Duck dynasty

[Scarlett]

Many would say if there was an emotional affair, then yes.

I said I didn't act on it. So no emotional affair either. Just the attraction.

[Slartibartfast]

I wonder if that show falls under "Arts" or "Entertainment."  Remember when A&E was the cultured channel, and TLC had educational stuff, and the History Channel was all about history?  Now it's all side show all the time.   Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

 

 

That is why I canceled cable. History channel was showing aliens, bravo was showing women slapping each other, I hadn't seen a video on mtv for years, A&E was too many crazy reality programs, TLC was showing trainwrecks...I really don't know what the names of networks mean anymore. :/

[AlmiraGulch]

So why wasn't Bashir suspended for saying the vile, foul things he did  about Sarah Palin?  He eventually quit, but the network did nothing to punish him, in fact they supported him.  Why is that okay, as it was his opinion, and not what Phil Robertson said?  Why is a personal opinion, which Mr. Robertson clearly stated his comment was, when we have FREE speech in this country, and supposed TOLERANCE, subject to discipline by someone who doesn't share that opinion?

 

This type of one-sided suppression of free speech is troublesome and a very slipper slope which seems to be gaining traction.

 

 

Again, I'll say, even though people keep ignoring it, it's because the network obviously did not fear they would lose advertisers based on what he said.  That's it.

 

And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.  It's not even applicable here because A&E is not the government.  No one was arrested or jailed for what they said. 

 

Seriously, everyone, when it comes to business, it's all about the money.  Always.  

[zoobie]

So why wasn't Bashir suspended for saying the vile, foul things he did about Sarah Palin? He eventually quit, but the network did nothing to punish him, in fact they supported him. Why is that okay, as it was his opinion, and not what Phil Robertson said? Why is a personal opinion, which Mr. Robertson clearly stated his comment was, when we have FREE speech in this country, and supposed TOLERANCE, subject to discipline by someone who doesn't share that opinion?

 

This type of one-sided suppression of free speech is troublesome and a very slipper slope which seems to be gaining traction.

 

He immediately went and essentially suspended himself, then he resigned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/04/exclusive-martin-bashir-out-at-msnbc-over-palin-slur-was-previously-suspended/

The article also explains the context of his statement.

 

Comparing him to Phil Robertson is apples to oranges.

[LucyStoner]

What would I be if I was sexually attracted to a man not my husband but didn't act on it? Would I be an adulteress?

 

According to the Bible, yes.  Matthew 5:27-29.  To look with lust in the heart, you have already committed the sin of adultery and it is better to tear out an eye that sins than to be thrown into hell.  No emotional affair or emotions required.  Just looking with lust at a person that you are not married to is the sin.  

 

More exactly:  

 

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…

 

 

My brother is a Christian and a married gay man.  Some people may not like that or agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that that is who he is.  

[Above The Rowan]

I said I didn't act on it. So no emotional affair either. Just the attraction.

 

You think you are only gay once intercourse is involved? 

So am I only straight once I have sex with a man? 

I just can't wrap my brain around this sort of defining of sexuality. 

[kwickimom]

Yes, even if you're a virgin, it's still homosexuality.  It is part of who you are.  Would you be in a heterosexual relationship if you were dating someone of the opposite sex but not having sex?  What if your partner was incapable of sex for whatever reason but you still loved them.  What would you be, then?

 

ETA: his remarks that are causing the most backlash equate it to bestiality and go on: â€œEverything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.â€

 

(I'm not sure why female prostitutes aren't included here. lol)

 

He didn't "equate" homosexuality to bestiality. He equated it to sin. 

[Scarlett]

If you're ok (as in not going to hell according to Phil and whomever else) if you're heterosexual but not homosexual. I don't understand this at all. You really think you're not homosexual until the actual sex act? .

I suppose a person could be considered a homosexual due to just the feeling of being sexually attracted to the same sex with no action. But the sinful part is the acting upon it.

