Opinion: Black churches reject homosexuality

Sep 26, 2010 Full story: CNN 1,988

Editor's Note: Shayne Lee, Ph.D, is an associate professor of sociology at Tulane University.

Full Story

“Queer love is here to stay.”

Since: May 07

Los Angeles

#822 Oct 1, 2010
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You ARE most high.
And yet so full of crap.

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#823 Oct 1, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the two links completely.
In the first, the sole source was an organization that has made many scientific claims, but when required to present and defend them in court failed to do so.
In the second, the group (American College of Pediatricians) is a group organized SOLELY around an anti-gay stance.
Becky, bear false witness much ??
Yes, it appears that she does (everyday).

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#824 Oct 1, 2010
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is my understanding that if they won't go along with your views, they must be bigots, hardcore ones at that?
You mentioned "no one is going to change their minds, and especially not by being nice to them" Being rude in my estimation insures that the insulted person will not validate you or your opinion. Standing up to them and fighting back does not mean that you need to verbally or physically abuse someone. If an individual does not accept anothers argument, there is no call to be abusive. You just accept it as thier opinion and go about your buisness. We can't always have our way, sometimes we must give a little when we want something.
Then there is this thing that you say about my perception, why should I percieve this the same as you do? My perception is that you guys are loosing your case. You reveal a lack of emotional maturity and you exibit delusional thinking. Your arguments are full of holes and half truths that are obvious to honest people. This level of dishonesty may be justified for your cause, but the dishonesty overtakes your whole mind. This may be why others don't percieve what you percieve.
Well, that may be how YOU handle it, sweetcheeks, but that's not how I do ... nor is it how I intend to. If you don't like my posts, you are quite welcome to disregard and not read them.

I exhibit delusional thinking???? Look into the mirror ... another one who projects.

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#825 Oct 1, 2010
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Golem is about as reliable for an opinion for disputed stories in the scriptures of sexuality as his counter parts. Neither are to be trusted in my opinion because they each work from a biased agenda to prove their own sexual orientation biases.
Next. No, you didn't say that Jesus had to mention something for it to be a sin. But in the same breath, you use the opposite logic that if God says nothing concerning an issue, then it isn't a sin, like homosexuality. Are you understanding? That is your logic, not mine.
Concerning the centurion, once again you're using missing evidence to support your theory he is gay. It does not say he was married and a happy heterosexual with a loving family. Because it says nothing of that, you assume he was gay and nothing more based on that missing evidence. So that is your interpretation. You don't need a professor to back up your theory based on missing evidence. They have done the samething who think as you.
Concerning eunuchs, let's approach this from actual common sense. If you were a ruler/king and you had a harem of wives, who would you choose to guard them? A male with testicles that seems to favor males but not females or, a male without testicles who has no record or relationships or sexual activity? Hmmm? Would you so ignorantly hire a male with testicles who could end up impregnating one or more of your wives? That would actually be your choice? If yes, you would prove to be an ignorantr ruler.
My point is that those we call homosexual (gay) males would actually be the last to be considered by a ruler/king with the least degree of intelligence to be a guard of their wives while having testicles. Thus the fact remains that "most" eunuchs were males that had their testicles removed as a child or at an older age for the purpose to become a eunuch. Not a tough concept to understand really :)
In other words, you have no evidence to prove that I am wrong. Thanks for admitting that.

