What is your stand about Homosexuality?

[lolwat]

oh, sorry about that, here's the implicit point i wanted to make:

our society's aversion towards gay people cannot be justified through quoting bible themes and scriptures, as other laws in the old testament along with the command to stone homosexuals exist but have largely been ignored, as what has been quoted in the video. i find this seeming inconsistency evidence that it is not because of a divine mandate that we have this attitude towards gays, but a primitive, perhaps reflex-like, response to things that are different from the norm that anyone willing to overcome it will be able to.

[MrGobots]

oh, sorry about that, here's the implicit point i wanted to make:

(1) our society's aversion towards gay people (2) cannot be justified through quoting bible themes and scriptures, as other laws in the old testament along with the command to stone homosexuals exist but have largely been ignored, as what has been quoted in the video. (3) i find this seeming inconsistency (4) evidence that it is not because of a divine mandate that we have this attitude towards gays, but a primitive, perhaps reflex-like, response to things that are different from the norm that anyone willing to overcome it will be able to.

1. The aversion is subjective. You can't expect people to embrace the same things you do. The level of aversion differs from one person to another.
2. you need to put this thought in proper context. based on your point of view that the Bible is unreliable, then the other laws that have been ignored do not matter if they are ignored or not. However, if you choose to argue the merits of the Bible verses then you have to pose a better argument rather than just picking out other verses that suit your purpose.
3. It is only inconsistent because it is out of context. How the verses were quoted in the video is out of context, from a Biblical standpoint. The Bible is explicit on homosexual issues, not just in the Old but also in the New Testament. But let us leave that to experts in the Bible, unless you're one, then please enlighten us all.
4. so you believe that believing in the Bible is primitive. Then that is your opinion, I can respect that, just as long as you can respect that I believe that not believing in the Bible is deficient.

[lolwat]

1. yup, agreed.
2. i do not quite understand this part you are trying to point out. my point is that we have simply chosen to hold on to one final prohibition because many want to justify their fear of the Other (in this case, gay people), whereas we have decided to forget all others. moses of course would have wanted each and every one of these laws observed, and then jesus in the new testament makes some honestly confusing assertions about simultaneously upholding and breaking the laws in place (hopefully you are at least aware of what i'm talking about), which IMO is the reason why a lot of Christians feel free to do what i feel is cherry picking in the scriptures.
3. if it's context we're talking about, then i guess the bible's stance on homosexuality has also become obsolete, given that more and more people are okay with it now, as with the other laws we decided not to follow anymore?
4. agreed.

P.S.: in order to relieve some tension, please understand that discussions like this might make stuff people write online seem like they have sarcastic or condescending undertones due to the moods the posters are having at the moment. i guarantee that if anything i write might sound sarcastic or condescending, this is not my intention.

[MrGobots]

1. yup, agreed.
2. i do not quite understand this part you are trying to point out. my point is that we have simply chosen to hold on to one final prohibition because many want to justify their fear of the Other (in this case, gay people), whereas we have decided to forget all others. moses of course would have wanted each and every one of these laws observed, and then jesus in the new testament makes some honestly confusing assertions about simultaneously upholding and breaking the laws in place (hopefully you are at least aware of what i'm talking about), which IMO is the reason why a lot of Christians feel free to do what i feel is cherry picking in the scriptures.
3. if it's context we're talking about, then i guess the bible's stance on homosexuality has also become obsolete, given that more and more people are okay with it now, as with the other laws we decided not to follow anymore?
4. agreed.

P.S.: in order to relieve some tension, please understand that discussions like this might make stuff people write online seem like they have sarcastic or condescending undertones due to the moods the posters are having at the moment. i guarantee that if anything i write might sound sarcastic or condescending, this is not my intention.

no tension... respect.  i also guarantee that if anything i write might sound sarcastic or condescending, this is not my intention. added to that, in cases where it is substantial not to have any mis-communication i try my best to alwasy say what I mean and mean what I say. that said, i shall carry on

2. my point is if the Bible is unreliable to you, why would you use one part of the Bible to discredit another. For this approach to be valid you need to prove that your argument is founded. For example answering questions like Do those Leviticus verses really apply today? Or does it just show as an example how homosexuals were treated then? Are there other verses that say how homosexuals should be treated? Or is it only in Leviticus that we find a position against homosexuality? You can't simply call out verses and forcefully (like in the video) hold your context of it to be true without the proper arguments backing it up. If you do then you are also guilty of cherry-picking the scriptures. Like for example if you claim "Moses of course would have wanted each and every one of these laws observed, and then jesus in the new testament makes some honestly confusing assertions about simultaneously upholding and breaking the laws in place" then please substantiate with proper proof otherwise you have formed an unfounded interpretation.

