There is a common rebuttal given to religious fundamentalists objection to other-than-heterosexual relations as evil or objectionable, and it is phrased like such:
"Their sexual preference is not a choice"
My question is summed up in the title, "What does choice matter?", because even if sexual preference was a choice, in what way would it be evil or objectionable?
This is of course considering a relation between capable consenting adults.
pic unrelated
>>5205332
Honestly the best answer I can give to your question is choice does not matter at all, because those that believe homosexuality is a sin usually believe that it is a choice but even if it is not the bible still says it is a sin.
my problem with that is the most commonly quoted passage is 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' and this was (in a hotly debated top) a mistranslation from the greek saying "man shall not lie in the same bed with a man and he does with a woman" big difference and mighty convenient for those who just personaly don't like homosexuality.
>>5206410
Yeah, there's also the big problem that it's fiction written by sand people and edited by successive tyrannical rulers over the course of hundreds of years posing as objective moral material when in reality it's basically the ramblings of people so scared of losing control they have to lie about the source just to get by.
But yeah, that Greek.
>>5205332
>Does choice matter
No it doesn't matter.
They'll find a way to hate you because of it.
They have done so hundreds of years in the past, and they'll do that hundreds of years into the future.
>>5206410
Kinda like the passaged that say "do not suffer a poisoner to live." being translated to "do not supper a witch to live.". I hope these mistranslators are burning in hell for all the deaths they have caused.
>>5206784
I wouldn't bet on that.
>>5206410
>Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
>man shall not lie in the same bed with a man and he does with a woman
Are you honestly seriously implying that the second would be interpreted in a different way?
>>5206818
Jews are the ultimate rules lawyers. It would just tell them to just use two beds. It is likely a rule more for respect of the wife. For Jewish people during that time, marriages were contractual obligations, not statements of love. Fucking a different male or female in the same bed the wife slept in would have been considered being disrespectful to her.
>>5206856
>It would just tell them to just use two beds.
No it wouldn't.
It would still mean "don't fuck men".
It would just use the phrase "to bed someone" to describe sex.
And we're not talking about physical beds, but metaphorical beds.
>>5206931
>It would just use the phrase "to bed someone" to describe sex.
What is the Greek phrase "to bed someone", but more importantly,
What is the Hebrew phrase "to bed someone", and where is that phrase in the source text?
You do know the greeks where notorious for bisexual tendencies right?
You tactfully ignored that,
>Jews are the ultimate rules lawyers.
>It would still mean...
Why would a manual be vague enough to allow interpretation?
Why is your interpretation more valid that someone else's,[spoiler] especially when they use other sources to describe how it would be interpreted during the time?[/spoiler]
Why would a manual be filled with deviantArt tier poetry?
Are the operation manuals for heavy machinery vague, and filled with teen poetry?
If not, Why?
can we stop pretending 3000 year old poor people from the middle east were progressive liberals?
>>5208016
I'm not sure anyone here is?
Who does?
>>5208023
the fact of the matter is that homosexuality has always been frowned upon in Christianity. People were talking about how bad it is in the fucking triple digit years. This whole thing about how 'Bible verse X isn't *really* anti gay' is a bunch of bullshit that people make up in order to justify a belief in the inerrancy of scripture while still holding on to the ethical beliefs they had to begin with.
>>5208063
he didn't say it wasn't anti-gay
he said that people can and did interpret it
>>5206432
That would be YOUR opinion which you are entitled to the same does not hold true for everyone
>>5208312
What part of what he said is an opinion?
>>5207991
>Muh ancient greeks
The greeks themselves have nothing to do with it. Same goes for the romans. It's merely written in greek and the romans owned the place but that's literally it.
And the both weren't as accepting of bisexual behavior as you think they were.
If we're going to look at how they treated homosexuals at that time, there's no way it opens for a somehow gay friendly approach.
Literally nowhere in the bible is there anything gay friendly on the contrary even. There's plenty of anti-gay passages to find.
So why would that one single passage, written by the same homophobic people who wrote the other homophobic things, be somehow homotolerant?
