No same-sex hugs allowed

[ErasOmnius]

You're operating a double standard, Eras. In short:

AIDS does not just spring magically into being. It is a disease, it is caught by infection. An HIV-negative couple, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not suddenly develop an infection. Unless, as Acriku mentioned, drugs or some factor other than sex is also involved.

Someone who has sex with many people, whether male, female, hetero- or homosexual, has a higher chance of having sex with someone who is HIV-positive. In short it is behaviour, not orientation, that has a greater role in determining exposure to STDs.

Also, anyone who wants to change who they are when there is nothing wrong with them is suffering from a profound and probably painful delusion. There is an "up in arms" attitude because they should not have to feel like that, and you are participating in that falsehood.

Also, we never did get back to that point about saying who we are. Did the news that there's only one gay person here rather take the wind out of the sails of that argument?

Now I was going to say that Hwi apparently didn't realise that we were still talking about that specific part of the Catholic Catechism and so reacted in her customary fashion, namely by returning the discussion to the comfortingly familiar ground of old prejudices, but she also remains a knuckleheaded trollop with all the tact, grace and higher brain function of a ball of pus, so I'll just finish with a picture of a potato.

No, asking what preference everyone was to find out who was speaking from life experiences.

Many heterosexual men will stand up for gay and lesbian rights, simply to satisfy their own consciences in how they treat women. Cast them aside the next morning after sex, lie to them to get them into bed, cheat on their wives with other women, etc. The kind of behaviors that are against the words in the Book, as well.

But lastly, until there is a gene found for homosexuality, it must be considered against the course of the Creation and the Universe.

I am not saying you or any homosexual should have any 'rights' taken from you. Homosexuals should not lose their jobs, their homes. I have no opinion on such matters -- that is for governmental entities to decide, not me.

I understand that the Christianity of the Book, and activist homosexual legislation are in-compatible -- and I understand where the West is going with itself. To a distinct hostility towards people who want and do follow the New Testament. We believe in sharing with people who want to change, that change is possible. For doing so, we are called cultists, bigots, all sorts of names -- on this forum and elsewhere -- but that is easy to endure.

I should probably start a thread on abortion, so many can spout off how a person before birth, couldn't possibly deserve any rights to live.

My hope rests in the future

[Dante]

Tell me, why should genetics play such a large part for you? Locking specific behaviour patterns to genes has thusfar proven almost impossible, with everything from shyness to cruelty. Furthermore, if a gene were linked to homosexuality, are you prepared to admit that would change your mind about the whole argument? What does that say about faith, if you rely on science? And if your faith does not require science, like Hwi's, why mention it at all?

Besides that, surely the very fact that homosexuality has not yet been eliminated from the population suggests that it is not, in fact, contrary to any universal laws of "creation," which I take to mean physics and biology? Same-sex attraction has been observed in many species of animals other than our own, suggesting that it is both natural and not harmful to a population's genetic health (if it were, it would have bee selected against and disappeared eons ago).

Finally, you seem to be suggesting that the kind of people who support homosexual rights are the kind of people who lead generally immoral lives. In which case I have to wonder why you asked for sexualities and ages when a more appropriate question might have been "Have you ever cheated on your spouse, or bought a prostitute?"

To be blunt, you can take your brain-dead rhetoric and shove it where the sun don't shine. Careful not to get turned on while doing so though.

[chatfsh]

There are numerous abnormalities that have not been selected out of the species even though they are demonstrably harmful to the individual

[Acriku]

There are numerous abnormalities that have not been selected out of the species even though they are demonstrably harmful to the individual

[SandChigger]

Ah, but remember, the Fall ruined and defiled ALL of the cosmos.

There sure as Hell weren't no nasty homo fuzzy-wuzzies in the Garden of Eden! At least, not until the evil bint gave the god-like first man that poison fruit. PERISH the thought! ;D

[ErasOmnius]

Tell me, why should genetics play such a large part for you? Locking specific behaviour patterns to genes has thusfar proven almost impossible, with everything from shyness to cruelty. Furthermore, if a gene were linked to homosexuality, are you prepared to admit that would change your mind about the whole argument? What does that say about faith, if you rely on science? And if your faith does not require science, like Hwi's, why mention it at all?

