Why does the church get all freaked out over homosexuality?

[Tmy]

I heard this story where a 5yr old girl was denied entry into a catholic school because her mom is gay. The reason for her denile was that the shool was concearned about teaching her that her parents lifestyle was a sin.

I thought back to my catholic school education. First off, they avoided the gay topic alltogether. 2nd,we had lots of kids who had divorced parents. THats just as much a sin as homosexuality, right? Divorce is quite common and while frowned apon its doesnt get the same reaction as homosexuality.

Its not like theres a commandment "Thou shall not be gay" so whats the big deal? Is the church just used as a cover for people to be free with their bigotry?

[Mr Manifesto]

It says in Leviticus that you can't be gay. In between the bits about not being able to wear cotton/polyester and how you have to sacrifice bulls occassionally.

What I want to know is, what's being done about the REAL filth in society- the ROCK BADGER EATERS! (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+11:5&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)

[Mr Manifesto]

Eat one and go to Hell! HELL! <h1>HEEEELLLLL!!!!</H1>

http://www.jao.com/africa/serengeti/hyrax.jpg

[Tmy]

Well thats because most of Moses ( i forget what theyre called. Sister Nora would be so ashamed) whatzits laws were repealed later on in the Bible. I guess God made some mistaked. Gayness was not repealed so it still counts. The rock badger eaters got a pass.

[Nasarius]

Thanks for the laugh, Mr. M :D

[Mr Manifesto]

I heard about an African who choked on a rock badger's bones. I went to my local Baptist church so I could get fund to go to his funeral and chant "GOD HATES ROCK BADGER EATERS!" but they didn't want to know. Apparently the chant doesn't have the same oomph as 'God hates fags'.

[Quasi]

I think mainly homophobia appeals to conservatives. Most catholic church believers are conservative. Male- male families cannot have natural children. Having many children increases the catholic following which = more money. Any questions?

[Mr Manifesto]

On a more serious note, there's a really interesting book by Mary Douglas called 'Purity and Danger'. It was criticised by academics for being 'too universal' (no, I don't know what that means). But in it, she makes some interesting observations.


Pork wasn't considered unholy because of the parasite you can get from not cooking it properly. Apparently, no one even knew about the parasite until about 200 years ago, and no one seems to have noticed that raw or undercooked pork can make you seriously ill. The real reason, as dutifully detailed in Leviticus, is because it has hooves but doesn't chew its cud. Compare with the rock badger who chews its cud but doesn't have hooves. The only 'clean' animals (read: 'holy') were those who had both, like cows, sheep, goats, etc.
Homosexuality and beastiality were apparently practised by nearby tribes to those that wrote the Bible. Although she doesn't say it in so many words, Douglas theorises that the real reason it was written as unholy in the Bible was because of tribal hatred, not because of any other reason you might think of. In other words, we don't do what the neighbours do.
Things which are different may be given 'taboo' or 'holy' status, depending on the circumstances. This is a complicated argument, and I haven't read the book for a while, but it's worth reading the book just for this point alone.

[Charlie Monoxide]

It says in Leviticus that you can't be gay. In between the bits about not being able to wear cotton/polyester and how you have to sacrifice bulls occassionally. You got that one right Mr Manifesto! The fundies like to pick and choose the old testaments "laws" that suit their needs.

Charlie (cmd 11 - that shalt not spread BS unless fertilizing) Monoxide

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I heard about an African who choked on a rock badger's bones.

That animal is a Rock Hyrax, I have never heard it called a Rock Badger. It isn't even slightly related to badgers, its closest relative is in fact the Elephant.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


That animal is a Rock Hyrax, I have never heard it called a Rock Badger.

I'm sorry to hear that. If you think I'm the only one who calls it a rock badger, click the link.

[Tmy]

Call it what you want. Hes cute n fuzzy and it shoudl eb a sin to kill the critter. BURN IN HELL!!!


Join People for the Ethical Treatment of Good Looking Animals.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I'm sorry to hear that. If you think I'm the only one who calls it a rock badger, click the link.

