Topic: Does the Bible treat Female and Male homosexuality different
Abracadabra's photo
Thu 05/20/10 12:24 PM


It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural".

Why would a God have created beings to be natrually attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself. ohwell


hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural

so although in a wordly perception, I understand that logic,, it doesnt seem like it works in accord with the bible

a difference between attraction (what one might be tempted towards) and action (what one chooses to do)

we are creatures who are tempted and our choice is what gives us the option to give in or resist


Well, the only problem I have with this in connection with a supposedly all-wise and compassionate God, is that if two people of the same gender are genuinely attracted to each other with sincere intent and love, then this would suggest that God has a problem with sincere love based on nothing more than superfical physical gender.

To me, this just opens a whole can of worms associated with the attribtues that this so-called "God" supposedly has. This would be a highly superficial demand of a suppsedly "righteous" and all-wise compassionate God.

Therefore I have no other choice but to conclude that these writings are nothing more than that babbling predjudices and bigotries of men. They just don't fit in with a supposely divine being who isn't even supposed to give material things any merit. But gender is definitely a material thing in the sense that it's entirely a physical attribute.

This God is supposed to value LOVE, not physical bodies.

Ultimate for this to even work a person would need to show that it's impossible for two people of the same gender to actually LOVE each other. Good luck with that!

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 05/20/10 12:27 PM


In other words, the entire bible is nothing more than a reflection of how the men in this ancient culture thought.


That would be based solely on the assumption that there is no God and that he/she had no influence on it's writing.

I tend to fall in-between what you seem to believe, and the unquestioning acceptance of current church interpretation, I see from others.


Why would I need to assume that there is no God to recognize that the Bible wasn't divinely inspired any more than any other fable men might write?

This very notion that "Either the Bible is the word of God, or there is no God", is an entirely bogus idea to start with. The Christians would LOVE for you to believe that, because that means that there are only TWO choices, Either the Bible is the Word of God, or you must become a complete and pure atheist.

That's whole notion is utter hogwash.

msharmony's photo
Thu 05/20/10 12:31 PM
Edited by msharmony on Thu 05/20/10 12:32 PM



It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural".

Why would a God have created beings to be natrually attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself. ohwell


hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural

so although in a wordly perception, I understand that logic,, it doesnt seem like it works in accord with the bible

a difference between attraction (what one might be tempted towards) and action (what one chooses to do)

we are creatures who are tempted and our choice is what gives us the option to give in or resist


Well, the only problem I have with this in connection with a supposedly all-wise and compassionate God, is that if two people of the same gender are genuinely attracted to each other with sincere intent and love, then this would suggest that God has a problem with sincere love based on nothing more than superfical physical gender.

To me, this just opens a whole can of worms associated with the attribtues that this so-called "God" supposedly has. This would be a highly superficial demand of a suppsedly "righteous" and all-wise compassionate God.

Therefore I have no other choice but to conclude that these writings are nothing more than that babbling predjudices and bigotries of men. They just don't fit in with a supposely divine being who isn't even supposed to give material things any merit. But gender is definitely a material thing in the sense that it's entirely a physical attribute.

This God is supposed to value LOVE, not physical bodies.

Ultimate for this to even work a person would need to show that it's impossible for two people of the same gender to actually LOVE each other. Good luck with that!


We are actually having different perspectives . I see a difference between LOVE (agape, which God holds for us and we can hold for each other, regardless of gender) and ATTRACTION (which involves an interest in the physical) and can lead to the ACTION of SEX

I doubt God would take issue with love between any of us,,,it is only the sexual ACTIONS with which issue is taken

DaveyB's photo
Thu 05/20/10 12:35 PM



In other words, the entire bible is nothing more than a reflection of how the men in this ancient culture thought.


That would be based solely on the assumption that there is no God and that he/she had no influence on it's writing.

I tend to fall in-between what you seem to believe, and the unquestioning acceptance of current church interpretation, I see from others.


Why would I need to assume that there is no God to recognize that the Bible wasn't divinely inspired any more than any other fable men might write?

This very notion that "Either the Bible is the word of God, or there is no God", is an entirely bogus idea to start with. The Christians would LOVE for you to believe that, because that means that there are only TWO choices, Either the Bible is the Word of God, or you must become a complete and pure atheist.

That's whole notion is utter hogwash.


I stand corrected, but that is the reason I used the word "seem" in there. I am still in between you and what the others "seem" to be, because I don't consider it total hogwash. I simply recognize that everything written was influenced by the person and beliefs and moral structures of those who put the words to paper. And then influenced again by those who had to read it and interpret it hundreds of years after the language and writing form were had died. Obviously I don't fall into the group you mention of either or.

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 05/20/10 12:36 PM
It was these sick demented Hebrews who turned physical intimacy into a filthy thing in the first place.