Besides that, surely the very fact that homosexuality has not yet been eliminated from the population suggests that it is not, in fact, contrary to any universal laws of "creation," which I take to mean physics and biology? Same-sex attraction has been observed in many species of animals other than our own, suggesting that it is both natural and not harmful to a population's genetic health (if it were, it would have bee selected against and disappeared eons ago).

Finally, you seem to be suggesting that the kind of people who support homosexual rights are the kind of people who lead generally immoral lives. In which case I have to wonder why you asked for sexualities and ages when a more appropriate question might have been "Have you ever cheated on your spouse, or bought a prostitute?"

To be blunt, you can take your brain-dead rhetoric and shove it where the sun don't shine. Careful not to get turned on while doing so though.

Dante, first off, surely two individuals who have chosen their avatar pictures from the cover of KJA's "The Machine Crusade" can get along without all of the 'brain-dead' stuff and the 'shove it'.

This thread happens to be about homosexuality. I have tried to resurrect an abortion thread, and could start an adultery thread; so there could be PLENTY of opportunity for the straight people to dislike ol' ErasOmnius.

As far as science goes, I am not afraid of science -- because I know that science backs up the Book. I try not to rely solely on quotes from the Book, or matters of faith -- because when push comes to shove -- it is simply, faith.

[Dante]

Oh how precious, you think because we chose the same book cover that we can get along.

Let me enlighten you, you self-righteous little turd. I hate the Dune prequels. Furthermore, I feel quite justified in hurling abuse when equally slanderous remarks are directed not only at me, but at a large part of the planet's population of which I happen to be a part. And additionally, your stance on homosexuality is only part of a much larger suite of problems: political ignorance, scientific ignorance and arguably ignorance of what makes good literature. I long ago came to the conclusion that you are a stupid person, ErasOmnius, and this topic has done nothing to change my mind.

Also, thread necromancy is frowned on unless you have something useful to add, which believe me you did not.

And as I have pointed out before, this topic was started as a commentary on homosexuality in Africa, not a soap box for quasi-moralistic ego-stroking.

Regarding animals - it is absurd to think that humans should model their behavior and morality on that which they observe in the animal kingdom.  After all, animals frequently engage in cannibalism and filicide.  Should we, therefore, attempt to justify adding human flesh to our diets and encourage parents to kill their children? I mean, the animals are doing it, so surely it must be right!

Did anyone say model? I don't think they did. Nice attempt at a strawman, but your ignorance is showing through again. Try more concealer.

If something occurs in the animal kingdom then it is not against any "laws of creation." The natural world is, by definition, natural. Ergo anything that occurs within it is also natural. QED.

You know swans mate for life? And many choose a same sex partner. Some of these couples have even been known to mate with another swan and then kick the third party out once the same-sex couple obtains eggs to raise. Of course this won't mean anything to you because you're a dogmatic shrew, but I felt it needed saying nonetheless. "But that concept is far too complex and frightening for you to successfully process, and so it

[Wolf]

Eras: it's inappropriate for you to behave like you're some kind of victim in this debate. You're not.

I understand that the Christianity of the Book, and activist homosexual legislation are in-compatible -- and I understand where the West is going with itself. To a distinct hostility towards people who want and do follow the New Testament. We believe in sharing with people who want to change, that change is possible. For doing so, we are called cultists, bigots, all sorts of names -- on this forum and elsewhere -- but that is easy to endure.

"Christianity of the Book." What's that? Because someone has to interpret what the words mean, right? You? A priest? Priests differ, what then? Which sect has it right? Catholics? Lutherans? Unitarians? Arians? Christ's entire point was that religion isn't about "books" or "laws" but instead the faith of man and the grace of God. Homosexuality is, at worst, only ambiguously incompatible with Christian scripture--but even generally, scripture is internally inconsistent. Much of scripture is metaphor: understandable only to the specific generation of early Christians that the books (& especially the letters and epistles) were written to! We can't get them without tremendous effort: we may never truly "get" them. Things like Revelations are so obviously metaphor because it's so rationally insane (or maybe it's not, but that doesn't help your case), but even knowing it's a metaphor doesn't also mean that we understand what it's trying to convey.

Get this, right now: I am not directing hostility "towards people who want and do follow the New Testament." As a Christian, I find that accusation personally offensive, and Hwi made the same mistake (only she had the sense to do it via implication). I am, however, directing hostility at you for what you're saying, not for who you are. (This is what you are doing to people who are not heterosexuals, for the record.) Personally, having read everything and thought about the subject, I'm not entirely convinced that you even understand the New Testament. But I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of that, or accuse you of not being a "true follower," or even to accuse you of "directing hostility towards people who want and do follow the New Testament." Get a clue, buddy.

