Ken Alexander: Homosexuality is the worst of sins

[Firiel]

Unfortunately there's not much info out there that's public-domain! But I will have a look around and see what I can find. Basically - in antiquity, same-gender marriages (more like a civil union now) were considered pretty normal, and it was a way of sorting out inheritance if you weren't going to have biological children. In early medieval times some of the Church were getting a bit restless about it but it still happened (often amongst celibate religious ie monks and nuns, funnily enough - we know some nuns had wives!). Marriage and inheritance only mattered if you were rich enough to have things to inherit, for most people they really did just move in together and marriage was not regularised at all. Lots of shotgun marriages as you can imagine! Same-gender marriages were seen as being about inheritance, and it was kind of assumed that they were celibate - but they usually weren't. When clergy wrote about homosexuality they were usually writing about nobility and monarchs not protecting their wealth by getting married and having children - which was usually earmarked for the church.

That's really interesting-- thanks. If there are any books or journal articles that are applicable, I can probably get my hands on them too. I mean, I knew that same-gender relationships happened back then, but I didn't realize that there was a trend for same-gender relationships to be the primary relationship, at least not unless it was super on the down-low.

[FoxyMoxie]

Reason 57 why the bible and Christianity suck.

Hang on, why does one person talking about two denominations = the whole of the Bible and Christianity sucking? I've made it clear why neither the Bible nor Christianity condemns homosexuality.

[Firiel]

Hang on, why does one person talking about two denominations = the whole of the Bible and Christianity sucking? I've made it clear why neither the Bible nor Christianity condemns homosexuality.

Because if one iteration of Christianity is harmful, then the Bible and Christians as a whole are terrible.

My boyfriend tried to use this argument with me, albeit in a nicer fashion. I told his Marxist ass that since communism in North Korea, Russia, and China led to oppression and deaths that socialism/communism was a terrible concept and that we should rail against people who take the ideas of Marx seriously. He ceded the point and has been more understanding since then.

[sol]

for those of you talking about "same-gender relationships", are you using that as a synonym for same-sex relationships or are you using it to refer to a specific type of relationship that existed in other eras?

[Firiel]

for those of you talking about "same-gender relationships", are you using that as a synonym for same-sex relationships or are you using it to refer to a specific type of relationship that existed in other eras?

I was using it as a copy cat... ha ha. I assumed the reason it was being used is because a transgender man dating a cisgender man would consider himself gay and in a same-gender relationship even though his sex might be female.

FoxyMoxie, feel free to correct this if that was not the reason.

[FundieWatcher]

Oh my bad, I thought Lori had said he was a dentist. Was that her son in law?

[jerkit]

Oh my bad, I thought Lori had said he was a dentist. Was that her son in law?

Cassi's husband is in dental school.

[Loveday]

Re what FoxyMoxie said above:

I was raised in Roman Catholicism, which follows the doctrine of venial (minor) vs. mortal (soul-threatening) sins. I was truly amazed to learn that there are Protestant denominations in which all sins are created equal--as in, little white lie=mass murder.

(Then again, back in the day, things like skipping Mass on Sunday or eating meat on Friday were considered mortal sins.)

Unfortunately, I think skipping Mass on Sunday is still a mortal sin. I say unfortunately because I haven't been in months. :?

[sol]

I was using it as a copy cat... ha ha. I assumed the reason it was being used is because a transgender man dating a cisgender man would consider himself gay and in a same-gender relationship even though his sex might be female.

FoxyMoxie, feel free to correct this if that was not the reason.

fair enough. i'd never heard the expression before, but i'm not as up on queer theory and all of its terminology as i should be. with gender not being limited to just trans and cis, i imagine it would be harder to find same-gender relationships than same-sex ones.

[FoxyMoxie]

Yes, using same-gender as a synonym for same-sex that includes trans people and their relationships.

[sol]

Yes, using same-gender as a synonym for same-sex that includes trans people and their relationships.

okay, but my wife and i are same-sex, but we are not same-gender. neither of is is trans and neither of us is cis. so you're talking about relationships that don't look like mine?

[BrownieMomma]

This is absolutely the first I've heard of same-sex marriage in ancient times. I would have to read a lot more before I'm convinced that's true.

I thought it was common knowledge about homosexuality amongst Greeks and Romans, but marriage was never part of that.

It is only in modern Western civilization that marriage is about romance. Usually marriage has been far more like a business with the overriding goal of producing children. It had other reasons, such as political alliances and such.

Whether you needed a son to inherit the kingdom, or a bunch of kids to work the fields, generally children were desired for very practical reasons. Since children would not result from a same-sex marriage, why would it have ever been a usual practice? It doesn't make sense.

I'll be keeping my eyes open for more info. Maybe I'll pop over to the history dept where some of my professors still teach and chat 'em up.

[Hane]

Riddle me this, people:

Let's assume that many people who rail against homosexuality are 100% straight. (STOP LAUGHING! I'm trying to make a point here!) Then why is it that they are so dead-set against something they, personally, have absolutely no tendency towards and absolutely no desire to do?

