God may have created aliens, but he did not make man GAY!

[WboroBaptM0134]

Cult (from Dictionary.com)

cult - /kʌlt/ –noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

Being raised Catholic (no longer claim to be one, obviously), and whose father is an ex-Catholic priest who thankfully came to his senses and got out after all the lies he saw committed, I spent many a year going to the Sunday ceremony where a "priest" would wear "ceremonial robes", do "call and response" chants, and end with a cannibalistic rite of "feeding" someone's body and blood to a public mass. So yes, by simple definition, Christianity and it's mass practices is a cult.

This is not an attack, just a clarification on definition.

Additional notes from Dictionary.com

rite /raɪt/ –noun
1. a formal or ceremonial act or procedure prescribed or customary in religious or other solemn use: rites of baptism; sacrificial rites.

Not a great definition try this one...

cult - followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader

 

[teknight]

cult - followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader

That's the definition of the Westboro Baptist Church, although Phelps is not very charismatic.

 

[bi_bbl]

From a recent Facebook post:

"So let me get this straight....Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage by phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE, 53% of Americans get divorced and 30-60% cheat on their spouses. Yet, same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?"

 

[CJontherocks]

Our conception of marriage in the western world comes from the Bible. Marriage is a statement of unity between a man and a women before God with the purpose of raising a family. If you pervert that definition then marriage could be anything you like with no purpose. Why you could marry a dog if you liked. What would that statement mean?

If you're still thinking in terms of the "western" world, then you are far behind the times in this global society, my misguided young soul. And suggesting the inane does not invalidate the fact that marriage as an institution does not belong exclusively to the church. If dogs wish to marry, then they can create their own society and their own rules. We, as humans, do not marry outside our species.

If two men or two women unite themselves in the same manner, it is also before God to those who believe. The purpose is irrelevant, although I agree that the institution of marriage was historically regulated as a means to ensure "proper" division of the estate after the death of the patriarch.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

From a recent Facebook post:

"So let me get this straight....Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage by phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE, 53% of Americans get divorced and 30-60% cheat on their spouses. Yet, same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?"

Nope all those things you mention are sins. But Homosexuality could arguably be a greater sin based on its effect upon our understanding of morality. Certainly Britney spears has made a mockery of the idea of marriage though.

 

[CJontherocks]

Nope all those things you mention are sins. But Homosexuality could arguably be a greater sin based on its effect upon our understanding of morality. Certainly Britney spears has made a mockery of the idea of marriage though.

And I would argue that so has the church.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

And I would argue that so has the church.

Why, whats your argument there? The church has worked tirelessly to sanctify marriage and indeed the whole structure of western society is built upon that unit. So successful is it, then many other cultures around the world have adopted this as well as the teachings of Christ. You must make your argument or forever be silent.

 

[bi_bbl]

Not a great definition try this one...

cult - followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader

For someone who was confused by "desert" and "dessert", I'm not sure if I would take faith in your grasp of definitions. But to add what I've posted, let's clarify all the variations.

cult /kʌlt/ – noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. (Robes, alters, chanting, baptisms, marriages, funerals, communinion, etc.)

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. (the Holy Trinity)

3. the object of such devotion. (again, Holy Trinity)

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. ("God's" people, apostles, followers, etc.)

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. (See all above)

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. (I will only speak for myself that I believe it is a false religion)

7. the members of such a religion or sect. (Mass goers, apostles, etc)

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. ("Praying" for people to get better, exocisms, baptisms, preaching)

I admit I posted the one definition that I felt best described my view of Christianity, as you seem to have done for you. How you determined one definition given by the same site was "greater" than the first one listed, I don't quite understand. In any case, looking at all the definitions offered, I still stand by my post. Christianity is, by definition and with any other religion that has any kind of ceremonies and rites, is a cult.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

For someone who was confused by "desert" and "dessert", I'm not sure if I would take faith in your grasp of definitions. But to add what I've posted, let's clarify all the variations.

cult /kʌlt/ – noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. (Robes, alters, chanting, baptisms, marriages, funerals, communinion, etc.)

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. (the Holy Trinity)

3. the object of such devotion. (again, Holy Trinity)

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. ("God's" people, apostles, followers, etc.)

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. (See all above)

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. (I will only speak for myself that I believe it is a false religion)

7. the members of such a religion or sect. (Mass goers, apostles, etc)

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. ("Praying" for people to get better, exocisms, baptisms, preaching)

I admit I posted the one definition that I felt best described my view of Christianity, as you seem to have done for you. How you determined one definition given by the same site was "greater" than the first one listed, I don't quite understand. In any case, looking at all the definitions offered, I still stand by my post. Christianity is, by definition and with any other religion that has any kind of ceremonies and rites, is a cult.

