Freud's view, and yours...on homosexuality.

Remove all ads!

Two issues going that I'd like to respond to 1) the Bible one and 2) the Sir Dargorn question. I plan on responding only to issue 1) here as I haven't thought much in depth about but only a correlation I've noticed 2) before, it is something I'll have to think about.

When I first started writing, I didn't anticipate the heavy quoting I'd do. I did it for one reason - there are Christians who read this who may not be fully comfortable with their sexuality at this point and I think it is important to at least fairly demonstrate to any youngsters out there that the debate isn't as clear cut as some make it seem. I apologize for the heavy quoting though.

With regards to the Bible passages, specifically the story of Sodom has been mentioned. Now, since it has been suggested that I read the Bible, I'll just state that I have, two versions actually, King James version and ... New American something or another that's handed out in Catholic schools, or was. So, that irrelevant point out of the way, we're off -- Sodom:

I think some are insisting that the interpretation is easy and unequivocal. However, I'm not so sure that it is:

So, while the implication of some is that it is a clear cut translation, clearly there is much debate. The debate isn't confined to simply to this one area of the Bible. Quicksylver indicates Corinthians as support and indicates a known definition of the word "arsenokoites." Both the passage and the word are heavily debated however. The following discusses both the passage and, I think, the word which is "aresenokoitai." As one writer notes below: "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." The word is also related to "akatharsia" I think which is also heavily debated with multiple translations.

I don't think there will be any agreement on the translation. I am hoping to force one concession however: even if you think the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality I hope you will admit that there are a lot of good, incredibly smart, knowledgable scholars who vehemently disagree with you. At that point, I think you agree to disagree but at least you are being fair to anyone who is reading this and hurting.

For further research see religioustolerance.org where I got this material.

 

I've been to religious tolerance before -- good site. Once again, I can believe someone is wrong without wanting to kill them.

As for Sir Dargorn's comment, I respectfully don't buy it. While there have been many successful homosexuals, I think the gay lobby has painted a few too many people with the brush in an effort to bolster their own claims and status.

Also, I use the same argument with heteros as with homos regarding if they HAVE to have sex -- we do not ever have to have sex -- we can control ourselves. Not easy, but it is possible -- I've done it and know hundreds of others who have as well. If someone CHOOSES not to, fine and dandy, but don't call it an irresistable urge.

 

A slightly off topic reply to...Yago, I think:

About following scholars. They are still just men, men influenced by the world around them. And while their time and effort demands a measure of respect, to take their words as absolute truth is dangerous, seeing that they are just as mortal as you and me.

For example, I studied English for four years - that makes me, at least to an extent, a scholar of that subject. In fact, we are all scholars of something or another, really - I read as you guys go off in a BG2 forum, quoting and answering with so much knowledge - hey, that makes you a scholar of sorts, right? But just because we know these things doesn't mean that we should be held as supreme authorities on the matters.

Certainly it's not wrong to look at a scholar's opinions...but take them with a grain of salt. You asked if you could read the holy scriptures and interpret them - yes, you can. It takes a great deal of study, because the Bible is one story - from Genesis to Revelation it's all about the same thing - Jesus Christ. Genesis talks about the creation and the promise of God to Abraham. We later find out in 1 John that Christ was with God in the beginning, and created the world with Him. The promise to Abraham that the world would be blessed through his seed doesn't come to pass until centuries later, when Christ dies as a means of forgiveness of sin - thereby blessing all nations who will accept Him.

True, we can't expect to sit down and read the Bible for ten minutes and know it all. And studying with others who have studied it IS a great thing. But always remember, don't take their word as law...look it up in scripture to make sure it's right. The Bible even tells us to do this: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good."

But like I said, we're really getting to a side topic so...BLAH. Better get back to the topic at hand...don't want Tal to lower the boom on us.

 

Thinking that anything is wrong just because some lunatic wrote it down sometime a few thousand years ago now that is wrong. Using the bible and thinking that it will carry any weight at all in any discussion among intelligent people is just plain silly.

 

@ LKD & Quickie

The more I try to argue this point, the more futile it seems to get. So I'll try to be brief.