I did click, and am still confused. I've just googled it, and all the hits seem to have some kind of religious undertone which is strange. None of the first couple of pages of hits was what you might call an authoritative source (WRT mammals). One of the sites I read claimed it was rare, which is nonsense. Having lived in Africa most of my life, with various species of Hyrax resident wherever I happened to be, I am somewhat surprised that I've never heard this term before. The main source seems to be Leviticus, which might explain why I'm not familiar with it! At a guess I'd say it's a literal translation into English from another language (Greek, Hebrew?) where the animal is called a Rock Badger.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It says in Leviticus that you can't be gay. In between the bits about not being able to wear cotton/polyester and how you have to sacrifice bulls occassionally.
The mad thing is that Leviticus 18:22 is a rather subjective interpretation (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm) of the original Hebrew, "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." I carnt read Hebrew, so if there's anyone who could interpret, that would be groovy! Anyway, it's unclear if this bit prohibits a particularly act, or certain people from engaging in a certain act or the location where the act might be performed. One thing is clear though: it doesn't condemn homosexuality per se, as it talks about acts (and the acts it refers to precludes it from being critical of lesbianism), rather than the lifestyle; and the word "homosexual" comes from the 19th century, so it carnt be a literal interpretation of the original.

[Suezoled]

In other words, we don't do what the neighbours do.


maybe they're saying if you can't keep up with the neighbors, ignore them? :p

[Tony]

Doesnt "the church" get freaked out over sexuality in general?

[Foodbunny]

I think that part of the reason that some religious folks are disportionally offended by homosexuality vs other sinful sexuality is that it feels like a battle they ought to be able to win. Most straight people think homosexual sex is icky. Children can't result from the union, so in a way it represents, to them, pure hedonism. They ought to be able to convince people that it's evil easier than regular old heterosexual premarital sex. And once you get that moral foot in the door, you ought to be able to convince them that other things are sinful, linking them to homosexuality.

Naturally, it doesn't always work out that way. Some people aren't willing to say that something they don't personally enjoy is evil, in part because then who will keep the things they enjoy for being labeled evil as well.

[specious_reasons]

I concur, Foodbunny, that probably has a lot to do with it.

Of course, they sometimes stretch the links to homosexuality. My favorite:

"The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this … I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" - Jerry Falwell, On 9/11

[Tony]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


"The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this … I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" - Jerry Falwell, On 9/11


In a way, Falwell was right. The terrorists hate america for its open and liberal culture.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony



In a way, Falwell was right. The terrorists hate america for its open and liberal culture.

Thats bullflop! BULLFLOP I SAY!!!

They hate us for our poilcies and history with mucking with the mideast.

America is far from the most "open and liberal" culture. If that was their true target theyd be flying planes in places like Amsterdam.

The whole "they hate us cause we're free" line is just rabble-rousing propaganda.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats bullflop! BULLFLOP I SAY!!!

They hate us for our poilcies and history with mucking with the mideast.

America is far from the most "open and liberal" culture. If that was their true target theyd be flying planes in places like Amsterdam.

The whole "they hate us cause we're free" line is just rabble-rousing propaganda.

How wrong you are...

"America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited.

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP38802

[jj]

The real reason, I've always suspected, was because they wanted you to BREED BREED BREED to outbreed the infidels.

#include "sarcastic_flame.h"
---
Get with it. None of that birth control, none of this guy on guy stuff, you have to BREED. Make us more for OUR side of the final Jihad.

BREED BREED BREED.

(insert chorus from "The Wall")
---
#include "reality.h"

Sorry, I'm in a bad mood right now.

[Jessica Blue]

It's interesting that, while the bible clearly reviles homosexuality, it also reviles divorce and women teachers too, yet these issues don't threaten to cause anywhere near the bitterness and divisive schism in the [Anglican]church that the gay issue does.

Maybe it's because the church just can't afford to alienate all the women and divorced people...there's just too many of them. By comparison, gay christians are comparitively low in numbers so the conservative elements feel they can risk beating them over the head with biblical justification.


http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0802/popepic.jpg

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


How wrong you are...



http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.c...ihad&ID=SP38802

Your link's broken, Tony. Until it's fixed, I'll have to assume it's more ignorance from you... since this is the norm.

[Prospero]

I don't understand the confusion. Of course the church is scared of homosexuals! I mean, come on! Everyone knows they've been planning their invasion since at least the mid-60's. As soon as gay marriages are legal, they will sweep down on unsuspecting adoption centers and adopt an entire generation of orphans to raise into adult gays which will then continue the process, systematically wiping out the heterosexual population and ruling the world. Isn't it obvious?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Prospero
I don't understand the confusion. Of course the church is scared of homosexuals! I mean, come on! Everyone knows they've been planning their invasion since at least the mid-60's. As soon as gay marriages are legal, they will sweep down on unsuspecting adoption centers and adopt an entire generation of orphans to raise into adult gays which will then continue the process, systematically wiping out the heterosexual population and ruling the world. Isn't it obvious?

