I was making the point that it is still discriminating harshly against gay people.

only if it is also discriminating harshly against killers, adulterers, etc? wait, what is it that is discriminating...

Did you not read my posts above troll? here it is for you again:

"I think see what your getting at... Leviticus 20:13 appears to condemn the act of sodomy rather than the attraction to the opposite sex which may or may not have caused the man to take such action.

As is often the case when studying to the Bible's ambiguous moral code, a lot of the apparent condemnation of homosexuality is interpreted through theologians and readers in general "reading between the lines". This is certainly the case when passages such as Genesis 2 are referenced. In this example homosexual relations are omitted in God's instructions and so can be interpreted as not being intended.

Is this along the lines of why you have an interest in defining homosexuality as it is important in the light of the loose interpretations of bible passages which Christians across the globe have used to condemn it?"

You see I made your point but in an intelligible and coherent fashion. This appears to be something you are incapable of. This must be very embarrassing for you that you have simply regurgitated points I have already made in an attempt to out-maneuver me on this subject.

That's all he needs imo. You're saying that gay people can do everything that straight people can do except have sex. WTF kind of relationship do you think that would be?

Also (and this is where your argument deteriorates heavily), what is "gay sex"? Is it limited to taking/giving it up the ass? Surely there's more to it than that. Can there be fellatio? Handjobs? Kissing? Cuddling? Touching? If your definition of "love" draws the line before any of those, I feel sorry for your heterosexual partner.

So technically it isn't wrong to be gay but if people have sex with the same gender then god will demolish their cities OR order his believers to put them to death.

'Excuse me waiter, Can I sit in this chair?'
'No, then I will have to kill you.'
'What, I just want to sit here!'
'Well, it's okay that you _want_ to sit here. We're all friends here.'

yes. maybe as of now. i am a little flushed in the cheeks (lol). and ... honestly i chose to not read ur posts because of ur avatar assuming you were hard-headed, closed-minded, etc etc. my bad, apparently you know how to think.

Well gay sex within a relationship isn't harming anyone and is nobodies business except those who engage in it. The other two examples do bring suffering on people and so you could argue it is morally wrong to kill or be an adulterer.

Never judge a book by its cover.

What do you think about the points made by Our House and Tame Deuces in reply to your take on the Bible not condemning homosexuality. Surely, as they have suggested, taking away the physical side is an act of condemnation.

Oh, and many Christians believe Leviticus is the work of Moses which, as usual, is almost certainly not the case. Here is a quote from wiki for what it is worth:

"According to traditional belief, Leviticus is the word of Yahweh, dictated to Moses from the Tent of Meeting before Mount Sinai. Since Julius Wellhausen formulated the documentary hypothesis in the late 19th century,[4] biblical scholars have regarded Leviticus as being almost entirely a product of the priestly source, originating amongst the Aaronid priesthood c 550-400 BC."

The OP's question was on the views of non-Abrahamic religions on homosexuality- not on the Christian stance, whose exact position appears to rely heavily on the definition of 'homosexuality' as a practice vs. as a state of mind.

We are discussing the bold section of the original post in order that we might enlighten the OP/ ourselves on this point. I think this is relevant. In regards to the non-abrahamic religions I will refrain from making any specific comment largely due to ignorance.

All I am saying is it is possible to be gay without having gay sex, and all that bible text talks about gay sex. So saying that this verse says anything about being gay, or homosexuality, i believe is false. This verse talks about gay sex, and stops there.

About what gay sex is, i mean, id assume its limited.

my definition of love, however, has nothing to do with physical contact. Love will never die, but the desire for sex will, along with my body. Giving love can fill a hole in the most empty of hearts, but having sex is an empty hole which will never be filled, no matter how many times u try to fill it... zomgrofl

no, this dude who lived 500-400 BC (?) SAID that technically it isn't wrong to be gay but if people have sex with the same gender then god will demolish their cities OR order his believers to put them to death.

but others in the same book said it isnt wrong to be strait but if you have sex with someone of the opposite sex before your married same ****?

Pretty sure it doesn't state anywhere that it is sweet to be "gay". Are you implying this through omission of condemnation? If so you are on a slippery slope. I am certainly not arguing that the Bible's message should be followed or respected, I am in this case simply trying to make some sense of what it is. We all know it is full of contradictions and general dark age non-sense but alas, that is for a different thread and any further suggestion of this nature may show as a blip on Big Erf's radar.

stop clowned dude, just b/c im for equal rights doesnt mean you can come out to me just b/c u want to