3. not everyone then followed every law. not everyone were Christians then. So it is as obsolete (or valid) then as it is now.

[lolwat]

2. You're actually right, I'm wasting my time with the Bible examples. It was supposed to be an attempt (and a ham-fisted one too) to show that believers today decide what is kept and what is discarded based on convenience and whatever it is that people still feel uncomfortable about, which IMO weakens the bible's "pitch" of being the infallible word of God, so to speak. of course, the arrival of Jesus after the events of the old testament makes it easier for people to be lax with their longstanding laws without feeling guilty about it, but i could argue that a lot of commandments Jesus himself left to his followers are largely ignored, including the good ones. and usually the same people who have abandoned these commandments are also the ones who strongly hold onto the old testament laws concerning homosexuality.

god's covenant with moses, of course, is something i expected believers to take as an important agreement, along with the various laws and commandments given to the israelites. christians with definitely go with the new covenant with jesus as a valid reply to no longer observing jewish law, but here are verses which i believe should be examined:

Matt. 5:17-19

what troubles me is that he in fact does not do this in many other parts of the gospels:

John 7:53-8:11

Mark 2:23-27

Luke 11:37-38 (you can read up to the end of the chapter if you'd like)

now you can definitely say jesus was god incarnate, and that he could do whatever it is he wants since he is god, but my personal view on this is that if i cannot count on a person (or god, for that matter) to do as he says on little things, then i cannot trust him with anything.

[elfenliedagain]

Yung mga bastos na gay dudes ayaw ko

[MrGobots]

2. You're actually right, I'm wasting my time with the Bible examples. It was supposed to be an attempt (and a ham-fisted one too) to show that believers today decide what is kept and what is discarded based on convenience and whatever it is that people still feel uncomfortable about, which IMO weakens the bible's "pitch" of being the infallible word of God, so to speak. of course, the arrival of Jesus after the events of the old testament makes it easier for people to be lax with their longstanding laws without feeling guilty about it, but i could argue that a lot of commandments Jesus himself left to his followers are largely ignored, including the good ones. and usually the same people who have abandoned these commandments are also the ones who strongly hold onto the old testament laws concerning homosexuality.

god's covenant with moses, of course, is something i expected believers to take as an important agreement, along with the various laws and commandments given to the israelites. christians with definitely go with the new covenant with jesus as a valid reply to no longer observing jewish law, but here are verses which i believe should be examined:

Matt. 5:17-19

what troubles me is that he in fact does not do this in many other parts of the gospels:

John 7:53-8:11

Mark 2:23-27

Luke 11:37-38 (you can read up to the end of the chapter if you'd like)

now you can definitely say jesus was god incarnate, and that he could do whatever it is he wants since he is god, but my personal view on this is that if i cannot count on a person (or god, for that matter) to do as he says on little things, then i cannot trust him with anything.

now you are quoting verses, how is this not cherry-picking? how sure are you that you have quoted these verses in the right context? How do you know that there are no other verses that explain why these verses are not in contradiction with the other?

If it troubles you, then you should seek a Biblical explanation before coming to a conclusion or reject the Bible entirely if you do not have the patience to or desire to. But to pick one verse and claim it to be in contradiction with another without having any sort of actual foundation with the Bible after which you form your conclusion is again... deficient. Not a very wise way to go about making decisions.

Sadly, I will not discuss in this forum Bible passages and my religious beliefs for 2 reasons. 1. I am not in a position to 2. I cannot disrespect my faith by letting it be part of petty internet arguments. I just had to mention that I subscribe to the Bible on my views on Homosexuality in response with the original topic.

