Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They were irrationally afraid of same-sex attraction and sexual activity. I never said that this makes them evil. Having a phobia is usually a neutral accusation. "Homophobic" only has a negative connotation because it's against a group of people and therefore often leads to discrimination and abuse. As long as no action is taken against the group in question, it's really just up to the person to work through his or her fear. So yes, I would call them homophobic.
Also, I'm not sure why you seem to think this is the entirety of my perception of these civilizations and their religious systems. It's simply one observation.
I'd also like to make it clear that I condemn ethnocentricity. I try not to judge them for their homophobia. Passing judgment would not be productive and would serve no academic purpose. I recognize that it would be difficult to avoid homophobia in a society that does not have modern science and does not value classical liberalism."Homophobic". If that's how you perceive ancient people and their sacred religions in which they were dying for then go right ahead. Were they homophobic or are you just consumed by a gay agenda?
They were irrationally afraid of same-sex attraction and sexual activity. I never said that this makes them evil. Having a phobia is usually a neutral accusation. "Homophobic" only has a negative connotation because it's against a group of people and therefore often leads to discrimination and abuse. As long as no action is taken against the group in question, it's really just up to the person to work through his or her fear. So yes, I would call them homophobic.
Also, I'm not sure why you seem to think this is the entirety of my perception of these civilizations and their religious systems. It's simply one observation.
It's not trivialization. It's an objective way of discussing religions. I would use the same language to refer to any other religion. I have great respect for religions, but that does not mean I believe in them or would think of them as anything more than man-made philosophical systems.If God tells you to do something, it's not a "religious system" any more than a child being told what to do by his parents is one. Calling something a religious system just trivializes it.
It's not trivialization. It's an objective way of discussing religions. I would use the same language to refer to any other religion. I have great respect for religions, but that does not mean I believe in them or would think of them as anything more than man-made philosophical systems.
I understand. Those are your beliefs. I respect your beliefs. They are not my own. I believe it is man-made.That's the trivialization I'm referring to. Christians believe the bible to be God's message to us and how we're to live. It's not something man-made.
Biased homosexual apologetics.
Oh man
There's so many things wrong with that source. First, the moving deception- making it about the idea that ALL homosexuals are molesters instead of the idea that there is a valid trend in homosexual culture and molestation.
And then, trying to differentiate male-male molestation with homosexuality based on the fact that most all of them report no homosexual sex life.
It is true that typically, there is no prior homosexual tendency. It is also true, however, that molesters tend to be molesters because of sexual frustration- not being able to reap such activity or at the very least too insecure to seek it. This no doubt explains why priesthoods, who practice celibacy, unfortunately have the potential for molesters in their ranks.
I could go on and on, but why? You choose to listen to whatever serves your cognitive dissonance, there's no reason to tell you what you know is true.
No, you are simply irrationally fond of same-sex attraction.
There religions dictated something very simple: God made man and woman. They have no natural way of sex between two men or women. In reality, the proper definition of sex itself cannot be applicable in homosexual acts, because it's about procreation.
Biased homosexual apologetics.
Oh man
There's so many things wrong with that source.
I could go on and on, but why? You choose to listen to whatever serves your cognitive dissonance, there's no reason to tell you what you know is true.
No, actually the definition of marriage in the Roman Empire did not follow modern day Christian marriage. In fact, it wasn't until the 13th Century that the Church even declared it a sacrament, and Protestants directly opposed the Church's view of marriage.The definition of marriage was defined in 325AD, adopted by Rome and carried through Europe to America.
It's not debatable what the definition of marriage is
And what excuses you from the group of appallingly uninformed? You seem to express an uninformed opinion on these forums daily. Why should we view your arguments as valid?The majority of Americans are appallingly uninformed and uninterested about things beyond what they see on TV and in the movies.
Is anyone arguing that here? How do you equate Christians trying to defend the traditional definition of marriage with wishing gay people were never born? You guys get completely off topic so often that you forget what the discussion was about.
Yeah, the 90% percent who disagree with you few are getting their last minute Christmas shopping done.
And no, the definition of marriage hasn't changed through history. It's always been between a man and a woman, why do you think it wasn't until recently that homosexuals are even allowed to marry?
No, actually the definition of marriage in the Roman Empire did not follow modern day Christian marriage. In fact, it wasn't until the 13th Century that the Church even declared it a sacrament, and Protestants directly opposed the Church's view of marriage.
You need to stop making random things up, because it's obvious you've not done any research on any subject you post here.
Despite what so many people would have you believe, you don't have to be homophobic to be a Christian.
That's the trivialization I'm referring to. Christians believe the bible to be God's message to us and how we're to live. It's not something man-made.
So when we give biblical passages about why we don't condone homosexuality or SSM, it's not based on a man-made philosophical system, or "homophobia" or a hatred of anyone.
"Homophobic" is a stupid, made up derogatory term for people who simply homosexuality as wrong.
There should be a word, which would be much more warranted, for people with an obsessive pro-gay agenda- a movement in which the subjects aren't even on the front lines of.
No. It's a word with a specific meaning - it describes a person with an irrational fear or hatred of homosexual people and/or homosexuality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?