Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

BDBoop · May 31, 2011

You missed a word. "Ignorant." Or maybe "uninformed."

Jerry · May 31, 2011

BDBoop said:
You missed a word. "Ignorant." Or maybe "uninformed."

Oh, very true.

RamFel said:
Well, you're half right. I don't hate gays, but I feel I need to set the record straight. It's a shame you guys get [Ignorant and uninformed] when someone states an opposing view.

Yes, BDBoop's suggested change makes RamFel's statement more accurate.

Black Dog · May 31, 2011

Missed AB said:
Hating is not bad. Bad is to use power to punish those who's views you do not agree with...

"Fear leads to anger, Anger leads to hate, Hate leads to Suffering." - Yoda

Red is headed for the heterophobic dark side, lol.

Wake · May 31, 2011

RamFel has guts to speak his mind in the face of "political correctness".

Here comes a meaningless flurry of "bigot, hater, etc".

Black Dog · May 31, 2011

Wake said:
RamFel has guts to speak his mind in the face of "political correctness".

Here comes a meaningless flurry of "bigot, hater, etc".

Don't you know it.

Black Dog · May 31, 2011

BDBoop said:
You missed a word. "Ignorant." Or maybe "uninformed."

Already started.

CaptainCourtesy · May 31, 2011

RamFel said:
Hey, I'm not the one saying it's OK to be gay. Why don't you go after those "gay is OK" rumor spreaders?

You're right. You're not. Which is precisely why you are ill informed. Interesting that you haven't figured this out, yet.

CaptainCourtesy · May 31, 2011

RamFel said:
Well, you're half right. I don't hate gays, but I feel I need to set the record straight. It's a shame you guys get combative when someone states an opposing view.

I have no issue with an opposing view. I have issue with an ignorant view. That is all I see from you.

Now God didn't create Adam and Eve, then think to himself 'hmmm, something's missing", then snap his fingers, "I know! Gays! I'll create gays!"

Really? You know this, how?

Then proclaim to the gays, "go forth and find other men, to couple with them", as if he were thinking "go forth, but don't multiply"!

Hmmm... and God created those who were sterile because? Do you SEE how easy it is to refute absolutely everything you say?

Now, you know my view on why it's unnatural.

What we know is that you cannot even define the word, so your position and reasons are non-credible.

The procreation argument.

Already refuted in many ways, several times. Do you have anything else?

But let me put it another way. Let's look at it from another angle.

If homosexuality is natural, then no father should fear the possibility that their son will be gay. Yet fathers do!

Now this has got to be the STUPIDEST explanation that I have ever heard. Fathers are afraid that their son will get get a girl pregnant before marriage. According to your logic... I JUST PROVED THAT PROCREATION IS NOT NATURAL!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

When expectant couples talk about the baby that's coming, and talk about what they want (boy or girl), they don't say that they want a gay child. No, they want a normal healthy boy or girl. Are they guilty of hatred against gays?

You do realize that gender and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive... wait... you don't. Your statement would only be logical if parents said they wanted a heterosexual child. Boy/girl is not opposite from gay. You really know very little about basic human biology, don't you?

And if, as you claim, being gay is natural and normal, then I should be able to tell some dude that I think he's gay without getting my lights punched out, right? I mean, it's natural, right?

I stand corrected. THIS is the stupidest explanation that I have ever heard around homosexuality being normal/natural... two words that we KNOW you cannot define. But let's watch me destroy your idiotic argument. If you go up to just ONE guy, and say he's gay, and you don't get punched, you are wrong. So, if he's gay, you lose. And, if you go up to a guy and say he's a conservative, and you get punched, then... hey... wait... according to your logic... I JUST PROVED THAT CONSERVATISM IS ABNORMAL AND UNNATURAL. :lol:

So does that make the common person a hateful homophobe? No. They just don't really believe it's natural. They're just not really really believing!

Hateful homophobe. Perhaps, perhaps not. Ignorant? Absolutely.

I think you just want everybody to accept something that they can't. It goes against a deeply rooted belief that it's just wrong.

And I have no issue with the belief. Try and prove it logically, and I will destroy it... as I did.

CaptainCourtesy · May 31, 2011

Wake said:
RamFel has guts to speak his mind in the face of "political correctness".