[Scarlett]

According to the Bible, yes. Matthew 5:27-29. To look with lust in the heart, you have already committed the sin of adultry and it is better to tear out an eye that sins than to be thrown into hell.

 

More exactly:

 

 

My brother is a Christian and a married gay man. Some people may not like that or agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that that is who he is.

Is he married to a woman?

[Scarlett]

You think you are only gay once intercourse is involved?

So am I only straight once I have sex with a man?

I just can't wrap my brain around this sort of defining of sexuality.

It wasn't an attempt to define sexuality. It was an attempt to point out the differences between feeling a certain way and acting on those feelings.

 

I can't wrap my mind around why that is so complicated.

[mommymilkies]

He didn't "equate" homosexuality to bestiality. He equated it to sin. 

He likened it to a gateway drug. Like he said: "Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there." And then goes on about bestiality, etc.  

[zoobie]

He said he believes homosexual BEHAVIOR to be sinful. And color me confused but if sex were not involved would same sex relationship even be considered homosexual?

Is heterosexuality nothing more than combining a penis and a vagina? No, and anyone attempting to lump all of homosexuality into one sex act (which, btw, heterosexuals perform too) is head-bangingly ignorant.

 

Did you say that you and your son would never be friends or acquaintances with any homosexuals? If so, I'm fairly certain we will never see this issue on remotely the same plane.

[Saddlemomma]

His comments were egregious and twisted. His expressed opinions were egregious and culturally illiterate. He essentially reduced homosexuality to *sex*. He juxtaposed homosexuality with bestiality and promiscuity - a logical fallacy AND an insult.

 

He has the right to say them; we have the right to react. He is a celebrity and therefore, he's chosen public and professional consequences to his choiceS

 

Just like the Dixie Chicks when Bush was in office. They had the right to their opinion; they didn't and shouldn't have immunity to consequences as a result of them.

 

This is not about being PC or a freedom of speech. It is about sanctioning ignorance and hate.

 

I'm sorry but your comment about "culturally illiterate and "logical fallacy" is bogus.

 

Homosexuality is a perversion of the usual and standard mechanics of nature....NOW before you all jump on me.....take a look at the meaning of perversion

 

perversion: (dictionary.com) "any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal." and before everyone blows up about the use of the word abnormal, here is the definition of that: "not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard"

 

Since homosexuality accounts for approximately 4% of the population (heck let's even inflate that figure and say...10% or 20%) that is still such a small number of individuals, we can logically say that that segment of the population is deviating from the typical, standard, or usual practice. That is not a logical fallacy nor implies ignorance.  You may not like the words, which I agree have become, in this pc world, inflammatory in liberal ideology, but that does not change their legitimate meanings.

 

I'm not stating anything positive or negative about homosexuality.  I'm just stating facts.

 

Now, when Phil said homosexuality in the same sentence with bestiality, he was using it in context with another form of sexual activity which is not average, typical or usual and which deviates from a standard.

 

So, in light of the facts, regardless of feelings and whether we are personally offended or not, what he said was not erroneous, nor a logical fallacy, nor culturally ignorant since the majority of our population is heterosexual, regardless of whether you or I like it or not.

[mommymilkies]

It wasn't an attempt to define sexuality. It was an attempt to point out the differences between feeling a certain way and acting on those feelings.

 

I can't wrap my mind around why that is so complicated.

The rest of us don't seem to find it so complicated other than your definition of homosexuality (and I'm assuming, then, heterosexuality as well) as being defined by the sexual act. 

[LucyStoner]

Is he married to a woman?

 

No, he is married to a man.  I am thankful we live in a state where, after years of building a life and family together, they were able to make that legally official.  His station wagon, Costco shopping, coupon clipping, PTA board, SAHD lifestyle doesn't seem, thus far, to have damaged straight people marriage.  

[alisoncooks]

I read the article.

Religious opinions aside...

Politics aside...

 

 

Call me a prude, but is anyone else skeeved out that he was chatting with a reporter about vaginas and anal sex?  IMO, there's just some things you don't chat about.  If he were my father, I'd be horrified that he was having such a discussion in the first place.  One can defend/explain one's beliefs re: homosexuality without the crassness...

