Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Kantanska]

If you want to make that argument that "it's the Church's fault" you have to give them credit for the Enlightenment too. After all the Holy Father did call the Crusades which brought new ideals and opportunities to Europe.

The Enlightenment was the child of the Scientific Revolution which was kind of a continuation(Although I'd call it more a re-inspiration/reinterpretation) of Renaissance thought.

and what inspired Renaissance thought?

[Vareiln]

The Enlightenment was the child of the Scientific Revolution which was kind of a continuation(Although I'd call it more a re-inspiration/reinterpretation) of Renaissance thought.

and what inspired Renaissance thought?

Former inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, mostly.
The Crusades happened much earlier and ideas from the Islamic empires had already spread before then.
See: Averroes

[Resawa]

If you want to make that argument that "it's the Church's fault" you have to give them credit for the Enlightenment too. After all the Holy Father did call the Crusades which brought new ideals and opportunities to Europe.

I don't think senseless war was that great.

But alas he's right. Without eastern intelligence, Europe would still be a pisspot

[Aeken]

Threadjacking is bad, people.

[Othelos]

I don't think senseless war was that great.

But alas he's right. Without eastern intelligence, Europe would still be a pisspot

Yup. The crusades are the reason Europe is so developed today.

[Vareiln]

I don't think senseless war was that great.

But alas he's right. Without eastern intelligence, Europe would still be a pisspot

Not quite...
But guys, seriously, this is starting to get off topic.

[Liriena]

You remember Ancient Greece where being gay was "oh whatever" that was nice.
'Course, there were lots of problems, but that one aspect was nice

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

[Vareiln]

You remember Ancient Greece where being gay was "oh whatever" that was nice.
'Course, there were lots of problems, but that one aspect was nice

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

Not exactly nice if you ask me.

[Liriena]

Except, it only appears to be "crystal clear". All the New Testament verses that seem to deal with it are actually mistranslated, and really deal with other topics. (I'll let Menassa deal with the OT verses.)



None of this addresses the fact that arsenokoitai doesn't mean "homosexuals". It refers to temple prostitutes. Not consensual, committed homosexual relationships (which you won't find a single condemnation of in the NT, and only in Leviticus (which contains condemnations of various other acts that you and I do every day, such as eating pork, eating shellfish, eating meat and cheese for the same meal, wearing cotton/wool blend clothing, crop rotation (for farmers),etc.), which doesn't even apply to Christians. Hell, Sodom wasn't even destroyed because of "homosexuality" (the act depicted doesn't even fit as homosexuality, but rather rape).



Indeed.



1. All use the word "arsenokoitai", a word which appears to have been totally made up by Paul (it doesn't appear in other works from before Paul's writing). If Paul had really wanted to condemn homosexuality, why would he have had to make up a word for it, especially considering there was an already existing word for it in Greek?

2. So something is only good if Jesus or Paul wrote saying how something should be? Does that mean that using cars is a sin? Using computers? Watching TV?

3. Except its not a sin. Why would a rational, loving, merciful God declare something that deprives nobody of their rights without informed consent to be a sin?

4. Again, they're all mistranslated/misinterpreted.



Again, all mistranslated or misinterpreted/taken out of context.

Also, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for refusing to help the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:49, where no mention of men having sex with men is made; ironically enough, this means America IS turning into Sodom, but not in the way conservative fundies think it is), not consensual, committed homosexuality (the men of Sodom arguably were guilty of attempted RAPE, which didn't help Sodom's position any).



Indeed.



Then you're using the wrong word. Also, what about an infertile man and an infertile woman having sex? Also, what's wrong with bodily pleasure, especially when it deprives nobody of their rights without informed consent?



Your beliefs, like those of people who think the Earth is flat, are wrong, and counter to common sense.



1. Then how else will couples be guaranteed things like survivors' benefits, hospital visitation, final medical decisions, funeral planning, etc.? You don't realize how shitty your position is, do you?

2. Its not good at all.

3. Persecution complex, much?



Because they're used by others to "justify" our oppression (as much as it can be "justified").



Which only complicates matters, making doing so involve loads of time, money, and paperwork. Which is worse than status quo. You're advocating for a shittier system than currently exists. This. Is. A. Bad. Thing.

You went though all my posts? Wow, you are little opposed dude, and I haven't talked about religion in the past couples of my posts, so I can tell you were cherry-picking.

Quite the accusation... and hardly a valid response.

[Liriena]

The Enlightenment was the child of the Scientific Revolution which was kind of a continuation(Although I'd call it more a re-inspiration/reinterpretation) of Renaissance thought.

and what inspired Renaissance thought?

Ancient Rome and Greece, really.

[Resawa]

You remember Ancient Greece where being gay was "oh whatever" that was nice.
'Course, there were lots of problems, but that one aspect was nice

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

Aye
But he'll, Appolo was bi, and Socrates, arguably their most famous philosopher was gay.
They had significant respect towards it

[Luveria]

You remember Ancient Greece where being gay was "oh whatever" that was nice.
'Course, there were lots of problems, but that one aspect was nice

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

It is worth mentioning that in Greek and Roman culture, it was not shameful to be homosexual. Topping was honourable. Being sub or bottom was not, but as long as the sub/bottom stayed to that role, it wouldn't matter. The ultimate transgression was a top bottoming, or a bottom topping. So yes, those societies were homophobic.

