this post was submitted on
1,073 points (54% like it)
6,068 up votes 4,995 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,235,723 readers

No posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Example.

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • Screenshots of comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1072
1073

How I felt when my lesbian sister-in-law asked why homosexuality is wrong to our extremely religious family of 9. (imgur.com)

submitted ago by notayyynoggg

top 200 commentsshow all 263
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old
best

[–]notayyynoggg[S] 213 points214 points ago

Actually, it was extremely enlightening. Everyone was fairly civil, except at one point one of the brothers pointed out how even though it doesn't say in the Bible that it's a sin, doesn't mean it isn't a sin. He mentioned how child molesters aren't mentioned in the Bible and it's still considered a sin. She was pretty upset by the fact that he was comparing homosexuals to child molesters (which I don't think was his intention-only trying to prove a point). In the end, some feelings were hurt, but their family has always been extremely close. All it took was a few apologies and everyone was on their merry way.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]notayyynoggg[S] 74 points75 points ago

Completely agree. I think it was just the fact that emotions were running high and she got offended. She apologized later and agreed that it was a valid point, which I can definitely respect.

[–]darkneo86 70 points71 points ago

Without getting into a debate, I think she had a right to be offended. Child molestation is against the law - no consent. Homosexuality is, generally, not because there is consent. I see the point he was making, it might have been done in a better way though.

But religious folks tend to speak of sin and not law, which are two different things. Oh well.

I am glad things turned out okay!

[–]roz77 40 points41 points ago

Without getting into a debate, I think she had a right to be offended.

I think she definitely did. I could say "The bible doesn't tell us riding a bike is a sin, but we all know it is", and I would clearly be full of shit.

[–]dronethrone 7 points8 points ago

And definitely not Mormon.

[–]jonkoeson 8 points9 points ago

Historically in the US homosexuality has been illegal, I don't think laws are a very good barometer of morality.

[–]Pedo-Gentleman-Bear 15 points16 points ago

I believe that as long as there is consent, then it shouldn't be against the law.

[–]darkneo86 12 points13 points ago

You are a gentleman, pedobear.

[–]Pedo-Gentleman-Bear 2 points3 points ago

I try to see all perspectives on a matter to the best of my capabilities. I have quite a large amount of experience with children, so I believe that broadens my personal perspective.

[–]RageGodReed 11 points12 points ago

Yeh i was thinking that the logic behind molestation being a sin is because its harmful and without consent. But damn that was a really positive turn out for that kind of discussion in a religious family.

[–]Prosopagnosiape 9 points10 points ago

Plus nowadays very few men marry the little girls afterwards, oh how far we have fallen.

[–]SecondSophistic 2 points3 points ago

It doesn't really matter why it's considered immoral, merely (according to his point) that it's not forbidden expressly by the bible but still considered immoral.

[–]albatrossnecklassftw 1 point2 points ago

Keep in mind though morality and sin are two different things entirely. A sin is an act that goes against the wills of a deity. Morality is not defined by a deity, but by society. Moralities change with society, sins change by the will of deities. Immorality and sin do tend to touch many of the same topics, but not always.

[–]SecondSophistic 1 point2 points ago

Right, but in the context of this fellow's religion and argument, sin and morality are the same, because sin is defined by God, and, if immorality is evil, and God cannot be evil, then anything immoral is also a sin.

Which is why, in the context of his own argument and parameters, his point is not incorrect. Nor insulting.

Well, still insulting, but not for that same reason.

[–]albatrossnecklassftw 1 point2 points ago

Fair enough

[–]paullyjunge 0 points1 point ago

Cept the fact that it was cool to do back then.

[–]SecondSophistic 0 points1 point ago

Yeah. Isn't history cool? The ancients were super gross pedophiles. I wonder at what point in history we stopped doing those things?

[–]Saerain 0 points1 point ago

April 9th, 1863. A Thursday. 2:57 PM.

[–]DiaDeLosMuertos 2 points3 points ago

I think molestation falls under lust as sin plus not married. If you were married to the youngun' wouldn't it be ok to have relations according to the bible?

[–]RepostThatShit 6 points7 points ago

I couldn't find anything even close to relevant except this

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck
and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these 
little ones to sin.

[–]AcornPancake 1 point2 points ago

Sodomy was illegal in many states until 2004. See Lawrence vs Texas.

[–]darkneo86 0 points1 point ago

As another Redditor commented, and I agreed, laws can be bullshit.

[–]PrinceJonn 0 points1 point ago

Fucking hell. Yes she has a right to be offended, and it's not a valid point at all. And SHE apologized? GAAH!

[–]treespleaseSC 0 points1 point ago

I hope law isn't your version of true sin. A lot of laws are bullshit and your morals should come from within not what is written on paper.

[–]darkneo86 0 points1 point ago

I don't believe in sin. I agree with you, laws are bullshit sometimes. Good and moral is what is inside.

That being said, we can't legislate love.

load more comments (3 replies)

    [–]derpinita -1 points0 points ago

    Homos and child molesters used to get conflated a lot. It's an old wound.

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

    He isn't comparing them to child molesters with that argument though.

    yes he was. He put them next to eachother and said "see, both not in the bible, both a sin"

    That's how comparisons work.