[Scarlett]

According to the Bible, yes. Matthew 5:27-29. To look with lust in the heart, you have already committed the sin of adultery and it is better to tear out an eye that sins than to be thrown into hell. No emotional affair or emotions required. Just looking with lust at a person that you are not married to is the sin.

Oh boy. My research of that scripture indicates we are to work on controlling bad thoughts because continuing to think about bad things leads to acting on bad things.

[Mrs Mungo]

My brother is a Christian and a married gay man. Some people may not like that or agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that that is who he is.

To expound upon this-there are a number of denominations that allow gay marriage and even gay clergy members. That is what I meant when I said before that Christian does not automatically mean you hold a certain view of homosexuality.

[Scarlett]

I read the article.

Religious opinions aside...

Politics aside...

 

 

Call me a prude, but is anyone else skeeved out that he was chatting with a reporter about vaginas and anal sex? IMO, there's just some things you don't chat about. If he were my father, I'd be horrified that he was having such a discussion in the first place. One can defend/explain one's beliefs re: homosexuality without the crassness...

Yes it was a bit disturbing. Not surprising but disturbing.

[Scarlett]

The rest of us don't seem to find it so complicated other than your definition of homosexuality (and I'm assuming, then, heterosexuality as well) as being defined by the sexual act.

Again that isn't what I said.

[Scarlett]

Is heterosexuality nothing more than combining a penis and a vagina? No, and anyone attempting to lump all of homosexuality into one sex act (which, btw, heterosexuals perform too) is head-bangingly ignorant.

 

Did you say that you and your son would never be friends or acquaintances with any homosexuals? If so, I'm fairly certain we will never see this issue on remotely the same plane.

I will agree we will never see this the same.

[LucyStoner]

Oh boy. My research of that scripture indicates we are to work on controlling bad thoughts because continuing to think about bad things leads to acting on bad things.

 

It quite literally says that you have committed a sin if you have looked at someone with lust in your heart.  Not merely that you should work on controlling your urges to sin.  That you are better off tearing out your eye than letting it lead you to sin.  I personally think your interpretation is fine, but it does sort of leave you personally off the hook for what is, as I hear many say about homosexuality is "right there in the bible as black and white truth" or "It says it's wrong in the Bible."

 

Why do people get to take that sort of statement as a guideline or example or strong suggestion or parable or caution yet get to read the verses against homosexuality is black and white literal truth?  These are after all what we have recorded and translated as the words of Jesus Christ himself.  These are red letter words.  

[AlmiraGulch]

He didn't "equate" homosexuality to bestiality. He equated it to sin. 

 

I actually agree with this.  When I read what he said, it seemed to me that he was pointing out all sorts of "sinners", including  homosexuals, the promiscuous, those that practice bestiality, and so on.  It seemed to me that in THAT statement, he was saying they're all the same.  He also included himself in that bunch, as he was reflecting on his own promiscuous lifestyle before becoming Christian.  

 

He also clearly is not attracted to other men, as he went on to graphically describe how he cannot understand how a man would want to put his penis inside another man's anus, when he could put it in a woman's vagina (his words, not mine).

 

Just as he thinks all of those things are sinful, and some of them disgusting, so do I think he's just wrong.  We're both entitled to our opinions, and to express them.

 

All of this is irrelevant.

 

The only thing that is irrelevant is that the network, his employer, clearly felt that what he said was enough of a risk to the company that the right course of action was suspension.  They are 100% within their rights to do so.  In fact, I'd say they are obligated, as a corporation, to make the decision that best mitigates the risk to their bottom line.  

I fail to understand why people aren't getting it.  

[Scarlett]

I actually agree with this. When I read what he said, it seemed to me that he was pointing out all sorts of "sinners", including homosexuals, the promiscuous, those that practice bestiality, and so on. It seemed to me that in THAT statement, he was saying they're all the same. He also included himself in that bunch, as he was reflecting on his own promiscuous lifestyle before becoming Christian.

