Skip to main content

View Diary: Duck Dynasty's Patriarch Put on Hiatus for Anti-Gay Quacks (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  first of all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    it's rarely a sin when the monarch or a member of the Elect does it.  Secondly, I don't see any history of tolerance of same-sex behavior in the OT, your -- quite frankly rather dubious -- example notwithstanding.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 06:07:25 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why would there be (0+ / 0-)

      a lot of examples of such tolerance if it was just a given back then? There is far less evidence of a lack of tolerance. In addition, there is also Ruth and Naomi, and in the NT there is the Roman Centurion and his pais. There are other less obvious (potential) examples.

      I believe that you are simple trying to transfer more modern intolerance back in time (in very different cultures). That is a no-no. It doesn't work that way.

      •  well, assuming same-sex-inclined (0+ / 0-)

        Israelites weren't as scarce as hen's teeth, you'd find examples.  But no, it's only since the writings of Bishop Spong that we have this miraculous notion of the Israelites as this remarkably gay-tolerant people, despite some pretty obvious evidence in their own laws.

        There were indeed societies that were tolerant of sexual "difference" -- and guess what: we have evidence of it; that's how we know -- but the Israelites were not among them.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 09:59:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There ARE examples. (0+ / 0-)

          I've given some of them to you. And, no, Israel's laws were not intolerant of gay people anymore than they were of straight or bi people. Your post is full of erroneous assumptions with nothing at all to back them up. And, the incidents of homosexuality in the ancient Hebrews is likely to be the same as other cultures and nations.

          •  There were no gay people then (0+ / 0-)

            according to their own writings: just people who out of what they considered sinfulness committed sex acts with members of their own sex.  So really there's no way to make sense out of your remarkable claim that "Israel's laws were not intolerant of gay people anymore than they were of straight or bi people."  Which in fact sounds like the modern fundamentalist argument that there's no marriage inequality because gays have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex that straights do . . . although I know you didn't intend it that way. :-)  I will point out that Mosaic law is a bit harsher on participants in same-sex acts than it is on men who rape unmarried women -- but presumably you've just forgotten that.

            Looks to me like you're the one projecting modern attitudes back a few thousand years . . . and yes, your example of David and Jonathan is, well, weak.  Also the only one you've offered.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:30:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I've stated (0+ / 0-)

              you are right that they did not understand the psychology of sexual orientation. However, that does not mean that there were not any gay people back then. Such a notion is ludicrous. They simply did not define what they were seeing as such.

              Yes, I DID give other examples of same sex romantic relationships. You clearly have not read my other posts. And, yes, David and Jonathan WERE romantic and sexual lovers. They probably would have been married today if they lived now.

              Mosaic law was no more harsh on same sex sex than it was for different sex sex (although it is true that the penalty for raping another man would be greater than that of raping a woman). The context is what matters. Did the sex act take place in the context of temple prostitution (as the Canaanites often did)? Then it would be an idolatrous act. But, it was not the sex itself that was the sin. It was the idolatry which was (and is) a BIG no-no.

              Now, find me an example of two loving same sex folks having sex (as an expression of their love) in the Bible and it being called a sin. It IS not there.

    •  I'd be interested (0+ / 0-)

      in knowing why you think my example (David and Jonathan) is dubious. Your penchant for throwing around criticism without any evidence is quite annoying. Furthermore, it makes you appear as if you don't know what the hell you're even talking about.

    •  Another thing. (0+ / 0-)

      The author of I and II Samuel was not shy at all in calling David out for his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Yet, there is not a word of criticism about his romantic and sexual relationship with Jonathan.

      •  That's because we have no proof (0+ / 0-)

        (such as the canonical OT books can serve of proof of anything) that the relationship was sexual.

        You assume that because you want to, not because there's any compelling reason to do so.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:00:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are WRONG. (0+ / 0-)

          I've studied this section of the Bible and particularly this David and Jonathan story intensely. I've done research and spoken with pastors and Rabbis and other persons (particularly Rabbi students) who have and were studying this area. I was skeptical of the notion that the relationship was romantic and sexual at first as well. I changed my mind after a great deal of study. I did a (limited) diary on the story. I Samuel 20:41-42 indicates a sexual relationship.

          Why would there be books (details) of their sexual practices? That is just ridiculous. Your posts are becoming more and more homophobic.

          •  Well, if you say so. (0+ / 0-)

            And no, as a gay male, I'm not homophobic.  However, I am phobic of religions, especially homophobic ones, and especially those who are engaged in desperately covering their tracks on the matter.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 10:34:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK then. (0+ / 0-)

              I think I finally see where you are coming from.

              Yes, the Bible and Christianity has some problems. However, homophobia is not one of them. Erroneous interpretations of the Bible and modern day (as well as puritanical thinking in centuries past) homophobia have led to the thinking that the Bible condemns homosexuality and/or same sex sex. I do not believe that to be true.

              On the other hand, the Bible pretty much DOES endorse slavery. Parts of the Bible are also very misogynistic. So, you are correct to be a bit suspicious. I would say, though, that I would prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site