[Menassa]

However most of the Old Testament hero's who would assumed to be just as valid as the New Testament were married, some to multiple women!

I'll be sure to tell her that.

Very good.

Again, Translation...

And it's not a direct teaching like it is in the OT.

True. Thanks for doing this!

Anything I can to be a 'light unto the nations' my friend.

[Liriena]

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

Not exactly nice if you ask me.

I think the Chinese dealt with homosexuality far more sensibly than the Romans or the Greeks did, really.

[Liriena]

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

Aye
But he'll, Appolo was bi, and Socrates, arguably their most famous philosopher was gay.
They had significant respect towards it

Apollo was a sassy hunk. ;3

[Resawa]

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

It is worth mentioning that in Greek and Roman culture, it was not shameful to be homosexual. Topping was honourable. Being sub or bottom was not, but as long as the sub/bottom stayed to that role, it wouldn't matter. The ultimate transgression was a top bottoming, or a bottom topping. So yes, those societies were homophobic.

Not necessarily, a famous Athenian general, his name escapes me ill find it later, was normally top, but bottomed for Socrates, his mentor

[Luveria]

It is worth mentioning that in Greek and Roman culture, it was not shameful to be homosexual. Topping was honourable. Being sub or bottom was not, but as long as the sub/bottom stayed to that role, it wouldn't matter. The ultimate transgression was a top bottoming, or a bottom topping. So yes, those societies were homophobic.

Not necessarily, a famous Athenian general, his name escapes me ill find it later, was normally top, but bottomed for Socrates, his mentor

From what I have read, the general rule was that tops stay tops and bottoms stay bottoms or it's wrong?

[The Traditional Catholic Papal States]

You went though all my posts? Wow, you are little opposed dude, and I haven't talked about religion in the past couples of my posts, so I can tell you were cherry-picking.

Quite the accusation... and hardly a valid response.

I posted my religious beliefs regarding my religious beliefs on homosexuality many times and doing it any more would be really spamming. Regarding getting the state out of civil marriage, I am not the only one to think so.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... _marriage/
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... rriage.htm

[Liriena]

Except for maybe Thebes, being gay was fine, so long as your were always on top and your partner was younger and/or of lesser birth.

It is worth mentioning that in Greek and Roman culture, it was not shameful to be homosexual. Topping was honourable. Being sub or bottom was not, but as long as the sub/bottom stayed to that role, it wouldn't matter. The ultimate transgression was a top bottoming, or a bottom topping. So yes, those societies were homophobic.

Well, they were not homophobic as much as they were plain sexist: it was unmanly to bottom.

It's pretty much the same rationale behind Old Testament homophobia (give or take an anti-Canaanite counter-cultural movement): women are lesser beings. For a man to 'acts as a woman' in bed was dishonourable.

[Resawa]

Alcibiades
That was it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades

[Vareiln]

Not exactly nice if you ask me.

I think the Chinese dealt with homosexuality far more sensibly than the Romans or the Greeks did, really.

This, by far.

[Resawa]

Not necessarily, a famous Athenian general, his name escapes me ill find it later, was normally top, but bottomed for Socrates, his mentor

From what I have read, the general rule was that tops stay tops and bottoms stay bottoms or it's wrong?

That was really Rome
Greeks were more.....free spirited

[Resawa]

I think the Chinese dealt with homosexuality far more sensibly than the Romans or the Greeks did, really.

This, by far.

Elaborate, I'm not an expert in eastern clture

[Liriena]

Quite the accusation... and hardly a valid response.

Why are you silently quoting what I just posted?

[Luveria]

It is worth mentioning that in Greek and Roman culture, it was not shameful to be homosexual. Topping was honourable. Being sub or bottom was not, but as long as the sub/bottom stayed to that role, it wouldn't matter. The ultimate transgression was a top bottoming, or a bottom topping. So yes, those societies were homophobic.

Well, they were not homophobic as much as they were plain sexist: it was unmanly to bottom.

It's pretty much the same rationale behind Old Testament homophobia (give or take an anti-Canaanite counter-cultural movement): women are lesser beings. For a man to 'acts as a woman' in bed was dishonourable.

Yes, although the Greek/Roman cultures were "as long as a bottom plays the role of a woman, it's okay. If they switch roles, it's wrong." Likewise, it was reversed to tops taking the women role sometimes. I'm aware there have been exceptions mentioned, but that doesn't change what the general standard of those societies was.

You're right it was sexism, but that sexism amounted to homophobia in a way, because it only tolerated homosexuality as long as it was confined to rigid gender roles applies to homosexual relationships.

Alcibiades
That was it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades

Only the Early Life part mentions anything about it, and it's not mentioned if that was tolerated by the rest of society.