 

He also clearly is not attracted to other men, as he went on to graphically describe how he cannot understand how a man would want to put his penis inside another man's anus, when he could put it in a woman's vagina (his words, not mine).

 

Just as he thinks all of those things are sinful, and some of them disgusting, so do I think he's just wrong. We're both entitled to our opinions, and to express them.

 

All of this is irrelevant.

 

The only thing that is irrelevant is that the network, his employer, clearly felt that what he said was enough of a risk to the company that the right course of action was suspension. They are 100% within their rights to do so. In fact, I'd say they are obligated, as a corporation, to make the decision that best mitigates the risk to their bottom line.

I fail to understand why people aren't getting it.

Oh I do agree they are free to decide if he stays on or not. I still lean toward thinking it was a big set up plan of some sort.

[AlmiraGulch]

Oh I do agree they are free to decide if he stays on or not. I still lean toward thinking it was a big set up plan of some sort.

 

Could be.  I hadn't thought of it that way before someone else (I forget who) mentioned it.  

[Scrub Jay]

I don't share his opinions at all -- but it's America, he's allowed to say what he thinks as long as he's not yelling Fire! in a theater.

 

 

He was allowed.  He wasn't thrown in jail.  He was suspended from a stupid reality program.

 

Freedom of Speech does not equate Freedom of Consequences.

[Scarlett]

It quite literally says that you have committed a sin if you have looked at someone with lust in your heart. Not merely that you should work on controlling your urges to sin. That you are better off tearing out your eye than letting it lead you to sin. I personally think your interpretation is fine, but it does sort of leave you personally off the hook for what is, as I hear many say about homosexuality is "right there in the bible as black and white truth" or "It says it's wrong in the Bible."

 

Why do people get to take that sort of statement as a guideline or example or strong suggestion or parable or caution yet get to read the verses against homosexuality is black and white literal truth?

Well either way you want to view the lusting equals adultery or not doesn't change the fact that adultery is a sin. Nor does it change whether or not homosexuality is a sin. My point was there is a difference between feelings and actions. IMO and ymmv and all that and so on and so forth.

[Scrub Jay]

So why wasn't Bashir suspended for saying the vile, foul things he did  about Sarah Palin?  He eventually quit, but the network did nothing to punish him, in fact they supported him.  Why is that okay, as it was his opinion, and not what Phil Robertson said?  Why is a personal opinion, which Mr. Robertson clearly stated his comment was, when we have FREE speech in this country, and supposed TOLERANCE, subject to discipline by someone who doesn't share that opinion?

 

This type of one-sided suppression of free speech is troublesome and a very slipper slope which seems to be gaining traction.

 

 

No clue, I don't run MSNBC.  Nor do I watch it.  But this whole issue has ZERO to do with free speech.  None of these people were thrown in jail. 

 

[nmoira]

Homosexuality is a perversion of the usual and standard mechanics of nature....NOW before you all jump on me.....take a look at the meaning of perversion

*IF* you want to go there and define perversion by relative percentage in "nature," can we also not say the same about other conditions/states people are born with? Gingers? Geniuses? The extremely tall and the extremely short? Albinism? The congentially blind or deaf? People born with poor immune systems or with a predisposition for autoimmune disorders? Are these not too "perversions of the usual and standard mechanics of nature" because they represent a small proportion of the population?

 

All of these things *are* found in nature (and, I presume, you would say in God), so I do not see how they can be a "perversion" of it.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Part of what Phil said was crass and makes me shudder, but on the whole...meh. He doesn't equate homosexuality with bestiality, but more equates it with sin--and he also includes sleeping around with people of the opposite sex in the same category. Then he quotes the Bible which places slanderers and whatnot in there too.

 

Sin is sin is sin.

 

Gluttony is my sin of choice. Guess I'll put my focus there....

[Carrie12345]

There's free speech and there's paid-for speech. He was free to speak. GQ paid for it. A&E doesn't want to. Simple enough?