Additionally, how do/will you know if a person does what he says on little things, if you do not know or understand everything he actually said/meant about those little things?

[spetsnaz1123]

god's covenant with moses, of course, is something i expected believers to take as an important agreement, along with the various laws and commandments given to the israelites. christians with definitely go with the new covenant with jesus as a valid reply to no longer observing jewish law, but here are verses which i believe should be examined:

Matt. 5:17-19

what troubles me is that he in fact does not do this in many other parts of the gospels:

John 7:53-8:11

Mark 2:23-27

Luke 11:37-38 (you can read up to the end of the chapter if you'd like)

IMO, Jesus never did abolished the OT commandments. Instead, it was amended so that anyone who will follow the new commandments will be worthy of the salvation that Jesus promised. If you will read the new testament in its entirety, you will learn that Jesus' commandments are more stringent than God's covenant with Moses.

On topic: Homosexual acts were always been since time immemorial and will always be considered immoral and abomination in religious (judeo-christian) context.

[Bolt Thrower]

Homosexuality is perfectly natural. It's just sexual preference and is apparent not just in humans but also in animals. Our aversion to it is just brought upon by society, traditions and whatever code of conduct one was born into and hence, unnatural. So I will flat out disagree when some of you here will regard homosexuality as a disease, a mental disorder, a genetic abnormality or likened to vice. We already know for a fact it isn't. Our understanding of human and mammal sexuality has progressed so much, it is time to discard old thinking brought about by myth and superstition. Homosexuality is just a natural variation of human sexuality.

Homosexuality can be observed in about 1000+ species including ours. Homophobia (and the discrimination that follows it), on the other hand, is (are) just found in only one species.

On topic: Homosexual acts were always been since time immemorial and will always be considered immoral and abomination in religious (judeo-christian) context.

 

Not since time immemorial. Before the 3 big religions gained a foothold, homosexuality was never really an issue.

[fizz450_03]

it's acceptable for me basta wag lang bastusan


i don't see it as a disease just some kind of re-orientation of sexual preference like sir bolt thrower said.

[dharzfreeman]

Yung mga bastos na gay dudes ayaw ko

  +1.

Naging maganda tuloy usapan dito kahit necro bump.

Good experience.  I'll never start thread that will bash gays here, i should have listen to sonik theres lots of fafa here 

[lolwat]

it seems it was a mistake that i even had to involve the bible in the discussion. suffice to say not everyone accepts the more or less conditional infallibility many would give the bible. correct me if i'm wrong, but alongside the issue of homosexuality, the validity of (hopefully you don't cringe) slavery has been affirmed in both testaments?

as has been mentioned by bolt, homosexuality is normal in nature, with a certain percentage of animals displaying such tendencies. my view on this is that it's as normal as being left handed or being a gifted child, these latter two conditions being subject to ridicule and discrimination in the past as well. i no longer see any reason to feel any discomfort or aversion towards lgbts given my views, but everyone is entitled to their own pet peeves.

[guitarwiz02]

 

[lolwat]

I'll never start thread that will bash gays here, i should have listen to sonik theres lots of fafa here 

hey, dharz, you remember that thread i started regarding self-righteous people who do no good for the country? i feel you are an eligible candidate. it's crazy how you feel you can harbor ill will toward a subatantial portion of the population simply because they only creep you out. hindi yan tama bro.

[dharzfreeman]

hey, dharz, you remember that thread i started regarding self-righteous people who do no good for the country? i feel you are an eligible candidate. it's crazy how you feel you can harbor ill will toward a subatantial portion of the population simply because they only creep you out. hindi yan tama bro.

Ah do i know it. Did i post there? Or are you atheist-ant avanger of MR know all just like the Butthurt one?    

I do no good for the country? cigeh shabu pa *cant describe a thousand face palm for the gangs of atheist*
I harbor i'll will? watta. So you dont care for some portion of the population.. sick please dont be the #2 

[MrGobots]

We already know for a fact it isn't.

Prove it. If it aint 100% fact, then its again just someone's opinion.