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#826 Oct 1, 2010
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection is attributing your own expressed/repressed thoughts to someone else. In your's and Golem's cases, your projecting both of your own personal biased views of homosexuality INTO the story of David and Jonathan. There is nothing in that story, not a single solitary word that actually defines either man in that story as bisexual or gay or having had a romantic relationship. Only a biased, personal interpretation can arrive at that view. The story itself declares no such thing.
Concerning David's expressed love for Jonathan AFTER Jonathan's death, you're refusing to take into account as does Golem, many issues that could give other explanations for why David said what he did. But like those on the right who do as you and Golem do, you blind yourself with your own bias and prejudice. As they refuse to believe David and Jonathan and David were anything but brothers, you and Golem refuse to believe they were anything but lovers. Can we say "personal bias" :)
Concerning the age difference, their ages are usually defined by the age at which Jonathan died. Professional scholars of various fields have surmised that Jonathan was about 30 years older then David. Google it if your in doubt.
See, I no more believe Jonathan was a pedophile then I believe they were romantically coupled. I don't see it in the story itself. I see that can be an interpretaion of that story that they were romantically linked, but I don't see any actual evidence of the story stating that. So no, I don't believe what is not there in this case. But, according to the scholars and the 30 year age difference, by modern standards, Jonathan would be called a pervert and or a pedophile by our society and most of his own I would guess if, what all you and Golem claim is true about them being romantically linked, understand? Your's and Golem's interpretation brand him a pervert and or pedophile by modern standards, not mine.
There is considerable evidence to indicate that David and Jonathan had a romantic and sexual relationship. You are the one refusing to believe anyone else's views but your own. I certainly have considered the other options. I believed them until I learned a great deal more about this story as well as the actual Hebrew words used in certain passages. I've come to my current interpretation of this relationship through years of studying this and other passages. I'm sure that Golem would say the same or similar.

And, yes, anyone who would deny a minority the same rights that they have is a bigot. That is the way I see it, and no one has convinced me otherwise. And, you and the others on this thread that we have been posting with (on your side) would do just that given the opportunity. I've always been "nice" since I was a young child. Trust me when I say it does NOT work with some folks. They need to know that there are consequences to their behavior and treatment of you (me). I will continue to do just as I have been. And, YOU certainly are not one to criticize this action as no one is quite as rude and hateful as yourself at times.

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#827 Oct 1, 2010
American-progress wrote:
<quoted text>
Just think about the horrible example homosexuals are sending the youth of America.
Teaching our youth to be proud of who they are and to love themselves and others is a horrible ezample???? That's news to me.
lack of American-Progress wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the horrible spread of Aids that is promoted through homosexual behavior not to mention a total decline in morals and positive judgement.
AIDS is caused by a virus and is spead in a number of ways. It does not recognize sexual orientation, and the greatest number of AIDS cases worldwide are among heterosexuals (by far). If you want to look at a decline in morals and positive judgement, all you have to do is look at the Catholic Church (not to mention many other Protestant Denominations as well).

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#828 Oct 1, 2010
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
I fail to understand why someone can't post an opinion without recieving a personal insult from certain types of people. Is this the emotional level of homo's? If true then this could add to the argument that homosexuality may stunt emotional growth.
The comment that you posted that he was responding to was quite insulting. I read it. That being the case, how can you not expect that he would return the favor?

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#829 Oct 1, 2010
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
You loose your case when you resort to name calling. Not only are your behaviours immoral it is also uncivil and rude.
Pot, meet kettle.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#830 Oct 1, 2010
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is my understanding that if they won't go along with your views, they must be bigots, hardcore ones at that?
From what I have read, it amounts to a great deal more than just a difference of opinion.
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
You mentioned "no one is going to change their minds, and especially not by being nice to them" Being rude in my estimation insures that the insulted person will not validate you or your opinion. Standing up to them and fighting back does not mean that you need to verbally or physically abuse someone. If an individual does not accept anothers argument, there is no call to be abusive.
Then why do you do it? Why are you abusive?
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
You just accept it as thier opinion and go about your buisness. We can't always have our way, sometimes we must give a little when we want something.
Then why do you not follow your own advice?
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there is this thing that you say about my perception, why should I percieve this the same as you do? My perception is that you guys are loosing your case.
Why do you preceive this? According to polls and from the latest court cases, we are winning ... big time.
PrettyHappy wrote:
<quoted text>
You reveal a lack of emotional maturity and you exibit delusional thinking. Your arguments are full of holes and half truths that are obvious to honest people. This level of dishonesty may be justified for your cause, but the dishonesty overtakes your whole mind. This may be why others don't percieve what you percieve.
I do not perceive "lack of emotional maturity" in his/her posts. I see knowledge, wisdom, and deep thinking. I see holes in YOUR arguments. And, I see dishonesty is YOUR posts. And, it has apparently overtaken YOUR mind. You are guilty of what you accuse others of.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#831 Oct 1, 2010
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Golem is about as reliable for an opinion for disputed stories in the scriptures of sexuality as his counter parts. Neither are to be trusted in my opinion because they each work from a biased agenda to prove their own sexual orientation biases.
What agenda do you work from? We all view the world through our own lenses.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Next. No, you didn't say that Jesus had to mention something for it to be a sin. But in the same breath, you use the opposite logic that if God says nothing concerning an issue, then it isn't a sin, like homosexuality. Are you understanding? That is your logic, not mine.
What is wrong with this logic? If homosexuality is such a grave sin, why wouldn't it be mentioned and condemned somewhere in scripture? And, if it is not, how would we come to the conclusion that it is a sin? What is your logic here? I don't see any.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Concerning the centurion, once again you're using missing evidence to support your theory he is gay. It does not say he was married and a happy heterosexual with a loving family. Because it says nothing of that, you assume he was gay and nothing more based on that missing evidence. So that is your interpretation. You don't need a professor to back up your theory based on missing evidence. They have done the samething who think as you.
The way that I read the passage is that the Roman Centurion was quite tender and extremely concerned about this younger male servant of his. His demeanor and words would not make much sense if something else was not going on there. Why would a highly respected Roman soldier (of that time) lower himself and beg Jesus to heal a mere housekeeper or cook. It is difficult NOT to read more into this story. If the servant had been a female, it probably would not have been questioned that they had something going on.