    [–]Dyolf_Knip 12 points13 points ago

    It's sorta like how prohibitionists always liken legalization efforts to murderers trying to make homicide no longer a crime. Yeah, ok, strictly speaking they're not actually calling pot users psychopathic killers, but putting the two into the same conversation is despicable and the sort of thing I'd expect from Fox News.

    [–]benhamine 12 points13 points ago

    Doesn't seem to be a decent point to me...if anything his argument that child molesting isn't listed as a sin is argument to the idea that he shouldn't be using the Bible for this argument at all...

    [–][deleted] ago

    [deleted]

    [–]nodisc 4 points5 points ago

    What gets me is the cherry-picking of which laws they choose to obey, the stuff that IS in the bible. These folks adamantly believe the passages condemning homosexuality, but are able to ignore the rest of the barbaric attempts at law? According to the bible, your neighbors are required to stone you to death for any of the following infractions:

    • adultery
    • cursing
    • blaspheming
    • using the Lord's name in vain
    • doing any kind of work on Sunday
    • not screaming while you are being raped (seriously)
    • being a girl who is not a virgin on her wedding day
    • disobeying your parents
    • touching Mount Sinai

    These are just the ones that demand stoning specifically as the method of execution...

    [–]benhamine 7 points8 points ago

    I find this hard to believe considering they had the time to mention that wearing mixed fabric clothing as something you shouldn't do. Seems they should've fit in there to not rape children.

    [–]Vanetia 7 points8 points ago

    Leviticus was more along the lines of keeping clean. The practices it calls "wrong" in that book are because doing those things back then could kill you due to, you know, not having modern day medicine/sterilization techniques. Or, in the case of mixed fabric (actually specifically wool and linen), it may have to do with certain practices at the time such as only men of a certain status wore such clothing, and for a "common" person to do so would be considered disrespectful.

    However, I'd imagine raping children is pretty unhygenic, so maybe they should have gone ahead and thrown that one in there.

    [–]mib5799 6 points7 points ago

    Actually, the mixed fabric prohibition was because the people of a different tribe wore mixed fabrics. The law has nothing to do with cleanliness, and everything to do with reinforcing tribal identity.

    [–]Vanetia 3 points4 points ago

    I was close, then. I know mixed fabric wasn't about cleanliness and knew it was because different classes of people wore mixed fabric; I just confused what classes of people. It's been a while since I've read up on this, thanks :)

    [–]mib5799 1 point2 points ago

    Yeah, there was a LOT in the bible that had nothing to do with "holiness" and everything to do with "reinforcing tribal identity and cohesion"

    [–]treespleaseSC 1 point2 points ago

    no dude, if you wear two types of fabric you get sick and die. duh

    [–]conyat2 1 point2 points ago

    At times the Bible is pro-rape. For example, Lot offering his virgin daughters to the crowd to do with as they will is considered a virtuous act.

    [–]Reflective_Eye22 0 points1 point ago

    and when taken out of context like this is sound like Lot was just offering up his daughters just because.

    [–]conyat2 0 points1 point ago

    You think the context justifies rape?

    [–]sociomaladaptivist -1 points0 points ago

    Raping children is terrible. Making love to children is okay.

    [–]cycopl 1 point2 points ago

    So, who decides what things that aren't in the Bible are sins? Is there some sort of council?

    [–]treespleaseSC 5 points6 points ago

    yes, for catholics it is called the vatican.

    [–]myster0n 1 point2 points ago

    It is impossibly to list every thing that is a sin.

    Not even if you're an almighty god?

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

    It is impossibly to list every thing that is a sin.

    Yeah but child molestation is a pretty big deal. You'd think god would make it known that people shouldn't do that, since they can't be good people without the thought of going to hell for all eternity looming in the back of their heads.

    [–]cannabist 0 points1 point ago

    But then why have the bible at all if you can deduce what's right and wrong through secular means? And don't tell me we need to hear the generic sins first, because those can be secularly deduced too!

    With time we see the natural evolution of our secular morality as we get more educated and free.

    [–]treespleaseSC -1 points0 points ago

    but that is not a decent argument. It is either in the bible and is a sin or it is not in the bible and is not a sin. Misinterpreting is pretty common but you can't just make shit up. The entire idea of sin comes from religion and religious books aka the bible, the koran, etc.

    [–]RufiosBrotherKev 0 points1 point ago

    See, what op's brother/family should have said is that it isn't explicitly in the bible. There are many more principles/reasonings related to what is immoral and moral than specific instances, if that makes sense. As in, it doesn't explain that homosexuality is wrong with the same clarity as it does, say, thievery, but it does address principles about love, procreation, celibacy, etc. All of which the church has used in defense of their stance on homosexuality.

    Also to be considered are writings by church scholars and modern prophets, who have written books that are believed to be similarly "inspired by God", like the bible. Saints who had visions of angels and such, and wrote books/articles about what was revealed to them.

    [–]FriendlyDespot 4 points5 points ago

    It's a terrible point. A biblical sin is only a sin if it's mentioned in the Bible. You can't just say that something is sinful because you think it's wrong.

    [–]scrtagent101 3 points4 points ago

    Wait, they're de-contextualizing child molestation -- at the time that the Torah was being written, child molestation was common. We only think of it as a sin now because we think it's wrong.