[guitarwiz02]

I think there's someone here who truly, ardently embraces homosexuality. Hhhmmm, could it be...

[lolwat]

it's frustrating to see people here espousing the same attitude that has turned a lot of gays into the guilt-burdened, miserable people i know some of them to be. with this l guess i'll just walk away from this and understand that not all people are ready to accept homosexuality in philippine society yet. sure, you can think of me as being gay, but if being gay means standing up for a group of people who for generations have been unjustly and harshly discriminated against for being what they are, then i don't mind being called gay.

for some reason i thought about gloc9 )

[Bolt Thrower]

Prove it. If it aint 100% fact, then its again just someone's opinion.

here we go again.   

as far as reality is concerned, we already know that homosexuality is not an abnormality. it has been discarded as a mental disorder and disease in the 70s. the view that it is a genetic anomaly has been disproved based on cross species research.  if you want proof or factual backing, there are a lot out there.

why don't you prove to yourself based on scientific evidence that homosexuality is analogous to a vice, like smoking? See where that takes you.

 
 

[gandydancer123]

it's frustrating to see people here espousing the same attitude that has turned a lot of gays into the guilt-burdened, miserable people i know some of them to be. with this l guess i'll just walk away from this and understand that not all people are ready to accept homosexuality in philippine society yet. sure, you can think of me as being gay, but if being gay means standing up for a group of people who for generations have been unjustly and harshly discriminated against for being what they are, then i don't mind being called gay.

for some reason i thought about gloc9 )

so true..

[guitarwiz02]

it's frustrating to see people here espousing the same attitude that has turned a lot of gays into the guilt-burdened, miserable people i know some of them to be. with this l guess i'll just walk away from this and understand that not all people are ready to accept homosexuality in philippine society yet.

Homosexuality or fags will never be 100% accepted not just in the Philippines but everywhere. Reality and fact.

sure, you can think of me as being gay, but if being gay means standing up for a group of people who for generations have been unjustly and harshly discriminated against for being what they are, then i don't mind being called gay.

for some reason i thought about gloc9 )

I sure hope this message was not intended for me as I wasn't at all referring to you with mine. But just the same, if yer one of 'em, then fine. Good for you, I guess.

[dharzfreeman]

Homosexuality or fags will never be 100% accepted not just in the Philippines but everywhere. Reality and fact.


I sure hope this message was not intended for me as I wasn't at all referring to you with mine. But just the same, if yer one of 'em, then fine. Good for you, I guess.

Nice share guitarwiz, you have my little respect. 

[MrGobots]

it seems it was a mistake that i even had to involve the bible in the discussion. suffice to say not everyone accepts the more or less conditional infallibility many would give the bible. correct me if i'm wrong, but alongside the issue of homosexuality, the validity of (hopefully you don't cringe) slavery has been affirmed in both testaments?

as has been mentioned by bolt, homosexuality is normal in nature, with a certain percentage of animals displaying such tendencies. my view on this is that it's as normal as being left handed or being a gifted child, these latter two conditions being subject to ridicule and discrimination in the past as well. i no longer see any reason to feel any discomfort or aversion towards lgbts given my views, but everyone is entitled to their own pet peeves.

some animals eat their young, this is normal and occurs in nature, why don't we consider that normal in humans as well? Disease occurs in nature, shouldn't we cure it? Please provide proof that homosexuality is indeed normal, say genetic or prenatally determined. If you can't then you are also guilty of believing opinions, making their opinions similar to myths and superstitions as well.

Unless, people can form wiser/more informed arguments than statements like
"Its now accepted by many all over the world, that's progress" then it would suffice to argue that people just let people live the lives they want to lead. If society affords people to live as they choose then that's progress. But believing scientific half-truths and preaching them as whole truths is religious. Condemning people for not believing in those half-truths is, well, bigotry. Society has already afforded the right to free religion centuries ago.

[lolwat]

i'm what you would call a straight ally. it wasn't meant solely for you wiz, it's just that many seem to expect that supporting lgbt rights automatically means one was gay as well. you guys have fun here.

[guitarwiz02]

Nice share guitarwiz, you have my little respect. 

Little respect is better than not having respect at all. So yah! Apir!