I still find it to be extremely shallow and superficial for the creator of humans to have such petty hang-ups. I don't see that as being either wise, or compassionate. I just see it as being nothing more than the bigoted thoughts of men. There's just no sane reason for such bigotry.

KerryO's photo
Thu 05/20/10 03:00 PM
Edited by KerryO on Thu 05/20/10 03:01 PM


Also if you are supporting male to male relationships you are supporting sodomy.Sodomy is a sin and against Gods will.


And if you don't condemn oral sex between two consenting adults of opposite sex, married or not, you're also supporting a sin that's supposedly against that same Will of God. Because that's sodomy, too. Look it up.

Better yet, ask one of today's moral exemplars and former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Of course, I believe he said that oral sex is not really sex and therefore not adultry, so maybe God grants an exception for that,lol.

-Kerry O.

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 05/20/10 03:16 PM



Also if you are supporting male to male relationships you are supporting sodomy.Sodomy is a sin and against Gods will.


And if you don't condemn oral sex between two consenting adults of opposite sex, married or not, you're also supporting a sin that's supposedly against that same Will of God. Because that's sodomy, too. Look it up.

Better yet, ask one of today's moral exemplars and former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Of course, I believe he said that oral sex is not really sex and therefore not adultry, so maybe God grants an exception for that,lol.

-Kerry O.


Well, that's just it right there. What defines the act of having "sex"? If "sex" is defined as copulation, then it's technical impossible to perform homosexual sex. laugh

If "sex" is anything that leads to having an orgasm then, for some people, it's quite possible to have "sex" without even having physical contact with another person.

This is why I believe that all of these prejudices must necessarily be creations of the minds of men and not of any divine mind. They simple aren't intelligent enough to be the thoughts of an all-wise divine mind, IMHO.

TxsGal3333's photo
Sat 05/22/10 06:43 AM
Shshs come on now wake up it is not the Bible that treats them different. As far as the Bible goes it is a Sin no matter what sex they are!!!!!

In reality the only one that treats anyone different is Society and the People within it............no one can totally change that it can only be changed one person at a time............:thumbsup:

carold's photo
Sat 05/22/10 09:53 AM
:thumbsup:

KerryO's photo
Sat 05/22/10 06:24 PM




Also if you are supporting male to male relationships you are supporting sodomy.Sodomy is a sin and against Gods will.


And if you don't condemn oral sex between two consenting adults of opposite sex, married or not, you're also supporting a sin that's supposedly against that same Will of God. Because that's sodomy, too. Look it up.

Better yet, ask one of today's moral exemplars and former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Of course, I believe he said that oral sex is not really sex and therefore not adultry, so maybe God grants an exception for that,lol.

-Kerry O.


Well, that's just it right there. What defines the act of having "sex"? If "sex" is defined as copulation, then it's technical impossible to perform homosexual sex. laugh

If "sex" is anything that leads to having an orgasm then, for some people, it's quite possible to have "sex" without even having physical contact with another person.

This is why I believe that all of these prejudices must necessarily be creations of the minds of men and not of any divine mind. They simple aren't intelligent enough to be the thoughts of an all-wise divine mind, IMHO.


I have to wonder if it goes deeper than that, though. Ask any good Authoritarian and they'll probably intimate that in their gestalt, sex is something one does _to_ someone else.

Think about-- what is the old Testament if not Authoritarian and with the New Testament being mostly written by Paul (who strikes me as being a rough trade misogynist), the patriarchal torch was passed. Sure, while the Authoritarians pretend that they'll go along with stoning disobedient children, in practice it never happens. But let them hear about male homosexuality and all bets are off...


-Kerry O.

Redykeulous's photo
Sat 05/22/10 09:12 PM
The question posed in the OP and reiterated several times throughout the post concerns what is viewed as a discrepancy in how the Bible reports and judges the supposed acts of homosexuality of men versus women. The purpose of this critical thought exercise, per the OP, is to form a connection between more ancient views and current societal views of homosexual behavior of men versus women.

First it’s important to recognize that this discussion has taken on a distinctly Americanized societal view. In this context we cannot accept that what will be compared here will be a broad world view. We have to remember that we are comparing a current closed cultural view (much of the Americas) with the history of a belief system which has undergone extenuating changes which have molded this belief system into various adaptations befitting many cultural standards of the times.

At some point the seed of men (semen) was held in the highest regard as the seed of life. There are differing views as to why or even when this came about; often it’s related to Adam being first therefore, all of humanity must naturally stem from the first, while the female is merely a receptacle for the development of that seed into a viable life.
Obviously this made a man's seed the substance of life and spilling it willfully without the intent of creating life (ejaculating into a womb) was in quite bad form. (To say the least) This is an important point because it plays a major role in how women were to become viewed as secondary within the coming Christian community and as merely sex figures in more current times.