Here comes a meaningless flurry of "bigot, hater, etc".

Blackdog said:
Don't you know it.

Wrong. The two of you, generally, do not argue this from an ignorant position. Your positions have some merit, are religiously based, for the most part and, in general, do not spread misinformation. You both tend to debate honestly. Not one of those characteristics apply to RamFel's postings.

CaptainCourtesy · May 31, 2011

Blackdog said:
This was not the case even 50 years ago. You are also trying to say the states interest in the majority is the same for a minority OF a minority. Less than 4% to 10% as compared to 50% of 90%. DO the math.

Irrelevant. It is now. That state's interest is in an institution, no individual behavior.

I don't have to prove any absolute or causation as the "raw" numbers tell the story.

As do my raw numbers in regards to heterosexual relationships.

I disagree, I think your argument is.

And you'd be wrong about that.

Most is not an entire group now is it? This does not change the fact that most applied to this thread is accurate. Do I need to list names?

Do we need to pull out a law dictionary to show the difference between "most" and "all?" We have a word for that as well.

Name names. I reject your position on this as incorrect.

My statement was completely accurate.

Nope. Not at all.

Read my reply. I am not going to retype a post that you linked to. Just follow it back and don't jump to inaccurate conclusions.

I read it as I read it. If I read it wrong, I am requesting that you re-explain it. Your choice whether you do or not.

Yes you mite be wrong and yet you state it as fact?

It's what I observe.

I was not interpreting God, I was stating what the Bible says, bluntly.

Nope. You were interpretting. I posted the interpretation that my religion uses. Your interpretation is no more accurate than mine.

I never said you were...

So this statement was the "general" we?

If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on.

In Leviticus 18:22, it is written: "And you shall not cohabit with a male as one cohabits with a woman; it is an abomination." I don't see any mention of prostitution?

And in Leviticus 20:13, it is written: "And if a man cohabits with a male as with a woman, both of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death; their blood falls back upon them." Again no prostitution?

There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

Here are the passages:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

The section of the Torah that this was taken from refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

So, in conclusion, MY religion interprets these Biblical passages very differently than yours. MY religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.

Your "clear tenets" are nothing of the sort.

OK so you would rather misrepresent what I said to fit in better with your wrong reply, OK.

Nope. I dismiss the irrelevant and only address what you got wrong.

No I am not saying "faith" is logical.

Good, then we agree.

So again faith can be logical. This is not saying faith IS logic as they are polar opposites. This does not mean that one cannot be grounded in the other as I said and showed an example.

Your example was personal and not global and therefore is not relevant to proving anything... except to you.

And you need to read what I said in context before jumping to conclusions. Hell ask for a clarification at least.

Which is what I did and what you did.

Wake · May 31, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
Wrong. The two of you, generally, do not argue this from an ignorant position. Your positions have some merit, are religiously based, for the most part and, in general, do not spread misinformation. You both tend to debate honestly. Not one of those characteristics apply to RamFel's postings.

You're fair and I respect you for it.

If I must try to debate this from a scientific view, I'll first gather a ton of scientific arguments against it. Though, scientifically, we cannot prove morality either right or wrong with science. Even if I were to make a strong scientific argument, that I created with effort, I think it would be totally disregarded because science doesn't prove, and people won't care.

Thorgasm · May 31, 2011

Wake said:
You're fair and I respect you for it.

If I must try to debate this from a scientific view, I'll first gather a ton of scientific arguments against it. Though, scientifically, we cannot prove morality either right or wrong with science. Even if I were to make a strong scientific argument, that I created with effort, I think it would be totally disregarded because science doesn't prove, and people won't care.

I thought you were all about the logic. It seems that you have conceded that your stance is based on emotion, which doesn't lend itself to empirical data.

earthworm · May 31, 2011

I do not buy into this "sin" bit.
I will not have a "book" written thousands of years ago dictate my thinking.
Nor will I permit society to do this.
But, lets be honest, homosexuality is unnatural..
A man having 6 toes per foot has an "un-natural" attribute as well.

Black Dog · May 31, 2011

Thorgasm said:
I thought you were all about the logic. It seems that you have conceded that your stance is based on emotion, which doesn't lend itself to empirical data.

I am not certain how this would be considered emotional rather than logical?

