I would be willing to bet that statistically, there are far fewer of them than there are heterosexuals. Can you name those 150 species? What is 'homohating'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior In this instance it was intended to mean hating gays. Now how about you explain to me that if homosexuality is an abomination, how come god made so many species practice it? Or is there a pan species vector that makes any manner of animal catch gayness.
Well, I really hate to burst your bubble, but, I have to do this: "ho·mo·sex·u·al (hm-sksh-l, -m-) adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. n. Usage Problem A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian. Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay." and: "ho·mo 1 (hm) n. A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans. [Latin hom, man; see dhghem- in Indo-European roots.]" It seems then that the list is definitively invalid. The term 'homo' as can be seen refers to 'humans'; not dogs, cats, birds, etc. The term 'homosexual' as seen in the definitions is strictly a human or 'homo' trait. Definitively it is not applicable to any other species. Definitively, other species do not practice 'homo-sexuality'. OK, I can accept that explanation. See my notes above.
So if "homosexuality" is only human sex, are heterosexuals subhuman? Is "homogenous" milk really human breast milk? Or are you revealing your divinely inspired idiocy? homo- a combining form appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “same” ( homology ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( homomorphic ). Also, especially before a vowel, hom-. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin: < Greek, combining form of homós one and the same; akin to Sanskrit sama-; see same
Homo means same. It's that simple. You can't take the use of "homo" in homo sapiens and claim that it influences the meaning of the "homo" prefix in homosexual. It does not. It's more of your nonsensical pseudo-logic.
Did you not see my repeated use of the word "definitive" or "definitively"? Did I write the dictionary? No? If you have a problem with the definitions, take it up with the publishers of that dictionary. As for your comparison to other words that use 'homo' as a prefix, so what... I gave you the definition straight from the dictionary. You can play with it in the same manner you played with your former religion, makes no difference to me. IT is what IT is.
You people really do have a problem understanding a dictionary. Let me give it to you one more time: "ho·mo 1 (hm) n. A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans. [Latin hom, man; see dhghem- in Indo-European roots.]" Nowhere in that definition does it mention having the meaning of "same". Learn to read.
Were you dropped on your head as a child? Was that some kind of parental pastime? If the "homo" in "homosexual" were derived from "hom" for humankind, then heterosexuals would be considered "homosexual" as well.
Think what you like but you must refute the definitions given. Without providing that irrefutable refutation, then you have nothing.
Homosexual acts are also described in the NT as gravely sinful. Romans 1 [26]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [28]And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
You don't do condescension very well. Definitions morph over time. For instance the term anti-semite to relate to jew hatred. We all know semites are members of a language cluster and most are not jews. Of course the Ashkenazi are also far from semite. Taking a term from human study and applying it to the animal world is not a stretch and thru explanation can be deemed to be proper useage. If you wish to get into a discussion of linguistics I'm up for it. I can't begin to tell you how relieved I am. Now how about you explain to me that if homosexuality is an abomination, how come god made so many species practice same sex sex? Or is there a pan species vector that makes any manner of animal catch gayness. Since precision is a prerequisite for you degree, I'm sure you realize that deflection is not an effective component of communication, nor can it provide any accurate ro substantive information wrt the original question. Constant deflection is the bailiwick of the intellectually dishonest, the ignorant, the bigots of all stripes and those who don't want to think to much about the answers. A person's worldview can sometimes be a very fragile thing.
Yeah. Mine is from the dictionary too. I didn't make it up. Here it is from the Free Dictionary. homo- or hom- pref. Same; like: homophone. You really stepped on yours this time. A simple mea culpa is in order, but don't worry. No one expects you to have that kind of integrity. But, man, do you look silly. So does "homophone" mean what a bearded man uses to call his mommy every day?
The prefix "homo" in homosexual isn't derived from the latin "homo" = "man", but from the greek "ὅμοιος" (homoios) = "same/similar". Accordingly the "hetero" in "heterosexual" is derived from the greek "έτερος" (heteros) = different/other
What's described as sinful here isn't homosexuality as such but homosexual acts in the context of temple prostitution/pagan idolatry. Paul didn't have the same knowledge of homosexuality as we have these days. He only knew of it in the above mentioned contexts and in contexts of coercive sexuality that are indeed sinful, no matter whether they take place between people of the same or opposite sex.
That's rationalization--and poor rationalization at that. It's pretty darn clear that the men are lusting after one another in the verse. It's "mutual" in the context of the verse, and it is "passions"--not pagan religious practices.
Two points I would like to raise. The OP still has not been addressed. Sticking strictly to the OT for a moment, I find the original point interesting- because Leviticus does put homosexuality in the same category as eating shellfish. Which to me means that according to the OT they are both equally an abomination. Now to the NT. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality once. Not once. He very specifically condemns divorce, and in particular remarriage after divorce unless the wife(and only the wife) was unfaithful. Do you consider remarriage after divorce as much an abomination as homosexuality?
Read the whole text. It's about mutual temple prostitution/pagan idolatry: 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen." Not only does homosexuality not equal pagan idolatry Paul gets upset about in Romans 1, these days - thanks to modern sexual science - we know that homosexuality is natural, i.e. that God created homosexuality as well as heterosexuality and both homo- and heterosexual people in His image. And yes, I think we ought to read the bible with rationality if we want to find out what it really has to tell us. Homosexuality is not more of a sin than being left-handed or wearing clothes made of mixed materials is. To assume anything else with the knowledge we have in the year 2013 derives from reading the Bible like a Pharisee would read it.
To be fair the words used are two different words and have two different meanings to many Jewish scholars. The word abomination is a probably not what was meant for either. More likely the first was a when discussing homosexuality was more likely something that was considered something to avoid, like idol worship, something that was not of our people, leading me to believe that lying with a man as with a woman could relate not to loving relationships but to acts in the worship of the body or of other gods. This was seen as a danger to peoplehood. Lev 11 and shell fish is clearly a different word and hear it is more saying something is forbidden because it is a religious imperative to avoid it. This could easily have been a way of separating the people of Israel from surrounding tribes on a daily practice or maybe someone thought that shell fish was yucky. But the point is that you can't trust simply the English translation to make a clear statement. The Torah is poetry, finding meaning has been a challenge for almost 3000 years.
Paul is quite clear as to whom he is speaking: [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. It is NOT "just" Pagans worshippers, it is those "who by their wickedness suppress the truth." Frankly, as you are doing right here. Those "wicked" include those who, as Peter notes, "our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. " (2Peter 3:15-16) Might I also add, that if you look in Chapter 2 of Romans, following this diatribe of Paul's it says, "[3] Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? [4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury." ..... So let's pretend for a moment that Paul was only speaking of temple idolaters in Chapter 1 Romans(though it's clear he wasn't)--in Chapter 2, he says it applies to EVERYONE.
No. Homosexual acts are sin, and God did not create sin. This is true, however. All people are made in God's image, and all people are sinners.
Well firstly, if you think that the "revision" of the law justifies eating the many many things the Lord said were unclean, then why the question about what is worse ? In the NT, Homosexuality is still a sin according to Paul and "disgusting" has nothing to do with it's Biblical description.