    Back in the bronze age, it was commonplace to have sex with young boys. I'm not saying that it was a common thing for the Jews to do, but still. It wasn't exactly a far-fetched cultural practice.

    A good response would be that it's not a sin because the people who wrote the Torah, and then the Bible, did not think of it as a sin. They did not think of child molestation as a sin, and many did not think of homosexuality as a sin.

    Sorry if this sounds like an argument for both homosexuality and child molestation, but it's silly to base your point around what is and what isn't written into the Bible if you just make stuff up for yourself.

    What about rape? Rape isn't exactly a part of the 10 commandments, nor would it be. They didn't think of it as exactly "wrong," and plenty of Biblical figures committed rape.

    Sorry for being reactive and verbose, but it just doesn't make sense to proscribe sins based on how they make you feel.

    [–]ewiggy24 1 point2 points ago

    Um. The Torah was VERY humane for it's time, and had a lot of revolutionary ideas. Like washing your hands before eating. Or not killing people.

    [–]scrtagent101 0 points1 point ago

    I don't disagree. But it was around 3,000-5,000 years ago. Humane for its time was an incredible step forward. It's still doesn't match with current values.

    [–]ewiggy24 1 point2 points ago

    Ok, we aren't disagreeing. The Torah says sex with children is wrong, to a point. It flat out says a man shouldn't lie with another in the way he lies with a woman, and it also says not to waste seed so you can infer from that you shouldn't have sex with someone who isn't of childbearing age. Of course that isn't the same as today's values. Also, it could be said that the only reason gay sex was forbidden in the Torah is the waste of seed, since it never states clearly that a woman can't lie with another woman. I also think that it states clearly not to lie with a child, but I'm not sure about this so I don't take my word on it.

    [–]scrtagent101 0 points1 point ago

    Agree to agree with slight variation on how much we agree. Agreed?

    [–]ewiggy24 0 points1 point ago

    Yep.

    [–]mungd 1 point2 points ago

    So is child molesting a biblical sin if it is not mentioned in the bible?

    I understand the nuance of his argument... the point that he was trying to make... I just don't think he made it. He is trying to give an example of something that is taken as a sin, but is not mentioned in the bible. A sin is something that the bible defines as such. If it isn't mentioned, it isn't a sin.

    Do I think it's wrong? Yeah, but I'm not religious and that's not how I judge things.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

    His nuance was invoking an emotional response in his opponent with a seemingly innocuous statement in order to make her look less in control of the argument and situation, which worked well. It's a very common tactic amoung siblings and politicians.

    [–][deleted] ago

    [deleted]

    [–]mib5799 2 points3 points ago

    Divorce is in the bible.

    Deuteronomy 24:1-2

    When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

    [–]Shotgun-Sloth 0 points1 point ago

    I thought christian marriages only counted if the wife was a virgin? o_o

    [–]TheLASTAnkylosaur 0 points1 point ago

    Except there are lots of things NOT in the bible... like anything relevant to modern day society-- so anyone can just call it a sin just because they don't like it? whether or not their source says it's specifically against the code? What one calls a "sin", another will call "societally immoral".

    Child molesters are immoral because they abuse (without consent) young, defenseless children; gays are not immoral because their sex is consensual and with adults.

    Now tell me why homosexuality is a sin (and saying it's icky is not a reason). 'Cause if it were that easy to call something a sin, then notayyynoggg would be committing sins of my made up book--all I need to say is "you're intolerant; you're going to suffer for all eternity for it, and there is nothing you can do about it." Pity.

    [–][deleted] ago

    [deleted]

    [–]Basbhat 0 points1 point ago

    It's only a decent point as long as they are of similar degrees.

    By that logic driving a car could be a sin since its not mentioned.

    He WAS comparing homosexuality to Child molesting and calling them both sins

    [–]graffiti81 0 points1 point ago

    Child molestation being bad is a moral value easily derived without the influence of religion. Interview a person who was molested as a child and one can easily see that there are negative repercussions.

    I don't need a religion to see hurting other people is bad.

    [–]yourgaybestfriend 0 points1 point ago

    Child molesters ARE mentioned in the Bible. Well, specifically sex with young boys, which after a few centuries of translations got turned from pederasty to homosexuality. The line of lying with a man as you do a woman being an abomination is more accurately reflected as lying with a boy as you do a woman is an abomination, with some obvious paraphrasing because I have no desire to go look up the actual line. Source can be offered on the translation though.

    [–]Deaden 0 points1 point ago

    Actually, it wasn't. Child molestation isn't in the bible listed as a sin, because it wasn't considered a sin in the time it was written. The reason why we shun it today is because WE have deemed it immoral. The bible doesn't have unwritten sins. You can't claim it condemns something that was never written in it.

    It's us. We have changed. We have filled in the blanks and removed outdated "morals", and continue to do so to this day. The bible is completely irrelevant to our morality. History has proven this over and over again.

    [–]hefnetefne 0 points1 point ago

    Clearly they've chosen a set of morals outside that of the Bible, and therefore, outside of God.

    [–]Lamar_the_Usurper 0 points1 point ago

    You think they had age of consent laws 3000 years ago? It isn't in the Bible because it wasn't a crime.

    [–]imafunghi 1 point2 points ago

    Yup I am pretty sure it was common to marry women of ages much less than 18.