As Christian concepts began to take form, the Judeo-Christians themselves where undergoing great cultural changes, along with the rest of the civilized world. As with all societies, those who claim rights to the ruling class will attempt to blend the various cultures they rule in order to maintain control. This was the greatest influence of change which would shape the Christian faith. A great deal of pagan ritual and thought were meshed with the “newly forming” Christian religion. Pagans often gravitated to the new faith and its monotheistic views, BUT rather than abandon their own rituals, they combined them, like the fertility rituals which had a very high content of sexuality – even including entire families. The formation of the early Christian church (still viewing man’s seed as the seed of life) considered this one of the most aberrant sins. In fact of the five ‘so-called’ references to homosexuality in the Bible, at least two of them that I know of, reference these acts and not the loving and caring acts of homosexual partnership. (I know, that’s beside the point here, just saying)

As the Roman Catholic Church gained leverage throughout Europe with the ruling elites, both parties used each other to wield their respective powers over cultural and societal views. The greatest influence, over the topic at hand, carrying into our current culture, was the writing and production of the King James version of the Bible. Women had little place in its pages and the Church saw little need to share its glory with women and either ignored the role of women as equals, or played up to the sinful, emotional, and non-intellectual nature of the ‘subservient’ woman whose only value lies in her ability to bare the children of her husband.

SPEED FORWARD: Industrial revolution, Colonization of the America’s, mass colonization of Africa by Europe – huge urban growth and development.

Pin-point – U.S.A. –Women had long been considered property and both men and women had been taught through their Christian roots, that either chastity or faithfulness was mandatory, so that men would have no doubt of their children’s paternity. REMEMBER that this has roots as deep as the early Hebrew faith, because each of the 12 tribes had a hierarchy in God’s favor. You did not want to mix your lineage with a lesser tribe, so you had to know who your children were. Of course no one really remembered that anymore, except for the actual Jews who still followed original sacred texts.

Notice that the issues of homophobia have different priorities. Men carry the unformed babies, which require a woman’s womb to develop. AHA! A good way to keep an archaic ideology alive, in a Bible which cannot be fallible, is to create a culturally acceptable reason to follow the biblical law. The law says not to spill your unborn babies but we have learned so much that we know that semen is not the baby, and not only that, but men have many billions of semen that can continue to impregnate almost for an entire life time. So how do we keep this archaic biblical law alive – HOMOPHOBIA.

Why isn’t it as big a deal for women - reverse the whole thing. Women were nothing but a receptacle and seeking physical solace from another woman did not get her pregnant and no one had to know. Not only that but by this time men had become so culturally attuned to seeing women at their best as a sex symbol and both men and women tend to like seeing the love play of two women. (What’s not to like?)

So in the end, there is a connection between how Judeo-Christianity viewed male and female sexuality to present standards, but the connection of homosexuality in the Bible is a totally concocted idea created in order NOT to give in to the fallible nature of its writings.

OOPS, this section doesn’t mean anything anymore, we have learned more and have outgrown it – what to do – it has to be right—it’s the bible??? AH! Let’s just change its meaning even if we have to oppress a bunch of people to do it.

Religion – No one can deny that some of the greatest works of human good have been instigated by very religious people. We cannot deny that very often people of faith-based organizations are first responders anywhere in the world in times of catastrophe. BUT – I really cannot believe that human beings require these beliefs in order to be so responsive. As we can see – the same religious people who lay claim to their fame as first responders are often the same people that can illogically change an ancient text, using it to oppress millions, for the sake of saying “we can’t be wrong, we believe.”

Dragoness's photo
Sat 05/22/10 09:19 PM




It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural".

Why would a God have created beings to be natrually attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself. ohwell


hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural

so although in a wordly perception, I understand that logic,, it doesnt seem like it works in accord with the bible

a difference between attraction (what one might be tempted towards) and action (what one chooses to do)

we are creatures who are tempted and our choice is what gives us the option to give in or resist


Well, the only problem I have with this in connection with a supposedly all-wise and compassionate God, is that if two people of the same gender are genuinely attracted to each other with sincere intent and love, then this would suggest that God has a problem with sincere love based on nothing more than superfical physical gender.

To me, this just opens a whole can of worms associated with the attribtues that this so-called "God" supposedly has. This would be a highly superficial demand of a suppsedly "righteous" and all-wise compassionate God.

Therefore I have no other choice but to conclude that these writings are nothing more than that babbling predjudices and bigotries of men. They just don't fit in with a supposely divine being who isn't even supposed to give material things any merit. But gender is definitely a material thing in the sense that it's entirely a physical attribute.

This God is supposed to value LOVE, not physical bodies.

Ultimate for this to even work a person would need to show that it's impossible for two people of the same gender to actually LOVE each other. Good luck with that!


We are actually having different perspectives . I see a difference between LOVE (agape, which God holds for us and we can hold for each other, regardless of gender) and ATTRACTION (which involves an interest in the physical) and can lead to the ACTION of SEX

I doubt God would take issue with love between any of us,,,it is only the sexual ACTIONS with which issue is taken


Why would he/she/it have issues with sex if it a natural course of action for most organisms and yes homosexual sex happens in more than humans?

