I think this calls for a quiet, dignified Whoo-hoo!
.
2007-03-26 08:13:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by abetterfate 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Well it's about time those in the upper echelons of religious society started to see the difference between, "A man lying with a man in the same manner as a woman", which actually has a number of different interpretations and someone simply having a homosexual sexual orientation.
The mere fact the Talmud does not even recognize lesbianism shows it is silent on the issue of homosexuality period.
2007-03-26 08:05:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by jessicabjoseph 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yeah, the deal that for the time of a few states we gained't carry place of work, yeah that in basic terms does it appropriate there. In a rustic that has come some distance for some minority communities and characteristic given them those freedoms... nope we are nevertheless taken care of as 2d type voters in some issues like that. And a gamble in all possibility the final group to ever get those styles of rights. people could be appalled if it replaced into women or racial minorities that still ought to not carry place of work, yet curiously it rather is brushed aside and omitted if it rather is over ideals.
2016-10-19 23:35:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by console 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
As someone who attended Catholic seminary for 2 years, I completely understand and applaud this decision. Many of the ancient texts have been usurped and co-opted for the purpose of both political and ideological power. As you say Juan, the Bible has not one word attributed by God on matters of homosexuality, that is man's doing.
I will watch with interest as to what happens next.
2007-03-26 08:28:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
Doesn't surprise me one bit. Actually I've been arguing about that for years.
The only thing it say is that STRAIGHT men should not Lie with Men...it says NOTHING of homosexual men.
What it's saying is that Straight men shouldn't try to be homosexuals because that's against their natural orientation. It also is eluding to the fact that when it was written men were seen as the head of the house. Women we seen as child birthing machines and were not considered as equals and to lower a straight male into the role of a female was an abomination.
It says nothing of homosexual men, those naturally oriented towards other like men.
2007-03-26 08:11:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by DEATH 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
Glad to hear that the conservative Jewish scholars think that as well. But unfortunately, I am willing to bet that not 1 single Christian will change their mind over that. They have and will continue to believe their indoctrinated position, despite all evidence to the contrary.
EDIT-I believe that the above posting is CORRECT! But I am willing to bet that he/she doesn't realize that it is the CHRISTIANS who have changed the word of God, which is unchanging, into something un-God like!
2007-03-26 07:49:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Tikhacoffee/MisterMoo 6
·
7⤊
0⤋
Well the whole lot is fabricated by man, so no surprise there. 'Holy texts' are a reflection of the attitudes of the people who write them.
2007-03-26 08:10:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I think the Jews are smart cookies. Let's hope that the Christians will see the light
2007-03-26 08:18:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by gitsliveon24 5
·
6⤊
0⤋
thats good to know, my Juanito. The thing I don't understand, is how can man himself add more words to the bible, saying this and that, when those things harm and not able to show support.
2007-03-26 08:34:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Aldo 78522 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Do your thing Juan! I'm not a hater! I'm not gay either! You do you! But it reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of something for others to approve your gay life style. If you like it, I love it! I personally have no animosity against gay people. All straight people are not hurtful. Hell there are straight people out in the world committing so much sin until it's not even funny. So I say to those f*ckas.........who are they to sit in judgment of anyone? Is that not the pot calling the kettle black or what?
2007-03-26 07:49:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