[QUOTE who=No Surprise"]<quoted text>
Concerning eunuchs, let's approach this from actual common sense. If you were a ruler/king and you had a harem of wives, who would you choose to guard them? A male with testicles that seems to favor males but not females or, a male without testicles who has no record or relationships or sexual activity? Hmmm? Would you so ignorantly hire a male with testicles who could end up impregnating one or more of your wives? That would actually be your choice? If yes, you would prove to be an ignorantr ruler.
[/QUOTE]

Either would be a safe bet, in my opinion. And, just because someone does not have testicles does not mean that he could not have sex. He could, and would be more likely to than a homosexual, which might or might not have had testicles. Again. I do not see you logic here at all, if you have any. The bottom line is that Jesus stated that some eunuchs were born that way. I don't see how that could exclude homosexuals. Do you? Really?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that those we call homosexual (gay) males would actually be the last to be considered by a ruler/king with the least degree of intelligence to be a guard of their wives while having testicles.
I disagree.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>

Thus the fact remains that "most" eunuchs were males that had their testicles removed as a child or at an older age for the purpose to become a eunuch. Not a tough concept to understand really :)
How do you know this? Did someone take a count of all the eunuchs back then to see?

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#832 Oct 1, 2010
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for this post. i agree. I 'm mostly gay and I hate when gays or bis try to make the bible look sympathetic to their cause.
I disagree with you both.

I do not see gays here trying to make the bible sympathetic to their cause. I see gays here who have clearly given a great deal of thought to correctly interpreting scripture within it's proper context ... language context, literary context, historical context, and overall biblical context.

Having said that, we all interpret the Bible through our own personal lenses. That includes you and the other posters here as well. All we can do is try to educate ourselves better/more and try to be as open minded as we can.
mrsize13feet

Brooklyn, NY

#834 Oct 1, 2010
BROWNMAN20 wrote:
<quoted text>Didnt man write the bible?
lol i've been trying to explain that to these idiots on this thread who for some reason think god took some paper and a pen and wrote it himself. that's a fool who believes the bible to be perfect when the human being, an imperfect person, wrote it. it's mind boggling. i do believe in living a good life, giving to yourself and others, and treating people well, and loving who you choose to love. i don't worry about anything else, especially those morons who think that a really good, beautiful human being should go to hell because he/she loves someone of the same sex.

Since: Oct 09

Denver, CO

#835 Oct 1, 2010
If God so loved the sodomites and other assorted freaks.... why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Both cities were all about the homo man love thing and they even tried to abduct and rape the male angels He sent to warn Lot. If God so loved anal sex and man on man love, why didn't he have the angels throw one hell of a party instead of blinding them all and then incinerating both cities! It is amazing how your homosexual perversion and lust can blind and confuse you. You poor guys actually belive what you are posting.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#836 Oct 1, 2010
Melman68 wrote:
If God so loved the sodomites and other assorted freaks.... why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Both cities were all about the homo man love thing and they even tried to abduct and rape the male angels He sent to warn Lot. If God so loved anal sex and man on man love, why didn't he have the angels throw one hell of a party instead of blinding them all and then incinerating both cities! It is amazing how your homosexual perversion and lust can blind and confuse you. You poor guys actually belive what you are posting.
Your understanding of what the Hebrew writings are is primitive and erroneous, and your grasp of the content is limited.

