@sstainba,
Quote:I would, however, very much like the same legal benefits as a married couple.
I whole heartedly agree with this concept.
Quote:There are all sorts of reasons for gay marriage
I would not deny the same legal quality of life to a homosexual couple that a heterosexual couple already enjoy.
Quote:there are... (homosexual)... people that raise perfectly normal children
I agree.
Quote:There's no reason to think the kids would turn out otherwise.
I disagree. We are dealing with large numbers. Children are better off with their natural parents. Failing that, with a heterosexual couple who treat children with love and respect. Failing that, with a homosexual couple who treat children with love and respect.
Quote:The thing that irritates me most about the whole debate is the lying on the side of the religious.
I can not blame you for this and I agree with your conclusion :
Quote:They are purposefully creating the haves and have-nots
Perhaps out of feelings of guilt, let me say the Bible is an historical document that has been edited to leave out its original opinion on homsexuality.
The early Christians were definitely against homosexuality. ‘Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither pornoi (men involved with prostitution), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi (men who engage passively in homosexual acts) nor arsenokoitai (men who engage actively in homosexual acts), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God’. ‘The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, pornois, arsenokoitai, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrines.’ Sodom lent its name to Sodomy, or in English, buggery and the message was changed to God wiping out entire cities if they were homosexual. The laws of Theodosius and Justinian allowed for the burning of homosexuals out of fear of what God might do to the state because of Sodom. These Roman laws heavily influenced Medieval civil and church laws and the combined effect of all of these indirectly influences us today. A fairly heavy influence to be caused by one editor changing the story.
We have a distinct bias against homosexuality because of our Roman and early Christian traditions, which evolved thousands of years later in societies radically different from those of the Old Testament. This prevents us from realising that to the people of the Patriarchs’ era it was probably acceptable (note that acceptable does not mean preferable or encouraged) if not forbidden by other laws. Most tribal cultures accept that some men will be born thinking they are women and are usually allowed to marry men who already have a wife. No one wants to waste people who can contribute when survival is at stake. What was usually not tolerated was men sticking their penis into anything they want to just to get their jollies. Anything that gets in the way of male-female sex is an attack on the tribe’s survival by reproduction.
For the Greeks, homosexuality was as much dominance as pleasure. Penetration was only by the dominant male. The Boss at work would expect his employees to allow him to have sex with them, regardless of what was their orientation. There was no such thing as consenting adults. Greek literature is full of discussions about love, the highest form of which was the love of an adult male for a pre-teen boy, but of course the boy would not be allowed to penetrate in his turn. No-one cared what the boy loved. One ancient author wrote how he would go all shivery whenever he saw their little naked limbs.
When the Greeks gathered for their orgies it would be common to have the inside bottom of their wine cup decorated with one of their favourite scenes: a strong man raping a young boy who is trying to resist.
Upper class women were solely for breeding stock. Their husbands would have sex with them when it was required to breed, apart from that the husband would satisfy himself with anything from male and female slaves and prostitutes, to the little boy who lives down the lane.
Some philosophers argued against homosexuality, saying it should be banned because of the trouble it caused in society, but it was never possible to sway enough voting citizens as, in Athens for example, only certain adult males had the right to vote, probably as little as 10% of the population. One can imagine the damage done to a society which institutionalises raping children.
The Bible when it lays down the law against homosexuality is not really interested in the sex lives of people, as strange as that may seem to us who are used to thumping sermons from the pulpit. In the Old Testament, the authors are concerned that homosexuality, prostitution, and bestiality may draw Jews into the Canaanite religion. The law is so people will not be able to be practicing Jews and still have sex at the Canaanite temples where they may be converted away from Judaism. If these sexual practices are banned, then the Jews will have no reason to go near a Canaanite temple. Or they leave the Jewish religion altogether.
