h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I know unsubscribed, but I got asked to come back

"Trust the Bible, not the church" - ah but guess what the church trusts?

So sometimes Paul is giving advice, and sometimes he is giving divine instruction. And the gold-plated, inscribed in stone, 100% for this is what, exactly? It all boils down to the same simple point; when you open part of the Canon of Scripture up for interpretation, you open it all up. Therefore there is room for doubt, and therefore homosexuals should benefit from that doubt. QED.

More specifically:-

1st Corinthians 14 v 34-37 " Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

This passage isn't Paul giving advice. This was Paul saying "Shut the women up. God says so." See also Paul's writings in Ephesians 5, Colossians 5, 1st Timothy 2, 1st Timothy 5 and Titus 2.
The point remains, Josh. If you are not prepared to make women silent in church then you should not be condemning homosexuals. Paul is clear and unequivocal. Why enforce one rule and not the other? Because it fits your prejudice, that's why. Just admit it and move on.


Some more ideas for you...

Romans 1v22 & 23 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man" - gee, does that mean that all those pictures of Jesus as a white dude are sinful?

Romans 10 v 9 "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house." AND THY HOUSE? Does this mean that the head of the household could accept Jesus as his saviour on behalf of his entire family? Cool, coz my father's been a Christian for decades, so that means I'm covered. On the other hand, Paul could just mean the bricks and mortar, so do you think I'd get a discount on my home and contents insurance?

1st Thessolonians 2 v 14-16 "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews. Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men. Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway, for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." - Paul obviously didn't like the Jews much. Is anti semitism allowed? Do you think an idiot could take this passage as supporting the Holocaust?

Do you at least see the possibilities for doubt and misinterpretation? And once those possible doubts exist, homosexuals must receive the benefit of them.

And finally, I'm not American either, and I find the American's sudden senstivity to terrorism a little silly; there was a war on terrorism here in the UK for decades, and the American people funded the other side. The city of Manchester, just 10 miles from my house, was flattened by a terrorist bomb in 1996. Check your facts, son. Terrorism didn't start with September 11th, and won't end when the famous American attention span gets bored of it.

My mistake. Colossians chapter 3, not chapter 5.
(Like most people were really going to look it up, honest)

Caleb- your do unto others principle. You started this bother by saying that homosexuals should expect to be ridiculed since they 'chose' that lifestyle and must have known what would result. (I'm not going to bother pointing out what's flawed with that reasoning, others have tried and have been ignored. So.) However, you then complain that all these gay-supporters (who must be gay themselves, of course!) are ridiculing you for your beliefs.
See anything odd there?
You say your anti-homosexuality thing (on your list, anyway) partially stems from what your community will think- they'll be shunned etc. I put it to you that you're living in a small-minded enclave which isn't worthy of respect. As for what your peers may think- well, I was shunned, ridiculed, attacked, spat upon etc. for not being the same as the vast majority at school- 6 years or so of unrelenting bother just for having my own mind. And I'm better for it. Try some independent thought for once!
Josh- this site is run by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Hence, if it's anyone's site, it's ours, and very arrogant of you to think the whole bloody world's American. (but sadly not unexpected.) Congratulations on your first taste of British humour!
Leviticus 21:5- so trimming your beard and getting tattoos are out then?
Presumably we all have to eat kosher too, and no prawns. Blind people can't go to church, what are they to do? And since you're keen on respecting women, how do you politely ask if she's on her period, so you can ensure she's avoided for seven days. And burn her clothes, too. Although presumably you take the women-made-for-man but not vice-versa so we're inferior anyway, and have to be kept in line by Our Menfolk.
I Timothy 2:12 'I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent'. So presumably if you're taught by a woman in school you can tell her she, as a 'transgressor', has no authority to tell you what to learn? Lovable rogue Paul sez so.

Homosexual sex is different to homosexual incest because incest of any form can easily result in psychological damage. Family is most often seen as a haven of security and trust, and any duplicity of overt erotic feelings in that context destroys that level of trust and the sense of security. On top of that, often one of the parties involved is a minor, and that is rape in any context as minor's cannot give informed consent. Your mileage may vary in your definition of 'incest', depending on how many cousins away you consider 'safe'. It is also very difficult to determine consent in incest in any case as families often have a definite pecking order and one party may consent simply because they are told to by someone they trust. The inbred baby may have been the justification for rendering incest taboo back in the mists of time, but it's by no means the only reason in an intelligent culture. Homosexual incest is wrong because it's incest, not because it's homosexual.