And now let's give a 3000 year old passage the benefit of the doubt, and it was somehow gay friendly.
Would it even be in there?
And if it were, how does that measure up against all the other homophobic passages in the bible, both old AND new testament?
It doesn't.
So why even waste the energy to find something gay friendly in the bible?
It doesn't change a thing.
>>5208440
No one saying it was homotolerant
No one is saying it has something gay friendly
the post you are responding to was simply pointing out the poor reasoning of using modern English translations and interpretations
>>5208473
The whole issue is that the passage
>man shall not lie in the same bed with a man and he does with a woman
Was apparently mistranslated as
>Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Which means the same thing.
>>5205332
I have an easy litmus test for any action on morality.
Does this action require you to use force (I mean violence or fraud not BDSM ;^) ) on someone in order to do it?
Yes= immoral
No= not immoral
This does not however mean that it is good for you or the people you are engaged in the activity with. Like smoking meth for example. It just means that some one cannot bring a moral argument against you.
So choice is irrelevant in this. Whether we choose to smoke pole or munch that carpet hard does not matter because we are all consenting.
>>5208351
the belief that it is fiction, or that it is real, is strictly OPINION, as neither option can be conclusively proven. My issue is I do not care if YOU don't believe, but people that don't, seem too have a real hard on for those that do. Honestly, as for the REST of what he said, I have to agree completely.
>>5208063
Yes it HAS always been frowned on, but my issue is with the people that rewrite and retranslate to fit things in their own neat little box so everything supports what they want, but people absolutely loose their minds if gay people try to do the same. also the word homosexuality was not in bibles older than at MAX 100 yrs old, this was added because it fit someones agenda.
It's sort of like how people point out that animals also fuck other animals of the same sex, even though animals also steal and rape so they are clearly not the ideal.
>>5205332
Yeah I've never really gotten why it'd matter if it was a choice or not. It's not like it actually hurts anyone by being gay or not. It being a choice or not shouldn't mean shit legally.
But religiously it matters if it's a choice because than it's a preventable sin and free will and all that shit. If we're just born this way then they gotta take it up with god instead of getting mad at us.
Without a higher power dictating judgement, morality cannot exist. Think of it this way, if we only need to be convinced something is right or wrong, they we can theoretically rationalize our way to any conclusion. Simply put, in order for something to be morally right or wrong we must not have the power to change it, otherwise it risks being momentary and fleeting.
>>5206818
>>5206931
>>5207991
>>5208016
>>5208063
toevah has a close alignment in meaning to taboo, not abonination ore detest, and is also used for other things like divorce, eating unkosher food, idolatry, pride, false weights, and crossdressing.
Anyways every passage used to decry homosexuality is referring to fertility goddess worship and or temple prostitutes, both male and female.
>>5209869
if it is only an opinion, then how do you differentiate fictions from religious texts?
OK, here is where to read.
Go to this page:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
skim down to these lines
>Philo, Jewish philosopher,
>20 BC - AD 40
and read down to this line
>Conservative scholars agree
>Philo leaves no doubt about the meaning of arsenokoites. For first century Jews, it was a given that the arsenokoit stem referred to temple prostitution. The first century cultural and historical understanding is that arsenokoites refers to shrine prostitution, in which male worshipers engaged in anal sex with male priests and female priestesses of the fertility goddess.
Note this is from a philosopher from 20AD to 40AD. A contemporary to the era of writing.
"arsenokoites" is the word that is mistranslated to homosexual. It should be translated to "shrine prostitution" or "temple prostitution".
In all likelihood it most likely prohibited to keep the Jewish people from catching various VDs from the temple prostitutes.
My response is simple.
You cannot choose what you like. You can only choose to partake in what you like or not.
>>5210707
>You cannot choose what you like.
But what you like changes, regardless of volition involved, so the point remains, why does choice matter?
>>5210793
It wouldn't matter even if it was choice, but given the reality of the situation, there is no possible way one could say that being homosexual is a choice an individual can make. You can be bi and only date women, but the fact remains that you still like men as well. You can't help what turns you on.