Thorgasm · May 31, 2011

Blackdog said:
I am not certain how this would be considered emotional rather than logical?

People use code words for "icky" like "unnatural". Yet I never see straight people start threads decrying how "unnatural" the types of sex that heterosexuals have that doesn't lead to pregnancy. Oral sex, anal sex, mutual masterbation, etc...

This is due to emotion, not logic.

Andalublue · May 31, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

Here are the passages:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

The section of the Torah that this was taken from refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

So, in conclusion, MY religion interprets these Biblical passages very differently than yours. MY religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.

Your "clear tenets" are nothing of the sort.

Thank you for that. Thank you so much. I've often wondered what a Jewish interpretation of those passages would look like. The literalism of so many Christian scholars basing their interpretations of specific words, usually from the KJV, has always made me think, "Well, is that what 'abomination' really means in terms of a direct translation of the Hebrew?"

Yours has been the best post on this entire subject that I've read on DP. Thanks again.

roguenuke · May 31, 2011

earthworm said:
But, lets be honest, homosexuality is unnatural..
A man having 6 toes per foot has an "un-natural" attribute as well.

Unless the man had the 6th toe on each foot surgically put there, it was most likely natural. Being born with 6 fingers or 6 toes is completely natural and contributed to a mutation that happens in about 1 out of every 500 children.

Polydactyly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a cousin who was born with 6 fingers on each hand.

Mutations are natural. Mutations are a big part of evolution.

Certain mutations may not be normal statistically(in that they happen often), but that doesn't make them unnatural.

Black Dog · May 31, 2011

CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. It is now. That state's interest is in an institution, no individual behavior.

Since you don't speak for the state again I disagree and stand by the numbers.

CaptainCourtesy said:
As do my raw numbers in regards to heterosexual relationships.

That's good because they are smaller.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And you'd be wrong about that.

"I know I am but what are you" Please.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Name names. I reject your position on this as incorrect.

Then you reject the dictionary definition. OK that makes sense.

You can reject it all you want, this does not change the facts.

CaptainCourtesy said:
I read it as I read it. If I read it wrong, I am requesting that you re-explain it. Your choice whether you do or not.

And you were wrong.

If you are not interested OK. Much like you talking about the wealth of information you have posted about gay marraige and tell others to look it up. I am telling you the same thing and you only have to go a few pages back rather than search the entire forum.

If you are not willing to do this simple deed, how do you expect others to do it for you?

CaptainCourtesy said:
It's what I observe.

This does not change the fact that it is not conclusive or any kind of fact in and of itself.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. You were interpretting. I posted the interpretation that my religion uses. Your interpretation is no more accurate than mine.

I was interpreting the Bible, not the Torah or God as you tried to suggest. I did in fact interpret what the Bible Old and New Testament says correctly.

Since yours does not include anything from the NT, it has little bearing on Christians.

CaptainCourtesy said:
So this statement was the "general" we?

Only if "if" now means "we.

CaptainCourtesy said:
There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

Here are the passages:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

The section of the Torah that this was taken from refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean. [color-red]<---- is ranked up there with incest and bestiality? OK so having sex with sheep is the same as having anal sex with men, got it.[/color]

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.<---They had no word for homosexuality, but we get the idea.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. s eliminates any punishment.<---Those that were in Sodom and Gamorah mite disagree.Thirdly, only anal sex, probably<---This 1 word sums that up well in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.<---No question it applies only to the ancient Hebrews. It does support the NT and it's own prohibitions on homosexuality.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

So, in conclusion, MY religion interprets these Biblical passages very differently than yours. MY religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.

Really?

Romans 1:26–27 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,3

Marraige:

Genesis 2:24 24 tTherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

1 Corinthians 7:2–16 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 uThe husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 vDo not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, wso that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, xnot a command, I say this.1 7 yI wish that all were zas I myself am. But aeach has his own gift from God, bone of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that cit is good for them to remain single das I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, ethey should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married fI give this charge (not I, but the Lord): gthe wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, hshe should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and gthe husband should not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you2 jto peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, kwhether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Your "clear tenets" are nothing of the sort.

I have shown they are crystal clear.