I wasn't confused by the term just desert. You go look it up in the dictionary, everyone else here has admitted their mistake now its your turn oh arrogant one.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

I wasn't confused by the term just desert. You go look it up in the dictionary, everyone else here has admitted their mistake now its your turn oh arrogant one.

No christianity is not deemed a cult by any nation state.

 

[bi_bbl]

Its not as sinful for woman as for men as the bible has examples, but is very clear on men. In fact every holy book believes its wrong.

Due to the immense number of translations of the Bible, it may not be as clear as you say:

"Leviticus 18:22

Overview:

This verse is one of the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible that is often used to condemn same-sex sexual activity.

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Although the verse appears to most readers to apply only to sexual behavior between two males, at least two Bible translations appear to mistranslate the verse in order to widen its scope to include lesbian sexual activity:

Living Bible: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

New Living Translation: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Religious Tolerance. 30 April 2010 <www.religioustolerance.org>

I would also question your statement that "every holy book" believes it to be wrong:

"None of the sacred Hindu text, such as the Vedas, contain a straightforward condemnation of homosexuality; however, the Vedas do mention humans as being classified into three different categories: male (pums-prakriti), female (stri-prakriti) and a third sex (tritiya prakriti). Tritiya prakriti or “third sex” is the group most homosexuals identify themselves with. In the Sutras, which are supplemental writings to the Vedas, third sex citizens are described as a natural mixing of male and female to the point that one can no longer distinguish between the two. The Sutras seem to support the contention that homosexuality was somewhat acceptable in ancient times. Homosexuals argue today that third-gender citizens were neither persecuted nor denied basic rights. They were allowed to keep their own societies or town quarters, live together within marriage and engage in all means of livelihood. Gay men could either blend into society as ordinary males or they could dress and behave as females, living as transvestites."

 

[Cleophila]

For someone who was confused by "desert" and "dessert", I'm not sure if I would take faith in your grasp of definitions. But to add what I've posted, let's clarify all the variations.

cult /kʌlt/ – noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. (Robes, alters, chanting, baptisms, marriages, funerals, communinion, etc.)

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. (the Holy Trinity)

3. the object of such devotion. (again, Holy Trinity)

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. ("God's" people, apostles, followers, etc.)

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. (See all above)

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. (I will only speak for myself that I believe it is a false religion)

7. the members of such a religion or sect. (Mass goers, apostles, etc)

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. ("Praying" for people to get better, exocisms, baptisms, preaching)

I admit I posted the one definition that I felt best described my view of Christianity, as you seem to have done for you. How you determined one definition given by the same site was "greater" than the first one listed, I don't quite understand. In any case, looking at all the definitions offered, I still stand by my post. Christianity is, by definition and with any other religion that has any kind of ceremonies and rites, is a cult.

While a given definition of 'cult' may easily encompass any religion, doesn't using the term 'cult' as directly synonymous with the term 'religion' render it semantically redundant? For there to be a need for 'cult' to exist, it must signify something subtly different. Most would feel that there is a difference in what the words signify, but it is very hard to clarify in words. It may, to be honest, simply come down to a religion being a cult with mass popularity. A cult, probably, needs to lie outside of the mainstream, once a belief set is taken up widely enough then it becomes de facto a religion, whatever non-believers might feel.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

Due to the immense number of translations of the Bible, it may not be as clear as you say:

"Leviticus 18:22

Overview:

This verse is one of the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible that is often used to condemn same-sex sexual activity.

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Although the verse appears to most readers to apply only to sexual behavior between two males, at least two Bible translations appear to mistranslate the verse in order to widen its scope to include lesbian sexual activity:

Living Bible: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

New Living Translation: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Religious Tolerance. 30 April 2010 <www.religioustolerance.org>

I would also question your statement that "every holy book" believes it to be wrong:

"None of the sacred Hindu text, such as the Vedas, contain a straightforward condemnation of homosexuality; however, the Vedas do mention humans as being classified into three different categories: male (pums-prakriti), female (stri-prakriti) and a third sex (tritiya prakriti). Tritiya prakriti or “third sex” is the group most homosexuals identify themselves with. In the Sutras, which are supplemental writings to the Vedas, third sex citizens are described as a natural mixing of male and female to the point that one can no longer distinguish between the two. The Sutras seem to support the contention that homosexuality was somewhat acceptable in ancient times. Homosexuals argue today that third-gender citizens were neither persecuted nor denied basic rights. They were allowed to keep their own societies or town quarters, live together within marriage and engage in all means of livelihood. Gay men could either blend into society as ordinary males or they could dress and behave as females, living as transvestites."