    [–]reallybatman 1 point2 points ago

    The age of adulthood has been artificially moved to allow for a greater length of education. Until the Renaissance, there was no "adolescent" period in a human's life. You were a child, you reached puberty, and then you were an adult, free to marry, wage war, build your wealth and have children of your own.

    [–]XAMOTA 0 points1 point ago

    The fucking Boy Scouts don't know the difference between homosexuals and child molesters, hence their ban on homosexuals. This is not a good argument, ever.

    [–]lucidenigma 8 points9 points ago

    fucking boy scouts is what makes you a child molester.

    [–]noawesomenameneeded 0 points1 point ago

    I don't think its a decent point. If the bible is the so-called "word of God" how would anyone know what is a sin and what isn't if its not in the bible? Should they be guessing at what God thinks is okay and whats not?

    This is the same book that says rape can be justified if the victims father is compensated and the victim is married by the rapist.

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

    He's okay with rape. Who's to say a little molesting here and there isn't on his list of grey area things.

    [–]DennyCraneDennyCrane 4 points5 points ago

    I think this is the biblical version of "you liked it, so now you have to put a ring on it."

    [–]treespleaseSC -1 points0 points ago

    um no. That was like an oxy moron or some shit. It actually is not a sin. To be a sin it has to be in the bible. You can't use the bible as the true word of god and origin of all sin and then say that because society believes child molestation to be a sin than it is. CHILD MOLESTATION IS WRONG it aint no fuckin sin. Picking and choosing from the bible is on a whole new level of bad from misinterpreting it (from a religious perspective). To be clear, the bible is ink on paper. The bible done fucked up. Imagine that.

    [–]TyphoidLarry 4 points5 points ago

    Rape, however, is mentioned. As child molestation is just a specific sort of rape, this is not a good point at all.

    [–]HumanCake 19 points20 points ago

    But it does say in the Bible that homosexuality is a detestable act and worthy of death.

    Source: Leviticus 20:13

    Edit: I'm not making any claim whether or not I support homosexuality. I'm only clarifying that The Bible does in fact speak against it contrary to the brothers argument.

    [–]Shiftab 23 points24 points ago

    Leviticus also says you must keep kosher and can't cut your hair. A lot of the crazier parts of the old testament are not held as true laws by modern churches. The main logic of this is that the death of Jesus kinda "reset" what was and wasn't law in the eyes of god. Turning Christianity from a crazy kill everything society, to a love thy neighbour one.

    Sources: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat." Leviticus 11:2-3

    Colossians 2:14 - "having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

    [–]Always_One_Upped 6 points7 points ago

    But did Jesus also not say in basically his opening statements after being baptized.

    Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Essentially saying all of the old laws are still in effect. But like most of the bible there are contradictions on the subject across the board from OT and NT.

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

    [–]MeloJelo 2 points3 points ago

    Colossians 2:14 - "having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

    Yeah, I, too, would have said Jesus dying magically made all of the Old Testament null if someone tried to tell me I had to follow all that crazy bullshit. Matthew 5:17-19 implies that Jesus at least thought that it's good to follow the OT laws.

    [–]English-Gentlefolk 5 points6 points ago

    Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

    According to Leviticus homosexuality is as bad as selective breeding and embroidery.

    [–]Aspel 3 points4 points ago

    I've always said grandmothers are secretly worshiping the devil with their needlepoint.

    [–]bloinggloing 4 points5 points ago

    As with nearly everything else in that book, it can be interpreted differently. One argument I've heard is that it has mistranslated. After looking at the Hebrew versions of the text, I'm inclined to agree. This site does a good job explaining it for people that don't know Hebrew. In short, the site claims that the verse does not prohibit homosexuality, but rather prohibits two guys going at it in a girl's bed without her permission, that it's more about a woman's property rights.

    [–]TheShittyBeatles 3 points4 points ago

    And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman’s bed, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will be put to death, their blood is on them.

    Translation: Don't let worlds collide, i.e., don't kill Independent George.

    [–]roveboat 1 point2 points ago

    To avoid mistranslation, I guess you should always look at the originals. Oh wait...

    [–]djdementia 0 points1 point ago

    Yeah well literal translation doesn't always help either.

    And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them.

    To me, that could mean a 'married man' shouldn't have homosexual sex and the "woman's bed" is a metaphor for the married man.

    It could also be interpreted and many have "a man that does with another man as he does with a woman in bed he should be put to death".

    [–]bloinggloing 0 points1 point ago

    A literal translation does help. As soon as you said "to me", you went on a metaphorical and figurative tangent (which I couldn't completely understand). If you look at the literal translation, it seems pretty clear, at least to me. I could always be missing something though.

    [–]djdementia 0 points1 point ago

    The problem is what happens when 2,000 years ago "Woman's bed" was a metaphor for a married person? What happens when that metaphor is lost over hundreds of years and it's original intention is gone.

    Let's face it, if you actually look at the literal translation then it makes absolutely no sense why it's in the Bible at all. Why the fuck would they be so specific about property rights? Not only that but at that time it was rare to acknowledge that a Woman had property at all. At the time only men could own property. Why would they have said "Woman's bed" when at the time property rights would be "Man's bed"?

