Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School

[Munchkin]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Well, according to Christianity, we have zero control over sin period, as we are born sinful. NOT sinning is what takes conscious thought -- sinning is the natural way. I'm not sure that sexual preference is coded at birth, though. Either way, if you want to know why homosexual behavior (not predilection) is a sin, you have to ask God. Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God, and in the bible says homosexuality is a sin. There are separate arguments to be had over the existence of God, the divinity of the teachings in the bible, old testament vs new testament, etc. etc.

We have control of other sins... we can control whether or not we dress appropriately (yes dressing like a ho is a "sin").. we have control whether or not we cheat on our spouse...we can control whether or not we say GODDAMNIT... but we cant control who we love...

shouldnt be getting into a religious debate... but I guess thats gonna happen in this context, because there is no non religious reason to object to t his.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Munchkin

We have control of other sins... we can control whether or not we dress appropriately (yes dressing like a ho is a "sin").. we have control whether or not we cheat on our spouse...we can control whether or not we say GODDAMNIT... but we cant control who we love...

It's really all semantics, but technically, it's not a sin to be gay. In other words, it's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It is a sin to have "unpure thoughts" about someone of the same sex, or to actually have sex with someone of the same sex.

The Bible thinks it's sin to give in to temptation. The temptation part isn't the sin. The "giving in" part is.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Munchkin

but we cant control who we love...
shouldnt be getting into a religious debate... but I guess thats gonna happen in this context, because there is no non religious reason to object to t his.

You can love without putting your peener in the object of your affection. But let's move away from religion -- what if the school had a children's book that featured plural marriage, or a spousal relationship between an 18 year old girl and a 60 year old man? What about swingers? I can imagine people would be a little put off by that stuff, even if they weren't religiously devout. And who are we to say that a person can't love their 3 husbands or their 18-year-old wife? That's not the issue...the issue is, where do parents draw the line?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

But let's move away from religion -- what if the school had a children's book that featured plural marriage, or a spousal relationship between an 18 year old girl and a 60 year old man?

Don't both of those occur in the Bible?

[mrnoodle]

yep. also, incest. But wouldn't there be a bit of a hue and cry anyway? And not just from zealots?

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I skipped a bunch of the middle bits, sorry if this has been addressed.
re: semantics.

I'll speak from a Christian perspective (and anyone here can tell you I don't hate anyone, and I don't care which consenting adult you rub your genitals on). Bear with me, I have to do a little proselytizing as background info, but the point is coming up.

To us, homosexuality is a sin. It's no worse and no better than any other sin, but in my religion, it indicates separation from God's will. The difference between me (and those who believe as I do) and Phelps' hate brigade is that I think the bible says that everyone is a sinner. In fact, I'm sure it does. It also says that no one is righteous except Christ.

Kind of lumps us all in the same group, in my book. What makes believers and nonbelievers different isn't the frequency or severity of our sins. It's whether or not we think that Jesus was God's son, and whether or not his death paid the penalty that we would otherwise have to pay ourselves.

So. To me, there's is no disconnect between recognizing homosexuality as sin and being loving and kind to every person, regardless of their personal situation with God, which is really none of my business. However, for many of us, Christian or not, gayness seems wrong biologically and morally. Therefore, someone who tells our kids "it's not wrong, it's great. I don't care what your fairy tale book or grandma told you!" is not just sharing the fact of the existence of homosexuality. They are promoting a moral standpoint that also "feels" unnatural on a very deep level. The place for this is not in schools, as many of you have rightly pointed out. By the same token, no school should allow any kind of bigotry.

Where does an book about 2 gay princes fall into this? I'm torn. Children's books normally illustrate archetypes and big-picture kinds of concepts: princess gets saved from the dragon, Bobby learns to share, counting is fun, etc. etc. This one seems like its purpose is to make political hay.

I've been wrong before.

/experimented in college
//i was stoned
///this isn't fark, why am i using slashes?

