Here’s a clip about “Rainbow Christians,” a gay Christian dating website.
(via)
Gay Christian Dating Service
March 31, 2009 By 90 Comments
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[...] there’s this guy Justin Cannon, who set up a Christian dating site … for gays. They call themselves, ‘Rainbow Christians’. Why do these people go through such odd [...]
Why?
Why would they want to be Xians?
A few months ago I was watching the Russ Kemp series on gangs around the world. In Russia he meets a group of Russian skin heads who idolize Hitler and the Nazis. Do these morons really not know what the Germans thought of Slavs during WW2?
Gays wanting to be Xians makes about as much sense.
You can’t delete all the anti-gay stuff in the bible. People have tried to spin them into meaning something else, but it’s an exercise in futility.
Oh well, it’s a free country.
“You can’t delete all the anti-gay stuff in the bible. People have tried to spin them into meaning something else, but it’s an exercise in futility.”
I’m certainly no biblical scholar, but isn’t it true that an explicit condemnation of (male) homosexuality only occurs once in the bible? I remember reading once that the famous scene from Sodom where the Sodomites what to ‘know’ the angels is the only one of two times out of hundreds where the Hebrew word for ‘know’ is used in the sexual way?
If these things are true, it could be easy for a gay to be an Xtian. Provided he wants to believe in a twisty, contradictory set of myths that are less complete and compelling than, say, the Egyptian Pantheon.
(also, Russian skinheads? What’s next? Black KKK members?)
In the Genesis 19 account of the story of Sodom — really a story about Lot and his family — there is no mention of the specific “sin” of Sodom and so it does NOT mention “homosexuality”. It says “all the people to the last man” came out to where the visitors were staying so they could “know” them. Now, if these visitors were human, and IF the accusation is “homosexuality”, then the women of the city (remember it says all the *people*) were merely guilty of lust. If the visitors were angels, what kind of sex perversion do you call that? We know from Ezekiel 16:49 what the sin of Sodom was and it was “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
Actually, if you read the King James version of the Bible you will NOT find “homosexuality” mentioned anywhere in the Old or New Testament. Mentions of the word in modern translations come from the dented modern lens through which some translators view the texts in ancient Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.
Besides, there is a very sizable group of mainline Christians who do not take the Bible literally whose faith is based on trust, loyalty and positive values rather than belief without question. Included in that group are many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, intersexed, two-spirited, questioning and queer people.
Paul speaks against male homosexuality in the NT so its at least twice in the Bible.
By many measures, Jesus is a stand up guy. So if people want to hold on to Jesus while taking the Bible as a mythical and/or historical record rather than an infallible document, bully on them. Despite the many assertions, the Bible Bunch does not own Jesus.
Paul doesn’t actually say anything about homosexuality. He does say that men and women should not do what is unnatural. To a heterosexual, acting like you’re gay is not natural. Romans 1:26-27
Metropolitan Community Churches are gay affirming. I find their interpretation of scripture interesting (Jesus said some were born gay, Jesus affirmed a gay couple, the early church baptized a gay man, etc.) The fundies say they are misinterpreting scripture, but their rebuttals lack substance. Here’s the MCC interpretations: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/scripture/
what i wonder is why the only representative of “traditional” christians they could find was fred phelps. the only thing phelps has going for him is that he is exactly the opposite of the gay christians. surely they could find someone who represents “mainstream” christianity a bit better than this extremist… 8/
@ przxggl: Wow! You are right. Why didn’t they have the Baptist Peace Fellowship or the Alliance of Baptists on there because they affirm gay and lesbian relationships and full participation of gays and lesbians in church life? Fred Phelps is an embarrassment to the name “Baptist”.
I just can’t fathom how an individual rips so many parts out of the bible out and follows the few they enjoy. Just flush the whole thing, sheeesh!
As someone relatively new to a secular lifestyle, I’m so fascinating with it that I’m constantly reading books, listen to podcasts, reading blogs and occasionally writing on my blog about Religion, Atheism etc. But holy shit is it becoming exhausting.
We have friends that are Episcopal and I thought it was cool that they were so inclusive to have gay clergy until I realized how weird it was for a homosexual to want to have anything to do with a Biblical religion.
I guess the more you examine religion, the stranger it seems and the stranger its members seem.
I need a new hobby.
Did anyone check out the comments at the site where Daniel found this vid?