I read once about turkey parthenogenesis. It's an interesting phenomenon, quite common in vertibrates actually. Problem for turkeys is, the females have heterozygus sex chromasomes, males homozygus, the oppisite of humans. You can only clone yourself so long before males start coming out. :(

Tom turkeys worldwide breath a sigh of relief through their highly efficient avian air-sack lungs.

Of course, it would work for female humans, since female mammals have homozygus sex chromosomes. Shoot, add a bit more technical wizardry and you could have a very viable sexualy reproducing population that completely does away with males!

I'll stop with that right there.

After reading c4t's ancient thread upon the subject, i decided to check it for myself. Sure enough I couldn't find any mention of homosexuality in Sodom in the old testiment, or the brief bit whre it's mentioned in the new testiment.

As for leviticus...

Who kept that in there anyway? Mules are an abomination! Don't plant more than one type of grain in your fields! Screw modern faming techniques!

Rabbits chew cud!

[Eos of the Eons]

There's news everyday on anti-gay marriage rallies in this country. And then the endless streams of letters to the editor on how we all have to fight-go to arms against-the gay agenda. I still have yet to figure out what exactly those meatheads think the gay agenda is. Our gay tenants are married. It's kinda cool actually. They stay faithful, and our poor homophobe neighbors don't have to see a string of one-nighters coming and going (well, they are women, so some of our neighbors might enjoy the thought of such goings ons though).

I wouldn't discourage monogamy for anyone. I say encourage gay marriages and unions between two people. Stability of any kind is really cool, and these ladies always pay their rent. We've had unmarried couples break up all the time and cheat us out of rent when they moved out without notice. This married couple is among our most responsible tenants ever in this duplex.

It's all in how you look at it.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson know that civil liberties groups, Federal courts, feminists, homosexuals, internet porn and abortion rights supporters (all enemies of America!) are responsible for 9/11 because their actions have turned God's anger against America." God was angered so He had to allow "the enemies of America to murder thousands of innocent people to express His Almighty displeasure...to give us probably what we deserve."

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson know that civil liberties groups, Federal courts, feminists, homosexuals, internet porn and abortion rights supporters (all enemies of America!) are responsible for 9/11 because their actions have turned God's anger against America." God was angered so He had to allow "the enemies of America to murder thousands of innocent people to express His Almighty displeasure...to give us probably what we deserve."

That's asinine. Can't they be charged with treason or something?

[shemp]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It says in Leviticus that you can't be gay. In between the bits about not being able to wear cotton/polyester and how you have to sacrifice bulls occassionally.

What I want to know is, what's being done about the REAL filth in society- the ROCK BADGER EATERS! (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+11:5&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)

Is it OK to eat a Rock Lobster? (http://www.davemcnally.com/lyrics/b52s/RockLobster.asp)

[Eos of the Eons]

does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

shouldn't it be more clean?? Doesn't the devil have cloven hoofs?

Absurdity. Like it freakin matters.

So, why won't some eat pork? What is the reason for the aversion there?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


That's asinine. Can't they be charged with treason or something?

who are they?

the enemies of America according to Pat and Jerry?

or Pat and Jerry?

I don't think any of these parties can be tried for treason if they didn't break any laws pertaining to treasonous acts.

[Hamish]

Originally posted by shemp


Is it OK to eat a Rock Lobster? (http://www.davemcnally.com/lyrics/b52s/RockLobster.asp)

Nope. See Leviticus 11:9-12. Unless it's got scales and fins, anything that lives in the sea or river is an "abomination".

That means no calimari, prawns, crab or rock lobster among other things.

You can eat locusts though (Lev 11:22)

[Zep]

Isn't it interesting that the people who wrote Leviticus were nomadic tribesmen of the Middle East, whose descendants are most probably the "despised" Muslims of today.

So Pat and Jerry would like us to revert to the proscriptions of these proto-Muslims. Uh-huh.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


shouldn't it be more clean?? Doesn't the devil have cloven hoofs?

Absurdity. Like it freakin matters.

So, why won't some eat pork? What is the reason for the aversion there?

"Purity and Danger" goes into more detail, but basically if something 'different' comes along, it is either assigned sacred or taboo status, apparently depending on the mood of the assigner.

Obviously, when the question of 'what can be eaten in keeping with our holy tenents' came along, the tribes were used to their meat products having scales and swimming, or having hooves and chewing their cud. Pork must have been relatively new, and the Bible-writers found it distasteful. Compare with people who can't handle eating octopus. The only reason not to eat octopus is because it looks different (that is, if you're a seafood eater- I happen to not like octopus because I don't like seafood in general... but let's not complicate the issue).