Abracadabra's photo
Sat 05/22/10 09:39 PM

The question posed in the OP and reiterated several times throughout the post concerns what is viewed as a discrepancy in how the Bible reports and judges the supposed acts of homosexuality of men versus women. The purpose of this critical thought exercise, per the OP, is to form a connection between more ancient views and current societal views of homosexual behavior of men versus women.

First it’s important to recognize that this discussion has taken on a distinctly Americanized societal view. In this context we cannot accept that what will be compared here will be a broad world view. We have to remember that we are comparing a current closed cultural view (much of the Americas) with the history of a belief system which has undergone extenuating changes which have molded this belief system into various adaptations befitting many cultural standards of the times.

At some point the seed of men (semen) was held in the highest regard as the seed of life. There are differing views as to why or even when this came about; often it’s related to Adam being first therefore, all of humanity must naturally stem from the first, while the female is merely a receptacle for the development of that seed into a viable life.
Obviously this made a man's seed the substance of life and spilling it willfully without the intent of creating life (ejaculating into a womb) was in quite bad form. (To say the least) This is an important point because it plays a major role in how women were to become viewed as secondary within the coming Christian community and as merely sex figures in more current times.

As Christian concepts began to take form, the Judeo-Christians themselves where undergoing great cultural changes, along with the rest of the civilized world. As with all societies, those who claim rights to the ruling class will attempt to blend the various cultures they rule in order to maintain control. This was the greatest influence of change which would shape the Christian faith. A great deal of pagan ritual and thought were meshed with the “newly forming” Christian religion. Pagans often gravitated to the new faith and its monotheistic views, BUT rather than abandon their own rituals, they combined them, like the fertility rituals which had a very high content of sexuality – even including entire families. The formation of the early Christian church (still viewing man’s seed as the seed of life) considered this one of the most aberrant sins. In fact of the five ‘so-called’ references to homosexuality in the Bible, at least two of them that I know of, reference these acts and not the loving and caring acts of homosexual partnership. (I know, that’s beside the point here, just saying)

As the Roman Catholic Church gained leverage throughout Europe with the ruling elites, both parties used each other to wield their respective powers over cultural and societal views. The greatest influence, over the topic at hand, carrying into our current culture, was the writing and production of the King James version of the Bible. Women had little place in its pages and the Church saw little need to share its glory with women and either ignored the role of women as equals, or played up to the sinful, emotional, and non-intellectual nature of the ‘subservient’ woman whose only value lies in her ability to bare the children of her husband.

SPEED FORWARD: Industrial revolution, Colonization of the America’s, mass colonization of Africa by Europe – huge urban growth and development.

Pin-point – U.S.A. –Women had long been considered property and both men and women had been taught through their Christian roots, that either chastity or faithfulness was mandatory, so that men would have no doubt of their children’s paternity. REMEMBER that this has roots as deep as the early Hebrew faith, because each of the 12 tribes had a hierarchy in God’s favor. You did not want to mix your lineage with a lesser tribe, so you had to know who your children were. Of course no one really remembered that anymore, except for the actual Jews who still followed original sacred texts.

Notice that the issues of homophobia have different priorities. Men carry the unformed babies, which require a woman’s womb to develop. AHA! A good way to keep an archaic ideology alive, in a Bible which cannot be fallible, is to create a culturally acceptable reason to follow the biblical law. The law says not to spill your unborn babies but we have learned so much that we know that semen is not the baby, and not only that, but men have many billions of semen that can continue to impregnate almost for an entire life time. So how do we keep this archaic biblical law alive – HOMOPHOBIA.

Why isn’t it as big a deal for women - reverse the whole thing. Women were nothing but a receptacle and seeking physical solace from another woman did not get her pregnant and no one had to know. Not only that but by this time men had become so culturally attuned to seeing women at their best as a sex symbol and both men and women tend to like seeing the love play of two women. (What’s not to like?)

So in the end, there is a connection between how Judeo-Christianity viewed male and female sexuality to present standards, but the connection of homosexuality in the Bible is a totally concocted idea created in order NOT to give in to the fallible nature of its writings.

OOPS, this section doesn’t mean anything anymore, we have learned more and have outgrown it – what to do – it has to be right—it’s the bible??? AH! Let’s just change its meaning even if we have to oppress a bunch of people to do it.

Religion – No one can deny that some of the greatest works of human good have been instigated by very religious people. We cannot deny that very often people of faith-based organizations are first responders anywhere in the world in times of catastrophe. BUT – I really cannot believe that human beings require these beliefs in order to be so responsive. As we can see – the same religious people who lay claim to their fame as first responders are often the same people that can illogically change an ancient text, using it to oppress millions, for the sake of saying “we can’t be wrong, we believe.”