Here’s a good one:
It’s pretty sad when a fellow human being doesn’t realize that their former gay friend doesn’t hate being gay because God hates them, it’s because of asshole bigots like him that make them feel like less of a person.
I found some more gems:
I would like to see a poll done to find out what percentage of X-tians believe being gay is a choice, compared to what atheists think.
To me, only an intolerant person who takes offense to what other people do in their private lives would think that someone is choosing to be discriminated against as if just to piss them off.
What good are polls, though? I would agree with your log jam in your eye so you pick at the sliver in someone else’s eye statement.
I got really upset the other night when my boyfriend and I had a heated discussion about homosexuality. He (unsurprisingly( doesn’t have any problem with lesbians or bisexual women like myself, but thinks that all male gay relationships must be perverse and sexually unhealthy!? He’s not religious at all, and even has a couple of gay friends, but I can’t dissuade him of this view of male homosexuals… He can’t imagine two men being in a healthy and loving relationship.
He also adamantly maintains that homosexuality is a product of a child’s upbringing and environment, or a subconscious way for a child to rebel against their parents. Also that it is against nature and is not how humans should act, because it does not contribute to evolution.
I don’t know enough about the subject and I don’t know what would convince him! I know homosexuality has been observed in nature in a number of animal species, but not much else. Can anyone give me some good information for me to pass on to him and give him something to think about?
Can you ask him when he chose to be heterosexual and why?
Well, beyond the whole “many other species do it”, including humans’ closest living relatives, there are some decent hypotheses out there for how homosexuality could be evolutionarily advantageous in a population.
In social creatures (such as humans), it always pays the group to have a few members unencumbered by children, not least of which in order to provide a “backup” parent surrogate in the event of the incapacity of the biological parents. Also, such members would provide resources to children who share genetic material with them (i.e. the “gay uncle”) thus increasing the competitive fitness of those genes even though they did not directly participate in their reproduction. Homosexual group members are less likely to be encumbered by children.
Many genetic traits, including presumably those which determine sex drive, sexual attractiveness, and fecundity express differently depending upon the possessor’s gender. It is plausible that the genes which cause a woman who possesses them to be excessively fertile, comely, or horny (and thus more likely to produce offspring) cause homosexuality when present in men. So long as the added fecundity adds more to the population than the homosexuality takes away, it is on balance a good gene complex for a species to have.
—–
Of course, all of these arguments apply to lesbians too, and at the risk of being insensitive (to your boyfriend), perhaps what motivates him is not a problem with homosexuality per se and more an irrational phobia of male penetration. Or maybe he was just screwing with you. People come up with all sorts of confabulated “reasons” to conceal (often even from themselves) the reasons why they hold certain beliefs and attitudes; it’s a psychological coping mechanism.
Please forgive the length of this reply.
Does your boyfriend not see the double standard in his acceptance of female homosexuality vs his rejection of male homosexuality?
What does he mean by a) perverse and b) unhealthy? Isn’t this just a coded excuse for suspicion and hatred towards (male) gays?
If it is against nature, why do so many species besides our own exhibit homosexual behaviour – wouldn’t that behaviour have died out by now per natural selection if it were detrimental to the furtherance of the species?
Per Wikipedia#Homosexuality, The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that “sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. See also http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_scientific_explanation_for_homosexual_behavior
It seems that it is not yet known absolutely what causes homosexuality, but it is thought to be a number of factors, one of which is genetic, and yes, it is thought that environment and upbringing may play a part. But so what? We are not saying here that a child’s parents/siblings/whoever “made” him homosexual, nor, as some fundies like to suggest, that the child was molested.
There is more (…shades of John C!) material – google for “Homosexuality causes” for starters.
“It is not how humans should act”. Ah. A bad attack of the shoulds. Says who? Who is your boyfriend to decree what two men are allowed to do in private?
I don’t know what would convince him either, Karleigh. Speculating, I wonder whether he feels threatened in some way by the idea of gayness or gay men. Maybe he worries he might be, or could “catch” the gayness. At the end of the day, I guess it’s impossible to convince someone if they’re not up for being convinced, so you may be unsuccessful in that endeavour, but you can at least let him know you’re not prepared to hear any bigotry or double-standards from him.
Very best of luck!