Hebrew language studies with some Jewish scholars would go a long way to remedying this.
bible

Mukwonago, WI

#837 Oct 1, 2010
im so happy ,thier that thay fallow the bible.
bible

Mukwonago, WI

#838 Oct 1, 2010
im so happy.thay keep the bibles ways

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#839 Oct 1, 2010
The Golem wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of Hebrew comprehension again demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. I Samuel 13;1 does in fact give Saul's age at the time that he began to reign and the length of his reign. The problem is that the text is defective, since it literally says that Saul was one year old when he began to reign and that his reign lasted two years.
Obviously this is impossible and caused by a scribal error of leaving out the "10's" number. Therefore no conclusions can be drawn on Jonathan's age based on our verse. Similarly, we lack any precise definition of the words you are translating as boy and as young man. Nor do we know how long a period of time elapsed between the killing of Goliath and David regularly eating at the King's table, where Jonathan would have fallen in love with him.
We also have a documentary problem in constructing a coherent narrative. The Goliath story may have been drawn from a different document than the Jonathan story. The Redactor often prefers to keep all his material in the narrative, even if it is self-contradictory.
Please do your homework before you make an ass of yourself in class again.
The fact remains that though things are clouded of their ages, Jewish scholars have ruled out as I mentioned that they were of the same age. If they were the same age or just 10 years apart, Saul would have had a very short reign. With all the wars and traveling to make war and using time to replentish his troops with new youth of a warrior age, they well estimate Jonathan and David were 20 to 30 years of age apart.

Since: Oct 09

Denver, CO

#840 Oct 1, 2010
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Your understanding of what the Hebrew writings are is primitive and erroneous, and your grasp of the content is limited.
Hebrew language studies with some Jewish scholars would go a long way to remedying this.
Then please o wise one, enlighten me on the "true" story of sodom and gommorah! What does your highly evolved intellect know of primitive Hebrew writing on this one. How can this story be construed to support homosexuality? I canít wait to hear it! Maybe God destroyed the city because the sodomites wouldn't let Lot go first, OR, the angels were the ones who wanted to ass fuck all the men and boys but the sodomites said no, we are in same sex, loving relationships and cannot be tempted by such fine beings, so God ,in his anger destroyed the city. Please, anyone of you answer this.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#841 Oct 1, 2010
The Golem wrote:
<quoted text>
Since Aquarius is refering to Xtian Scriptural matters, about which I have never posted a comment, your evaluation of my Biblical scholarship only serves to demonstrate your pettiness, not to get at any truths, moral or historical.
Actually, for a few posts he had been making referrals to both the old and new testaments. And my comment was not of pettiness though you err in thinking so.
You're very certain in believing the Bible is full of proof that God approves of homosexuality. Well, your counter parts, religious and non-religious, Christian and Jewish, are very certain in believing the Bible is full of proof that God disaproves of homosexuality. And that is why I said you couldn't be trusted any more then your counter parts for unbiased answers concerning that topic and the scriptures.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#842 Oct 1, 2010
AquariusNSF wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you have no evidence to prove that I am wrong. Thanks for admitting that.
lol...that was funny. By the way for you information, I have not made a statement that homosexuality doesn't exist in the Bible. I can't prove it either way. BUT you are the one that has stated it does exist and you continue to be without any factual evidence to prove your opinion you keep calling fact :)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 24 min Benny 2,720
ACLU sues to allow gay club in Indiana school 25 min tom 31
Church-based institutions ponder same-sex benefits 40 min Juan Martinez 9
Sneaky Pete's Gay Christmas Message 41 min Sneaky Pete 1
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 41 min Benny 68,584
Poll: Support for gay marriage drops in Mich. (May '14) 43 min Sneaky Pete 60
Christmas Eve NE Jade Party 50 min Benny 2
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr jesusHchrist 6,013
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr NorCal Native 5,128
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr Mikey 2,997
US Moves Toward Dropping Lifetime Ban on Gay Bl... 7 hr NorCal Native 22
More from around the web