| Author |
|
Juan Jose Colin Arciniega
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6413
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 10:46am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I have a perfect booklet by a theologian of the Episcopal Church about Bible and Homosexuality...do you want me to share it with you?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14911
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 11:11am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| This I have to disagree with, with respect. My understanding of the subject is that people are more likely to molest children if they themselves had been molested as a child -- implying a learned behavior -- but if you watch the news, it seems that the most common aggressor tends to be a boyfriend, step-father, or, in some cases, distant relative. It's rarely the father or mother, unless they themselves were molested as children. |
|
|
Nope. Most sex offenders were not abused as children, and most abusees do not become sex offenders. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf
QUOTE:
| It sort of goes back to the concept that environment plays a dramatically more important role than genetics in a person's mentality and behaviors, which seems to be pretty heavily supported academically. |
|
|
What are you talking about? The prevailing paradigm when I was in school was that both sides in the nature vs nurture debate were partially right. We are predisposed to behaviors either genetically or biologically, and environment played a factor on whether those behaviors would manifest.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Benson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 January 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 844
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 11:12am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Given that most God Hates Fags types aren't protesting outside Red Lobster with the same fervor seen in their raging against homosexuality (see Leviticus for the condemnation of shellfish as an abomination), my assumption is that the bible is more often used as a crutch for bigots who don't have the courage of their convictions. I always get a laugh out of this: http://www.stallman.org/dr-laura.html Put a neighbor to death because he refuses to observe the Sabbath? Priceless.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kurtis J. Evans
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 June 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 11:27am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Mike says:Nope. Most sex offenders were not abused as children, and most abusees do not become sex offenders. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf Reading that document, I see a lot of inconclusive statements -- ie., "results inconclusive," -- but it makes for some interesting reading. I would agree, without even having to read the document, that the majority of people who were abused as children do not go on to become abusers (although they often seem to face their own hellish gauntlet of psychological scarring). I also didn't see anything in the report that contradicts my assertion that an abusive adult is more likely to be a non-parent. What are you talking about? The prevailing paradigm when I was in school was that both sides in the nature vs nurture debate were partially right. We are predisposed to behaviors either genetically or biologically, and environment played a factor on whether those behaviors would manifest. Guess I could be misunderstanding you, or perhaps you misunderstood me, but I think we pretty much voiced the same opinion. I just stated it a little too emphatically. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12963
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 11:32am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
As for the NT citations of St Paul's epistoles, which are often mentioned in such discussions, I must admit I was more than a bit surprised to discover at least two sites run by homosexuals where they made the case that St. Paul DIDN'T attack homosexuals.
***
I knew that "arsenokoitai" (loosely translated as those who lay with a man as if in a marital bed) seems to have been coined for the NT and is not found in older literature, but (if one of these sites is correct) I was surprised that it is absent from so many of the writings of the Church Fathers.
(Heard a whole lot of "re malaka!" [something like "hey fag!" -- makes me shudder abashedly now] thrown about when I was growing up, so "malakos" probably has had a consistent connotation if not denotation from pre-Christian to modern times.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 11:39am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Jose wrote:
| I have a perfect booklet by a theologian of the Episcopal Church about Bible and Homosexuality...do you want me to share it with you? |
|
|
Please do.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12963
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 11:43am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Gotta read that (and everything else!) with Mark 9:7.•• Ah, but Matthew 27:45-46! **** Yes. However, John 19:28-30.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Braun
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2009
Posts: 1064
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 12:27pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
"why do people hate homosexuality so much?"
---------------- I am jumping into this a little late and admit I haven't read every post, so forgive me if I am repeating any other posters views, but I have a hypothesis on this one -
Firstly, inregards to the original question - I am not gay, but I say bring on gay parenting/adopting/marriage/everything!!! I am for freedom and equality and I see plenty of heterosexual parents who aren't worthy of the position. Heterosexuality does not qualify someone to be a good parent by default. (I have always thought that people should need to have a license to breed if they need a license to drive! Which one is more responsibility? Why is it you have to prove you will be a good parent to adopt, but not to breed naturally?) There are many other reasons I support gay parenting and adopting that I won't go in to now, but the most important reason is that I support good people being good parents regardless of their sexual orientation.
As far as why people hate homosexuality so much -
I believe it is hatred of the feminine at its core. How many homophobes are not also misogynists? It is the femininity of the gay male that scares the crap out of the heterosexual misogynist male. After all, if women can have children and gay men and women can have children and adopt, what use is there for the hetero male? Our days have always been numbered and I think we know it deep down inside. Unless we get our shiz together and stop hating the feminine we will become extinct. Some day women will read in school about the time when there were two sexes. Usually I feel like the world would be better off, to be honest.
Part of the problem as I see it is that we have ceased to let go of gender roles and labeling certain characteristics as masculine vs. feminine. There was a time when we needed to divide tasks between the sexes to survive, but we don't need that now. If a heterosexual male can be gentle and nurturing, and they can, then those are not inherently feminine characteristics. I have very long hair and I have a very girly 8 year old niece. She is always saying I have "girl hair" and that I should cut it off. Did she pop out of the womb thinking things like that? I doubt it. It is learned social behavior. So I say - stop hating the feminine and the hatred of homosexuality will follow. Just a hypothesis. Just a thought - I think it is interesting that the frat boys who scream "Faggot!!!" at guys with long hair are the same frat boys who worship the likes of David Lee Roth and Eddie Van Halen.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 12:44pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I believe it is hatred of the feminine at its core. How many homophobes are not also misogynists? It is the femininity of the gay male that scares the crap out of the heterosexual misogynist male. After all, if women can have children and gay men and women can have children and adopt, what use is there for the hetero male?
---
Having read a book or two about the origins of misogyny, and the male dominance of women through the ages... I think you honestly might be on to something with that. It's not about family - it's about the family with the man as head of the household, with the wife in a subservient role. Everyone has their proper place, and gays confuse that proper place when it comes to gender roles, so let's hate gay people.
That's a pretty convincing viewpoint, Dave. Excellent idea!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Thanos Kollias
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2004
Location: Greece
Posts: 5009
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 1:01pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Michael, "malakas" is definitely not the equivalent of fag!!! It's "asshole".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Dave Braun
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2009
Posts: 1064
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 1:49pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Thank you, Brad. I think what you added about the household with the man at the head is an excellent point and also helps to explain why so many women are anti-gay as well. Women have been socialized to believe they are subservient, therefore liberated women and gays are a threat to their addiction to the status quo. I think religious beliefs are a huge part of the socialization that is damaging gender and gay-straight relations as well, as people have already discussed here. Problem with religion is - you can't really argue with Crazy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12963
|
| Posted: 16 July 2010 at 4:28pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Michael, "malakas" is definitely not the equivalent of fag!!! It's "asshole".
***
Yes, yes, you're correct and I didn't express myself well. I meant initially that Paul's use reflected one ancient mean that related to a soft, yielding effeminacy that could be expressive of passive homosexual behavior. In terms of the modern usage, there are some variations. Americans might translate it as "jerk off" and Brits as a "wanker." I've heard people use the word as relating not to a homosexual (poustis) but as in a colloquial way somebody might call a buddy a "fag." This could be a Greek-American thing or maybe in some parts of Greece, I just don't know for sure.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