CaptainCourtesy said:
In the Hebrew Bible... the Torah, the translation refers to anal sex.. NOT homosexuality. Nothing about homosexual orientation is mentioned... only this one particular behavior. Now, we know that sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two very different things. Further, one must understand that this section of Leviticus refers to holiness/purity codes, codes that were to separate the Hebrews from Pagans. Pagan priests, at the time, practiced anal intercourse. It was included in the section that also included incest and bestiality

They had no word for "sexual orientation" so that is a given. Of course reading the sections with the NT brings clarity.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. I dismiss the irrelevant and only address what you got wrong.

Nothing wrong yet.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Your example was personal and not global and therefore is not relevant to proving anything... except to you.

My example was for clarification, nothing more. You choose to ignore it for whatever reason. Global or not it remains logical and you can't ignore that without being intellectual dishonest.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Which is what I did and what you did.

In some cases.

Tashah · May 31, 2011

Andalublue said:
Thank you for that. Thank you so much. I've often wondered what a Jewish interpretation of those passages would look like. The literalism of so many Christian scholars basing their interpretations of specific words, usually from the KJV, has always made me think, "Well, is that what 'abomination' really means in terms of a direct translation of the Hebrew?"

Yours has been the best post on this entire subject that I've read on DP. Thanks again.

What most folks don’t understand or appreciate, is that the Hebrew language is built on stem and root words. This allows many words to have multiple meanings. If you speak Hebrew, you come to realize that every time you read Torah, you notice new nuances in the passages. This is its brilliance. Torah is not static as it seems to be in English translations but rather, the Hebrew words flow in many different directions like water rivulets down a hill.

Andalublue · May 31, 2011

Tashah said:
What most folks don’t understand or appreciate, is that the Hebrew language is built on stem and root words. This allows many words to have multiple meanings. If you speak Hebrew, you come to realize that every time you read Torah, you notice new nuances in the passages. This is its brilliance.

I was aware of the uniquely intriguing structure of semitic verb constructions. I haven't really seen many examples of what this does to the semantics of the language. This seems to be an excellent example.

I recently read this terrific book, which has a whole chapter on semitic verbs. Highly recommended!

RamFel · May 31, 2011

You're really a comic, aren't you? I don't really know that God really said all that about gays. So you're right! So maybe God really created gays, huh? And maybe he approves of gay sex, do you think? Do you have the biblical passage? Chapter and verse?

My point here is that I was trying to show what God wouldn’t do. But since I’m so stupid, and can’t prove what God says or doesn’t say. Maybe you can show me in the bible what God does say, or where God approves. Can you do that? Yes? No?

I seriously doubt that God approves of bad behavior.

Natural: existing in, or formed by nature.

There, I defined it for you. I just looked at that definition over, under, around and through. It doesn’t say that gay is natural as far as I can see. Or does it? Can you find that “Gay sex is natural” in that definition?

Gender and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive? Facts: natural sex creates babies, and unnatural sex does not. Stop trying to over-intellectualize it.

Oh, and the three points I was trying to make about the father, the couple, and the dude? The only reason you think that it's stupid is because you ignored the point I was trying to make. That in general, people don’t want gay children, and normally, dudes don’t want to be insulted. Because as natural as you think being gay is, it’s considered an insult to be called gay. An insult for something that you think is natural. Why is that?

CriticalThought · May 31, 2011

RamFel said:
Natural: existing in, or formed by nature.

mac · May 31, 2011

CriticalThought said:

Didn't you just get done denying your tendency to appeal to nature?

Zyphlin · May 31, 2011

It's not an appeal to nature when someone clearly states they define natural as something existing in nature and thus you show them that it occurs in nature. Learn what a fallacy is before you try throwing it out as if it has weight

mac · May 31, 2011

Zyphlin said:
It's not an appeal to nature when someone clearly states they define natural as something existing in nature and thus you show them that it occurs in nature. Learn what a fallacy is before you try throwing it out as if it has weight

It is if you use it to excuse or explain human behavior. I know what it is, and while he didn't explicitly link it in this instance, you know as well as I that that was the intention.

Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

Is homosexuality wrong and/or unnatural?

It's wrong and unnatural

It's not wrong, just unnatural

It's neither wrong nor unnatural

Don't know/care

Punish/restrict Christians for being against it

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Bus Driver to Hell

King Of The Dog Pound

Bus Driver to Hell

Hello again!

King Of The Dog Pound

Hello again!