Excellent post Di.

I agree with your point that in the early years men were believed to carry the actual "seed" of life and women were mere incubators of that "seed". It was believed that women did not contribute to the offspring at all in any "genetic" sense.

In fact, there was a very strong belief in a "homunculus". This was a concept of basically a fully formed minature human "fetus" of sorts that actually existed in the sperm of men. As you say, women were believed to merely provide an environment for this fully-formed fetus to grow.

In fact, when Gregor Mendel first discovered genetics and realized that both parents contribute to the genetic make-up of their offspring he was laughed at, and basically proclaimed to be unfit to even teach because of his utterly insane ideas.

This is just yet another place where religious ideas scoffed at science. Religion held that the Earth was at the center of the universe and MAN (especially the MALE human) was at the center focus of God's creation.

We now know that all these religous ideas were utter mythology and have absolutely no basis in reality.

But yes, this is why male homosexuality would be far more important from a religious perspective than female homosexuality. After all, the women were viewed as mere incubators, so for them to have 'sex' with each other was basically a non-issue from a religious point of view as far as "seed" is concerned.

Why anyone continues to cling to these ancient belief systems is beyond me, they have been shown to be false over, and over, again.

Redykeulous's photo
Sat 05/22/10 10:05 PM
Hi Abra,

Nice to hear you and thanks for responding to my very long post. I'm glad you understood it and that you had very pertinant data to add to it.


Thomas3474's photo
Sun 05/23/10 01:14 AM

The question posed in the OP and reiterated several times throughout the post concerns what is viewed as a discrepancy in how the Bible reports and judges the supposed acts of homosexuality of men versus women. The purpose of this critical thought exercise, per the OP, is to form a connection between more ancient views and current societal views of homosexual behavior of men versus women.

First it’s important to recognize that this discussion has taken on a distinctly Americanized societal view. In this context we cannot accept that what will be compared here will be a broad world view. We have to remember that we are comparing a current closed cultural view (much of the Americas) with the history of a belief system which has undergone extenuating changes which have molded this belief system into various adaptations befitting many cultural standards of the times.

At some point the seed of men (semen) was held in the highest regard as the seed of life. There are differing views as to why or even when this came about; often it’s related to Adam being first therefore, all of humanity must naturally stem from the first, while the female is merely a receptacle for the development of that seed into a viable life.
Obviously this made a man's seed the substance of life and spilling it willfully without the intent of creating life (ejaculating into a womb) was in quite bad form. (To say the least) This is an important point because it plays a major role in how women were to become viewed as secondary within the coming Christian community and as merely sex figures in more current times.

As Christian concepts began to take form, the Judeo-Christians themselves where undergoing great cultural changes, along with the rest of the civilized world. As with all societies, those who claim rights to the ruling class will attempt to blend the various cultures they rule in order to maintain control. This was the greatest influence of change which would shape the Christian faith. A great deal of pagan ritual and thought were meshed with the “newly forming” Christian religion. Pagans often gravitated to the new faith and its monotheistic views, BUT rather than abandon their own rituals, they combined them, like the fertility rituals which had a very high content of sexuality – even including entire families. The formation of the early Christian church (still viewing man’s seed as the seed of life) considered this one of the most aberrant sins. In fact of the five ‘so-called’ references to homosexuality in the Bible, at least two of them that I know of, reference these acts and not the loving and caring acts of homosexual partnership. (I know, that’s beside the point here, just saying)

As the Roman Catholic Church gained leverage throughout Europe with the ruling elites, both parties used each other to wield their respective powers over cultural and societal views. The greatest influence, over the topic at hand, carrying into our current culture, was the writing and production of the King James version of the Bible. Women had little place in its pages and the Church saw little need to share its glory with women and either ignored the role of women as equals, or played up to the sinful, emotional, and non-intellectual nature of the ‘subservient’ woman whose only value lies in her ability to bare the children of her husband.

SPEED FORWARD: Industrial revolution, Colonization of the America’s, mass colonization of Africa by Europe – huge urban growth and development.

Pin-point – U.S.A. –Women had long been considered property and both men and women had been taught through their Christian roots, that either chastity or faithfulness was mandatory, so that men would have no doubt of their children’s paternity. REMEMBER that this has roots as deep as the early Hebrew faith, because each of the 12 tribes had a hierarchy in God’s favor. You did not want to mix your lineage with a lesser tribe, so you had to know who your children were. Of course no one really remembered that anymore, except for the actual Jews who still followed original sacred texts.

Notice that the issues of homophobia have different priorities. Men carry the unformed babies, which require a woman’s womb to develop. AHA! A good way to keep an archaic ideology alive, in a Bible which cannot be fallible, is to create a culturally acceptable reason to follow the biblical law. The law says not to spill your unborn babies but we have learned so much that we know that semen is not the baby, and not only that, but men have many billions of semen that can continue to impregnate almost for an entire life time. So how do we keep this archaic biblical law alive – HOMOPHOBIA.