If you want to cling to the biblical stance on this, I guess I have to respect that. However, I strongly object to your repeated reference to homosexuality being a "choice." It's not. If it were, Andrew Shepherd and so many others who spent the better part of their lives lying to and fearing people would have surely "chosen" something else.

It's not about choice, it's about what feels right. Gay men find that being physically intimate with a woman feels totally wrong. I don't mean this in the moral sense, but in the sense of one's personal instinct and nature. I'm not gay, so if I hopped into bed with a man I would feel incredibly uncomfortable, and any resulting acts would feel totally unnatural to me. This is the same with gay men towards women.

Yes, people do choose to act upon their desires. But you're confusing actions with being. A dog raised, trained and conditioned to believe he is a cat is still a dog. Vanilla Ice will never be black, no matter how hard he tries to be. Just like gays will never truly be attracted to women, no matter how deep they bury their true feelings and convince themselves that they are living in sin. No amount of "obedience to Christ" will turn a dog into a cat, Robert Van Winkle into "Chocolate Ice," or Coke into Pepsi, period. You refer to these feelings as "urges," which yes, can be denied. But to homosexuals, being gay is no more an urge than any other emotion or instinct we humans have built into our programming from birth.

But what if the tables were turned? What if, hypothetically, society and the bible condemned heterosexuality, but you knew in your heart you should be with a woman. You knew deep down from a young age that being with a man was unnatural. What then? Would you start biting pillows and place 2 grooms on your wedding cake, just because the bible considers having sex with women an abomination?

 

That is true, Joaqin, assuming that the people involved do not believe the Bible, and I mentioned that before. However, the subtext of your argument seems to be that people for whom the Bible DOES carry weight are not intelligent -- you don't really mean that, do you?

@Rabbit -- I believe that heteros can control themselves, too -- I thought I made that clear. We choose what we do. The argument that certain behaviours are inexorable holds no weight with me. Just because I feel something is in my basic nature doesn't make that thing right.

You are right, though, in that this is a rather circular discussion -- if you do a search, a year or so ago this same topic was pounded out over about 4 or 5 pages! Same arguments, same deal. So I won't post anymore -- I feel I've been clear enough, and I'll even say that I respect and understand the other opinions discussed here, so people don't think I'm signing off in a huff

[ May 22, 2003, 17:41: Message edited by: Lord Keldin Depaara ]

 

Quicksylver, I agree with what you said about scholars.

Back to homosexuality in general: Death Rabbit mentioned natural feelings and Lord Depaara "actions" in public. I find homosexual couples kissing in public not at all appalling, as long they are women. Lesbians kissing have nothing appalling to me, contrary to men doing it. Men doing it make me look the other way, women doing it (as long as they are attractive) do not disgust me in the least, it is (going into what 8people calls to much detail) "interesting".

I had a discussion about that with some colleagues. Lesbians are attractive, whereas gays are not. Therefore homosexuality in itself has nothing appalling, lesbians seldom cause outrage. And there's lesbian porn that obviously sells well.

 

And by the same token, just because a 2000 year old book tells you to feel ashamed of your nature, that doesn't necessarily make it right either. Which, if I may be so bold, would pretty much sum up what Jaocqin meant. (he wasn't calling anyone stupid...I don't think...)

You aren't posting here anymore, so I don't know why I'm bothering to quote you. My "hypothetical" was more or less directed at you and I was hoping you'd return the serve, but oh well. Though I wish you would stick around a while, I respect your leaving the thread regardless. See you in the gaming forums, my friend (er, I mean Lord. )

 

Obviously there are many intelligent people that believes in the bible, I just find it utterly strange and baffling that someone that is intelligent and reasonable believes some dudes 2000 year old opinions to be the truth, the one and only truth and the word of a divine being that rules everything. For me it seems like a paradox.

 

D-Rock - Actually, the 2000 year-old book doesn't tell you to be ashamed of your nature, rather it tells what God's plan was for that nature to be. It also lets us know that anything outside of the plan is contrary to God's will.

