Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[Sparko]

Sodomy laws in the US.

"Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor."
In 2003, the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas struck down all remaining anti-sodomy laws.

This has not entirely prevented zealous anti-gay police from trying to enforce sodomy laws in the present day.

All English speaking western nations had laws against gay men having sex until 50 years ago or less. I've seen the number of people in the UK arrested for gay sex over the last 150 years estimated at 49,000.

Plenty of cultures in history have had same-sex marriages. Examples include Siwa, 10 of the 21 African tribes listed here, and the Roman Empire.

The worldwide spread of Islam and Christianity suppressed all occurrences of same-sex marriage in cultures where it was previously practiced.

1. having a law against sodomy isn't the same as enforcing it. It was rarely enforced.

2. Your claim was that gays TODAY are discriminated against like minorities were in the past. As if gays are struggling the same way blacks did before the 1970's. That is patently false. Gays today are not discriminated against by society. In fact people who speak against homosexual behavior are the ones who are discriminated against.

[Mountain Man]

Thing is, from a Biblical and moral perspective, gays should be discriminated against. There's no moral law in the Bible against being black, but there most certainly is against homosexuality. That's why the whole "we're a persecuted minority like black people" refrain makes zero impression on me. By that logic, pedophiles and people who have sex with animals are also a "persecuted minority". The only real difference is that pedophilia and bestiality still grosses people out. It wasn't too long ago that most people felt the same way about homosexuality.

[Bill the Cat]

Plenty of cultures in history have had same-sex marriages. Examples include Siwa

Siwa was not homosexual marriage the way we term it. It was a man purchasing a young boy as a spouse. It was pedophilia. You sure you want to use that as an example?

[fm93]

Thing is, from a Biblical and moral perspective, gays should be discriminated against.

I heartily recommend that you go take a long walk, unwind with a nice, relaxing bath, make yourself a tasty meal, and then sit back, re-read this statement and see how terrifying it is.

There's no moral law in the Bible against being black, but there most certainly is against homosexuality.

There is a moral law in the Bible against certain homosexual actions in certain contexts, not against homosexuality itself, since the word encompasses the mere state of finding one's self feeling attracted to people of the same sex, which isn't an action or behavior. That aside, a notable irony here is that for several centuries, many people did in fact attempt to justify slavery and anti-black racism with claims that it was simply "a Biblical and moral perspective."

That's why the whole "we're a persecuted minority like black people" refrain makes zero impression on me.

The basis of discrimination/persecution is the fact that the subjects are gay, a state which for at least the vast majority of people wasn't willfully chosen and doesn't appear to be capable of being willfully changed--just like having dark skin. People who are gay may later choose to engage in certain behaviors, but automatically conflating "gay" with behaviors is false equivalence.

As for the tangential issue of comparing anti-gay persecution to anti-black persecution in magnitude, that's somewhat complicated. On the one hand, gay people were never systemically enslaved and legally considered only three-fifths of a person, but on the other hand, persecuted black folks could rely on family members and neighbors for support as long as they weren't forcibly broken apart, whereas many gay people cannot. If a person is fully black, that means both of his/her parents are also black, but the very fact that a gay person was born in the first place usually means that his/her parents are NOT gay. And I'm pretty sure that generally, black kids aren't disowned by their parents and kicked out of the house for being black, whereas many kids are disowned by their own parents and kicked out of the house for being gay.

By that logic, pedophiles and people who have sex with animals are also a "persecuted minority". The only real difference is that pedophilia and bestiality still grosses people out. It wasn't too long ago that most people felt the same way about homosexuality.

This comparison went stale a long time ago. Acting upon pedophilia and bestiality entails having sex with pre-pubescent children and animals, neither of whom/which can consent. As long as gay people who act upon their attractions seek mutual agreement with a developed partner and engage in safe practices, they are substantially different than pedophiles and zoophiles.

[Bill the Cat]

I heartily recommend that you go take a long walk, unwind with a nice, relaxing bath, make yourself a tasty meal, and then sit back, re-read this statement and see how terrifying it is.

I don't see anything at all wrong with what he said. Why do you think that "relaxing" things will change a moral stance

There is a moral law in the Bible against certain homosexual actions in certain contexts, not against homosexuality itself, since the word encompasses the mere state of finding one's self feeling attracted to people of the same sex, which isn't an action or behavior.

Because in honor/shame societies, there was no such dichotomy. What you claimed you were is what you acted upon.

[Mountain Man]

I heartily recommend that you go take a long walk, unwind with a nice, relaxing bath, make yourself a tasty meal, and then sit back, re-read this statement and see how terrifying it is.