Yeah, homosexuality is definitely a choice and gays want to spread their dangerous lifestyle to all Creation: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970
(Sorry, I just wanted SO much to cite TheOnion…. =)
Also, homosexuality has been documented in more than 500 species (wikipedia has a few references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals )
What we don’t see in nature instead is chastity, i.e. healthy and physically capable individuals refusing to engage in sex.
I really wonder what fundies speak about when they use the word ‘natural’.
Thanks for that – I just spat my coffee all over the screen! I love the blackboard photo – how many of these words did you spot, children? I got ‘fisting’ and ‘diesel dyke’…
You know what? I LOVE BEING IN EUROPE. Seriously. Especially here in Britain – Christianity is considered to be mostly bullshit, and homosexuality is considered to be just a part of some people’s lives. No offence America, but fuck your Christian Right Republicans, I’m IMMENSELY glad that 95% of them don’t have passports!
I just finished watching the rainbow christian vid. I can totally relate to how those people feel. I mean , I’m straight, and I’m a genuine Christian, but I actually understand. It’s a subject that I hold to be very personal because one of my best friends is going through that same battle. The pain she goes through is so unbelievable. Her parents have rejected her, her father now abuses her verbally and relentlessely, and her mother supports what he does. She has had so much confusion and has totally abandoned her belief in God. Why? Because she thinks that God doesn’t love her. There have been so many things that have happened in her life that she has no control over, that she does’t thing God cares about her at all; she thinks we’re all just His puppets.
Seeing her go through this has made me realize how selfish, hypocritical, hateful, self-righteous, idiotic, and just plain cruel professed “Christians” can be. IT’S ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!!! True Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a lifestyle. It’s based purely on the Bible and God’s love. What kind of sick twisted “Christian” would tell ANYONE that God doesn’t love them? God loves ALL people NO MATTER WHAT. If that weren’t true, then my entire life would be based on the biggest lie in the history of the universe. But, It’s not. Thank God for that. Literally.
There isn’t a commandment that says “Thou shall not be gay”. But there are places in the bible that claim that assocciate gays with other sinful people, such as this one I stumbled across recently in my reading: –8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God –1 Corinthians 6:8-10–
Does this not suggest, if the person is an actual Christian that believes the bible, they would know that being gay is wrong? “Gay Christianity” is just another form of hypocrisy. The point is, all sin is the same in God’s eyes (can’t think of the exact scriptures to quote atm) . He made the ten commandments out of His love for us. One sin is just as bad as the next. Telling a lie or being gay, in God’s eyes, is just as bad as cheating on your spouse (adultery), hating someone, the Hollocaust, or rape. Why? Because it all goes against the one and only thing God stands for: LOVE.
God sent Jesus, His only son, to die for us(I’m sure you all know the story) so that ALL people could be saved. He wouldn’t have done that if He didn’t love every single one of us exactly the same. He promised to forgive and forget. And that’s exactly what he does.
So, basically, any “Christian” teen guy that lost his virginity to a girl before marriage is exactly on the same level as the “Christian” teen guy who lost his virginity to another guy. They both commited adultery. The only difference is that one of them commited adultery in two different ways, if you get my drift.
Like I said, true Christianity is based on the Bible and God’s love. Anything else is man made. Aka religion. It’s making your own god in your own image, which is idolatry, which is yet another sin. So yeah, just because someone says they’re a Christian, doesn’t mean they’re a Christian. No real Christian is gay or ridicules gay people. Because not one person is better than another person nor will there ever be. We’ve all sinned.
The word “homosexual” does not appear in the Bible except in some modern translations. This is a mistranslation of a greek term “arsenokoitai” that means an adult man who has sex with male children. Therein lies the confusion which incorrectly associates gays with pedophiles.
homosexuals are only forbidden to have sexual relations according to the bible but they are allowed to have relationships
Cite your reference, thanks.
The same reason any sin is condemned in the Bible. God said so. Lol. When Adam ate the fruit, he basically cursed all of mankind, and everyone after him was sinful by nature. Hence, all of mankind is sinful by nature. You can blame it on him if you like.
Explain the shellfish comparison. Lol.
Nope. It’s defineltely not a coincidence. I’d forgotten about the description of acceptable meats. Mostly, just Jewish followers do this. Aka, it’s kosher. I guess all those farmers who grow corn next to their tomatoes are in trouble, because it also says you shall not sow your field with mingled seed. Hmm… Something tells me I should read Leviticus again. I’m thinking that maybe if I read it in its complete context, I’d understand why I don’t feel convicted when I eat crab salad.
