Aspects of Sexuality and opposing World Views (18 and older)

[seer]

Did not answer the question, waiting . . .

You know Shuny you really are deceptive - is this what your religion teaches you to do? No wonder half the people on these boards no longer interact with you. You said that slavery was “against” God’s law. Well since men like Moses and Mohammed were prophets of God obviously it has NOT always been against the law of God.

Again, again, and again. I am not dealing with your personal anecdotal view as to what you deal with or not. I am dealing with the world view as the topic of the thread proposed.

This is another lie Shuny, you have offered nothing but anecdotal evidence, cherry picking. You have not offered one bit of credible evidence that the majority of Christians over time thought or acted this way. Or that N.T. mandates or condones such behavior - you are a bigot - plain a simple.

[shunyadragon]

I'm looking for a source, not just an assertion.

The Ugandan example is an example of a recent, proposed law, not a long-standing legal precedent

As stated before the long standing precedent is in the history of the British Empire. From this article . . .

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/are_anti_gay_laws_a_legacy_of_colonialism

The original sin related to homosexual acts (to the extent that there is one) is related to the legal system put in place by the state, rather than to the behavior of individuals. The "Original Sin" linked to the criminalization of gay sexual activity is that of the export of the Common Law system that criminalized buggery in Great Britain in 1533. Common law adopted by other nations (or alternatively imposed on them) in conjunction with subsequent judicial decisions and statutes passed over the centuries, led to criminalization of homosexual acts.

British criminal law didn't drop capital punishment for "buggery" until 1861. Homosexual acts weren't decriminalized until 1967. By contrast, same-sex sexual relations have been legal in France, or at least not specifically prohibited, since 1791, and former French colonies are less likely to ban them today. Religion is still the most influential factor in determining whether a country adopts anti-gay laws, the authors write, but the findings on Common Law are yet another indication of how much the nature of colonial institutions continue to shape the politics of former colonies.

© source where applicable

[micah719]

A reading of Romans 1 shows sodomy (general term covering all flavours of perversion which today is termed LGBT & B(estiality) & (P(aedophilia), of which the last two are as yet still mostly reviled) is a judgement from God, punishment for already grievious sin....this means all nations where sodomy is not illegal (to say nothing of those where it is protected, promoted or heaven help us, compulsory) are under judgement and can expect imminent calamity. The Flood stands as an example of severe judgement, and the sodomites have even been so brazen as to steal the symbol God gave for no further global water judgements - the rainbow flag. S'ok....no water next time, but FIRE. That the UK dropped a previous good law is but a symptom of a deeper and preceding sin. This however does not exonerate the nazis in any way...while they condemned effeminate sodomites to the camps, they revered the "manly" types in their perversions and were no less vile. One of their modern ideological desendants, Yassir Arafat, was reported by USSR intel to be quite the tiger in the sheets with his bodyguards...and died of aids. Under muslim "law" sodomy is a capital crime....but anyone that has been to Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq would confirm that perversion is rife despite the law, and that all the jokes about goats and donkeys are not so far fetched. And, if you look in the OT, you'll find that the temple prositutes included...sodomites. At some stage you'll see religious folks requiring it...they're already promoting it and defending it. Btw, what to the Hari Krisnas get up to when they've taken their begged handouts back to their hovels? They have no TV's, and sex is powerful meditation in certain streams of hinduism (tantric?).

Ok, enough, before I get sick. It is indefensible and bad for your health...want to cure aids? Stop the fornication, especially the unnatural kind.

[Thersites]

As stated before the long standing precedent is in the history of the British Empire. From this article . . .

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/are_anti_gay_laws_a_legacy_of_colonialism

The original sin related to homosexual acts (to the extent that there is one) is related to the legal system put in place by the state, rather than to the behavior of individuals. The "Original Sin" linked to the criminalization of gay sexual activity is that of the export of the Common Law system that criminalized buggery in Great Britain in 1533. Common law adopted by other nations (or alternatively imposed on them) in conjunction with subsequent judicial decisions and statutes passed over the centuries, led to criminalization of homosexual acts.

British criminal law didn't drop capital punishment for "buggery" until 1861. Homosexual acts weren't decriminalized until 1967. By contrast, same-sex sexual relations have been legal in France, or at least not specifically prohibited, since 1791, and former French colonies are less likely to ban them today. Religion is still the most influential factor in determining whether a country adopts anti-gay laws, the authors write, but the findings on Common Law are yet another indication of how much the nature of colonial institutions continue to shape the politics of former colonies.

© source where applicable

1533, not 500. Not when Christianity took control of the Roman Empire, not when it created the various Christian kingdoms throughout Europe. This is after Henry VIII begins the English Reformation.

Even with that aside, a formal law does not necessarily mean active, violent, and consistent persecution of the kind you allege. We need more than laws- we need statistics.

[shunyadragon]

1533, not 500. Not when Christianity took control of the Roman Empire, not when it created the various Christian kingdoms throughout Europe. This is after Henry VIII begins the English Reformation.

Even with that aside, a formal law does not necessarily mean active, violent, and consistent persecution of the kind you allege. We need more than laws- we need statistics.

Laws that have imprisonment and the death penalty as punishment ar active, violent and consistent persecution of homosexuality. These laws cover the whole of the British Empire. I will cite more, but you are deliberately evading the specific evidence provided.