I mean, the Ten Commandments warn us against Bad Things that most of us either want to do or wish we could get away with (lying, murder, adultery, to name a few). It's human nature to want to fudge the truth, or have the hots for someone, or want to punch somebody's lights out, so the Average Joe or Jane needs a reminder to Knock It Off.

But these 100% Straight Christians who don't have the slightest desire to switch teams must needs rail against something that doesn't even apply to them. (This nudges close to "pro-lifers" campaigning against birth control and abortion. These folks get the most het up about sexual matters. Theft, violence, and hatred--not so much.)

Of course, if these rabidly anti-gay folks are in fact closeted, that would explain things.

[jerkit]

okay, but my wife and i are same-sex, but we are not same-gender. neither of is is trans and neither of us is cis. so you're talking about relationships that don't look like mine?

I genuinely mean no disrespect, but could please explain this?

[browncoatslytherin]

But these 100% Straight Christians who don't have the slightest desire to switch teams must needs rail against something that doesn't even apply to them.

perhaps, for some, it's easier to rail against a temptation you'll never have rather than one you struggle with. railing against other sins like lying, stealing, adultery, etc., and then struggling with the same sins themselves, perhaps they're afraid of appearing hypocritical? (which, too late for that lol) or perhaps they're afraid of being called out on their own shit?

of course, those possible explanations are only for the 100% hetero christians out there. i have a sneaking suspicion that those who protest against non-heterosexuality so intensely are not 100% straight. they may not be homosexual, specifically but they could possibly have some bi or pan tendencies that they don't want to cop to. :roll: i've always seen sexuality like a line scale...hetero on one end, homo on the other, and then people falling on all levels of the spectrum, with very few actually being on the exact polar opposite ends of the spectrum. some bi's can be attracted to opposite gender but perhaps are more attracted to the same gender, and vice versa. perhaps for some, like myself, gender doesn't even come into the question. perhaps a person is straight, but has some non-hetero thoughts and fantasies that they may not specifically act on (or maybe act on once or twice, but not commit to anything). i don't think sexuality is something that is so black and white, like you're either this or that. i think it's a lot more complicated than that simplistic view.

but that's just my personal opinion. :)

[Burris]

Didn't Ken once claim starving to death wasn't a particularly bad way to die and the people should just smile while slowly dying of starvation? The man is empty inside. He has no soul left to care about anyone but himself. Of course he thinks homosexuality is the worst sin, it isn't a sin he struggles with. Cheating on a spouse? Well, that is not a big deal at all and anyone who says it is is just sinning themselves. :roll:

Ken actually said starvation isn't a bad way to die?

Death by starvation stinks: The body responds to caloric loss by mining fat and muscle, breaking them down and using the subsequent baser products to keep vital organs functioning. Then skin starts to break down while bone weaken and joints loosen. Bruises - both those inflicted and those that appear on their own - are slow to heal (assuming they ever do).

A perso on a starvation diet almost literally disintigrates: A starving man, when there's nothing left for the body to mine, his heart and kidneys start to fail. He suffers pain, lethargy that not even threats or brute force can correct, and eventually - if he is unlucky enough to live that long - a kind of low grade dementia happens.

Wounds open the body has no resources to heal.

And then a time comes when he no longr goes out for his one daily "meal" because he isn't hungry anymore, and because it hurts to swallow.

When that happens, it's usually mere hours until he's dead.

Ken is far too lucky a man.

[BrownieMomma]

perhaps, for some, it's easier to rail against a temptation you'll never have rather than one you struggle with. railing against other sins like lying, stealing, adultery, etc., and then struggling with the same sins themselves, perhaps they're afraid of appearing hypocritical? (which, too late for that lol) or perhaps they're afraid of being called out on their own shit?

of course, those possible explanations are only for the 100% hetero christians out there. i have a sneaking suspicion that those who protest against non-heterosexuality so intensely are not 100% straight. they may not be homosexual, specifically but they could possibly have some bi or pan tendencies that they don't want to cop to. :roll: i've always seen sexuality like a line scale...hetero on one end, homo on the other, and then people falling on all levels of the spectrum, with very few actually being on the exact polar opposite ends of the spectrum. some bi's can be attracted to opposite gender but perhaps are more attracted to the same gender, and vice versa. perhaps for some, like myself, gender doesn't even come into the question. perhaps a person is straight, but has some non-hetero thoughts and fantasies that they may not specifically act on (or maybe act on once or twice, but not commit to anything). i don't think sexuality is something that is so black and white, like you're either this or that. i think it's a lot more complicated than that simplistic view.

but that's just my personal opinion. :)

I do rather think this as well, when people protest too much maybe it is because it is a personal issue for them.

[formergothardite]

Ken's words on starvation:

Starvation is not a particularly painful death

:angry-banghead:

Kristina gave us the answer to why these 100% straight Christians rail against something that doesn't apply to them. If they treated other things like they do being gay there would be no one left in church. When you focus on the sins that everyone does, it makes people feel bad, so they focus on the sin that doesn't apply to most them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Found the quote from Ken:

Yes, Christians should work hard to feed themselves so as not to starve to death. But there are many Christians and nonchristians who are starved to death by evil regimes in the world. Starvation is not a particularly painful death according to my research because as the body shuts down the nervous system dulls.