I think that it is a very interesting and amusing article. Practically all its main points are true.
LOL, I’ve to say the on the internet dating or electronic dating has come a very long way since the days of easy chat rooms. A lot more and more individuals are turning to on the internet dating websites to display possible dates.
“Gays wanting to be Xians makes about as much sense.”
Spend an hour talking to a YEC, you’ll realize with enough stupidity anything is possible.
There IS no “anti-gay stuff” in the Bible, that’s the point. The only place homosexual sex is mentioned is in Leviticus, and it is mentioned there because at that time in history, God (if you believe in God) wanted the Jews to repopulate. Homosexual sex obviously wasn’t going to achieve that goal, so it was forbidden. Nowhere else to my knowledge — and please correct me if I am wrong, I’m not against being corrected if it is warranted — is homosexuality even mentioned, and it is not condemned certainly.
The distinction that these types make is that the Bible is not talking about gays in committed relationships but gays working as temple prostitutes, “fornicators”, etc. It looks to be a theologically arbitrary distinction but so is a lot of other Bible talk. Christians are very good at re-inventing their belief systems over time. It’s probably, on balance, a good thing.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but my progression from coming out/abandoning Christianity was somewhat asymmetrical: I came out first, but couldn’t reconcile my sexual orientation with the religious brainwashing I had received for my entire life.
I was “born again”(again!) and ran so far into the closet, I was in frickin’ Narnia chillin’ with Mr. Tumnus.
I came back out, abandoned the crazy fundie church, but still retained a belief in the invisible sky friend. I moved to Atlanta, and started going to gay-friendly churches. The messages at these churches was, essentially, “God loves you.” Not much else. I was able to eventually discard about 90% of the Bible, craft a weak theology that had, at its core, a very nebulous conception of a “God” who didn’t care about sexual orientation.
After a few years, I quit going to church, because it bored the hell out of me. And I liked having Sundays free of any kind of religious drivel. I eventually realized that the whole thing was utterly absurd, there wasn’t any reliable, logical evidence for the existence of God, Satan, or anything in between, and abandoned theism.
The gays who remain within the church try hard to reconcile their sexual orientation with what Christianity says–up to and including a reinterpretation of biblical texts and revising “God’s” divine attributes. It can take quite a bit of mental gymnastics, but hey. It works for them, I suppose.
gay black jewish klansmen for tolerance and understanding
Exactly. The way of the modern Christian is to claim everything evil in the Bible is not factual, but an allegorical story. Unless it fits your agenda. Then it is to be read as factual historical teaching. Christianity is nothing more than a political party that wears robes instead of suits.
(also, Russian skinheads? What’s next? Black KKK members?)
A Jew in the SS
Ah! That is insane. Are they also the Spongebob fans?
haaahahahahaaahahaha!!!!
hahaha me too
I don’t think it’s weird at all. Personally, as an ex-christian I think christianity’s a load of tosh, but I can also understand why people in general are drawn to it. If a certain percentage – x% – of people are christian, why shouldn’t that same percentage of gay people be christian? The only reason I can see why not, is if they get chased away by the agressively intolerant component. Even then, the gay christians still want to be christian – it’s just they’re being prevented or discouraged.
Guess what on that list hurts no one but the so-called ‘offender.’ Yes that’s right, homosexuality.
I guess there’s lusting, but I’m not convinced that can’t be divided into manifest perversion, which hurts other people, and horniness, which is quite nice.
“I would like to see a poll done to find out what percentage of X-tians believe being gay is a choice, compared to what atheists think.”
It’s interesting how people can compartmentalise their views on this subject. For example, my mother worked with mentally handicapped people, some of whom were gay. My father just about accepted that homosexuals exist and that their sexuality wasn’t a lifestyle choice, but could *never* get his head around the fact that some mentally handicapped people are gay.
He managed to hold these two contradicting views simultaneously for decades without any apparent discomfort.
It’s one of the sins mentioned by Paul.
So, yes, reiterated and re-condemned.
The more important question is: who gives a rat’s ass what a bunch of bronze age shepherds thought about anything? The fact that a first century pharisee agree with them is hardly more compelling.