>>5210839
you don't seem to grasp the question, because all you are saying is what has already been assumed to get to the question
>>5210856
I could say the same thing, but clearly we agree with each other here so there is no need to argue.
>>5209886
>also the word homosexuality was not in bibles older than at MAX 100 yrs old, this was added because it fit someones agenda.
The word "homosexuality" didn't even exist before 1800.
Of course it isn't in bibles before that time.
>>5211208
and that would be my point in regards to it being there now.Gods words, Gods laws 2000+ years old, he lets take this new word and claim it to be part of Gods laws. THERE is were my issue is. Also the fact that the bible has been re written and re translated so many times that I honestly think that at this point the true meaning of what the bible is supposed to be has been lost ( barring the fact for those that believe it is fiction in the first place)
>>5210697
from a logical stand point a religious text can be research and verified with facts to back up the information. Fiction would be something that there is no fact now or ever that can verify its veracity. To invalidate my statement that it is opinion, you have to totally and completely work from logic and remove faith entirely from the picture. remember while some people do not have faith, others do. this is why these issues will NEVER be agreed on. We will never all agree if the bible is real or fiction and therefore will never be able to agree on what it is saying. My general opinion for those that do not believe is ok that is what you think and I have no problem with that, but why are those that DON'T believe so militant on trying to force that belief on others?
>>5211208
>The word "homosexuality" didn't even exist before 1800.
Actually back in Jesus's time the word eunuch also encompassed what we call lesbians and gays. Words meanings shift over time.
Also the word that is often translated to homosexual in the bible most likely refers to temple prostitutes. The best evidence they have for this is from the survived writings of a Jewish philosopher who lived from 20BC to 40AD. There were many words in use back then that could be have been used if they wanted to say homosexual.
>>5211472
>militant
to be religiously militant you have to physically threaten, shoot people, or blow up buildings
to be atheist militant you have to talk, and post words that theist are irritated by
religious claims can be dismissed, when they are without evidence to back it up
that is the nature of the burden of proof, the Claimant has to provide evidence, not the listener
assertions made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
also you are aware how ironic it is for you to point out that people will never agree on religious text, when religious texts claim to be ultimate unquestionable truth right?
why would a perfect manual for life, be filled with hate speech, ambiguity and teen poetry?
are vehicle operations manuals filled with any of those?
>>5212626
militant
[mil-i-tuh nt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause:
you can be verbally aggressive without being so physically.
>>5213082
Didn't deny that
Was just pointing out how it it claerly an attempt to falsely equate the activities of two groups
By that definition then any theist is a militant theist
>>5213317
While many certainly can be not all are. Nor are all those who don't believe. but these types of conversations usually don't happen with the non militant varieties . Does this make me militant? no, honestly i am just an asshole desu.
>>5213713
That's what I thought.
I only meant by your precedent of calling atheists militant, and calling their trivial behavior "active and agressive" that any behavior more "active and agressive" would qualify for "militant"
>>5215589
I understand many religious people have a tendency to try and push their views on others, I do not agree with them doing this at all, and likewise I take issue with atheists who can not be simply happy with what they believe and feel they must ( not so much push their beliefs so to speak ) but actually insult, berate, and question peoples sanity for "believing in fairy tales" I just don't think this is trivial behavior. I have faith, so maybe I just don't get it and never will, but don't atheists have faith in anything? faith in a person, faith in themselves? and if so, why the need to insult someone else's faith just because yours is different?
>>5205332
No it doesn't matter. Anti-homophobia was once called a civil right by the justification that just like race or gender, it was not a choice and therefore discrimination was wrong. but as we now know, even if it is a choice, fagness is not a wrong choice.
>>5219723
because they intentionally conflate the word faith, just like you are, and warp it to do horrid things
because they insult and disrespect the very things that give them their actual quality of life
because they use their "faith" to justify their petty authority and petty superiority
because their community is a vestigial organ on society, and a net destructive influence NOW
because their fiction give a safe haven to sociopaths, schizophrenics, and sycophants
because they willfully destroy their mental capacity, just because it was a requirement to join a group
you do understand, you just need an excuse, and have repeated it so often you are incapable