[nmoira]

No, he is married to a man.  I am thankful we live in a state where, after years of building a life and family together, they were able to make that legally official.  His station wagon, Costco shopping, coupon clipping, PTA board, SAHD lifestyle doesn't seem, thus far, to have damaged straight people marriage.  

 

I was pleased to see a few minutes ago that New Mexico has now joined that club. :)

[LucyStoner]

*IF* you want to go there and define perversion by relative percentage in "nature," can we also not say the same about other conditions/states people are born with? Gingers? Geniuses? The extremely tall and the extremely short? Albinism? The congentially blind or deaf? People born with poor immune systems or with a predisposition for autoimmune disorders? Are these not too "perversions of the usual and standard mechanics of nature" because they represent a small proportion of the population?

 

All of these things *are* found in nature (and I presume, you would say in God), so I do not see how they can be a "perversion" of it.

 

+1

 

Cerebral palsy?  Autism?  Downs?  I think that people would be rightfully REALLY angry if someone called those perversions because they are outside of the usual way of being born.  

[AlmiraGulch]

Many would say if there was an emotional affair, then yes.  

 

Ummm...not just "many", either.  The bible actually says it. In writing.  LucyStoner quoted it, even.  

 

But I guess that part of the bible isn't true.  Only the parts that make feel comfortable in supporting their own bigotry and excuse them for their own thoughts and actions are the "real" parts. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Part of what Phil said was crass and makes me shudder, but on the whole...meh.

 

 

I think at least some people are more upset that he claimed black people were happier before the civil rights movement.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4473474?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&ir=Entertainment

[Jane in NC]

I read the article.

Religious opinions aside...

Politics aside...

 

 

Call me a prude, but is anyone else skeeved out that he was chatting with a reporter about vaginas and anal sex?  IMO, there's just some things you don't chat about.  If he were my father, I'd be horrified that he was having such a discussion in the first place.  One can defend/explain one's beliefs re: homosexuality without the crassness...

To add to your point...

 

I am mortified, as a resident of a Southern state, that ignorant Southerners are used as a source of entertainment for the rest of the country.  Honey Boo Boo anyone? 

 

As far as free speech goes...My husband, Fortune 500 Corporate Guy, does not have the right to adorn his cubicle with hate speech should he choose to do so. In my university teaching days, I did not have the right to wear clothing adorned with obscenities.  Where is the Twitter campaign boycotting SWB because she does not allow us to husband bash on the board?

 

This has nothing to do with free speech as a constitutional issue. 

[AlmiraGulch]

*IF* you want to go there and define perversion by relative percentage in "nature," can we also not say the same about other conditions/states people are born with? Gingers? Geniuses? The extremely tall and the extremely short? Albinism? The congentially blind or deaf? People born with poor immune systems or with a predisposition for autoimmune disorders? Are these not too "perversions of the usual and standard mechanics of nature" because they represent a small proportion of the population?

 

All of these things *are* found in nature (and I presume, you would say in God), so I do not see how they can be a "perversion" of it.

 

I can't like this enough times!

[Mrs Mungo]

Ummm...not just "many", either. The bible actually says it. In writing. LucyStoner quoted it, even.

 

But I guess that part of the bible isn't true. Only the parts that make feel comfortable in supporting their own bigotry and excuse them for their own thoughts and actions are the "real" parts.

I think attraction is different than lust. Sinning in your heart requires more than a fleeting attraction that you do not dwell upon. Scarlett used the word attraction. I do not agree with all of what she has said in this thread, but I disagree that her statements on that topic were inconsistent with Biblical teaching.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

That is why I canceled cable. History channel was showing aliens, bravo was showing women slapping each other, I hadn't seen a video on mtv for years, A&E was too many crazy reality programs, TLC was showing trainwrecks...I really don't know what the names of networks mean anymore. :/

 

From what I gather, "reality" tv is super cheap to produce -- no sets, etc.  It's just capitalism.  Honey Boo Boo gets 20 grand per episode.  Warhole was close -- everyone might be famous for 15 minutes, but he couldn't have predicted that they could bill at several thousand a minute.