There is a moral law in the Bible against certain homosexual actions in certain contexts, not against homosexuality itself, since the word encompasses the mere state of finding one's self feeling attracted to people of the same sex, which isn't an action or behavior. That aside, a notable irony here is that for several centuries, many people did in fact attempt to justify slavery and anti-black racism with claims that it was simply "a Biblical and moral perspective."


The basis of discrimination/persecution is the fact that the subjects are gay, a state which for at least the vast majority of people wasn't willfully chosen and doesn't appear to be capable of being willfully changed--just like having dark skin. People who are gay may later choose to engage in certain behaviors, but automatically conflating "gay" with behaviors is false equivalence.

As for the tangential issue of comparing anti-gay persecution to anti-black persecution in magnitude, that's somewhat complicated. On the one hand, gay people were never systemically enslaved and legally considered only three-fifths of a person, but on the other hand, persecuted black folks could rely on family members and neighbors for support as long as they weren't forcibly broken apart, whereas many gay people cannot. If a person is fully black, that means both of his/her parents are also black, but the very fact that a gay person was born in the first place usually means that his/her parents are NOT gay. And I'm pretty sure that generally, black kids aren't disowned by their parents and kicked out of the house for being black, whereas many kids are disowned by their own parents and kicked out of the house for being gay.


This comparison went stale a long time ago. Acting upon pedophilia and bestiality entails having sex with pre-pubescent children and animals, neither of whom/which can consent. As long as gay people who act upon their attractions seek mutual agreement with a developed partner and engage in safe practices, they are substantially different than pedophiles and zoophiles.

My remarks are "terrifying"? Yeah, O.K.

Sure, you could understand the term "discriminate" in the pejorative sense, or you could take a long walk, stimulate the few precious brain cells you have left, pay attention to context, and understand that it can also mean discernment, such as recognizing the difference between right and wrong.

I won't comment any further on the Biblical issue except to say that I think it has been firmly established in this thread that the Bible condemns homosexuality in any and every context. "Do not have sex with a man as you would a woman. This is an abomination." It doesn't get any clearer than that.

The issue of consent is a legal matter, not a moral one. Just as anti-sodomy laws were struck from the books, laws governing consent can be struck or altered. Once gays get everything they want, the next major battle in the US is going to be over age of consent laws, and those who were outspoken in favor of gay "equality" are going to have to make a very uncomfortable choice: Do they hypocritically deny pedophiles the same "equality" as homosexuals, or do they choke down the bile and throw their support behind adults who want to have sex with children? Which side are you going to choose?

[Darth Executor]

Plenty of cultures in history have had same-sex marriages. Examples include Siwa,

"The German egyptologist Georg Steindorff explored the Oasis in 1900 and reported that homosexual relations were common and often extended to a form of marriage: "The feast of marrying a boy was celebrated with great pomp, and the money paid for a boy sometimes amounted to fifteen pounds, while the money paid for a woman was a little over one pound." Mahmud Mohamrnad Abd Allah, writing of Siwan customs for the Harvard Peabody Museum in 1917, commented that although Siwan men could take up to four wives, "Siwan customs allow a man but one boy to whom he is bound by a stringent code of obligations." In 1937 the anthropologist Walter Cline wrote the first detailed ethnography of the Siwans in which he noted: ""All normal Siwan men and boys practice sodomy...among themselves the natives are not ashamed of this; they talk about it as openly as they talk about love of women, and many if not most of their fights arise from homosexual competition....Prominent men lend their sons to each other. All Siwans know the matings which have taken place among their sheiks and their sheiks' sons....Most of the boys used in sodomy are between twelve and eighteen years of age." After an expedition to Siwa, the archaeologist Count Byron de Prorok reported in 1937 "an enthusiasm [that] could not have been approached even in Sodom... Homosexuality was not merely rampant, it was raging...Every dancer had his boyfriend...[and] chiefs had harems of boys. In the late 1940s a Siwan merchant told the visiting British novelist Robin Maugham that the Siwan women were "badly neglected", but that Siwan men "will kill each other for boy. Never for a woman", although as Maugham noted, marriage to a boy had become illegal by then."

Another great addition to the "Just Like Us" anthology.

[Jedidiah]

[QUOTE=square_peg;145907There is a moral law in the Bible against certain homosexual actions in certain contexts, not against homosexuality itself, since the word encompasses the mere state of finding one's self feeling attracted to people of the same sex, which isn't an action or behavior. [/QUOTE]

The only way I have seen Christian use the term it refers to actions. If I were sexually attracted to other men and took no action there would be no condemnation. You distort the reality of the Christian objection.

[firstfloor]

If I were sexually attracted to other men and took no action ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ring-West.html

[fm93]

I don't see anything at all wrong with what he said. Why do you think that "relaxing" things will change a moral stance

You see nothing wrong with saying that people should be treated in an unjust and prejudicial manner because they experience feelings of attraction towards people of the same sex?