How did you make the jump from abomination to sin? Who decided this and on what authority?
Biblically it is not a sin, as I have stated previously it is an abomination and that is not a sin, not even close.
Nowhere in any bible
(The NIV does not count, it is a political pamphlet not a bible)
is the word homosexuality stated. Sodomy is not the same. Oral sex with your wife is biblical sodomy, so is prostitution, so is adultery, so is the pulling-out method even between married couples, it is not just gay sex.
It is mainly alluded to as a sexual religious rite in relation to idolatry.
Most gay couples probably don’t have a golden calf in their bedroom.
Even then it is NEVER called a sin.
Eating shellfish and hangin' out with your spouse during her "time-of-the-month" is also an abomination.
There are a loooooonnnnng list of abominations and they are equal in the eyes of the lord.
Fear the Kotex! Stay wayyyyyy back from Ms. Thomson when she is on the rag... ABOMINATION, I think it is something like 60' Lev 15:19-24
Have you ever touched a football? That is an equal abomination to having gay sex, that is right, the flesh of a pig Lev 11:6-8, or how about a shrimp cocktail mmmmmmm..... abomination too Lev 11:10, just like a blow-job with the school quarterback, there are no qualifications on which is a worse abomination.
That whole scene between Lot and the gang was about Levantine hospitality law, not a rape mob….
& the hits just keep on coming. Study with an open mind and spend time with a real bible scholar.
You can't pick and choose, either you live by Levantine law or you do not, period.
Levantine law is not sancrosect any longer, it does not work that way, Christ came to complete the law, remember?
Eat meat on Friday, you goin' to Hell sport, Levantine law... there are many.
Oh, and on the other hand there are fun things we can do, we can sell our daughters into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7, what would be a fair price is God's eyes do you think, hmmmm? As for the slaves I get to have, Lev. 25:44, I wonder if I have to let them sleep in the house?
Seen a neighbor working on Saturday (the real sabbath) Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death and it is your job to do it, better get to work sport.
Oh if you wear glasses you can't take communion because you can't approach the alter of god sinner, Lev 21:20.
If your neighbor wears a cotton polyester thread blend shirt, you know what you have to do? Stone them to death Lev 24:10-16, yup kill em for wearing a blended shirt or even trimming the hair over their temples, I hope you have not done this or I may have to find you Lev 19:27.
So if you have done any of these things or are against any of them, you have no room to point a finger.

[Ibby]

Thank you, rkzenrage. I am not a christian, but my family is methodist, so I have read parts of the bibe. You are correct, eating shrimp or touching a football is no worse than being gay. Therefore, religion is, honestly, not a valid argument. Therefore it is insecurity about one's own sexuality that must cause homophobia and discrimination against queers, no?

[jaguar]

noodle - because none of those examples involve nearly 10% of the population, pologamy is illegal most places and swinging is very much a sexual concept, homosexuality is not.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by jinx

When we lived in Coatesville people came to our door all the fricken time... and honestly, the JW's were my favorite.

Interestingly enough, Andrew (our PP chapter's poster boy for defensive use of a handgun without actually firing it) tells a great story about the time JWs showed up on his doorstep and tried to give him a Bible. (He's rather conspicuously Jewish.)

As I recall, he would not accept the Bible as a gift, but offered to trade them a Quran for it. When they demurred, he pointed out that it was a rather nicely printed Quran, and of higher quality than their Bible.

Still no sale though...

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by jaguar

...pologamy is illegal most places...

For the protection of the ponies.

Or perhaps Ralph Lauren, I forget which.

[Jordon]

Let's jump ahead a bit then, since the dead horse is now getting a bit ripe.

Little Johnny reaches the grade where it's time for sex ed classes.

Are you going to insist that he be taught gay sex in addition to normal biology? You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.

[Ibby]

No, because sex ed is for biological purposes, and, well, gay sex is biologically useless. If he wants to know about gay sex, or any other sex besides plain old penis-in-vagina sex, that's his business. Stop being a prick, and a troll, and go away.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ibram

No, because sex ed is for biological purposes, and, well, gay sex is biologically useless. If he wants to know about gay sex, or any other sex besides plain old penis-in-vagina sex, that's his business.

Actually, everything in sex-ed except for pregnancy is equally relevant to gays and straights. It's not like there's anything gays can do sexually that straights can't.

[jaguar]

ok, ok maggie, it's not one I tend to use on a daily basis, part of the virtue of living on the civilised continent.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Jordon

You do know what I mean by normal so don't be dense.

The horse isn't dead just because you didn't like the way the debate was going. And you've made it clear you wouldn't know "normal" if it bit you on the ass.

But last I saw, sex ed covered a lot of "what" and damned little "how". Reproductive biology needs to be taught, but when Clinton's Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders suggested teaching masturbation, she was forced to resign.

I'd just as soon the government not teach any "how" for sex; they'll just fuck it up anyway.