Directly Comparing Zoosexuality with being Gay

submitted by jet199 from zooey.pub

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]makesyoudownvote 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

This is exactly what the right used to say would happen, and they were profoundly made fun of for it.

I was one of the people that made fun of them. Back 15 years ago I fought hard for gay marriage. I still support it.

But the right made a valid criticism that the pro-gay arguments could easily be applied to any sexuality including marrying a toaster or your pet dog. It seemed rediculous, but we should have done a better job at fleshing out the distinction rather than just scoffing. We did flesh it out by the way which is when you started hearing the qualifier: "between two consenting adults". Unfortunately it was done sort of after the fact and is somewhat flimsy in how it's understood. Afterall two is a bit limiting, what about threesomes or polyamory? I definitely see a purpose to forbidding polygamy, but polyamory isn't inherently wrong it's just stupid (I was polyamorous for a while and let me tell you it's dumb).

I don't know though. Some of this thread and interpretation is some of the same low level scoffing. There is plenty to discuss cuss here, like how obviously animals can't consent. But the question remains, what if they could. If we could actually understand animals, and their desires and they genuinely bonded with a human, it still seems wrong, but why? What is it exactly that makes it wrong, without bringing personal faith or beliefs into it? Is it that you can't reproduce or it isn't natural? It's about as natural as homosexuality, both do happen in nature occasionally, both are biologically pointless as procreation is impossible.

I just wish we could have these discussions, not because I am giving credibility to zoophilia or anything, but because I think we should build a stronger shared moral and ideological foundation instead of constantly stacking flimsy ideologies on top of eachother, otherwise eventually (and I think imminently) there will be a moral collapse. We are no longer unified by a common faith, so it's paramount that we establish some sort of shared ethics and ideologies.

[–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

we can't have these discussions because people who are against God won't hear of it. You can't just tell someone the author of morality is against something the fag thinks is at the core of his person. There's no debate. Either you are on God's side and agree with him or you don't, and if you don't then you don't care what he or his people say.

[–]makesyoudownvote 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

Which God?

Surely you see how this argument is the exact same argument the left always uses about "human rights". If you boil everything down to vague terms like good and evil, you never actually get anywhere.

Now to your side's credit the Bible even if not the word of God contains over 3 millennia of morality, ethics and lessons that are for the most part explicit and don't contradict, but keep in mind the Bible more explicitly forbids things like clothing of mixed fibers and eating pork than it does things like homosexuality. The stance on homosexuality is far more manufactured by individual preists while what is taken as the literal word of God is often ignored. I'm not trying to discredit it, because I respect and honor Christianity pretty much any other religion for it's moral stances. It's got the wisdom of the Torah, but with a much more pacifist turn the other cheek sort of stance. I do believe Jesus to be the son of God, but even if you don't, the guy was undoubtedly morally a genius.

But again this misses part of the point. This country is hinged on freedom of religion and tolerance (much like Jesus himself as I read him), but this includes trying to make peace with other religions and trying to come together to a common set of ethics. You can, and should use religious texts like the Bible, but you also must allow for other religions to be given some weight too. I don't want to live under the more extreme Jewish or Islamic laws, nor do I want to live like a Mormon, so obviously some degree of the ethics are exclusive to practitioners, yet some like murder are universal. The goal is to try to nail down universal ethics that can make us all live and work together.

Then when you die you will be held to God's law.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

There is but one God, comrade! And his word must be interpreted in light of itself. The things about clothing and shellfish are no longer applicable but still a good idea. The part about buggery being absolutely sinful still is, and they who enjoy such things reject it, preferring to feel good for a short time on this side of death.

If Jesus was not God then he was insane, as he routinely allowed others to call him God and held himself out to be God, and allowed himself to be tortured to death as a sacrifice. Also if he was not God then he would not have been able to bring people back from the dead, even four days dead (!) as well as healing many other non-lethal ailments.

The USA was set up to be a nation with a relatively similar set of morals. You can't have the kind of diversity the left and other religions are pushing and keep the USA, it can't work.

[–]LyingSpirit472 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

The things about clothing and shellfish are no longer applicable but still a good idea.

But if you admit that they're no longer applicable, then you are saying the Bible is flawed, and thus in God's eyes you're literally as evil as the gay person or zoophile. Hope that cotton-poly shirt or that shrimp cocktail was worth your immortal soul.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

No? There are different rules for different people in different times, but some of the rules from one dispensation are the same in another. It's only as complicated as you want to make it to prevent yourself from understanding, really

[–]LyingSpirit472 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Those are some big words for "you're a Satanist who goes against the Bible". Get behind me, Satan!

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

k

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

ok devil worshipper.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

But how do you determine which rules apply to whom?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

By diligent and prayerful study of the Bible itself, occasionally informed by commentary from non-heretical analysts

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

More like 100% informed by commentary from heretical analysts. Because there's literally zero reason why pork is no longer an abomination but being gay still is, other than because all the popular figures say so.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

are you sure a sheet descending from heaven filled with all manner of unclean beasts has nothing to do with it?

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the sins of homosexuals and trans shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever lusteth after the opposite sex, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever lusteth after the same sex, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The things about clothing and shellfish are no longer applicable but still a good idea. The part about buggery being absolutely sinful still is, and they who enjoy such things reject it, preferring to feel good for a short time on this side of death.

