JaronK

Perhaps. I also have to wonder if it was a reaction to other cultures in the area, or simply considered unclean. After all, the same laws that say men can't sleep together also say you can't have different types of clothes or eat rabbit, and carry the same penalties.

Part of why I started this thread, though, was that the "man shall not lie with another man" bit is outdated, and should be ignored for the same reason that that wearing two different fabrics is ignored (that's the same section, with the same penalty). I was wondering what else there was, because all I knew of was Paul's "no sex for fun" bit and David/Jonathan.

JaronK

storytime

Well, for example, in the case of rape, the condemnation of force on women served to promote non-violence. In the case of incest the condemnation for that offense was due to inheritance factors. Who would inherit what and by what right of tribal relative[kinsmen]name did he/she claim it.

The scripture makes the point that Israelites were not chosen because they were more righteous than other non Israelite people, but that they were chosen because they were "in their blood". Whatever that means. Maybe they were killing each other and why they were given laws for civility among themselves. Remember, the laws of Moses was not intended for any other people. "Thou shalt not kill" holds its meaning in the Israelite community of tribes; Israelites were commanded not to kill each other. However, it was permitted for Israelites to kill other non-Israelite people, thus God commanded them to kill without pity and spare none in the land of Canaan.

Remembering also that the Hebrew god was not the god of other people as other people already had their own gods, customs and traditions, but Yahweh recognized other peoples gods and told the Israelites not to worship them. Homosexuality was practiced throughout other countries but for Israel it was condemned.

spamandham

Everyone dies, whether straight or gay. Being straight doesn't prevent death, so this is certainly not an existential issue.

spamandham

Since Moses never existed, it's doubtful the strict laws he's credited with passing down were ever actually enforced to the degree stated. But they make nice stories to scare the hell out of people with.

IamJoseph

Source please?

My research says there is more evidence fr Moses than JC. Yes/no?

IamJoseph

Sure. But everyone does not reproduce. Therein is the rub. :wave:

JaronK

Luckily, species can survive just fine without everyone reproducing. See, for example, bees, where 99% of the population doesn't reproduce. Or see humanity. Or, well, every other species, simply due to things like dying before hitting the appropriate age.

There are indeed evolutionary benefits to bisexuality (nice for making alliances, for example). Plus, do you actually have any evidence for how much homosexuals reproduce compared to bisexuals and heterosexuals? You seem to be under the mistaken belief that homosexuality implies not wanting children, when those two things are in fact pretty much unrelated.

JaronK

IamJoseph

My response is not an anti-gay one. I believe in gay rights - I don't believe in equal gay rights in all areas - the latter is not good for gays. There is no question gay has been around throughout all geo-history, and no question 'equal' is not equal here. gay is special - different, and need specialised and differenciated laws and forebearence for their protection and rights.

Toto

What is your research based on?

There is one archeological monument that may refer to David, and no archeological evidence for Jesus. But there is more literary evidence, from a later time, for Jesus.

JaronK

Sure. Lemme rephrase that for you, okay?

My response is not an anti-negro one. I believe in african american rights - I don't believe in equal african american rights in all areas - the latter is not good for african americans.

My response is not an anti-jew one. I believe in jewish rights - I don't believe in equal jewish rights in all areas - the latter is not good for jews.

And so on. Interestingly enough, that's pretty much exactly how the white supremacists used to say it actually. You've just swapped who you're biased against. You've used fake facts (like your 80% nonsense, which is clearly false) then claimed that your facts can't be debated, then you come back with how you're not homophobic, and you totally believe in gay rights... except that giving them equal rights is not "good for gays" because evidently you know what's good for gay people and gay people don't (a rather clear admission that you feel yourself superior to them). Perhaps you don't realize how pathetically bigoted you sound right now.

So let me ask you this:

What is the harm to society in allowing gays to, for example, marry as David and Jonathan seem to have done, especially since we have many examples of them wanted to raise children or take care of each other when one is sick? Two lesbian friends of mine, for example, got married during the momentary window when they were allowed to in CA. They were both in their 60s... well beyond reproduction age even if they were sleeping with the opposite gender. Why, exactly, is it not "good for" them to allow them the right to do that? Why exactly do you feel they should be denied the same rights a 60 year old straight couple should have?

JaronK