So here's the rub: as with all things biblical, either we choose to believe what the Bible says or we don't. God gave us the freedom of will to do so. If we believe it, then we believe it all, and strive to apply it to our lives to be pleasing to Him.

If we don't believe it, then we care nothing for His plan. That's an option. But the Bible promises consequences...that much is made plain to us. As before stated, it's not all about us. What we want, what we like. It's about what God wants of us and our willingness to either obey or not. We have that choice. He has given the Bible as a source to guide and aid us...but like anything else, we can toss it aside and choose our own path, in essence making ourselves the god of our life. Dangerous path, that.

And going off of something Lord Depaara said, the point of these posts (mine, at least, I cannot speak for the others) is not to make someone feel like dirt. Rather, they're answers to a question asked by Malaqui, from a source that I believe and trust.

(D-Rab...you got that handle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, didn't you, you sneaky Brit comedy watcher).

Joacquin - actually, the book was written not by opinionated men, but men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So in it are the thoughts of God penned by men guided by His Spirit. Not just dudes off the street who decided to write something. For biblical confirmation, you can check Acts, wherein it describes the Holy Spirit being sent as a comforter to guide the Apostles as they taught Christ to the Jews and Gentiles.

 

So just because someone claims to have divine inspiration they have it? Hmm you know what, God spoke to me last night and told me that he did not have anything to do with the creation of the bible.
You dont believe that? Well it is just as plausible as God having chit chats with Abraham, Luke and Job.

 

Jaocqin does make a good point, Quickie. All we have to go by is the word of the authors of the bible, which no one alive today can vouch for with absolute certainty.

But then again, that's precisely why it's called "faith," not "fact."

 

And I guess that I was trying to say is that there is more to it than choosing to believe what the Bible says.(btw, I don't really believe that we choose our beliefs. I think we may choose some of them in the sense that we choose what to be exposed to, but I don't think it is an accident that most Christians' parents were Christians or that Christianity flourished after the Emperor started telling people to be Christian or else or...)

Once you choose to believe the Bible, you have to figure out what the Bible says right? Even you Quicksylver mentioned an ancient Greek word in support for your interpretation of the Bible right?

So, the point I'm hoping to force a concession on is that even if you personally believe the Bible is clear, can you acknowledge that lots of knowledgable and reasonable people draw exactly opposite conclusions on what the Bible is clear about?

Maybe the Bible clearly condemns homosexualiy in your mind but can you acknowledge at least that a lot of reasonable and knowledgable people disagree and believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality?

 

Yeah, DR, that's where the need for faith comes in.

Laches - On belief. Of course you can never believe something that you've never been taught, thus the commandment in the last chapter of Mark for the disciples to preach the gospel everywhere. People have to hear before they can believe - that's a simple truth. When you've heard, though, then comes the time to make a choice - either to obey or not.

You mentioned being influenced by parents and the like in our belief systems. That's certainly true to an extent...but we cannot blame our lack of faith on anyone but ourselves. I.e., the faith of your parents will not guarantee you salvation.

Just the opposite for me - though both of my parents believed in the existence of God, neither of them was ever a faithful Christian. I began to study and came to understand the need for obedience.

All of this is getting slightly away from the topic of homosexuality, so I'll veer back to that. Out of all the scriptures that have been listed, I think the quote from Romans 1: 26-32 is the easiest to understand. In it, you have a straightforward description of acts that are called unnatural and are said to be worthy of death and judgment. The scripture is clearly talking about homosexuality - no one has even bothered to dispute that so far, I don't think.

So again - when we read that, we either agree it is the command of God and obey it, or we don't.
If we say we have faith and want to be pleasing to God, then when we look on a scripture that shows us to be in sin, we should be grateful for it and adjust our lives accordingly.

I would certainly suggest to anyone who does believe in the validity of the Bible to check these scriptures out. Don't be swayed by my words or Death Rabbit's, or Laches', or LDK's, or Yago's, or Joacquin's...read the scriptures, see what they say for yourself. The Bible was written to be a guide, not to be something we could not understand...so check it out for the answers to this question.