Paul also condemns (at least some form) of lesbianism in his beginning arguments in Romans. The story of Sodom has homosexual implications but doesn’t seem to be the sin that caused it’s destruction (rather it was the forced nature of the desired sex acts that pointed out ‘inhospitality to strangers’). David’s love for Jonathan that that was closer than the love of brothers is probably a poorly scrubbed sexual comment. When Jesus remarks about the extraordinary faith of the Roman centurion, he isn’t put off by the fact that the centurion’s request is to heal his ‘body slave’. And, some speculate that Paul’s thorn in the flesh is homophobia which would explain much about Paul’s character.
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God –1 Corinthians 6:8-10–
Yes, that kind of testimony winds me up. Who is the poster to claim of his friends “deep down they knew their behaviour was not normal”? I suspect – as you do -his friends would tell a different story.
When I was a xian there was a woman at our church who was lesbian, or as the housegroup leaders said, “she was in a wrong relationship”. They did their darndest to convert her to celibate heterosexuality (she had already converted to christianity) and would pray publically in services for her to one day meet the right xian man and be able to marry him and have babies “to the glory of the lord”. There was no confidentiality, and everyone knew the woman’s business, ostensibly under the guise of the prayer tree. Read: Juicy gossip.
The woman committed suicide a little while later.
Hm…. I’d be willing to bet that this person’s reason for claiming these friends hated being gay was that they used drugs and alcohol, not that they actually *said* they hated it…
I’ve seen this kind of ‘reasoning’ applied to atheists as well. We *must* hate being atheists because after all we punish ourselves by failing to bask in god’s holy light. Why would anyone punish themselves like that unless they know in their hearts that they are doing wrong?
If christians can convince themselves that reasoning like this makes sense, should we really be surprised that some homosexuals can rationalise being christians?
How about manifest horniness? ;-)
I thought The West Wing covered this pretty well, though they did the Gay and Republican instead of Gay and Christian thing. They had a walk-on character who was a Republican congressman who was gay, and he pointed out that on all of his political beliefs that mattered to *him*, he agreed with Republicans. Being gay was simply one aspect amongst many of who he was, and so while the group he belongs to is hostile to that part of who he is, they are welcoming of other parts and he feels he belongs with them.
And since most Christian denominations believe in the general fungibility of sin (homosexuality is no better or worse than cheating on your taxes or having naughty thoughts about a TV character), and they also generally believe in the depravity of man (and thus the inescapability of sinful acts) it isn’t so crazy for gay people to be Christian, any more that it is crazy for a tax cheater or a person with an active sex imagination to be a Christian.
Your point is good, if it is the case that there is a belief in the general fungibility of sin, But I’m not sure it is the case—there’s a lot of lip-service to treating one sin like another, but in reality sinfulness is often organized hierarchically, and many xtians place homosexuality at the top of the ‘bad’ list (at least the ones I knew).
I think also that the difference is that someone isn’t born a tax cheater–but I don’t believe most of us get a huge choice about our sexuality.
It still brings me back to the question as to why any self-respecting gay person would want anything to do with Christianity, unless it’s like still needing the affection of the father that kicked you out of home for being gay, with the words, ‘and don’t come back you disgusting faggot, you’re no son of mine’.
David’s love for Jonathan that that was closer than the love of brothers is probably a poorly scrubbed sexual comment.
Speaking of which, has anyone in these parts been watching Kings? I’m strangely fascinated by it.
“And, some speculate that Paul’s thorn in the flesh is homophobia which would explain much about Paul’s character.”
Speculation based on what, exactly?
When I was doing the Christ thang, everyone I read seemed to agree that his thorn was the apparent problem with his eyesight that shows up in several places in his letter.
I think also that the difference is that someone isn’t born a tax cheater–but I don’t believe most of us get a huge choice about our sexuality.
I’m not so sure about that (the first part, not the second). Social transgression of property I bet has a hard-wired component to some extent, even if it isn’t as deeply rooted as sexuality. MAO-A mutants, etc..
But I’m not sure it is the case—there’s a lot of lip-service to treating one sin like another, but in reality sinfulness is often organized hierarchically, and many xtians place homosexuality at the top of the ‘bad’ list (at least the ones I knew).
I definitely agree that the theory doesn’t much stack up with the practice for a lot of Christians, but I chalk that up to humans being generally clumsy at instantiating ideas as actions. Many psychological traps stand in the way, like the desire to confirm internal prejudices, or prevent a reorientation of one’s world-view.
Speculation by some pro gay writers based on Paul’s apparent sublimation and asceticism. If I remember correctly, there is no direct tie between Paul’s comments on his thorn in the flesh and his eye-sight. That is brought together by commentators I believe.
