by Dis-Member 123 Replies latest social entertainment
Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing.
Well that's just not true.
Some of the comments in this thread are disturbing...
Viviane, Maybe comments are the effects of being raised "in the Truth"
Edit:No one should need an "agenda" just to live without being hated.
Viviane, Yadda has shown he is a homo-phobe in previous posts, and Dis seems to be in the same camp. Not only are most of their (and those llike them) comments disturbing, they are wrong. Gays and lesbians if they ruled the world, would have children. They would have govenrments, economic advisors, etc. who would be monitoring the economic impacts of children for schools, hospitals, soldiers, workers, etc. just as they have for thousands of years in the hetero world. Geessh people. Use your effing brains.
As far as the Greek and other extreme examples, I believe Steve2 and others have pointed out that is not typical of the gay/lesbian/transgender (transgender, oh lord Yadda, they have BOTH parts. What will you do?) world that they know or that I know. I'm straight but know many many gays and lesbians, most of whom I find superior in human qualities to straights (kindness, generoisty, consideration, etc.). I also know many bi's, both men and women (dont ask) who are also quality people.
There have been dozens of Grammy broacasts, so if one out of the 50 or 60 aired features a somewhat gay theme so freaking what. When the wrongs committed against blacks were being corrected, there was a similar situation in the U.S. media to represent. I would say that still is somewhat the situation; blacks for example have about 11 percent of the U.S. population but are likely over represented in a lot of different medias. So what.
Turn the channel Yadda and Dis. Or watch and change your hearts and minds. I won't even bother to respond to Dis' copy and paste remarks about how terribly vile being gay is or how wicked the gays in Greek were. Good grief. They are ridiculous and can be deconstructed by an 8 year old.
Their comments are typical and predictable from previous posts. The lack of sophistication, tolerance and knowledge of the real world by many on this forum is disturbing.
Isn't the simple reality that certain groups in certain cultures make it appear that homosexuality may be more common than it actually is. I don't imagine the example of Greeks really mirrored the general population at the time just as musicians at an award show aren't a representative sample either.
Some of the comments are obviously homophobic and I would warn those making them that you DO cross a line from personal opinion to biggotry and we're not here to publish pr promote your biases so either shut up or go elsewhere.
They are also so idiotic and easily countered as to not warrant a response.
They are also so idiotic and easily countered as to not warrant a response.
This.
This post is off-topic, but I consider it pertinent, because Dis-member quotes a Matt Slick. I wondered who was this 'authoritive voice' that Dis-member considers to be such an authority? Turns out he's an 'ordained' minister. Not sure who 'ordained' him but he's at some pains to affirm that he is 'ordained.' But then I was once an 'ordained' minister, by the authority of the F&DS or something like that. (grin).
Anyway, Matt Slick is an interesting character. He believes fervently, that a man, who has a daughter who lets her hymen be damaged (outside marriage, of course) has the right to kill (honor killing) his wayward daughter.
Not much difference between the lovely, Reverend Matt and the Taliban is there?
Dis-member, do you agree with this teaching proclaimed by Matt?
Here's the drivel:
You'll note of course, that he denies advocating 'honor killing, but isn't that the clear implication of the text? Interesting to compare Matt's article with the incident described described in the gospels of the woman about to be stoned.
Reference: http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin
Stone a woman for not being a virgin?
Deut. 22:13-21
"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," ( Deut. 22:13-21 ).
Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality. The above verses were written 3,000 years ago in a very different culture and location. Sexual purity was very highly valued, unlike today, and when a man would marry a woman, her virginity was critical. In ancient times a dowry was paid to the father of the bride and the rightful expectation was that the bride would be a virgin.
In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was representative of the father's ability to raise her according to the laws of God. Therefore, in that culture, a man's reputation, as well as the family's reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter. If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married, and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin and this would bring great shame to the family and the community, not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God's law. In this case, to insure the integrity of the family, and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated.
Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one.
Of course, we do not advocate any type of honor killing. We are simply stating what the cultural context was.
You may also like to read the following: http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2011/10/07/matt-slick-defends-honor-killing-a-womans-hymen-is-worth-more-than-her-life/
Dis-member--YOU wrote that tirade against homosexuals??? The one LisaRose so eloquently answered?
!!!!after putting up that video? Did I ever misunderstand you!
How can you miss the damage to a person to be hated that way?
Fulltimestudent, excellent research. Thank you for putting a nail in the coffin of the haters. Humbled, I thought you didn't understand that Dis was a homophobe. And as far as statistics, from the great 21st Century sage Dennis Finch (Just Shoot Me) that "all girls are two drinks away from a girl on girl experience" and the noted author (Ok she is just on Elite Daily) Amanda Redwood and many many others: Lezzzbehonest: All Girls Are Secretly Lesbians.
That is the world I live in.
yadda yadda 2:
Professor Gary Leupp (Tufts University) affirms that male to male sex was 'normative' in that era. But again, the wives were all at home, looking after the kids.
Oh yeah? "Normative" for who? Produce the scholars quotes.
Sure! Doubting yadda.
Tufts web-site carries a brief biography for Leupp (and you may note his authorship of a book - Male Colors.
Web reference: http://ase.tufts.edu/history/faculty/leupp.asp
 Contact Info: Department of History Tufts University East Hall, room 101 Medford, MA 02155 617.627.2426 Email Prof. Leupp |
Professor of History
Now, let's use the Amazon site description of his book 'Male Colors-the Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan.'
Amazon reference: http://www.amazon.com/Male-Colors-Construction-Homosexuality-Tokugawa/dp/0520209001
Amazon's description of the book states:
"OK - something has happened to my post- I'll attempt to re-write it and repost as it seems to be something I've done in this particular post
This post continues my response to Yadda yadda 2, and responds to his request:
Professor Gary Leupp (Tufts University) affirms that male to male sex was 'normative' in that era. But again, the wives were all at home, looking after the kids.
Oh yeah? "Normative" for who? Produce the scholars quotes.
In my last post I established who Gary Leupp was, and I re-iterate that Leupp is a reputable scholar who has extensively researched life in Tokugawa Japan (17th C to 19th C).
The actual quotation was from Leupp's book, Male Colors, (University of California Press-1995), p.3 in the introduction. Leupp explains that in the course of his research on the topic of the experiences of servants, shophands and casual labourers in Tokugawa cities that he first became aware of the numerous homosexual involvements of these people.
And now I quote his exact words:
"The more I read, the more I became persuaded that homosexual behaviour was not merely common in Tokugawa society - at least urban society - but normative: the sources express teh prevalent asumption that at least urban males were, in general, inclined toward sexual involvements with othr males and that such involvements met with widespread tolerance."
Happy now, my doubting yadda yadda2.
NO?
Well I guess, you may be one of those people who are only happy when the evidence indicates that the world is the way you imagine that it should be. But, on this occasion it is NOT!
And, I think I deserve an apology from you. I go out of my way to usually quote or cite my sources in all my posts, but your comment was completely sceptical of my intellectual honesty and amounted to an accusation that I was intellectually dishonest . Whether or not you DO apologise is a matter of some indifference to me, but your failure to do so could be seen as an indication of your personal lack of intellectual honesty.