Consensual homosexual sex between adults is entirely different. There is not special status in the relationship before sex that could be damaged, there is no abuse of trust or lack of consent involved. To tar it with the same brush as incest is downright irresponsible.

I think I do see where you're coming from, in that incest is sex within a family group, and homosexuality is sex within a gender group. Your approach, however, can readily be extended to say: 'Men and Women are the same species, so there shouldn't be sex within the species' and is thus hogwash.

Well done on having such a rigorously defined set of morals; I was kind of hinting that definites in morality are naïve. The problem with the sort of list like that is that it is very easy to find cases where the definition falls down. To take the first few from your list:

'- never steel'
What if you have no money for food and are on the brink of starvation? How can anyone say that stealing a loaf of bread to survive is morally wrong? And don't give me any of that crap about people giving charity or organsiations existing to stop that; this is the real world here.

'- never lie'
So when the Gestapo ask you if you have any Jews in your house you'll say "Yes, they're in the attic behind the secret door"?

'- never commit adultery'
Fine and dandy in the best circumstances, but what if you and your wife are going through a rough patch (for whatever reason). The trust and sympathy you crave are no longer present, you're unhappy, lonely nad vulnerable. You may well regret it, it could even end your marriage, but have you committed any great moral crime? No. All you are guilty of is simply being human. And does this moral mean that if you are divorcing your wife you have to wait with baited breath for the decree absolute to arrive before you can return to normal?

'- never kill: ... if this law is broken the punishment is death'
Please tell me what happens when it turns out someone was convicted in error? There is no such thing as certainty in the real world. Do you dig them up, dust them off, and give them a new suit? And what if a madman breaks into your house and it about to butcher your children with a machete? Is it morally wrong to stove his head in with an iron?

I could go on, but you get the idea. The point is that any morality that lays down definites is deeply, deeply flawed. Context is everything. There is no act so terrible, so heinous that there is not some circumstance where it would be morally right. These circumstances may be improbable, but they exist.

The point I was making in my last post is that people take their existing beliefs and prejudices and back-form a morality from them; I can tell you've done this because you say in a couple of places you mention your upbringing and 'round here you will be shunned'. That is a very poor reason to take that morality. Everyone starts with the set of morals given to them by their upbringing, but it is the duty of every moral individual to continually assess their morality, to make sure its consistent and sensible, and to change it when it is not. To be handed a set of morals then never queston or change them is grossly arrogant and blinkered.

Caleb and Josh,

Even though pointing holes and in your arguments and "beliefs" is like shooting fish in a barrel it is very important that you must address the many excellent points raised here.

Please do not distract us any more with talk of incest and abortion.

If you do not address these points we will have no choice other than to assume that you are homophobic and that you cannot see past the small blinkered world that you inhabit.

I eagerly await your responses (and not so eagerly await the inevitable ensuing "debate" on minor niggles and semantics whilst avoiding the real questions).

Sincerely,

Ste

I'll second that

what do you wan't me to say? yes i am homophobic?
i try not to be. i am totaly against homosexuality because that is what i beleive. my religion tells me that it is wrong. and who knows maybe we are wrong for letting women talk, but that is nither here nor there. all i'm saying is that i think it is wrong , i am not afraid of homosexuals but i dont like what they do. i know about my cousin. i don't hate him for it but i hate what he does. i beleive he4 is wrong and we have the very same disgussions we have here. any way the botom line is that i think homosexuality is wrong.

What do we want you to say? How about answering the points raised? That's how debates work, you know. You can say "I think it is wrong", but you can't support that position.

You're a bigot, and the worst kind of hypocrite. You can't defend your position, but regardless of this you're prepared to procrastinate, distract, ignore counter-argument and persecute an entire section of society. You appear to have no intellectual honesty and to possess the integrity of the average Nazi. Did you even bother to ask your pastor, as you said you would? Are you afraid that examining your beliefs will cause them to evaporate? If so, they can't be very good beliefs, can they?

I'd swear at you, but we're not allowed to. I'll settle for calling you a munting twallock.

Geoff

Can I borrow that one, Geoff?

Have you quizzed your cousin on exactly what it is he does? Not all those evil gays do traditionally disgusting things, you know...
...but I s'pose that would rule out anything other than man-on-top, not mutually satisfactory, legally married for-procreation-not-recreation missionary-style.
Why on earth would it be wrong to stop the women speaking? Of course, then I wouldn't be able to challenge you.
(Oh, and I must remember to book my place-in-the wilderness in a fortnight or so, and remind everyone to shun me. I'll write it on the calendar.)