No, there’s no direct connection. But then, there’s no direct connection between this ‘thorn’ and anything.
The eyesight thing is at least something that is supported by the text, though. As in, mentioned as a physical problem he has.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t care one way or the other. I was just curious about how big a leap one has to make to get the ‘homophobia as thorn’ thing.
It would seem to be a pretty enormous leap.
John Shelby Spong made a big deal out of this whole “Paul is a closeted gay man” thing. (surprised?)
It was based on several snippets from Paul that seem to cast him as a self-loathing. Can’t remember the exact quotes now, but things having to do with the flesh and with one’s members. If you just give in a glance, it makes sense. If you think about it, it becomes more dubious.
Agreed on the comments about Paul being gay as dubious.
What a terrible story!
Let me guess, everyone decided it was because she was living an immoral life that she decided to end it. Nothing, of course, to do with the way they treated her.
It’s interesting to me how the people of that church that acted in such a manner toward her did so because they supposedly had her welfare in mind and wanted to help her for her sake, yet when I read that story, I have the urge to “save” her from that church because I believe those people are more damaging to her life than who she chooses to love.
You got it in one. Strangely, a year or so later there was a church member, a guy who killed himself with a shotgun, supposedly because he had got ‘mixed-up in’ the Bahá’í faith – ‘which of course, is Satanic’ – nothing to do with other problems he might have been having in his life or the ‘help’ he might have received or not received from his so-called friends at church. I don’t think he was gay; I mention him because seriously, that church did not have a good track record for pastoral care.
My all-time favorite: the x-ian nudists.
I’m liking Kings at this point, but I don’t think they’re going to have David and Jack “fall in love” with each other. Darn.
I dunno. They’ve been pretty ballsy so far, especially running with the “Jack is gay” thing. I don’t think it will be a flat out sexual relationship, but one of close friendship with homoerotic overtones.
“I was “born again”(again!) and ran so far into the closet, I was in frickin’ Narnia chillin’ with Mr. Tumnus.”
Awesomest Comment of the Day.
;)
“I was “born again”(again!) and ran so far into the closet, I was in frickin’ Narnia chillin’ with Mr. Tumnus. ”
I find this to be a very interesting comment since fawns and other half-man half-beast creatures tend to represent latent human desire (especially sexual) in art. Although I am not sure if that is the case with Mr. Tumnus. It has been quite a while since I have read [i]The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe[/i]. Either way I second LRA. Comment win.
Read through this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
That should help!
To be honest, I also have a hard time to understand why a man would love another man but that does not mean that it canot be true and that there is some hidden conspiracy behind it.
The reason why it is hard for me is that I have no refrence to compare to my own life since I am one of those guys that is 100% hetro. I have no male friends, I have no need of male friends, but I do work with male people. I have tons of female friends, including bisexual females, so for me this seems very natural since I have a reference that you can love other females.
I really don’t mind if you are gay or not, just don’t try to seduce me.
The same is tru if you are religious, I don’t mind at all, just don’t try to convert me, don’t flood me with these bible quotes and don’t expect me to adapt my behaviour to your believe. If you get upset because I use some language that might upset your believe, then I expect you to leave me and go somewhere else…
A year ago I was on a course and when we were in a restaurant this one guy asked to be silent for one minute and started praying loudly. Big supprise for me since I never ever had someone on my table that started praying. So wierd. I didn’t realize that people like him also existed in Europe.
Dammit, I did it again! I need to hit the “reply” button, damn it!
Your second point seems more plausible than the first, which smacks of group selectionism. Another way to think about this is in terms of tendencies.
Most people have tendencies (very likely as a result of both genetic and environmental factors) to be attracted to the physical traits of members of the opposite sex. Some people are attracted to members of the opposite sex with traits more commonly associated with the same sex. For example, I am male and attracted to tall and physically powerful women. Perhaps homosexuality is just a little further along the scale on this set of tendencies.
When we use labels like ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ we ignore the complexity that underlies it. Homosexually is unlikely to be a binary thing, is almost certainly not the product of a single gene and it isn’t necessarily an adaptation.
As for homosexuality being ‘natural’, I see no better argument than it’s how a large number of people quite obviously are. I don’t think we need to use evolutionary arguments or even arguments of comparison with other animals.