Lets go further back in Christian history . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

The 16th Canon of the Council of Ancyra (314)[7] prescribed a penance of at least twenty years' duration for those "who have done the irrational" (alogeuesthai). There is some question whether this reference is to homosexual activity or bestiality [8] (or both). The earliest Latin versions, however, translate the word in both senses.[9] In any event, sodomy and bestiality are often condemned side-by-side in Christian writings of this era, usually with reference to these Latin translations.[10]

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride.[11] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.[12] The Christian emperor Justinian (527–565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."[13]

© source where applicable

[Thersites]

Laws that have imprisonment and the death penalty as punishment ar active, violent and consistent persecution of homosexuality. These laws cover the whole of the British Empire. I will cite more, but you are deliberately evading the specific evidence provided.

Lets go further back in Christian history . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

The 16th Canon of the Council of Ancyra (314)[7] prescribed a penance of at least twenty years' duration for those "who have done the irrational" (alogeuesthai). There is some question whether this reference is to homosexual activity or bestiality [8] (or both). The earliest Latin versions, however, translate the word in both senses.[9] In any event, sodomy and bestiality are often condemned side-by-side in Christian writings of this era, usually with reference to these Latin translations.[10]

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride.[11] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.[12] The Christian emperor Justinian (527–565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."[13]

© source where applicable

Again, you need statistics, not just statutes- and don't pretend that such statistics can't exist. Legal systems tend to be pretty meticulous when it comes to record-keeping.

[shunyadragon]

That's still just America (a modern country of questionable Christian pedigree), and it says nothing about the enforcement of these laws, which are extremely hard to enforce anyway.

America does not have a questionable Christian pedigree. There is a humanist element in the founding fathers and a separation of church and state, but the majority of anti-homosexual laws and enforcement has been at the state level, which has a strong religious motivation The laws have been there and they have been enforced in the past. It took a reversal of a supreme court to remove the laws from many states. It perfectly well demonstrates the history of violence against homosexuals in the US

More to follow . . .

[Thersites]

America does not have a questionable Christian pedigree. There is a humanist element in the founding fathers and a separation of church and state, but the majority of anti-homosexual laws and enforcement has been at the state level, which has a strong religious motivation The laws have been there and they have been enforced in the past. It took a reversal of a supreme court to remove the laws from many states. It perfectly well demonstrates the history of violence against homosexuals in the US

More to follow . . .

Again, you need statistics and not just statutes to prove a history of "violence."

[Cerebrum123]

Again, you need statistics and not just statutes to prove a history of "violence."

Also, "separation of Church and state" wasn't about keeping God out of government, but about keeping the government from making a state religion like in England.

[seer]

There is a humanist element in the founding fathers and a separation of church and state, but the majority of anti-homosexual laws and enforcement has been at the state level, which has a strong religious motivation The laws have been there and they have been enforced in the past. It took a reversal of a supreme court to remove the laws from many states. It perfectly well demonstrates the history of violence against homosexuals in the US.

But so what Shuny? Even if a largely “Christian” nation decided to enforce the death penalty against homosexuals it was only because they were incorporating the Mosaic civil law -I think that is wrongheaded, but the fact is they were following the teachings of a prophet of God. The same with Islamic countries that follow God’s other prophet (according to the Baha’i faith) Mohammed. They are only following the law of God as taught by Moses and Mohammed. And those God given laws are just. Unless you believe that God instituted unjust laws?

[seer]

Also, "separation of Church and state" wasn't about keeping God out of government, but about keeping the government from making a state religion like in England.

Shuny's point again is irrational. Like all things there can be good or bad religious states, there can be good or bad secular states - try being openly gay in North Korea.

[Leonhard]

Now that I have a web connection again, I wonder if its worth starting to post now. Can Shunya and Seer's discussion get dissected from the thread and perhaps put in the Communications subforum? Its taking up the majority of the past sixty posts, and its not interacting with much if anything of the opening post, the questions I posted, or Car's response.

[Thersites]

Now that I have a web connection again, I wonder if its worth starting to post now. Can Shunya and Seer's discussion get dissected from the thread and perhaps put in the Communications subforum? Its taking up the majority of the past sixty posts, and its not interacting with much if anything of the opening post, the questions I posted, or Car's response.

Like I said, Shuny's posts are exceptionally low-hanging fruit... courtesy of an exceptional fruitcake. There are posters here who would have his head for demanding that I start doing serious research in the same post as a Wikipedia quote.

[seer]

Now that I have a web connection again, I wonder if its worth starting to post now. Can Shunya and Seer's discussion get dissected from the thread and perhaps put in the Communications subforum? Its taking up the majority of the past sixty posts, and its not interacting with much if anything of the opening post, the questions I posted, or Car's response.

Leonhard, I'm not sure what else you may be looking for - you have some good responses to your original post in this thread. Like I said earlier, there may be no hard of fast rule concerning masturbation for instance. I attempt to stay away from it because I seriously objectify women, and sexual desire can begin to control me . I know that state of mind is not good for me, or in larger sense conducive to a morally healthy society. Another example; I have no problem going to a casino now and again and dropping 60 bucks or so. It’s a good time, and we always include a dinner. But I have friends that have lost everything at Foxwoods - they can not control themselves. They may control themselves in other areas, but not here - sometimes it is just best to abstain.

[Cerebrum123]

I have to agree with seer on this one, sometimes it just depends on the person. Like alcohol can be good in moderation, but some people just aren't able to do that, and are better off avoiding it completely. That makes sense, doesn't it?