Faith schools should say homosexuality is normal..

[daftpunk]

Why can't people just leave us alone

Ants don't all breed either and the reason I am mentioning that is that it mentions them as a good example of proper living in your bible.

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:"

Just because I believe that the bible is anti-homosexuality that does not make me a homophobe.

According to scripture - I'll quote it again

Romans 1.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men

It is natural for men an women to have sex. However according to the bible, and that's all I'm quoting here folks - kinda like the faith schools are allegedly doing - if men with men is not natural, it can only be one thing.

I was simply trying to correct a mispost. Leviticus is not the only place homosexuality is mentioned.

So the bible might be anti-homosexuality, but you, personally, have no problem with it at all, mistymoo, & think that on this particular issue the bible is wrong/not to be interpreted literally/to be understood in its cultural & historical context?

If I have problems with it, they are not what I intended to discus...

furious back pedalling there Misty, thats not all you said, not at all. You called daftpunk sensible for a start, showing your hand there....

you didnt answer either, what about all the other things the bible has a problem with?

Misty called Daftpunk "sensible" for not accepting that homosexuality was "normal".

She also said that it was a misrepresentation to say that the Biblical reference to homosexuality was in Leviticus. And she is correct to say so.

I'm an agnostic, so what the Bible says doesn't really come into it for me. Personally, I don't think it's "normal" either - in the sense of "typical". Which is not to say that I think it is unacceptable or wrong.

Surely the very fact that we are discussing whether or not it is "normal" suggests that it might not be?

Surely the very fact that we are discussing whether or not it is "normal" suggests that it might not be?

Not really. A hundred years ago or so, the discussion might have been as to whether women's brains could tolerate higher education and if they might be competent to vote. No doubt accompanied by selective biblical texts.

This one I think

Dear Dr Laura

Okaay.

That part of Romans concerns itself with Paul's criticisms of Christians in Rome who have returned to pagan practices for example, making idolatrous images of God, holding orgies as fertility ritual. I think, from memory, but I'll have to check this, that Paul actually says that God made the women have sex with women and the men have sex with men to prevent the fertility rituals [orgies] paying off fertility wise. Whatever the case, it is clear that Paul is condemning PROMISCUITY of both heterosexuals and homosexuals. If you take one quote out of its context and do not know what the rest of the passage says you are just serving your own bigotry and not really trying to understand the scriptures.

Genesis. Do you actually have any idea what Genesis says about Sodom and Gomorrah? Many translations of the verse you quote do not say the men wanted to 'have sex' with the angels, but only wanted to 'meet' them - interrogate them. The confusion stems from the original hebrew verb 'Ya

Sorry hit post too soon.

Genesis. Do you actually have any idea what Genesis says about Sodom and Gomorrah? Many translations of the verse you quote do not say the men wanted to 'have sex' with the angels, but only wanted to 'meet' them - interrogate them. The confusion stems from the original hebrew verb 'Yadha' - 'to know' which can mean 'to get acquainted with' as well as to know intimately . Lot was a stranger in the city and so were his friends. This is the only supposed reference to homosexuality. Indeed as Lot offered his daughters he must have assumed them men were heterosexual. Let's see what the other references to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible say about why it was destroyed:

Ezekiel 16:49 - 50, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride."

Hmm, not because they were all raving homosexuals then. Even if 'Yadha' meant 'to know intimately' in this context, then it is clear the crime would be rape, not consensual sex, and inhospitable behaviour. So the argument for using this passage of Genesis to justify bigoted beliefs is very, very, er, fragile.

And another thing, since when are we using normal to mean common, or for everyone, or in the majority? Using the arguments by the likes of DP and Mistymoo, one can say that redheads are abnormal, because the majority of us do not have red hair. Or that Australians are abnormal, since most people on earth aren't Australian.
Since it seems to be the case that a certain precentage of the human population has always been gay, then it is entirely normal for some people to be gay. Same as there has always been redheads, so it is normal for some people to have red hair. (But imagine the horror if everyone was ginger, where would be then?!*)

I said homosexuality was normal behaviour for homomsexuals...but it's not considered normal behaviour to most hetrosexuals.

Not sure why that upsets you so much....?

I was reading the Catholic Times yesterday, and in particular an article titled;

"Harman's hatred of faith threatens our freedom"

(It's about the equality Bill)....y'know I don't think most people have any idea what Labour are doing....

Christian charities are forced to accomodate homosexuals....but LGBT charities can restrict their services to LGBT people...

How is that fair..?

What a riduculous argument, why exactly would a heterosexual need support, counselling whatever from a gay organisation? I'm sure they would get it if they desired, but isn't that a bit like arguing that you're discriminating against men for not offering them smear tests?

Plus most christian charities don't need to be "forced to accomodate homonsexuals", unlike you, most christians and charities are fully accomodating anyway. That being the christian way, the commandment is "love one another as I have loved you" doesn't say, "except for the homos" does it?

The catholic adoption agency closed because they couldn't discriminate against homosexuals...placing children with homosexuals goes against everything catholics believe in...so they had to close.

That charity was for catholics, just like LGBT charities are for LGBT people.

I haven't got a problem with gay charities helping the gay community...I would never demand that they make changes to help catholic hetrosexuals....but they want bloody everything don't they...their own charities and mine.

It is hilarious. the Catholic church passively endorsed institutionalized paedophilia and child abuse for decades yet refused to allow children to have a chance of a normal life in a happy family home with gay parents. It would be hilarious if it weren't so horrific.

Troll.

ffs troll is too good for you

I do wonder why the apparent decree against homosexuality is generally singled out but not all the others. The shellfish, the wearing of two different types of cloth, stoning of blasphemers, stoning of them working on a sabbath, killing disrespectful children.
Either you are for ALL of them or none of them surely?

Hypocrisy - You claim to be a practising muslim but justify the clear cut forbidden. Without any hard evidence as well.

YOU obviously take some of your religion but discard the less palatable.

As for the others who believe in organised religions that condemn homosexuality..there is obviously a weakness in their belief/faith.

"I said homosexuality was normal behaviour for homomsexuals...but it's not considered normal behaviour to most hetrosexuals"

DP, It's not very clear what you mean by that. Since I am a heterosexual man it wouldn't be normal for ME to be homosexual, but then it wouldn't be normal for me to be a woman either.

If you just mean 'most heterosexuals don't believe it is normal for homosexuals to be homosexual' then (a) I'm not sure that's true in these more enlightened times and (b) they would be wrong to think that in the same way as if they thought it wasn't normal for birds to lay eggs.

Birds DO lay eggs. It's not subject to personal or religious preference. It's just how it works.

DP, I've so far sat on my hands to stop myself posting on this thread, but I have to say (and I know I'm not the only one) I find many of your statements and views highly offensive. you are in many ways a v funny and helpful poster, but your increasingly right wing bigotry seems to be running away with you.

you have the right to your own opinions, of course you do (although how well those rights would be protected by your chosen political party is in doubt - seperate issue) but you also have a duty to (as a member of mn) not post deliberately inflammatory statements that you MUST know from the response on this thread to name one will upset and insult other members. it is not acceptable to post attacks on groups of society to which you dont belong.