    The truth of it is, they wouldn't have. No way, not ever. At the time they were either clearly stating that Married Men should not have sex with other Men (possibly pointing out that at the time gay sex might not have been considered 'cheating' on your spouse but in the Church's eyes it is cheating). Or they were saying that all gay sex is an abomination.

    There is very little chance that verse actually dealt with Women's property rights over the bed in their bedroom.

    [–]bloinggloing 0 points1 point ago

    b-but... Nearly all of Leviticus is about property rights and weirdly specific rules.

    edit: In fact, the basis of nearly all religion is weirdly specific rules.

    [–]djdementia 0 points1 point ago

    Could you reference the sections that go over Women's property rights please?

    [–]bloinggloing 0 points1 point ago

    I don't think women had enough rights to constitute a "section", but that doesn't doesn't necessarily mean they had none. That said, I don't think it's relevant. The literal interpretation fits nicely in the context that Leviticus provides. There's no reason to bring in other strange metaphorical "interpretations". Occam's razor applies.

    [–]djdementia 0 points1 point ago

    Any specific verses besides the one you already referenced about a Woman's bed?

    See the thing is there were all sorts of metaphors back then, and there still are today, it's widely known that at least in the Dark Ages that "a Woman's bed" was a euphemism for sex. Imagine this, I write a set of laws that say:

    No man should ever sleep with another man.

    Today you and I know that meant sex, but what about a thousand years later, "sleep with" has lost it's euphemism for sex. Now if people only went off literal translation or words, they would be arguing about whether or not that means men can actually fall asleep in the same room together or not, or if it just applies if they sleep in the same bed. Or perhaps people are arguing that it's OK that men sleep in the same bed but they can't be under the sheets together.

    Meanwhile the original writing was about sex, not sleeping. That's what I'm saying here, as language evolves meanings for things change.

    [–]gyro12 1 point2 points ago

    It isn't relevant to the point you were making, but just from a practical standpoint, it's usually more useful to jump to the New Testament verses against homosexuality. It helps get past the, "But Leviticus also says _________." argument.

    [–]Aspel 0 points1 point ago

    Leviticus was also a set of social laws, not religious ones, if I'm not mistaken. Much of it had to do with keeping clean, and the prohibition on homosexuality--if the translation is correct--is more about gays not making babies. This is why many other cultures from the time don't care who you fuck as long as you're also fucking to make babies.

    [–]seronis 0 points1 point ago

    Leviticus is also not given as 'the word of god' as other sections of the bible are. It is just ideals given by one man stating what he believed on his own.

    [–]HumanCake 0 points1 point ago

    Regardless, they (OP's family) where talking about homosexuality when the brother compared the religious intolerance of it to child molestation because "neither" of which where in Bible. I simply disproved the fact that intolerance of homosexuals is in the Bible

    [–]Sea_Bitch 5 points6 points ago

    but if it's not in the bible listed as a sin, then who decides if it is a sin? That's like saying "oh and god forgot to mention this" which undermines the very "foundations" of "God"

    [–]thesonofdarwin 1 point2 points ago

    I agree. Who gives mere mortals the power to decide what's sin worthy?

    The same people who judge others ignoring that it is "God's" job on Judgement Day. Also known as people who have no idea what their religion says and instead use the protection religion offers to maintain their hate group(s).

    [–]lucidenigma 2 points3 points ago

    My family is very religious and we argue on this point regularly (whether homosexuality is a sin). We agreed, after much discussion, the passage from Leviticus (can't remember it specifically) is irrelevant considering the many other absurd instructions in Leviticus. Secondly, it is important to understand the separation between new and old testament law, in which case Jewish ideas of cleanliness are not applicable to the latter.

    But i digress, the reason I came here was to give you this (new testament verse explaining how homosexuality, at least between men, is a sin). I find that having calm, academic conversations about this sort of thing is best. I am an atheist but that shouldn't affect how I tell other people to build their moral system.

    [–]seronis 0 points1 point ago

    Just contributing to conversation:

    I think the larger importance is that leviticus gave rules from the point of view of another man saying what is right or not. It was not said "this is what god told me". And in the cases in the rest of the bible where homosexuality is listed as immoral and examples are given, all the examples are about locations where RAMPANT ORGIES were occuring and the fact a lot of homosexual behaviour was happening was just another detail.

    Know what? Rampant orgies have an insane effect on the risk of STDs. Maybe that part is reasonable to be considered a sin. I dont think homosexuality had anything to do with it and as a christian i think most of the homosexual couples i know do more to HONOR the sanctity of marraige than most of the straight couples i know.

    [–]ansabhailte 1 point2 points ago

    He's an idiot; it says several times very clearly that it is a sin.

    [–]deftlydexterous 0 points1 point ago

    This is arguably nothing forbidding a lesbians in the bible.

    [–]ansabhailte 0 points1 point ago

    Wrong. In the New Testament Paul states that God has given humans over to their sin (does not mean allow, just means "fine do whatever you want and incur my wrath) and he says that men have exchanged their natural relations for sin with other men, and that even their women have exchanged their natural relations for sinful ones with other women. I forget the reference and im on my phone, but i believe its in acts or ephesians.

    [–]njdss4 1 point2 points ago

    Isn't the brother's argument based upon him assuming that man knows what God thinks is a sin? Since he admits it's not in the bible, that seems awfully arrogant. Child molestation is a sin because the whole of society deemed it to be, not just Christianity.