[Scarlett]

Ummm...not just "many", either. The bible actually says it. In writing. LucyStoner quoted it, even.

 

But I guess that part of the bible isn't true. Only the parts that make feel comfortable in supporting their own bigotry and excuse them for their own thoughts and actions are the "real" parts.

I think the scripture is true.

 

Also I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot just because I think homosexual behaviors are wrong.

[zoobie]

I think at least some people are more upset that he claimed black people were happier before the civil rights movement.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4473474?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&ir=Entertainment

Ah, yes, the good old days when black people sang as they picked the cotton... Oh my this guy is a peach!

[AlmiraGulch]

I think attraction is different than lust. Sinning in your heart requires more than a fleeting attraction that you do not dwell upon. Scarlett used the word attraction. I do not agree with all of what she has said in this thread, but I disagree that her statements on that topic were inconsistent with Biblical teaching.

 

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree.  In my opinion, there was more to the statements than just the one word.  

[zoobie]

I think the scripture is true.

 

Also I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot just because I think homosexual behaviors are wrong.

You can think interracial marriage is wrong, but if you dislike people because they are in interracial relationships, then you are a bigot. I'd argue there's less "choice" with homosexuality, biologically speaking, but it's the best comparison I can find at the moment.

[Slartibartfast]

From what I gather, "reality" tv is super cheap to produce -- no sets, etc.  It's just capitalism.  Honey Boo Boo gets 20 grand per episode.  Warhole was close -- everyone might be famous for 15 minutes, but he couldn't have predicted that they could bill at several thousand a minute.

 

 

I know it is cheaper to produce reality TV but if it is cheaper to produce then why isn't it cheaper for the consumer? Cable costs have only gone up and there is less and less quality programming all the time. I am not paying for that I hate those shows. 

[mommymilkies]

I'm sorry but your comment about "culturally illiterate and "logical fallacy" is bogus.

 

Homosexuality is a perversion of the usual and standard mechanics of nature....NOW before you all jump on me.....take a look at the meaning of perversion

 

perversion: (dictionary.com) "any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal." and before everyone blows up about the use of the word abnormal, here is the definition of that: "not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard"

 

Since homosexuality accounts for approximately 4% of the population (heck let's even inflate that figure and say...10% or 20%) that is still such a small number of individuals, we can logically say that that segment of the population is deviating from the typical, standard, or usual practice. That is not a logical fallacy nor implies ignorance.  You may not like the words, which I agree have become, in this pc world, inflammatory in liberal ideology, but that does not change their legitimate meanings.

 

I'm not stating anything positive or negative about homosexuality.  I'm just stating facts.

 

Now, when Phil said homosexuality in the same sentence with bestiality, he was using it in context with another form of sexual activity which is not average, typical or usual and which deviates from a standard.

 

So, in light of the facts, regardless of feelings and whether we are personally offended or not, what he said was not erroneous, nor a logical fallacy, nor culturally ignorant since the majority of our population is heterosexual, regardless of whether you or I like it or not.

Let's argue this for fun, shall we? 

 

Normal here is being defined in terms of an average, not distribution.  If you look at the Kinsey scale, for example, this average is really quite false.  There is a large range of attraction that appears to be genetic or biological.  So calling something you are born with as a perversion, is really quite offensive.  

 

Approximately 11%  of people in the US claim some degree of attraction to the same sex, whereas ~2% of the population has green eyes. So definitely more homosexuals than green eyed people. Strictly in terms of statistics, if 11% of the population is not purely heterosexual, than the extreme side of the KInsey scale of pure heterosexuality would not be "average".   So for the bit: " here is the definition of that: "not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard"" this can be argued, statistically. 