Do you see the difference? Between hostility towards bad behavior and hostility towards people in and of themselves? If you don't--or can't--it explains a lot of what you've said here. But, quite logically, you are not a victim: you are, in fact, a victimizer.

EDIT: I added a link you should all read.  ;D

[ErasOmnius]

Oh how precious, you think because we chose the same book cover that we can get along.

Let me enlighten you, you self-righteous little turd. I hate the Dune prequels. Furthermore, I feel quite justified in hurling abuse when equally slanderous remarks are directed not only at me, but at a large part of the planet's population of which I happen to be a part. And additionally, your stance on homosexuality is only part of a much larger suite of problems: political ignorance, scientific ignorance and arguably ignorance of what makes good literature. I long ago came to the conclusion that you are a stupid person, ErasOmnius, and this topic has done nothing to change my mind.

Also, thread necromancy is frowned on unless you have something useful to add, which believe me you did not.

And as I have pointed out before, this topic was started as a commentary on homosexuality in Africa, not a soap box for quasi-moralistic ego-stroking.

Did anyone say model? I don't think they did. Nice attempt at a strawman, but your ignorance is showing through again. Try more concealer.

If something occurs in the animal kingdom then it is not against any "laws of creation." The natural world is, by definition, natural. Ergo anything that occurs within it is also natural. QED.

You know swans mate for life? And many choose a same sex partner. Some of these couples have even been known to mate with another swan and then kick the third party out once the same-sex couple obtains eggs to raise. Of course this won't mean anything to you because you're a dogmatic shrew, but I felt it needed saying nonetheless. "But that concept is far too complex and frightening for you to successfully process, and so it

[Acriku]

Just to point out, there's debate on that verse that is well-summed here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

Pretty much explains that if Paul wanted to refer to man-man sexual relations he would've used the more proper/common term paiderasste instead of a word that has never been seen before (arsenokoitai) and therefore cannot be clearly translated.

Also from that same website they exhibit

Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..."

with the argument that homosexuality isn't listed here, so why is it listed under Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians?

[athanasios]

It is very simple to translate it: Men lying with men.

[Dragoon Knight]

I bought a bag of popcorn yesterday.  I sealed it with a clothes peg so that it would still be good to eat today.  I wish now that I had brought it home from work for two reasons:

1) It won't last over the weekend, so that's a good half-bag of popcorn destined for the bin.

2) It would have been perfect to eat while reading the tragedy / comedy of ErasOmnius' drivel.

Now, given that he has conveniently ignored everything I've said the last couple of times I've posted, I'm expecting him to just raise his Shield of Ignorance once again and fail to respond.  But here goes anyway.

- First and foremost, I feel it must be re-stated that you are a homophobic idiot.

- Next up: you are intimidated by homosexuals, and have a fixation on the gay male population.  You post about how they do naught but ejaculate in the wrong places and how they have untold wealth beyond anything a straight person could amass.  I find your use of the words "stretch and distort" particularly revealing about your exact fears.  Oh, and "shove down everyone's throats", let's not forget that.  If I was a fierce advocate of Freud... :P

- Not happy with just swans?  Go ahead and check up on just how many diverse and different species exhibit homosexual behaviour.

- "Just because a homosexual writes a book saying that all of God's creatures are bi-sexual doesn't make it true."  I'm not sure you realise just how much you'll regret writing that.  Ahem.

Just because some guys wrote a book (i.e. the Bible) saying [insert just about anything here] doesn't make it true.  Oh snap.

I applaud you on your marvellous backpedalling and brown-nosing towards the end of your tirade.  In an attempt to soften the blow of your ignorance, you pretend to show a modicum of respect towards the people you have just harmed with your idiocy.  It's like punching a pensioner in the kidneys while shouting insults about Frank Sinatra, then apologising and trying to sell them a conciliatory muffin.

Also, the great mystery of why Dante has an avatar of Dante the cymek has plagued this forum for years.  No man or woman has ever been able to solve it.  It has destroyed the minds of many.  Cease, before it is too late!

Also shut up.

[chatfsh]

Pretty much explains that if Paul wanted to refer to man-man sexual relations he would've used the more proper/common term paiderasste instead of a word that has never been seen before (arsenokoitai) and therefore cannot be clearly translated.