    [–]DarkSouls321 1 point2 points ago

    Actually, it does say it is a sin, Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? Do not be deceived; neither fornicatirs, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of god"

    [–]CSFFlame -1 points0 points ago

    IIRC, rape is banned in the bible, and child molestation is rape, ergo it's banned.

    Homosexuality is between consenting adults, ergo it's not rape, ergo it's not banned.

    [–]mungd 6 points7 points ago

    Ergo.

    [–]souldonkey 7 points8 points ago

    ERMAGERD LERGO MAH ERGO!

    [–]CSFFlame 3 points4 points ago

    http://i.imgur.com/KjT67.png

    [–]headphonehalo 1 point2 points ago

    Pseudo-intellectual writing and some sort of anime, the eternal symbiosis.

    [–]CSFFlame 0 points1 point ago

    Can't tell if being insightful or sarcastic...

    [–]miked4o7 0 points1 point ago

    Except there plenty of verses in both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly condemning homosexuality.

    This isn't evidence of good reason to think homosexuality is wrong though, just more evidence that The Bible is not the best book on any subject... science, history or morality. The Bible also clearly condones slavery, and the only moral code it dictates concerning slavery is exactly how hard you're allowed to beat your slaves for God to find it acceptable still.

    [–]CSFFlame 1 point2 points ago

    The Bible also clearly condones slavery, and the only moral code it dictates concerning slavery is exactly how hard you're allowed to beat your slaves for God to find it acceptable still.

    They all ignore that point though.

    I find it's not a good idea to argue with people using the bible against them.

    It's important to remember that everything in it is made up.

    [–]Vidyogamasta 0 points1 point ago

    Slavery as it was instituted in the Bible was not the same as slavery as it was instituted in post-colonization America. Honestly, there isn't anything morally despicable about how slavery was done in the Bible. Slavery was usually an end-result of war or severe debt, and I don't believe it carried on to the slaves' children like it did in America.

    [–]Dyolf_Knip -4 points-3 points ago

    rape is banned in the bible

    No it's not. Where it's not directly ordered, it's condoned and treated as a property crime.

    [–]CSFFlame 2 points3 points ago

    property crime.

    That sounds like a ban to me...

    [–]Dyolf_Knip 0 points1 point ago

    That sounds like it's not actually a ban on rape, but rather a ban on "vandalism".

    [–]CSFFlame 1 point2 points ago

    While possibly true, it doesn't change the ban argument.

    [–]braunshaver 0 points1 point ago

    If by ban you mean you'll burn in hell, no.

    [–]CSFFlame 1 point2 points ago

    No, I meant as legally prohibited:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banned

    [–]seronis 0 points1 point ago

    The bible doesnt say that sin makes you burn in hell... lol.

    [–]JonathanQPrenderghas 0 points1 point ago

    Would it be a horrible stretch to compare the two as being sexual inclinations/preferences, with one becoming socially acceptable and the other being homosexuality?

    [–]NewDrekSilver 0 points1 point ago

    Just how rape isn't in the 10 Commandments, but using the lord's name in vain is. So if you're getting raped and you say "Godamnit!" you'd be going to hell and your rapist wouldn't.

    The More You Know.

    [–]ewiggy24 0 points1 point ago

    In the old testament it says pretty clearly "A man shall not lie with another man in the same way he lies with a woman.". Don't know how much the old testament matters to Christians, but thought it was a good indication it was forbidden. It doesn't say anything about women, but it was later considered to be wrong as a derivative of this passage. Jewish law at least, dunno about Christians again.

    I'm an Aethiest, so really this is all just theoretical to me.

    [–]morphinapg 0 points1 point ago

    If the bible doesn't say it was a sin, then you have no case to claim God thinks it is a sin. For things like child molesters, people consider it a sin because people get hurt.

    [–]vorbote 0 points1 point ago

    Sin, shmin. I understand crime and unethical act (which I consider sexual molesting adults and children, but not homosexuality), but the word sin means nothing to me. You sister in law would not have anything to ask in my as homosexuality is like heterosexuality your private matter. I do not care if my brother/sister/mother/father likes anal, vaginal, oral or whatever sex, as long as he/she is happy and he does not hurt somebody or doesn'tn get hurt. Easy.

    [–]Dinewiz -1 points0 points ago

    There is no point to be made with that comparison what so ever. Child molestation is obviously wrong on a moral and ethical level. It is obvious why it is a sin. You can use simple logic to justify it.

    Try doing the same for homosexuality. Go on. That is a piss poor comparision and she had the right to be offended. As well as being offended at your family apparently being against homosexuality 'just because' as they don't even cite the bible as a (poor) justification.

    load more comments (2 replies)

      [–]BravoJohnnyBravo 7 points8 points ago

      Hahahahaha love that gif! And how did the convo go?

      [–]notayyynoggg[S] 8 points9 points ago

      Me too! I was so excited when I actually had an excuse to use it. It actually went much better than expected. Yeah, some feelings were hurt; it's a pretty sensitive subject. But overall, it was fairly enlightening.

      [–]BravoJohnnyBravo 4 points5 points ago

      Well I wish your family the best of luck

      [–]feistyKarma 2 points3 points ago

      Me too! especially when the stock starts dropping and the chicken doesn't taste so good.