Of course it’s one of the sins mentioned by Paul – that was how he hid his own homosexuality
I ‘use’ alcohol, so that must mean I hate being gay.
Oh wait, I’m straight. What am I using this nasty alcohol for then?
You probably hate being an atheist :)
It’s to fill that “God-shaped hole” in your cold, dead heart. Accept Jesus into your life, and you won’t need that poison anymore!
Oh, and…April Fools!
… who cares anyway ? …
every religious sect of every flavour has their own interpretation which is *of course* the only true interpretation.
just reinforces what load of crap all religion is
Isn’t that just “masturbation”? Again, not hurting anybody else…unless you’re doing it in the middle of Times Square. Then it’s just gross. :-)
Thanks both. Now I understand where I’ve been going wrong, I’m off to get drunk on the holy spirit like the
eejitdelightfully funny guy in that other thread.And straight men never unknowingly hit on lesbians.
This is actually an offensive comparison. Religions are about conversion. Gay people are not trying to convert straight people to gayness, but homophobes use this meme as an excuse for many forms of discrimination.
Agreed.
Also:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
This coming from a guy living in a country that uses 1984 as an instruction manual. Wyoming may have more cows than people, but no American city has more *surveillance cameras* than people. That brilliant distinction goes to you limeys.
Sometimes, it just kills me that Orwell was British.
You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers. We have cameras, yes, and many people (including me) are uncomfortable with them, but the widely quoted figures for how many times a day we’re each caught on camera have been shown to be pure bullshit: a totally made-up statistic that everyone just quotes unthinkingly.
Besides, I have no idea what your comment has to do with custador’s. He/she was talking about homosexuality. I’m not sure where cameras come into it.
I have no idea either! Where on Earth are there more surveilance cameras than people? Other than Radio Shack on a slow day? Seriously, don’t read too much into Republican bullshit about how “socialist” Britain is. Btw, you do know that the USA is the only developed nation on the planet where enlightened Socialism is not considered to be a GOOD thing? It’s also the developed country with the worst education system – Coincidence? Maybe not.
Well, custador threw in a nasty “fuck your Christian Right Republicans, I’m IMMENSELY glad that 95% of them don’t have passports!” at the end, which is nothing less than a random dig about America. Now, I’ll put the mickey on America with the rest of ‘em, but glass houses etc.. There is a common attitude amongst the self-described “enlightened” democracies that America is somehow the red-headed step child of the democratic community, while many of them are busy stuffing brown people into tenements (France), surveilling the shit out of their own population (Britain), stifling free speech (Canada) and so forth.
the widely quoted figures for how many times a day we’re each caught on camera have been shown to be pure bullshit: a totally made-up statistic that everyone just quotes unthinkingly.
I didn’t quote a statistic about the number of times photographed per day. BBC says in 2006 there were 4.2 Million cameras in surveillance operation in Britain, the vast majority in metropolitan areas. That number has only gone up since.
No, I didn’t! I quite like America (and a lot of Americans, too). Having a pop at Christian-Right Republican fucktards is not the same as having a pop at America or Americans, because you’re not all Christian-Right Republican fucktards.
I would think that gay marriage would involve sex… But that’s just a guess. Who knows, maybe they just want to marry because they want to see how good they are at practicing celibacy.
Either way, it is still curious as to why homosexuality would be condemned by the Bible if it were part of the Creation?
But why is homosexuality a sin? There are lots of animals in nature that can be homosexual.
I’m not arguing (for now) with the concept of “sin”.
I’m arguing as to why that should apply to homosexuality, especially when Christians don’t apply the same prohibitions to eating shellfish or wearing clothes made out of two fabrics.
Well, Leviticus 11:10-12 clearly specify that they are an abomination.
Leviticus 18:22 says that homosexuality is also an abomination.
Yet people today ignore the prohibition against shellfish and not the one against homosexuality?
Why are these treated differently?
Leviticus 19:19 implies that if you wear a shirt that is cotton and polyester, it is an abomination.
Again, why do we not take this seriously, but we do take the prohibitions against homosexuality seriously?
Why the selective reading?
Is it a coincidence that what is emphasized matches up with most peoples’ preferences and aversions?
Would have been even funnier if it was lesbian black jewish klanswomyn for tolerance and understanding.
@ przxqgl: Would have been even funnier if it was lesbian black jewish klanswomyn for tolerance and understanding.
You mean kinda like this…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPjEjXyZ2vE
:P