Acriku

[Dante]

Don't call me your friend, I'm not and don't want to be. You can pretend to be taking a higher path, turning the other cheek if you like. It's all the same to me what you deceive youself into thinking you are. You can go on about "I don't think you should lose your jobs or be legislated against" but for most people that would go without saying/. That you mention it as though it somehow negates your idiocy only compounds your error. It's like saying "I don't like black people, but I don't think they should use seperate drinking fountains." That you acknowledge it as an option before disregarding it simply states that you are trying to appear benign or tolerant while coming across as, surprise surprise, a bigot.

I'll leave the specifically religious points for religious people to answer, for now. From now on, consider my standard retort to any biblical argument to be a refutation of god, the bible, and religion in general.

Not that I'm anti-christian, I point out, just anti-your-stupid-arguments.

In how many of your neighbour states are homosexual couples afforded exactly the same rights as married heterosexuals? The right to see a dying partner in hospital, freedom from death duties, adopting children. Are you so sure that no legislation at all is a good thing? What then of hate crimes, unequal treatment in the workplace, of the ordinary people, not all of them gay, who have to deal with all the Westboro nonsense? Your view seems to be rather skewed in favour of your own prejudices. I suppose the Jews are running the country as well? How's that liberal conspiracy dealing with Prop 8 again?

Also, do a google search for gay swans. As Dragoon mentioned (and isn't it about time you replied to him?) there's far more examples than just a single book, mmkay? I've had access to all sorts of scientific journals, believe me, the examples and evidence are far greater than can be accounted for by one activist's work.

I'm not going to bend history, current events, biology to suit myself, as homosexuals do.

The irony is, that is exactly what you are doing. It's kind of hilarious that you don't realise it, if a little pitiable at the same time.

My avatar is a cymek for several reasons, including a fondness for the Titans (if only they had been inserted into a franchise other than Dune...), a penchant for irony, an enjoyment of confusing people, a need for a name that I don't like much... I've explained all this before and people never listen.

People have grown too used to this idea that "the left" is made up of simpering, spineless nobodies who would rather accept and love everyone than cause a fight. Well screw that, I'm not about to pretend to be nice to people who call me wicked for being the way I am, and I'm not going to pretend to appreciate people for sticking up for their pathetically anachronous dogma.

Now stop ignoring the points from Dragoon, Wolf, Acriku et al and argue like an adult already.

[Wolf]

Really? That was the best you got from Jesus? Because, you know, a very general application of reasoning fails to support your interpretation of that quote.

"Haven't you read," he replied, [introduction.]

"that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' [Jesus presumably believes in Genesis.]

and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [because there are males and females, males and females may seek to mate.]

and the two will become one flesh'? [Presumably referring to marriage.]

So they are no longer two, but one. [Id.]

Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6) [Married males and females should not be separated.]

And yet, you interpret this to mean that homosexuality, homosexual unions, and (presumably) any homosexual attraction is wrong in the eyes of God. Yes. Because you would know, right? Here's what you said:

[homosexuality is] outside of this God ordained marital arrangement [and] is classified as fornication

[chatfsh]

Yeah, that

[SandChigger]

You'd do well to listen to her, Wolf. Intentionally misleading people is something she knows a bit about. ;)

[Wolf]

I addressed this before: you didn't read it then because you are a haughty and self-righteous twit, and to spare you and the forum a lot of time and effort, I direct you to go back and read exactly why, rationally, a person cannot "intentionally deceive" anyone if he actually believes what he's saying to be true. And I do. I believe that every man, woman and child has the right to read scripture and determine for themselves what the Bible means. Or do you not believe in the Reformation? How could you have formed your ill-advised, poisonous, hateful, foolish, backwards, mendacious, pathetic and lame beliefs without the ability to read the Bible yourself in your own tongue? Why would we do that? Why, for what other reason, would we have translated the Bible into every language on Earth? To liberate; not to enslave.