      [–]BravoJohnnyBravo 2 points3 points ago

      what?

      [–]feistyKarma 1 point2 points ago

      Chick-Fil-A is supposedly run by the whole family of the original owner. With all the protest of anti gay this and that this article reminded me of the current uproar. just in case you didn't know about it here is a link.

      [–]BravoJohnnyBravo 2 points3 points ago

      I know all about that but don't see how you made that connection in this thread with the comment you commented on

      [–]feistyKarma 1 point2 points ago

      ...the subject is "How I felt when my lesbian sister-in-law asked why homosexuality is wrong to our extremely religious family of 9.".. I don't know I guess that's just the way my mind works.

      [–]charlie6969 1 point2 points ago

      I got the joke.

      [–]feistyKarma 1 point2 points ago

      At least You got it.

      [–]Evincarr -1 points0 points ago

      "How can I interject something completely irrelevant to the topic, but at the same time, push my own personal agenda and hope no one notices?"

      [–]Pedo-Gentleman-Bear 1 point2 points ago

      I inject irrelevant things and push my own "agenda" all the time. Very few people actually notice.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

      I was so excited when I actually had an excuse to use it.

      Your life must suck.

      [–]Liquidator47 0 points1 point ago

      Why is he carrying what appears to be a rope?

      [–]joulesChachin 19 points20 points ago

      My parents are both very religious people. They are not, however, hypocritical bigots and would never treat someone condescendingly simply because they did not live in a way they agreed with. They also believe firmly in separation between church and state. My dad thinks that as marriage is a religious ceremony, a nonreligious equivalent should be created that is officially used for all American citizens. Even though my parents do not personally approve of homosexuality, they know that it is not their right to dictate how homosexuals live. My mom thinks it's ridiculous that there are people who believe that same-sex marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage, while it's ok for people like Kim Kardashian to get married and divorced within a month.

      [–]AcornPancake 2 points3 points ago

      It may be worth noting that religions other than Christianity accept homosexual marriage as a valid ceremony, such as Judaism.

      [–]midri 5 points6 points ago

      I just don't get why people can't get behind what you're dads saying.

      I've always thought that the Civil Union should be the government side and then if you want a "marriage" that should be the church side. That way if you are a normal couple you would have both a Civil Union and a Marriage.

      [–]seronis 4 points5 points ago

      Marraige is marraige. A church has the right to choose who to marry based on their beliefs. A judge should marry anyone who wishes.

      [–]Clawfish 1 point2 points ago

      I think part of it is just that the division is an implication of inferiority. Imagine if instead of the issue being about Homosexual Marriages, it was about Interracial Marriages.

      [–]sicnevol 1 point2 points ago

      Whats "normal"?

      [–]midri -1 points0 points ago

      should have said traditional.

      [–]sicnevol 0 points1 point ago

      and that would be?

      These?

      [–]midri 0 points1 point ago

      Now you're just being facetious. You know damn well what a traditional marriage is ;p

      [–]sicnevol 1 point2 points ago

      Gotta point it out where I see it.

      [–]dogbreath101 26 points27 points ago

      if your sister in law is a lesbian doesnt that make your sister a lesbian to?

      [–]notayyynoggg[S] 45 points46 points ago

      It's my fiance's sister who's a lesbian. They're 2 of 8 siblings (the lesbian is the oldest, and my fiance is number 6). Technically, there are are 10 (Including Mom and Dad, who happens to be a pastor), but I wasn't counting the lesbian sister when I posted it.

      Just to clear up speculation.

      [–]dirkforthree 6 points7 points ago

      It all makes sense now

      [–]Bugzrip 3 points4 points ago

      No it is their sister-in-law. Could be the OP's wife's/husband's sister or similar. None of the OP's relatives need be lesbian for them to have a lesbian sister-in-law.

      [–]Dyolf_Knip 2 points3 points ago

      In-laws include your SO's family, not just your family's SO's.

      [–]dogbreath101 0 points1 point ago

      apperently i didnt know this, but it seems reasonable

      [–]Rc591323 6 points7 points ago

      Sister of the boy or girl OP's sister or brother married.

      [–]scword 3 points4 points ago

      That's not a sister in law.

      [–]Rc591323 5 points6 points ago

      Sister of the boy or girl OP married? Sorry that's what I meant. I just overthought it and typed it wrong.

      [–]stfcdp1990 0 points1 point ago

      No I think it might be the brother

      [–]dogbreath101 1 point2 points ago

      so wouldnt that make her bi and not a lesbian?

      [–]Sproutings 2 points3 points ago

      Dis gon b gud

      [–]Mulcho 1 point2 points ago

      This should be fun!

      [–]daggius 1 point2 points ago

      And then what happened?

      [–]klobster 1 point2 points ago

      I read that as extremely religious family at a [9]

      [–]Csoltis 1 point2 points ago

      she asked this question at a [9] no wonder... [r/trees]

      [–]MisterMescudi 4 points5 points ago

      That's one le away from being a circlejerk title.

      [–]guy_following_you 1 point2 points ago

      I sort of disagree with this comparison. Since you are comparing consensual sex against physical relationship between a helpless child who has no idea what is going on with an adult. To tell you the truth if I was in her spot,I would be pissed as well.