Why isn’t it as big a deal for women - reverse the whole thing. Women were nothing but a receptacle and seeking physical solace from another woman did not get her pregnant and no one had to know. Not only that but by this time men had become so culturally attuned to seeing women at their best as a sex symbol and both men and women tend to like seeing the love play of two women. (What’s not to like?)

So in the end, there is a connection between how Judeo-Christianity viewed male and female sexuality to present standards, but the connection of homosexuality in the Bible is a totally concocted idea created in order NOT to give in to the fallible nature of its writings.

OOPS, this section doesn’t mean anything anymore, we have learned more and have outgrown it – what to do – it has to be right—it’s the bible??? AH! Let’s just change its meaning even if we have to oppress a bunch of people to do it.

Religion – No one can deny that some of the greatest works of human good have been instigated by very religious people. We cannot deny that very often people of faith-based organizations are first responders anywhere in the world in times of catastrophe. BUT – I really cannot believe that human beings require these beliefs in order to be so responsive. As we can see – the same religious people who lay claim to their fame as first responders are often the same people that can illogically change an ancient text, using it to oppress millions, for the sake of saying “we can’t be wrong, we believe.”




As usual with opinions and the bible there is no scriptures posted because had you posted scriptures you would find out that you are wrong.Opinions are opinions and facts are facts.Those "Ancient text" are just as relevant now as they were thousands of years ago.The bible tells us to stay married and not cheat,stay virgins until we get married,only have one partner,respect each other,honor each other,have children and honor them,love each other,and many more.I do not see anything wrong with this way of thinking and also do not see how any of it is irreverent in today's society.

What you said about the King james bible is so far off I almost had shake my head to make sure I wasn't dreaming.The King james bible is the most popular bible because it was translated to near perfection to the original bible scriptures.Many Christians refuse to read anything other than the King james bible because of that reason.


Where on earth you are getting that the king James bible degraded,or made women less is a complete lie.But my jaw really hit the floor when I read....

"Women had little place in its pages and the(Catholic)Church saw little need to share its glory with women....

I will tell you something.I have met my fair share of uneducated people concerning the bible but on a ignorance scale of 1 to 10 this would have to be a 30. noway You ever THINK before you write these things?If you knew anything about the Catholic church you would know that they worship and pray to the Virgin Mary nearly as much as they pray to Jesus.They honor Mary the same way they honor Jesus.They pray to her in church,have pictures and statues of her in church,etc.It was the Catholics who promoted Mary to this God like status and they continue to do so today.So your theory that women became irrelevant with the Catholic church is totally backwards.The Catholic church took women to the highest honor possible.

The Church is oppressing millions???laugh Wow that's a hot one!!You sure you are not confusing Christianity with Islam?Christianity is a religion where you are free to come and go as you please.There is no penalty or punishment what so ever either public or biblically for leaving Christianity.Everyone who comes to Christianity does it by their own free will and stays a Christian by their own free will.

I would really love to hear your opinion on how Christians are suppressing millions of people in this world.Can you give me some Christian laws that the public has to abide by???Can you name a single biblical made law in our Government that when broken people are punished?What about private companies?What biblical and Christian laws do the workers have to abide by?How about the bible itself?Can you find me where everyone has to believe in the bible or they will be punished?The only oppression I see is your brain unable to process reality.


Concerning your King James versions.I posted bible verses(all King James versions)concerning men and women in the bible.There is many more but I think you get the point.


Ephesians 5:25-33 KJV

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

Corinthians 11:12 KJV
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

"Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Ephesians 5:33 NKJV).


"Do not deprive one another [sexually] except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:5 NKJV).

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen" (Ephesians 4:29 NIV).

"And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you" (Ephesians 4:32 NKJV).

"And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. . ." (Hebrews 10:24, 25a NJKV).

1 Corinthians 7:39 KJV
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Proverbs 19:14 KJV
House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.


Matthew 19:9 KJV And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

Mark 6:18 KJV For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.


Lev 20:21 KJV And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it [is] an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.







msharmony's photo
Sun 05/23/10 01:52 AM





It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural".

Why would a God have created beings to be natrually attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself. ohwell


hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural

so although in a wordly perception, I understand that logic,, it doesnt seem like it works in accord with the bible

a difference between attraction (what one might be tempted towards) and action (what one chooses to do)

we are creatures who are tempted and our choice is what gives us the option to give in or resist


Well, the only problem I have with this in connection with a supposedly all-wise and compassionate God, is that if two people of the same gender are genuinely attracted to each other with sincere intent and love, then this would suggest that God has a problem with sincere love based on nothing more than superfical physical gender.

To me, this just opens a whole can of worms associated with the attribtues that this so-called "God" supposedly has. This would be a highly superficial demand of a suppsedly "righteous" and all-wise compassionate God.