 

With regards to Romans 1:26-32 which Quicksylver considers the most straightforward, its translation and meaning is hotly contested like the sections talked about above.

The text reads (in the King James Version):

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Now, before the debate on the meaning of the passage is described it should be noted that:

That out of the way, the section is heavily debated. Among the various interpretations there are:

So, this clear passage can't command a clear consensus on its meaning.

It appears that I can't get the concession that reasonable people can disagree with the conservative view that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. Oh well, I really thought that I could get that much since it doesn't even require that much but I guess I was wrong.

As an aside, I think it somewhat...oversimplified Quicksylver to suggest that one can just go out and read the Bible for his or herself and figure it out on their own. This point was debated above. Here is what I mean.

You say - go out and read the Bible.

I say - ok, which one? The different Bibles are translated differently. Which one do I trust since the different translations can yield wildly varying results? In your argument above you make reference to an ancient greek word as supporting your view but I don't know a lick of Greek. Further, it appears that there is a lot of debate over how to properly translate that word. How it is translated changes the meaning of the text. Which Bible do I trust and why is it, on its face, superior to another Bible?

If the answer is, well, they are all largely similar and the small differences aren't important because it is the underlying message that is important then I have to ask doesn't this support a contextualist understanding of the Bible? It doesn't appear to me that you'd support a contextualist view of the Bible since you seem to believe it offers unwaivering commands. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part?

 

*sigh* I have a feeling we will never reach a point of agreement on this, but nevertheless...

Your first quoted paragraph about human rights activists does not serve as an argument with authority...it says the HRA might not agree...it doesn't even take a definite stand, so using it to debate is kind of pointless. (As for the points about women and slavery, I want to elaborate on those...but I don't know if this is the forum for it). AGAIN, this goes back to belief, Laches. If you believe that Paul was writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then you believe this command is of God, not Paul. Believing that, the efforts of a bunch of people arguing with what God's word says shouldn't come as a surprise.

Going back to Genesis, and God's creation of woman as a help suitable for man, this is the plan of God: One man, one woman, joined together in a way that no man should tear asunder. The letter to the Ephesians gives some more great description of this union. Paul is condemning the same-sex relationships in Romans, as being against God's natural creation.

Basically, your excerpt talks about the new knowledge we today have that Paul did not have. See the problem? If we use that as a course of reasoning, then we are saying that Paul was not influenced in his writings by the Holy Spirit, who would have all knowledge.

You wanted a concession that many intelligent people today do not agree with what the Bible is saying. Well...yeah, I suppose that will always be the case.

A point that LKD made - we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - these passages in Romans condemn such things as fornication, maliciousness, etc...these are all sins. Homosexuality is treated like the other sins. Just as an adulterer gives in to temptation and sins, the same is true for homosexuality. Is it in the adulterer's nature to cheat? Maybe it is part of who he is to have sexual relations with someone other than his wife. It makes him feel complete, liberated.

Yeah, that sounds totally ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, these are the same things we are saying makes homosexuality ok, even though the Bible strictly forbids it.

As for reading the bible and understanding. Laches, this is perhaps the most ironic coming from you. In this thread alone, you have shown us how in-depth and precise you can be, how much of a studious nature you possess. If you spent half the effort taking the Bible and studying it to see what it really says as you have put forth gathering worldly examples refuting it, you would easily see just how the story within its pages unfolds.

But if we don't want to accept it, we won't.

 

Lol, that's true, the dispute between Laches and Quickslyver was on a very high in-depth level of the bible, it's texts and interpretation. But the situation remains the same, the bible is not able to give an satisfiying (sp ?) answer. Both side (pro- and anti-homosexuality) have plausible argumetation, but non is able to make the other void. Shism in the protestant church is unavoidable (I gleefully repeat and repeat and repat it).

I personally think, that slavery IS NOT god's will. And a passage which does allow slavery, I bet without further research, was used until 2 hundred years ago as an excuse for slave-holding and trading. Hey, the bible allows it, therefore it is god's will, good and further discussion is not necessary.