      [–]DeliveryNinja 0 points1 point ago

      Don't leave us hanging what happened!

      [–]Kiyokami 0 points1 point ago

      shouldn't that have been the conversation between your lesbian sister and your family?

      [–]tatertot1000 0 points1 point ago

      Why can't we just love all da peoplez

      [–]scword -2 points-1 points ago

      Just out of curiosity, how does one have a lesbian sister-in-law?

      [–]Cheddar_V 20 points21 points ago

      You're a woman, you married a dude. He has a sister who is a lesbian.

      [–]notayyynoggg[S] 20 points21 points ago

      Congratulations! You figured out the simplest mind twister in the entire world! You should win a prize or something. I love how no one could wrap their mind around the fact that I'm a girl, and that I (am about to) marry a guy, who had a sister who likes girls. You win!

      [–]sinnet 10 points11 points ago

      It would work both ways though, guy marries a girl and her sister is a lesbian. The trick is that it's your SO's sister, not your sister and her SO.

      Edit: fixed spelling error

      [–]mustnotthrowaway 1 point2 points ago

      Why can't it be your sister and her significant other? You'd still have a lesbian sister-in-law, wouldn't you?

      [–]sinnet 2 points3 points ago

      Yes it can but that was why people were confused. They thought the one way and it was the other.

      And if you're discussing with your family about homosexuality and your sister is a lesbian, why would you focus on your sister's SO and not your actual sister. I think that's why people were confused.

      [–]Echospree 4 points5 points ago

      Congratulations! You figured out the simplest mind twister in the entire world!

      This sounds so sarcastic it literally hurts.

      [–]notayyynoggg[S] 2 points3 points ago

      Sorry, I promise I actually meant it. I need to be nicer to people more often...my sarcasm is bleeding into my genuine kindness....

      [–]Echospree 1 point2 points ago

      Nah, with context it's obvious you're making fun of everyone else who cant figure out how in-law's work! Feel free to not be any nicer whatsoever to people.

      load more comments (1 reply)

        [–]GrinningPariah 1 point2 points ago

        Now that this extremely obvious thing has been answered, how were you thinking of this situation such that it wouldn't be possible? I'm just trying to see where you were coming from.

        [–]scword 0 points1 point ago

        Haha, yes it is obvious to me now, i am retarded. I was thinking based on my family experience, which is that generally speaking my brother in law is the only one from his family who hangs out with my sister and our family, and vice-versa my sister is really the only one who spends time with his family. Thus, I was thinking that the lesbian sister in law was somehow the one that married into the family. It didn't occur to me that both families in their entirety were together.

        [–]jabbababab 0 points1 point ago

        Worst Font ever...

        [–]zandersmom -1 points0 points ago

        i thought having a gay partner/being gay was legal. but marriage in a church should be left between a man and woman. the church should not be forced to marry the gays. that is a choice, and i think it should be free to each church as it sees fit. the state on the other hand should, give the spousal rights. if 2 grown ups want to live together and have benifits with eachother, go then do your thing.

        [–]seronis 5 points6 points ago

        The CHURCH should not be forced to marry anyone they dont want to. They can already refuse to marry straight people if they dont think the couple is commited to each other.

        But MARRAIGE should not be restricted to only straight couples. The church does not own marraige.

        [–]zandersmom 2 points3 points ago

        huh i thought marriage was between a husband and a wife, in a church. how is it okay for the church to be force to dosomething they do not have a belif in? and yes they will refuse a straight couple, ifnthey are not commited to each other. marriage has been taken too lightly. this a a forever thing, where you work out your problems no matter how big or small they are. please have your rights as a spouse from the state, which is the one that has you sign on the line, the union of partnership. have the partnership and spousal rights, adopt some kids be happy. but leave the churh out of it. how they see it is husband and wife, which is man and woman. why is it so important to be accepted by the church, or make them do something they dont accept. what will be proved here.......on a side note really, if your a athiest couple, you dont even get married from the church, you just go down to the justice office sign some papers. so it is the state that gays are fighting,the church should be left out of this. sorry to sound so harsh, i really did not mean to start an agruement. just putting out some thoughts.

        [–]seronis 1 point2 points ago

        No. marriage has nothing to do with a church. The church just happens to also perform marriages.

        Its NOT OK to force a church to do something it doesnt want to do. No one wants to force CHURCHES to marry homosexuals. But that doesnt mean a gay couple should ever be denied the RIGHT to marry, either.

        So trust me, the gay couples are not wanting to force the church into something they dont want to do. Its just the church trying to forbid gay couples from doing something that is their right to do without the church.

        And your tone was not harsh. Blunt maybe but if you browse my history you'll see I dont consider bluntness to be a vice. Its just one manner of expressing yourself

        [–]TheLASTAnkylosaur -2 points-1 points ago

        Everyone that speaks on their cell phone is a sinner. It's NOT IN THE BIBLE explicitly, but I know it to be a sin--therefore everyone on their cell phone is a sinner. Your reasoning/argument presupposes that homosexuality is absolutely immoral (to everyone all the time).

        [–]jason2li -1 points0 points ago

        /r/hifw please

        load more comments (43 replies)

          Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

          REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

          π Rendered by PID 7748 on app-136 running fc22e53.