 

Also, "As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973.  In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.  In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity.  It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality""

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

 

Again, in reference to being normal, homosexuality is not unnatural, and found in the animal kingdom outside of humans.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

 

Some more definitions from other sources than dictionary.com:

 

Here it states that people think it is not normal or natural. Does this imply all people, or most people, or any people? 

per·ver·sion

 noun \pÉ™r-ˈvÉ™r-zhÉ™n, -shÉ™n\

: sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

: something that improperly changes something good

: the process of improperly changing something that is good

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perversion

Here is is "abnormal or unacceptable".  Again, I reference the top.  Are we talking any variation from the status quo, or are we talking in the range of human sexuality?  noun

• 1the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended:all great evil is the perversion of a gooda scandalous perversion of the law

• 2sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/perversion

 

I think we can all think of some valid definitions that we would never use in polite society (or hopefully at all) in reference to people simply because they may possibly in some way be proposed to apply to a population. Perversion is one of those, to me.  And I hope to many others. 

 

 

 

Some organizations that agree: 

 

American Psychological Association:

"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations."

 

American Psychiatric Association:

"All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities. The American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health organizations and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal in their own country of legislation that penalized homosexual acts by consenting adults in private."

 

A good read on the subject: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40435937?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103148319217

[Georgiana Daniels]

I think at least some people are more upset that he claimed black people were happier before the civil rights movement.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4473474?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&ir=Entertainment

 

That's sick. Just...sick.

[LucyStoner]

Well either way you want to view the lusting equals adultery or not doesn't change the fact that adultery is a sin. Nor does it change whether or not homosexuality is a sin. My point was there is a difference between feelings and actions. IMO and ymmv and all that and so on and so forth.

 

To me it is interesting that it is ok to you to read some portions of scripture as non-literal and others as literal.  Generally I find people are more willing to take the parts of the bible about sin and behavior that would impact them personally (gluttony, selling all that you own to give everything to the poor, lust etc) as less-than-literal.  Which I think is a whole different sin of it's own.  There is a difference between feelings and actions to you- that is your personal interpretation.  It's a common and popular idea.  To some though, they would be just as horrified with lust in themselves as with physically committing acts of adultery.  

[Scarlett]

I think at least some people are more upset that he claimed black people were happier before the civil rights movement.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4473474?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&ir=Entertainment

I read that......the headlines IMO don't accurately reflect what he actually said. He said he never saw it with his own eyes.....in the world he lived in blacks were just as happy as him...they worked in the cotton fields together. That is his memory. It is my 68 yo moms memory as well...and she is not a racist.

 

That doesn't change the fact that blacks were mistreated many times and discriminated against. He just didn't see that part of black life.

[AlmiraGulch]

I think the scripture is true.

 

Also I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot just because I think homosexual behaviors are wrong.

 

I know that you think the scripture is true.  And I agree that there is a big difference between disagreement and bigotry.  

 

I still think that people regularly hone in on those parts of their religious texts that seem to support their own personal points of view.  People are uncomfortable with homosexuality, for example, and cite those verses (in Leviticus and others) to justify their own opinions and, in many cases, their bigotry.  However, they conveniently ignore the parts that are not personally offensive to them.  No one is marching on Washington to try to get credit card companies banned from existence, even though debt, in a biblical sense (and perhaps other religious texts....I'm not sure) is abhorrent.  Why?  People are comfortable with their Mastercard.  

[mommymilkies]

Again that isn't what I said.

 

Then please explain it to us, because really nobody is understanding what you're trying to say.  I mean, it's clear what you SAID. But apparently you're not coming across well.  So enlighten us, please. 

I think attraction is different than lust. Sinning in your heart requires more than a fleeting attraction that you do not dwell upon. Scarlett used the word attraction. I do not agree with all of what she has said in this thread, but I disagree that her statements on that topic were inconsistent with Biblical teaching.

 

 

What would I be if I was sexually attracted to a man not my husband but didn't act on it? Would I be an adulteress?

 

 

She said sexually attractive (see quote).  Not just attracted. She specified sexual attraction, which to me would suggest lust.  There's obviously wiggle room in interpretation there.