And if you don't believe that, then answer me the other question from my last--on this count, 2--posts: which interpretation of the Bible should we believe in, hm? The Catholic one? The Lutheran? The Unitarian? The King James? The Arian? Which epistles should we read? Matthew? John? Judas? Face it: you pick which scripture to believe in and you discard the rest--and you don't even do humanity a service by discarding the parts that are internally inconsistent. Like all self-righteous fanatics, you cannot see the obvious way that you are exactly like the very people you condemn. And guess what? That was exactly the evil that Christ was fighting against. Because I do believe that quotes such as the (to be fair, really, actually quite vague) ones you've posted indicate nothing other than doubt as to what Christ actually believed, and so I think you are wrong in claiming that it was a "sure" thing that Christ condemned homosexuality outright. If he did, well then, by God, he would have said so. You've never had an answer for why you had to struggle so hard to find a quote that didn't even mention homosexuality, when the quotes that I point to--the ones about universal brotherhood, love, and forgiveness--are too numerous in the Bible to bother even quoting! Yours, on the other hand? They are so few, and so scattered. You tell me what the rational interpretation is. Oh, but wait, it seems that you think only you are allowed to interpret the Bible. I'm not certain (haha, no, I really am, actually) but I do believe that that is a sin greater than any one your brain has ever imagined. (Especially if it's, you know, to preach justifications for hatred.)

But I don't think I even am stretching my interpretation of Christ's holistic message that far, if at all. Above all, the unquestioned, unfailing, and unflagging truth that courses through all of Christ's teaching is that of universal embrace and love, of even those that you consider to be sinners. You've never shown that. You've never even indicated the desire to show that. All you've done is use scripture to preach an ancient, discredited, and vastly unjust message because... why? I don't know. Maybe you have a personal vendetta against someone who is gay. But regardless of your petty, minor, banal, but sadly commonplace reason for continuing to preach hatred and to call anyone who opposes you "deceiver," "false Christian," or any other of a dozen implied or express labels, you actually preach against the most obvious, consistent, and sure message that Christ ever preached. No, Hwi, pray not for us: pray for your own immortal soul.

EDIT: And as for your comments regarding "incest, bestiality and pedophilia," this is why I find your posts to be generally vexatious and without merit: you have done nothing more than re-iterate, in a religious context, the classical homophobic "slippery slope" argument against homosexuality. It's meritless in a political context, and it's even more meritless here. Incest, bestiality, and pedophilia are wrong for other reasons--mainly for that of consent, or in the case of incest, immediately obvious genetic destruction--that homosexuality does not touch upon. Indeed, but for their gender, homosexuality would be fine. And we, as a society, have decided that discrimination based on gender is morally wrong. (For the record, as a 1st century Hebrew, Christ might have believed that women were second class citizens. By your logic... well, you don't use logic, so there's an equal chance you'd accept or reject that.) As for incest, bestiality, and pedophilia things inherent to the acts are themselves wrong, so a parallel cannot be drawn.

But, here's where you're an idiot: even assuming you're right that Christ didn't mention incest, bestiality or pedophilia, the logical conclusion that follows is not that homosexuality is wrong. You're guessing that I disapprove of those acts, and so I will be quick to disapprove of homosexuality if it can be lumped in with them. Haha, but I think rationally. If you concede that I'm right that homosexuality is too vague to be condemned, but so are those things, then all you have proved is that... and so are those things! All you say is: "Christ might have approved." And if the scriptures are that ambiguous, such that invoking the possibility that Christ might have sanctioned those acts as well is now plausible, well, honeycakes, you done lost. Lost bad.

EDIT 2: So, in conclusion, because we are all entitled to interpret scripture in accords with our own beliefs, it is not I who misleads others but you for attempting to force others to think that your view of scripture is the only appropriate one. It is not. It is merely your view. Self-righteous deceiver.

[Acriku]

Acriku

[MrFlibble]

I don't want to offend anyone's religious views here, nor do I think my opinion is going to change anything, but do you really need any kind of religious justification for social standards regarding anything? Wouldn't a social system that bases its laws on particular religious teachings be automatically discriminating against atheists, agnostics and people who happen to profess a different religion? Isn't democracy that had been mentioned here quite frequently as of late supposed to work the other way round? Tolerance, equal rights for all people, all that kind of stuff? Because what's going on here (in my opinion, that is) is a very complicated religious debate that would be more appropriate for theologians, as Wolf pointed out. And regardless of the outcome (which I suppose will be that none of the opposing sides is going to succeed in changing the others' opinions and beliefs), it does not and will never justify hatred and condemnation of people who have not done anything wrong to you.