It has been argued that similarly the act of open homosexuality was frowned upon because it was practised by those devils that just moved in next door. They must also have worn two different types of fabrics too, although that could simply be a purity issue.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


who are they?

the enemies of America according to Pat and Jerry?

or Pat and Jerry?

I don't think any of these parties can be tried for treason if they didn't break any laws pertaining to treasonous acts.


I did say "or something". We need a law.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


"Purity and Danger" goes into more detail, but basically if something 'different' comes along, it is either assigned sacred or taboo status, apparently depending on the mood of the assigner.

Obviously, when the question of 'what can be eaten in keeping with our holy tenents' came along, the tribes were used to their meat products having scales and swimming, or having hooves and chewing their cud. Pork must have been relatively new, and the Bible-writers found it distasteful. Compare with people who can't handle eating octopus. The only reason not to eat octopus is because it looks different (that is, if you're a seafood eater- I happen to not like octopus because I don't like seafood in general... but let's not complicate the issue).

It has been argued that similarly the act of open homosexuality was frowned upon because it was practised by those devils that just moved in next door. They must also have worn two different types of fabrics too, although that could simply be a purity issue.

See, there should be a law against 'stupid taboos'. Like one saying that "if it's edible, you can eat it...barring your own kind".

Now, if anyone wants to argue that cannibalism must also be considered if something like that came about, then whatever.

[Schizobunny]

Religion is a discrimanatory, contradictory thing. Thats why.

[Luke T.]

If you guys are going to be making fun of Christians, you need to understand where they are coming from. To play with Jerry Falwell, et al., and the book of Leviticus is to be ignorant of the book of Romans. Falwell is a Christian, after all, not a Jew.

For example:


I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Have yourself a BLT and chill out.

[BillyTK]

I suspect that Falwell, being somewhat of a fundamentalist bent, would be more concerned with the teachings of the old testament than the new, and being respectful of what his brother chooses to do with his meat would be outside of his philosophy.

[Luke T.]

The early Christians came from a society of Jews who followed the Old Testament Law. But as time passed, and the word of Christ was carried throughout the Mediterranean by Paul, Gentiles began to come into the fold. And Gentiles were not servile to Jewish Law. Many of the original Christians did not want to take Gentiles into their new order. The matter had to actually be resolved by a summit with Peter, with Paul being the advocate for the Gentiles. Some of the original Christians didn't like the idea of pork-eating savages being incorporated into their society.

The book of Romans is Paul's argument for the ability of former Jews and Gentiles to live together as Christians. He said if you wish to live by the old Jewish Law, that was okay. And he asked that those who ate whatever food they liked to not ask their fellow judaic christians to do the same, as it was offensive to them. But under the new way of things, food was not an issue with God. But whatever Law you chose to follow, you would be judged by how you lived by it.

Thus, the "buffet style" of religion so often derided by some.

Many things are buffet style. As our country absorbs more and more ethnic peoples, so our laws change, too, according to the ways and customs of the people who make up our country.

And so we have a constant battle of inflexibility and too much flexibility.

This is all a part of human nature and not a reflection on the God that humans believe in, except by way of granting them the free will to totally screw things up if they choose.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The early Christians came from a society of Jews who followed the Old Testament Law. But as time passed, and the word of Christ was carried throughout the Mediterranean by Paul, Gentiles began to come into the fold. And Gentiles were not servile to Jewish Law. Many of the original Christians did not want to take Gentiles into their new order. The matter had to actually be resolved by a summit with Peter, with Paul being the advocate for the Gentiles. Some of the original Christians didn't like the idea of pork-eating savages being incorporated into their society.

The book of Romans is Paul's argument for the ability of former Jews and Gentiles to live together as Christians. He said if you wish to live by the old Jewish Law, that was okay. And he asked that those who ate whatever food they liked to not ask their fellow judaic christians to do the same, as it was offensive to them. But under the new way of things, food was not an issue with God. But whatever Law you chose to follow, you would be judged by how you lived by it.

Thus, the "buffet style" of religion so often derided by some.

Many things are buffet style. As our country absorbs more and more ethnic peoples, so our laws change, too, according to the ways and customs of the people who make up our country.

And so we have a constant battle of inflexibility and too much flexibility.

This is all a part of human nature and not a reflection on the God that humans believe in, except by way of granting them the free will to totally screw things up if they choose.
Party pooper!
Nevertheless, good post.
On the pork and shellfish thing, I thought it was originally something to do with those going off more quickly than other meats or seafood.