Because in honor/shame societies, there was no such dichotomy. What you claimed you were is what you acted upon.

I'm not sure the honor/shame aspects itself is what made that so, but anyhow, do we live in an honor/shame society today?

Sure, you could understand the term "discriminate" in the pejorative sense, or you could take a long walk, stimulate the few precious brain cells you have left, pay attention to context, and understand that it can also mean discernment, such as recognizing the difference between right and wrong.

You could take your own advice, because your quote rather obviously didn't simply mean "discernment" in this instance, since you said "gays should be discriminated against."

I won't comment any further on the Biblical issue except to say that I think it has been firmly established in this thread that the Bible condemns homosexuality in any and every context. "Do not have sex with a man as you would a woman. This is an abomination." It doesn't get any clearer than that.

I took a few days off from TWeb, so I missed out on the over twenty pages that accrued in that time.

The issue of consent is a legal matter, not a moral one. Just as anti-sodomy laws were struck from the books, laws governing consent can be struck or altered.

Anti-sodomy laws seem to be substantially different than laws regarding consent.

Once gays get everything they want, the next major battle in the US is going to be over age of consent laws

Attaining equality and respect is going to lead to a battle over age-of-consent laws? Haven't heard that slippery slope before.

and those who were outspoken in favor of gay "equality" are going to have to make a very uncomfortable choice: Do they hypocritically deny pedophiles the same "equality" as homosexuals, or do they choke down the bile and throw their support behind adults who want to have sex with children? Which side are you going to choose?

There is nothing uncomfortable or hypocritical about this at all. While one can debate whether the age of consent should be lower than eighteen or sixteen, pre-pubescent children are clearly too young and underdeveloped. The argument from some gay rights activists is that a person should be free to marry and have sex with each another person as long as it's safe and mutually consensual, not that a person should be free to marry and have sex with literally anyone else without any caveats whatsoever. Thus, because the case of pedophilia doesn't fall under what they were arguing for, it's by definition not hypocritical.

[fm93]

The only way I have seen Christian use the term it refers to actions. If I were sexually attracted to other men and took no action there would be no condemnation. You distort the reality of the Christian objection.

I know the common Christian objection, but it is a fact that many Christians often confusingly conflate the two, and so I wanted to clear this up.

[Jedidiah]

I know the common Christian objection, but it is a fact that many Christians often confusingly conflate the two, and so I wanted to clear this up.

You must be around different Christians than I am. Here on TWeb it has been repeated often that it is the behavior that is condemned and not the attraction. I have never read on person here to state that it is just the "orientation" and not the action that was the sinful part. If there was only attraction and no action no one would ever know who was attracted to those of the same sex and no condemnation. Rather than clearing anything up you are adding confusion. Well in your mind you are adding confusion.

[Mountain Man]

You must be around different Christians than I am. Here on TWeb it has been repeated often that it is the behavior that is condemned and not the attraction. I have never read on person here to state that it is just the "orientation" and not the action that was the sinful part. If there was only attraction and no action no one would ever know who was attracted to those of the same sex and no condemnation. Rather than clearing anything up you are adding confusion. Well in your mind you are adding confusion.

I said this exact same thing earlier in the thread. Pinhead either didn't see it, or he's choosing to forget.

[Mountain Man]

Anti-sodomy laws seem to be substantially different than laws regarding consent.


Attaining equality and respect is going to lead to a battle over age-of-consent laws? Haven't heard that slippery slope before.


There is nothing uncomfortable or hypocritical about this at all. While one can debate whether the age of consent should be lower than eighteen or sixteen, pre-pubescent children are clearly too young and underdeveloped. The argument from some gay rights activists is that a person should be free to marry and have sex with each another person as long as it's safe and mutually consensual, not that a person should be free to marry and have sex with literally anyone else without any caveats whatsoever. Thus, because the case of pedophilia doesn't fall under what they were arguing for, it's by definition not hypocritical.

I told you what I meant by discriminate. Don't play the "you really didn't mean what you told me you meant" game.

The law had to be changed to allow homosexuals to marry and sodomize each other. What basis do gay activists and their advocates have to argue that the law shouldn't be similarly changed to accommodate pedophiles? For pedophiles, like it was for homosexuals, it's a merely a legal hurdle, not a moral one.

[Bill the Cat]

You see nothing wrong with saying that people should be treated in an unjust and prejudicial manner because they experience feelings of attraction towards people of the same sex?

He never said that and you know it We see nothing wrong with declaring sinful behavior worthy of intentional discrimination. The behaviors do not deserve to be treated on equal footing as the relationship God ordained between man and woman.

I'm not sure the honor/shame aspects itself is what made that so, but anyhow, do we live in an honor/shame society today?

The Bible wasn't written for us today.