[SandChigger]

But you see, the thing is, it's not what anyone has done wrong to them. When there's nothing going on in their own bedrooms, these people naturally start thinking and worrying about what other people must be doing in theirs. Basically they've just got dirty minds! ;)

[MrFlibble]

I'd rather imagine people seek excuses for hating or condemning someone, or blame someone else for their own troubles.

[ErasOmnius]

No, what's really sad is to read the twisting of the Book by people who call themselves Christians.

So I must ask Wolf, do you subscribe to any particular Christian belief that would be easily quantifiable. In other words, could you call yourself Roman Catholic, or Greek Orthodox, or southern Baptist -- or, just whatever you want to believe this year.

Wolf, in no Book of the New Testament is there an approval of homosexuality. When you start throwing out the names of all of those pseudo-epigraphal books from the 100s-400s, in which one does it condone homosexsuality? None.

I am not sure where you are getting your basis of accepatance of gay and lesbian behavior. The Dionysian rites of Greek thought is one place where homosexuality was tolerated. In the Phoenician-Carthaginian trading empire, during the waxing of their observance of the fertility cults, homosexuality was tolerated. But in Christian thought, there is none.

The high point of the tolerance of homosexual behavior amongst the Roman elite, during the advent of Christianity, was under the Emperor Elagabal in the 230s. The Emperor, who it was rumored, was married to both one woman, and two men. But when Elagabal was deposed, homosexuality basically went underground; until the 1960s.

[Wolf]

No, what's really sad is to read the twisting of the Book by people who call themselves Christians.

That's it. That's the last time I'm suffering this insult. ErasOmnius, you are blindly and mistakenly following a path of jealousy and hatred that Christ sought to defeat in his short life here. Consider why--in Margarita--Christ, in the form of Yeshua ha-Notsri was terrified at the realization of Levi Matvei writing down his comments. He knew blind, prejudiced, jealous, short-sighted and sick masses (such as yourself) would seek self-righteously to persecute others for not following their interpretation of the text.

So I must ask Wolf, do you subscribe to any particular Christian belief that would be easily quantifiable. In other words, could you call yourself Roman Catholic, or Greek Orthodox, or southern Baptist -- or, just whatever you want to believe this year.

I am a Protestant Liberation theologist. (In a very general sense: I am not a Marxist, as Edric will tell you, though I make an effort to learn about the idea. If you are curious as to my main religious influences, they are Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning and Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Ethics.) However, that is not the point: the point is that we all interpret scripture for ourselves whether we like it or not. Yes, even you. You, ErasOmnius, are a disgusting little weasel for adding that jibe about "just whatever you want to believe this year." You have said that you would change your beliefs if scientific discovery demanded otherwise. That could happen next year! You have already admitted that you change your beliefs! Whereas I have never backed down from my position that Christ demands social justice above all, and anything that contradicts that message ought not to be considered too seriously in light of the more-obvious, more-explicit, and oft-repeated message of social justice! Face it: you say the evidence is "obvious," "clear," and "explicit," but it's so obviously not! Your quotations are a handful, they are differently-worded, in different books, written and translated at different times. They are at times metaphor, analogy or hypothetical. They could mean anything. If I used the same standard to evaluate everything Christ said that you use for the allegedly "homophobic" sayings, well, I mean, what do you think Christ meant by "love thy brother?" A non-homophobic interpretation of the Bible is certainly valid.

I have been enough of an adult to answer all of your questions quickly and honestly. Can you do the same? Please tell me which ideology to which you subscribe. And within that ideology, tell me, whose interpretation of the Bible do you use? What translation do you read from? Do you believe every word of your priest's or minister's sermons? Face it, ErasOmnius: you and/or Hwi (it would be funny to see a fight between you as to who has the "better" interpretation) both interpret the Bible for yourselves, and the extent to which that interpretation matters is obvious--only to yourselves. You can say that you think the Bible condemns homosexuality, but you cannot say that God condemns it. That's speaking for God, and that's the most damning sin of all.

EDIT: Oh, and Flibble is 100% correct. Really, this debate is all moot in the sense that even if you could establish a coherent political philosophy from Christianity that was applicable today, you would be hard-pressed to apply it in a socially just manner. (You know, since, there are those ~4 billion humans who do not think that Christ is the son of God.)

[chatfsh]

I believe that every man, woman and child has the right to read scripture and determine for themselves what the Bible means.

Yes, the Bible was translated into all languages so that everyone might become acquainted with God