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=21262&hilit=prophet&start=520

[2xx1xy1JD]

As for sins to focus on.....

Sure, I could pat myself on the back for not doing things that I never wanted to do. That would be easy.

It's far harder to examine areas where the know that you are tempted. If I'm going with Leviticus stuff, I'll look at shellfish because I do struggle with that, and I haven't always kept it perfectly. I've also been known to occasionally rush by and not immediately feed and clothe someone on the street.

What's that line about he who is without sin casting the first stone?

[guitar_villain]

perhaps, for some, it's easier to rail against a temptation you'll never have rather than one you struggle with. railing against other sins like lying, stealing, adultery, etc., and then struggling with the same sins themselves, perhaps they're afraid of appearing hypocritical? (which, too late for that lol) or perhaps they're afraid of being called out on their own shit?

of course, those possible explanations are only for the 100% hetero christians out there. i have a sneaking suspicion that those who protest against non-heterosexuality so intensely are not 100% straight. they may not be homosexual, specifically but they could possibly have some bi or pan tendencies that they don't want to cop to. :roll: i've always seen sexuality like a line scale...hetero on one end, homo on the other, and then people falling on all levels of the spectrum, with very few actually being on the exact polar opposite ends of the spectrum. some bi's can be attracted to opposite gender but perhaps are more attracted to the same gender, and vice versa. perhaps for some, like myself, gender doesn't even come into the question. perhaps a person is straight, but has some non-hetero thoughts and fantasies that they may not specifically act on (or maybe act on once or twice, but not commit to anything). i don't think sexuality is something that is so black and white, like you're either this or that. i think it's a lot more complicated than that simplistic view.

but that's just my personal opinion. :)

Given the language that they use about how gays are going to corrupt children into the gay lifestyle, it has everything to do with them having to fight the urge. Otherwise, why worry about it?

I'm straight- a Kinsey 0. I've never had any sexual attraction to another male. You couldn't convince me at any point in my life to switch teams- I knew from the time I was old enough to understand the difference that I was attracted to girls. I've had the opportunity to be with gay people- I've been asked out by other men, but there's no "fight the urge" there. But for the folks who are Kinsey 2s, 3s, 4s? They do feel that pull- they could be convinced, and so they assume everyone is like that.

I don't worry about a gay male turning my kids gay, because he can't. They might be gay but that's the way they are wired- they can't choose to be straight or gay (or bi) any more than I could.

I also laugh at the "I don't want my kids exposed to homosexuality". You know what happens when they are? Nothing at all. One of the women who works for me is gay. She and her wife have two boys roughly the same ages as mine who play together sometimes. Back when we first moved here, we drove past their house and I pointed out that it was where A and B lived, and that Mrs. X who worked with daddy was their mommy. They asked who their daddy was and I told them they had two mommies- Mrs. Y was the other one. You could see the mental gears strip for a second and they asked why. I just told them that was the way it worked for some people. They digested that for all of 10 seconds before asking about something totally different. Kids just don't care- you have to teach them it's wrong.

[DGayle]

I can't find a link to where Ken asks that, but I want to ask him something about it.

Edit: Found it. I was ctrl-F'ing, and forgot that the comments next, and won't search.

[BrownieMomma]

JW - is Ken saying the problem is he doesn't want his kids to learn about it at the public school, or just learn about it at all?

How can you equip a kid for adulthood and ignore all these things, especially when they are such big issues in our current culture?

[Boogalou]

If I know anything in this life, I do know this - I (we) cannot read a piece of literature or learn of a historical event and apply our own thinking, cultural references, and understanding to it. We have to understand the culture in which it was written, the author, the audience.. if it's literature. If it's an event, we have to understand the world in which in happened before we judge if they were right or wrong, or whatever conclusions we are hoping to come to.

So if you are telling there is other context to this, something else to be considered, then I am certainly willing to pause and consider my thoughts and reactions.

But.. hmm.. there's fornication in there too, sex outside marriage, and homosexual marriage is very new in human history. So I'm still thinking same-sex relationships are sin. I still see it that a lot of people today want it to not be considered a sin, and there's a lot of hoop-jumping to get there but so far, from all I've ever read or contemplated, it's a sin. And I don't really even give the OT a whole whole lot of consideration.

So you think since same sex marriage has only been legal in the West recently that being gay is a sin? Or am I missing a leap in logic there?

[Burris]

Found the quote from Ken:

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=21262&hilit=prophet&sta :sick: rt=520

Yeah, well, much like the rest of Ken's, ahem, "research," he is so full of shit that whenever he opens that cesspool he calls a mouth, the crap splatters everywhere.

Sensations such as pain and hunger fade only after the body has essentially been completely strip mined: All the body's protective mechanisms are aimed at preserving the heart and the brain, and then the other major organs.

By the time a starving man is far gone to dementia, he is basically a walking corpse: He's dead, having lost more than a third of his body weight - except he had spent weeks or months suffering acutely before he reached that stage.

Starvation is a bad way to die - but if Ken were to admit that, then he might have to get off his ass to help people suffering food insecurity.