|
A place for fair, respectable, and intellectual conversation
|
|
Invite friend
Heterosexuality is the New Homosexuality
|
|
|||||
In Classical times, heterosexuality, or the love of a man for a woman, was considered to be "an animalistic urge to be slaked quickly only for the purpose of reproduction" (Henry Staten, English 202 instructor) while "platonic love" or the love of a man for another man, was considered idealistic and "above the beasts." Such close friends were in fact called "lovers," like Hercules and Hylas. To fall in love with a man was the "proper" thing to do at the time, and signified a wonderous thing. This "homosociality" as it has come to be known, is not exactly the same as homosexuality. Men touched, even kissed, but were not necessarily sexual with one another, or at least they didn't consider it to be sex. They were at ease, would hold hands, and trusted men more than they trusted their female counterparts. However, as the Renaissance rolled about, and women's status was elevated to that of muses and Goddesses (Dante's Beatrice and Petrarch's Laura), the love between a man and woman was no longer considered that of a bestial urge, but indeed on par with the love shared between men. Even in the Renaissance, however, the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality was still blurred with the homosocial concept, and everyone became, in a sense, bisexuals. William Shakespeare, one of the world's most famous Renaissance poets, is infamous for his ambiguous sexuality, embodied particularly in sonnet # 20 ("A man in hue all hues in his controlling/Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth... But since she pricked thee out for women's pleasure/Mine be thy love, and thy love's use their treasure"). Not to mention his blatant commentary on the ambiguity of sexuality in general in his plays "Twelfth Night" and "As You Like It." As the Renaissance wound down, however, and we entered the Age of Enlightenment, Christianity regained its stance on the topic of homosexuality and it became one of the cardinal sins for a long time, up until the twentieth century. The homosocial culture of Classical Times and the Renaissance was dashed, and men became afraid of touching each other even in the most casual of ways. Where they would have comfortably held hands walking down a road, or kissed one's cheek as a thank you, they became isolated, and aggressive, for women were once again considered beneath them and untrustworthy, and they lost their platonic lovers, and thus became malcontented, and we lost much of the art and beauty produced by the Renaissance. Even now, through Pride Parades and media representation, homosexuality is still considered by many to be "evil" or "sinful" based on certain passages of the Bible (specifically the book of Leviticus) or the Koran or other Holy Books and scriptures. My only purpose in writing this is basically to ask this question. We consider many things from the Classical and Renaissance eras to be beautiful and intellectual achievements of man. Meanwhile, in modern times, we consider ourselves to be lazy and belligerent, defensive and close-minded. When there were no "rules" on who one could or couldn't love, and when no one was trying to infringe upon everyone else (politically, religiously, and artistically), mankind made some of his best achievements. Mankind was also sexually ambiguous. And now in a world full of labels and judgment, we consider it our responsibility to tell others when they're wrong according to our own values. Why do you think this is? Mellow out, people. Lighten up, and stop being so judgmental. "Straight" people were once considered unusual and heterosexuality was considered to be "less than human." So are we progressing or are we regressing? I'll just sum it up. Heterosexuality was once considered vulgar and necessary only for reproduction all the way through the Renaissance Era. "True love" was thought to exist between two people of the same sex, not between a man and a woman. It was only in the Age of Enlightenment when Christianity regained its foothold on Europe that homosexuality once again became a sin. All I'm saying is, our perspectives change with the time. Why tell someone else that they're wrong based on your set of values? "You should show courtesy and be cordial with each other, so that no one should consider himself superior to another, nor do him harm." -The Prophet Muhammed "Love Thy neighbor as you would yourself" -Jesus "Whatever you so wish that men would do to you, do so to them, for this is the law..." -Matthew 7:12
|
||||||
| connect with us on | |||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Join this Club
(King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
(Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."
(New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
(New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."
(Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .
This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God's Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.
First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).
Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).
Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.
Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.
In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)
The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1130
(Just added for the sake of debate.....the link is EVERYTHING on that page.)
A) Because when I ask why, they tend to respond with "The Bible says so" and have no other argument.
B) Because theological discussions can generally only happen between theologians, on a philosophical and not a basis of empirical evidence.
C) Because I explicitly state that it is wrong to impose your views on others, and that works both ways in my opinion. So I have stopped arguing with Christians on issues of their faith except in a conversational and exploratory manner in which I am only asking them to think about their beliefs, not change them.
The point of this article was not IF or WHY Christians were against homosexuality. It stated clearly that they were, and did not go into why. It is simply homosexuality's impact on society.
Now I have to leave, my family abandoned me to go eat dinner I will say more later.
If one does not feel interested in striclt reading text.....
http://theophilus.org/ofc/
That puts it in a more interesting perspective of how it all got started.