Now, I will not go further into detail, why I think this part of the bible has to be read with greatest care and big suspicion, because it may offend Christians on this board. I just say, my opinion stands, argumentation founding on those passages of the bible to "condemn" homosexuality are in my view not valid.

Yes, I would never go into bible-quoting. If google doesn't yield instant results, I won't make a fuss about quoting.

 

sidenote on the slavery thing - this isn't the place for it, so I won't go into too much detail. I wish I knew which scripture we're talking about - I'm assuming it's Ephesians 6:5 which tells servants to be obedient to their masters in the flesh, serving them truly in their heart.

Now, this does not say slavery is good. It says for a servant, (which all of us today who work under another person are, really), to serve their master (boss, captain, leader) faithfully. That's a far cry from supporting the brutal, life-ruining slavery that we generally think of (which the Bible of course does not support...John 13:34 - Christ tells of a great commandment he gives - "Love one another." If everyone would heed that, then there would be none of the wicked, abusive things in life like slavery).

 

Now see, I didn't think I was "refuting" the Bible. I wasn't attempting to refute it. I wasn't attempting to say your interpretation of it is wrong. I was trying to say that a lot of bloody smart people who have devoted their entire life to studying the Bible vehemently disagree with your interpretation. "Refuting" the Bible and pointing out there are different interpretations of it are different.

Indeed, one who believes as the scholars who disagree with you believe could say that you are trying to refute the Bible. They believe their interpretation is correct and that you are trying to refute the true Bible with your interpretation.

Like I expressly said early in all this, I don't think that there will be any agreement. I also wasn't trying to force agreement. What I was trying to force was an acknowledment of differing view points. This is important imo because a lot of kids visit and read and I feel it is intellectually fair to present the different sides when the topic is potentially so soul wrenching. Younger kids may not have had the opportunity or know how to find the differing views and I wanted to at least throw them out there for consideration.

I also think you possibly demean the opposing views when you describe them as "worldly" implying that your view is some how unworldly or spiritual and therefore linked directly to God. The other views are after all interpretations of the Bible as well - they're just not ones you agree with. IMO, faith by definition precludes you from knowing your interpretation is correct. You may be correct, you may believe you are correct, you can not know you are correct. But that is neither here nor there.

As far as the slavery deal goes, it is in many areas of the Bible afaik. This includes but is not limited to in the old testament:

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Deuteronomy 20:14"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Those are just a few Old Testament examples.

In the New Testament not only is what is said important but also, what is NOT said is important.

During New Testament times people were still being sold into slavery for not paying debts and also priest's still owned slaves:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Despite this, neither Jesus, Paul, or any other Biblical figure is recorded as having spoken out against slavery despite numerous opportunities to address it directly. Here is one such opportunity Jesus could have spoken against slavery but there is no recording of him having done so:

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Also, you dismiss Ephesians 6:5-9; here is what I take to be the consensus view that I'll quote:

Now, you say that we're all "servants" in that we work for others. Well, I believe there is a large consensus that 'servant' references slaves but I there might be other interpretations I'm unaware of -- which kinda underscores my initial point I think.

Anyhoo, you asked about slavery and that was some of it but probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Again, I don't want to say anyone's interpretation of the Bible is wrong, just point out that there are other points of view too - and they're not all blithering fools.

 

Even though this post has gotten off on slavery I would like to say a homosexual can have almost any job as long as its not at a Religious institution and a organization based on morality (Example) Boy scouts or Churches….

Now as far as genetic, well way back on page one someone said it may have something to do with the pregnancy or as the child forms and the amount of hormones.

I agree I think that it’s genetic or a deformity but like any person with a deformed body part or extra fingers I don’t think it makes them Evil… But if they told me it was good that they had heart problems or that they where born blind then I would tell them that I think they are wrong its not a good thing to have but its not evil either.

Now as far as the sexual act yes I think that’s wrong between to two men having sex in the same way bestiality is wrong and ya disgusting. And ass far as some say it natural….

Well look at it this way if you take a hundred Homosexuals and stick them on an Island for a 110 years they will be all dead…. But if you take a 100 men and woman then in a 110 years there will be several hundred more people on that Island

To me that proves Gay is not natural!