By what authority? There's nothing in the Bible detailing which laws were "fulfilled" by the New Testament and which ones still apply. The litmus test is the golden rule, everything else is either misunderstood or corrupt, and God doesn't change.

And again, all the supposed condemnations of gays in the Bible are fraudulent. If you go back to the original languages it doesn't say that, except in one section which seems to be a quotation of some Judaizers the author is condemning.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The litmus test is God says so, and the corollary is the people he trained say so too. Read the writings of the people he trained, including his words. You don't need a checklist, you need to study, and not to listen to people who are in themselves corrupters. Textual criticizers are VERY often unbelievers who will be unable to honestly connect these dots too.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not "listening to textual criticizers," the evidence checks out. The litmus test is found in all four gospel accounts as well as Paul, so I'm quite sure it's reliable. And it's quite a coincidence that whatever contradicts it always seems to be a later scribal invention.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're not listening to them, the same way your nation has no culture. You are so steeped in heresy you don't even recognize it.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"My nation has no culture." How is this at all relevant?

Don't forget who the biggest heretics were to first-century Judaism, and continued to be so for centuries.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can't even see how badly you have been misled by apostate critics because they crafted your worldview, is the point

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

and don't contradict, but keep in mind the Bible more explicitly forbids things like clothing of mixed fibers and eating pork than it does things like homosexuality.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There's one big problem with that: That line was in Leviticus, an Old Testament book.

The New Testament not only said that "all the rules in the Old Testament can be thrown out in Christianity", but the very core tenet of Christianity is "Jesus's death wiped away all sins from mankind, forever." It's blatant, etched in stone, Hitler could recant on his deathbed once, even if he didn't totally mean it, and be welcomed into heaven, level of "no sin can be left unforgiven."

To say "and yet being LGBT+ is the one sin that is truly unforgivable in every way, shape, or form, being gay is a one-way, go directly to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, Putin will be welcomed into heaven while a boy who once got molested by their priest will burn in hell for having once had sex with a man" is to say there's a sin in the world which Jesus's death on the cross did not pay for, which in the process destroys all of Christianity far more than the culture war does.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's not even actually in Leviticus, the translators "adjusted" it.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah, IIRC the original quote was saying "don't commit pederasty", which is something most people would be aware is a sin that is out of the picture.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not quite. It says "don't lie a woman's lyings," which at most forbids anal sex. Or it's telling men not to have sex with men who are married to a woman (compare the usage of "uncovering nakedness").

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah. The original translations I had heard of this verse said that they translated one of the instance of "man" in the text where it was supposed to be "boy" in that instance (and thus the line was forbidding men having sex with young boys- which in Greco-Roman times was common enough they would likely need a rule saying "dude! NO!")

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's probably not true, although it used to be a common view (Martin Luther believed this, for example, and I doubt he was a friend of the homos). It's a very confusing line, even though modern translations make it seem as if there is no doubt about it.

A strictly literal translation of Leviticus 18:22 would be, "And with [a] male you shall not lie [the] lyings of [a] woman..." And more naturally it could be "You shall not lie a woman's lyings with a male". Though I suppose it's possible that "male" was meant to imply a boy, the word is not limited to that.

But the fact is it very clearly specifies "a woman's lyings", not all kinds of lying. The "as with" translation is a clever manipulation of words that makes the prohibition seem way more broad. This is because translators are almost always fundamentalists who want to make things conform to their doctrine as much as possible, and they think gays are the worst for some reason, and they also aren't comfortable accepting that a Bible passage might be unclear or that we may have forgotten the necessary context, because then it's *gasp* imperfect!

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not. The actual text reads, "If a man lies a woman's lyings with a male..." At most this forbids anal sex, more likely it's prohibiting married men from committing adultery with a man (because the lyings belong to the wife, compare the usage of "uncovering nakedness"). Translators don't want this to be known, they're extremely biased and want people to think there's no doubt about a translation they pretty much invented. If you don't believe me you can look at the Hebrew yourself, as well as the old Greek translation used in New Testament times.

[–]makesyoudownvote 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Exactly thanks for bringing that up. See how loose that is, compared to:

Leviticus 19:19

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

Deuteronomy 22:11

"You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together."

Your's says "lie with" and doesn't contain a commandment by God, but rather states a judgement; "an abomination", then says they will surely be put to death. It could easily be interpreted as describing contemporary feelings about homosexuality. There is a huge amount that is up for interpretation there in that one line that contains no commandment from God just a judgment. It's the church that has chosen to largely interpret that the same way, but as it's written there is a ton of wiggle room there.

Not really so with the mixed fiber thing, yet I can more or less guarantee you wear clothing of mixed fibers huh? I know I do. My favorite socks actually are wool and nylon blend and they feel amazing. I'd venture to say in God's eyes this is worse than Gay sex. In no way does it say I'd go to hell for gay sex, it just says it's an abomination and if I have gay sex, and get killed it's my own damned fault.

[–]Vulptexghost fox girl ^w^ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't literally mean that. Almost every law used by the New Testament is in a figurative manner. People have lost sight of what the Jewish scriptures are supposed to be. I suppose this could be a product of our modern academic-oriented society where plain facts are the norm, unlike in ancient times when most things were communicted through poetry and imagery.