Therefore I have no other choice but to conclude that these writings are nothing more than that babbling predjudices and bigotries of men. They just don't fit in with a supposely divine being who isn't even supposed to give material things any merit. But gender is definitely a material thing in the sense that it's entirely a physical attribute.

This God is supposed to value LOVE, not physical bodies.

Ultimate for this to even work a person would need to show that it's impossible for two people of the same gender to actually LOVE each other. Good luck with that!


We are actually having different perspectives . I see a difference between LOVE (agape, which God holds for us and we can hold for each other, regardless of gender) and ATTRACTION (which involves an interest in the physical) and can lead to the ACTION of SEX

I doubt God would take issue with love between any of us,,,it is only the sexual ACTIONS with which issue is taken


Why would he/she/it have issues with sex if it a natural course of action for most organisms and yes homosexual sex happens in more than humans?


I will ask him if I see him,, but I believe that not everything that we are capable of doing was ever meant to be 'natural' and certainly not everything that is natural to animals is natural to us,,,heck,, there are even some things that are natural to one animal and not another

I wont debate the issue of natural. But if one believes in his word, as I do, it is clear that there were some things that we CAN do with our body that were not natural. I would imagine his creation of adam and eve were his EXAMPLE of mating for human beings.

Thomas3474's photo
Sun 05/23/10 02:18 AM
Animals are not humans nor do they have morals or do they know right from wrong.They just know if it feels good do it.It is extremly rare for same sex animals to have a ongoing relationship including sexual activity the same way male/female animals do.You may see a dog hump another dog of the same sex in a park.But put a female dog in there and they are fighting to get up on her.If it was natural for animals to have homosexual feelings I would expect to see that anytime I see two animals of the same sex.But I don't.To this day I have never seen two bears,two horses,two cats,two cows,and the majority of the other animals humping each other.


Redykeulous's photo
Sun 05/23/10 08:35 AM
Edited by Redykeulous on Sun 05/23/10 08:36 AM
Thomas3474 wrote
As usual with opinions and the bible there is no scriptures posted because had you posted scriptures you would find out that you are wrong.


Which ones SPEFICALLY would you like me to address? I will be happy to respond.
Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
Romans 1:21-28 King
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
And 1 Timothy 1:10
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13


I would really love to hear your opinion on how Christians are suppressing millions of people in this world… Can you name a single biblical made law in our Government that when broken people are punished?


Let me begin by correcting your word “suppressing” s/b oppressing. Secondly, >naming ONE single ‘biblical’ law in our Government that when broken people are punished< let me write the acronym DOMA – oh ok, I’ll write another – DADT.

I will tell you something.I have met my fair share of uneducated people concerning the bible but on a ignorance scale of 1 to 10 this would have to be a 30. You ever THINK before you write these things?


Yes I do, and I make sure I have prepared myself with knowledge to support my opinions.

If you knew anything about the Catholic church you would know that they worship and pray to the Virgin Mary nearly as much as they pray to Jesus.They honor Mary the same way they honor Jesus.


Yes, so they do – how many other great women of the Bible do you suppose most people can name? How many do you think there are and what stories are most commonly attached to these women? Every good Catholic and most church going Christians know the story of THAT woman whom Jesus allowed to repentantly wash away her sins by washing his feet with her tears. Did she have even have a name? In case you have forgotten, look it up Luke 7:36-50.

So your theory that women became irrelevant with the Catholic church is totally backwards.The Catholic church took women to the highest honor possible.


Obviously, as a good Catholic you know what the Lectionary is so I won’t belittle your knowledge by explaining it. How many times during the course of a year is a woman brought up in church services? What praises are lavished on women of the Bible in Church? Are characteristics like wisdom, business intuition and accomplishments, or their abilities as leaders distinguished and heralded along side their male counterparts? Or perhaps you think women did not have these roles as they were mostly valued as receptacles for a man’s seed, and as mothers raising the babies formed from that seed?

Since you are fond of Bible passages, check out Judges, oh I think 11:30 – 31 ish… do you think the daughter of Jephthah was truly blessed to be able to offer herself as a holy sacrifice in order that her father could keep a promise to God that he made without forethought? This is how Christians for thousands of years have come to view women – the long-suffering woman, happy to give her live so that her husband and children will remain high in God’s regard.

So Thomas, you must also be familiar with Catholic memorials of saints and recognize that men and women have vastly different hierarchy in those memorials. Men are never considered in the Common of virgins – but were men never without the sin of sexual relations? Women, on the other hand are never considered in the Common of Pastors or Doctors, although women have risen to those standards – sanctified by the Church.

And why is Mary Magdalene often considered group leader of the apostles listed in the liturgy ranks in 12th place?

Obviously, the first organized CHURCH “Roman Catholic” felt a sincere need to rank women in second place – or even third considering they are often below the status of their male offspring- and furthermore, that position was maintained as religious schisms brought about the creation on new Christian sects – even to this day.