Ok, so you think homosexuality is wrong. And you have no rational idea as to why. That is homophobia. So that is settled then.

Geoff is right, you have no hope of defending your position, so all that is left is to admit you are a homophobe (which you have all but directly said). That means you are a bigot and have admitted it to us and more importantly yourself.

From there redemption is possible. We are only debating with you because we care for you, we want to rescue a lost soul, so come in from the cold. You don't have to be a bigot. When it comes down to it, what is there to fear from gay men? There is no need to hate.

Ste

You used to be homophobic, then? What changed?

You said yourself that one should not hate.

Sorry, I'm late, but I hope I made a grand entrance!

Mandrake, I take exception to this - "...but I s'pose that would rule out anything other than man-on-top, not mutually satisfactory, legally married for-procreation-not-recreation missionary-style." Actually, it can be very mutually satisfactory! And if the other positions are healthily engaged in, life can be very pleasing!

And for anyone who is worried about my virtue and prudence, I'm over eighteen and am speaking from a legally married-for-recreation-and-love point of view!

x x Fenny (bi-curious, but that's another story)

Ah, but any entertainment value would not be right, would it? if it's for procreation only. Specially where women are concerned. It's all our fault anyway, and we have to keep quiet...
Love need not come into it, either.

Enjoy.

Way to go Ste & Geoffs Black Side.

I gave up on our two protagonists some time ago as they just would not answer any of the points put to them.

However, like you Ste I, would like to help them move from a position of bigotry.

Caleb I'm a gay man and you have absolutely nothing to fear from me. My sexuality is not contagious, I have no interest in "converting" you to my sexuality, you are FAR TOO young to interest me sexually, I am not asking you to even try homosexuality.

What I do want from you is some real responses to the questions I and others have raised throughout this thread. As Ste has said that is how one conducts a debate, both sides argue their point of view, each in turn addressing the points made and questions raised by the other side.

For your information a large part of gay sex has nothing to do with penetration so could not in any way be construed as "lying with a man as with a woman". Equally, what about the passive/bottom individual in the "lying with....." scenario is that better or worse than the active partner? Is it a greater or lesser sin in your view? Should the passive individual also be put to death?

I am very curious to understand your position, because my mother, a devout Roman Catholic, has no problem with my sexuality, has not shunned me and certainly has not tried to put me to death. She happens to be one of the most caring, compassionate and (yes) christian people I know.

Apologies for the length of this but frustration eventually boiled over.

I am interested in the comments that the world would be perfect if we all followed Leviticus.

I remember (in my embarrasssing born-again christian days) reading all sorts of complicated rules about women and menstruation. Does that mena these rules should be followed to get that perfect world?

Where would the bible stand on me who doesn't have any periods but hasn't reached menopause yet? I guess as I have no periods due to my contraception, that I would not be allowed to use contraception.

However I am in a monogamous relationship, and I want to have sex with him. I do not wish to have children, ever, ever, ever. I was sexually used by my father between the ages of 11 and 16 and this has coloured my views about many things. I have realised that I would not make a good mother because of my experience.

Just for completion, I have totally forgiven my father and love him deeply, forgiveness is very freeing. But I cannot remove the way I now feel.

As the sort of christians that you are, I guess you would feel perfectly in the right to stop me from having sex with contraception and you would not allow me to have abortions and therefore I would be forced to have children I do not want and may even abuse in the same way.

On my own I have come to a place where I am happy, you would take away all of that, and force me to live in a way which is not good for me. I used to be suicidal, I believe that if I was not allowed to live my own life in the way I have then I would have killed myself.

I just want you to think about whether it would be right or fair to impose your rules upon the rest of us?

Oh one more point guys, anal sex is fantastic, maybe you should try it before comdemning it! (sorry, couldn't resist it!)

Hi Geoff, note the name, trying to grow up at last!

Good to see you again, Kaz.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for these guys.

And as for the anal sex, well if that was an offer...

Oh Geoff, you are naughty!

Always.

I can't wait to hear the response to this exchange...

OK - not the response you meant, Queex, but I wanted to agree that anal sex can be fantastic (spooning rather than any other position)!

Sorry to have hijacked the thread away - I await any other responses with interest...

x x Fenny (UT)