin, damnation, Hell, and the fact that God hates.

Click to expand...

We must be reading different Bibles.

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Click to expand...

1 John 4:8 NIV

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Click to expand...

1 Cor 13 4-7 NIV

Peace and Love, 2RM.

Yes, now you see why I am loath to use the Bible to settle a discussion. It seems to be possible for different readers to draw individual and widely diverging conclusions. Nevertheless, I do advocate that you pay more attention to the NT than the OT; Jesus represents a paradigm shift in thought that supersedes the writings that preceed Him.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, to be frank with you, if God really is like you say, I want nothing to do with Him. In fact, I'd rather be in Hell with people who love, homosexual or otherwise, than in Heaven amongst the kind of hatred you evidence and ascribe to God.

But, I don't believe for one moment your version of God is an accurate depiction, and I'm more than willing to bet my soul's eternal fate on that. I just hope you find yourself, someday soon, discovering the truth of the beauty of the love God has for you, and the rest of us sinners, irrespective of our particular weaknesses.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2RM-

If people (both heterosexuals and homosexuals) were less promiscuous the rate of STD's would be less. That's a 'given'. It's also why many thousands of people are already dead or dying of STD's even as I type this message. And many more will join that list if the promiscuity now prevalent continues.

And how can such diseases be made less of a threat? We have our answer in Scripture, where it states clearly that the only sexual relationship that is to be seen as acceptable is that between a husband and wife of opposite sexes. What some criticize as being nothing more than the remnants of ancient superstition is still seen by those doctors and scientists who are fighting against the spread of STD's as being the optimum solution. If we want to prevent the spread of STD's which are killing our young people we already have the rule book which tells us exactly how to avoid such diseases. And that rule book is to be found in Leviticus 18.

The New Testament does not make any attempt to negate the laws found in Leviticus 18. On the contrary, those particular laws are named as still applying to all followers of Jesus Christ. And not only are they reinforced by his apostles, but Jesus Christ himself names their violation as one of the acts which makes those who are the violators 'unclean':

He went on, "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " (The Gospel of St. Mark 7:20-23,NIV)

St. Paul also names sexual immorality and impurity as two of the acts of the sinful nature. As well, he gave a stern warning to all who thought that they could embrace such acts:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:7-10,NIV)

The 'bottom line' is that one cannot be following a Christian way of life while stating that hedonistic practices are to be approved of. Whether those practices are fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest, or any other departure from the marriage bed that is listed in Leviticus 18 (which both Jesus Christ and St. Paul would have used for their definition of 'sexual immorality'), they are to be seen by us as 'acts of the sinful nature' and therefore offlimits. And since those societies in the present day which strictly enforce this morality are noticeably free of STD's, it would be wise of the socalled sophisticated societies to take note of these restrictions to licentious behavior as being probable life savers.

OK, guys n' gals, I'm going to wrap this up now, and let you all have the last word if you want to. I have found a free! online philosophy course to keep me occupied, so I shall be busy elsewhere.

I just have this to say. Leviticus asserts that homosexuality is sinful. Paul asserts that homosexuality is sinful. You all assert that homosexuality is sinful. But none of you have yet provided me with a persuasive reason why it is sinful. So, until you can, I'm just going to continue on in my own sweet way assuming that it isn't. An assertion isn't a rational argument against, and in the absence of a rational argument against, then I can only assume the behaviour is acceptable.

It's been nice discussing with you, but now I intend to leave the thread to you guys and your attitudes.

Best wishes, 2RM.