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 05/23/10 09:04 AM
Corinthians 11:12 KJV
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

"Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Ephesians 5:33 NKJV).

Women, like animals are made of God – but like animals are not capable of the kind equity that a man has in choosing or caring for their relationships. Theirs is but to respect a man, who is to take care of his play-things.


"Do not deprive one another [sexually] except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:5 NKJV).


The above - by the same Church and in the same mentality that requires celibacy of its priesthood and its nuns. Where is the logic? It would seem that this statement is inconsistent as sex, in this example, is merely in response to sexual tension – but that opposes the idea that sex is for procreation only – otherwise the act is spilling the man’s seed with the sole intent of pleasure and not of procreation. Likewise, what release is there for a woman if it is the man’s pleasure that is in consideration????

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen" (Ephesians 4:29 NIV).


And so men feel the need to feed their own masculinity by making women secondary. Perhaps it is considered appropriate to simply omit the fact that women, throughout biblical and Christian history, have often attained as great or greater positions of authority and acts as their male counterparts.

"And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you" (Ephesians 4:32 NKJV).


What a fabulous quote – now let us remember how often women were stoned, murdered, or left in abject poverty for committing a sin, far less than that of men who rose in the ranks of Christendom.

1 Corinthians 7:39 KJV
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.


But a man may take many wives, and in some cases may seek an heir through the womb of some unrelated woman – like a maid servant. A man may also divorce a woman, although he is committed to care for the woman he divorced, unless she had committed one of the unforgivable sins in which case she would be left in poverty, unable to marry, or perhaps stoned. All on the word of her husband. The divorced man can marry again but the woman cannot.

Proverbs 19:14 KJV
House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.


Really – I was asked if I even think before writing – I must ask that same question of the poster of these passages.


Matthew 19:9 KJV And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery


This proves an earlier point I made a couple comments back.

Mark 6:18 KJV For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

Lev 20:21 KJV And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it [is] an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.


How do these passages, IN ANY WAY, support your opinion that the Bible equates women to men? In fact I see just the opposite here.


Redykeulous's photo
Sun 05/23/10 09:13 AM
Edited by Redykeulous on Sun 05/23/10 09:14 AM






It seems to me that if homosexuality has clearly been prevalent all throughout human history it could hardly be considered to be "unnatural".

Why would a God have created beings to be natrually attracted to each other only to chastise them for that behavior. That seems to be diabolical in and of itself. ohwell


hmm,,if anything thats always existed must be natural,,,there would hardly be a reason to distinguish any existing action as unnatural

so although in a wordly perception, I understand that logic,, it doesnt seem like it works in accord with the bible

a difference between attraction (what one might be tempted towards) and action (what one chooses to do)

we are creatures who are tempted and our choice is what gives us the option to give in or resist


Well, the only problem I have with this in connection with a supposedly all-wise and compassionate God, is that if two people of the same gender are genuinely attracted to each other with sincere intent and love, then this would suggest that God has a problem with sincere love based on nothing more than superfical physical gender.

To me, this just opens a whole can of worms associated with the attribtues that this so-called "God" supposedly has. This would be a highly superficial demand of a suppsedly "righteous" and all-wise compassionate God.

Therefore I have no other choice but to conclude that these writings are nothing more than that babbling predjudices and bigotries of men. They just don't fit in with a supposely divine being who isn't even supposed to give material things any merit. But gender is definitely a material thing in the sense that it's entirely a physical attribute.

This God is supposed to value LOVE, not physical bodies.

Ultimate for this to even work a person would need to show that it's impossible for two people of the same gender to actually LOVE each other. Good luck with that!


We are actually having different perspectives . I see a difference between LOVE (agape, which God holds for us and we can hold for each other, regardless of gender) and ATTRACTION (which involves an interest in the physical) and can lead to the ACTION of SEX

I doubt God would take issue with love between any of us,,,it is only the sexual ACTIONS with which issue is taken


Why would he/she/it have issues with sex if it a natural course of action for most organisms and yes homosexual sex happens in more than humans?


I will ask him if I see him,, but I believe that not everything that we are capable of doing was ever meant to be 'natural' and certainly not everything that is natural to animals is natural to us,,,heck,, there are even some things that are natural to one animal and not another

I wont debate the issue of natural. But if one believes in his word, as I do, it is clear that there were some things that we CAN do with our body that were not natural. I would imagine his creation of adam and eve were his EXAMPLE of mating for human beings.


Yes indeed, some things may seem unnatural but we can choose to view NATURAL, in conjunction with society or with personal beliefs or from a unique individual perspective.

For example - missionary style is the suggested practive in biblical circles and I can't deny that donning a strap on can be very natural and very pleasurable. On the other hand, it is just one of many ways in which the fire of sexual desire can be satiated. Thank goodness we have become a society in which it is much easier to cum to terms that are agreeable between loving sexual partners (of any gender).