I've heard all the atheist & agnostic comebacks to the Protestant Faith: "You simple sheep!"..."Don't drink the Kool-Aid"..."You've nothing else to back it up!"...."I can't believe it if I don't see it in front of me!"......"Baa-a-a-a-a-a-aaa!!!&
But, you know what, it's okay. All I can say is we'll all know the truth someday in the future. *shrugs*
Books cannot tell you everything you need to know, life only goes so far, as well. Now I've got nothing against a good education. I, in fact, encourage it. But some people, if not most, can only handle so much knowledge before it takes over and controls them. And it makes them feel like they're a god and they can rely on themselves. Not so. Nobody can go it alone. but if they want to feel that way, I will not stop them.
1) Anal sex is not simply a homosexual practice, nor is it the only way the AIDS virus and "other STDs" are spread.
2) GOD has been around forever, the BIBLE and "his word" has only existed for about 1700 years and while it may be the word of God, it was also heavily edited through the ages, and some books were lost.
3) The reason I personally do not like bringing religion into an argument is because there are hundreds of different religions, and within those there are millions of different interpretations, and therefore religion cannot speak for society or humanity on the whole.
4) I do not believe that one who believes in and follows the Bible is a sheep if they have thought about their beliefs. Indeed, I respect the religious, for they have a deep faith that I lack, and I admire those further who have questioned their ideas and beliefs and still stand by them. I do believe that those who accept things without question, whether it be from their parents, friends, teachers, books, priests, televangelists, or religious texts, ARE sheep because they are not thinking for themselves and they are not questioning. As Galileo put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
5) I agree that books cannot tell you everything. The Bible is a book too. A Holy Book, but a book nonetheless.
6) You've stated that you have nothing against an education as if your argument would imply that you do. In a way, I think I understand the point you're making about how knowledge corrupts people in a way. I have met people much smarter than me who are arrogant and condescending and believe they have learned everything there is to know, but this is impossible. "A wise man knows that he in fact knows nothing." I believe that "knowledge" especially in the sense of religion, is a relative term. Everyone has a different point of view, and everyone interprets things (facts, religion, artwork) differently because they each have their own way of thinking. In a way I agree with you in the sense that too much knowledge is a bad thing because it makes one close-minded and arrogant. However, I believe that if one really actively seeks knowledge, and continues to keep an openmind, and listen more than he speaks, and learn more than he teaches, he can never have too much knowledge. It is impossible to know everything. Not only do we not have the mental capacity for it, but we do not have the time to know it all. And yet, I believe, we should never stop asking questions, and we should never stop seeking knowledge, even if we think we know "a lot." It is my belief that when you stop asking questions is when you have proven you are either lazy, apathetic or, as you put it, a sheep.
But I had gotten literature (too bad I couldn't keep the book) and also found it online about the origin of AIDS.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin//di
I mean, I read most of it & am as skeptical as the next man as to its true origin, but interesting reading nonetheless.
Yes, God has been around forever, and so has His word, but it was existant AS A BOOK for longer than any other 'religious' books of our time. I do have to agree that some of the true Bible books may have been taken out, but they are hiding by the Hand of God until He feels we're ready to know more. If we're not meant to know something, God won't reveal it to us. I believe this wholeheartedly.
Sometimes, I feel I need to step back and let some things go by until I feel safe enough to go in to find out more of something. I have stayed out of the classroom environment for some time until recently. A small part of me found it somewhat uninviting since I was publicly humiliated back in my high school days when I mentioned a question on a subject I was skeptical about. The question came out wrong and the whole class laughed. The teacher did nothing to stop them and gave me a bizarre look.
BUT, I did get over it in time and went back in to school when I arrived in N.C. and found a very inviting scenario at our local Community College. I always knew the saying "The only stupid question that exists is the one never asked."
Boy I was thankfull for friendly professors! I SOOO look forward to returning to college after I publish my Sci-Fi novel!
About AIDS: I can't help but hear a sardonic tone. Correct me if I'm wrong, the Internet is hard to communicate tones. But heterosexual non-porn star couples can contract AIDS as well, as can people who received blood transfusions in the 80s and early 90s. I haven't read your article yet but I'll look at it later when I have more time. AIDS is a disease that exists in bodily fluids, and is not singularly an STD, but it is a stigma for those who contract it nonetheless, regardless of their orientation or how they contracted it. Still, in my opinion, this stigma is undeserved because regardless of the mistakes they made in the past, the fact that they have AIDS does not mean they are a bad person. In RENT!, one of the most famous stories about AIDS sufferers, four people have AIDS. Two of them are straight. The two straight people most likely contracted it from needles when they were heroin junkies. But the play isn't about the fact that these people are suffering about AIDS, it's about how they live their life, and they live it with passion, and love. My point in referencing this is simply to argue that AIDS shouldn't be a stigma, and nor should it be strictly associated with homosexuals.
Other than that I have nothing to say I guess. LOL.
And oh man.. as soon as I saw Leviticus pop up in here I was ready to do some serious thrashing. Leviticus is the worst possible argument to use against homosexuality... but after reading the comment section I'll grit my teeth and sit on my fingers and refrain from religious ass-busting.
For now.
i never knew this. i'm going to share it with everyone now
http://www.fanpop.com/spots/unbelievablle/
Sign In or join Fanpop to add your comment