Good thing we're not Hindus huh? Actually I don't recall ever saying that all holy books said it was wrong.

 

[Cleophila]

Good thing we're not Hindus huh? Actually I don't recall ever saying that all holy books said it was wrong.

On the first page -

Its not as sinful for woman as for men as the bible has examples, but is very clear on men. In fact every holy book believes its wrong.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

On the first page -

hmmmm oh yeah... maybe I was a little over the top. Anyway the only true holy books are the bible and the Torah.

 

[Cleophila]

Due to the immense number of translations of the Bible, it may not be as clear as you say:

"Leviticus 18:22

Overview:

This verse is one of the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible that is often used to condemn same-sex sexual activity.

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Although the verse appears to most readers to apply only to sexual behavior between two males, at least two Bible translations appear to mistranslate the verse in order to widen its scope to include lesbian sexual activity:

Living Bible: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

New Living Translation: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Religious Tolerance. 30 April 2010 <www.religioustolerance.org>

Yes, it's worth remembering that this is the original text in the Torah:

וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.

All of what is written above is a translation usually with a political or moral motivation to put a specific spin on it.

 

[Cleophila]

Well Eve made the choice and thats the reality we know. Is it the wrong one? Well look around you do you see extreme suffering in the world? I do. I see that for most of us in the world life is full of pain and suffering and what good there is comes from good choices. Look at the natural world. Ever been into a true wilderness? I mean an almost untouched wilderness, remote. One thing you'll notice is that the animals are not afraid of humans. Is there suffering there, hard to say. My personal perception was no, even though animals consumed other animals it all seemed part of one glorious rapture. ANyway aside from that, humanity exited that glorious state of bliss.

So if you use the tools of science to come to unnatural results, why draw the line at Ivf? Should it become possible to clone and create our perfect partners whats to stop you from doing so? Can you see the pattern. The more that technology advances the more the answers we seek become about satisfying our increasingly specific and selfish wants. 50 years ago designer babies were not possible. Today? Maybe so. Tomorrow, maybe people start radically changing their bodies and faces. Hey I'm not supposed to be the one defending Darwin, but certainly there is an issue with technology possibly weakening the gene pool!

Anyway as to people born in between, well its Gods will. They must live and hopefully come to terms with it. I suppose their could be an element of choice there yes.

Sure, there is pain and suffering in the world, but I would not say that for most of us life is full of extreme suffering. I see suffering, but I see joy and fun and pleasure as well. I see beauty in all that humanity has achieved that makes me imagine faced with the choice Eve takes in the story, I would take all the knowledge and skills of conscious, free willed humanity and die a natural death, than live forever in uninformed, unquestioning dumb servitude to a supernatural authority.

In the true wilderness, utterly remote from and untouched by any human comforts, I'd say most humans would be likely to experience a fair degree of suffering!

Scientific technological advancement is all about creating 'unnatural' results. We're using computers and the internet right now, is that the 'natural' form of communication? If you are going to assume that any medical/scientific advance inevitably is the start of a slippery slope to sci-fi horrors then that is as much as to say that we should not allow for any scientific progress, indeed adopt a plain amish sort of approach.

And anyway, cloning your perfect partner would be, practically as well as ethically, pretty flawed as an idea. Regardless of the fact that your perfect physical partner would not necessarily have the perfect character, by implanting your chosen physical characteristics into an embryo, you would then have to wait a couple of decades for the designer husband/wife to be ready, by which time you're probably too old for them anyway!

Don't worry, you're not defending Darwin. He wasn't arguing for humanity to abandon science and technology and engage in their own struggle for survival. His ideas have been used in some pretty unpleasant socio-political ways, but that was never what he was saying. He just had a knack for explaining and demonstrating how things came to be the way they are.

And, on the subject of people born as neither gender, is it immoral for them to have sex with both genders or is it ok to pick one?

 

[Cleophila]

You think christianity is a cult? Pretty big cult Id say, must be something to it. I haven't encounterd much love here on these forums I must say. I'm not trying to brainwash people. I'm raising a fundamental issue. Homosexuality is a sin according to God! No one has disproved this so far and very few attempts. So if you don't believe in God then you're free to anything you like. Why stop at homosexuality? Why not break all known moral boundaries just for the hell of it. See where it gets you!

People, most people, don't not do bad things because some biblical authority tells them, but because they know in their own human moral feelings that they are wrong to do. There are so many people who believe in a different faith from yours or in no faith at all, they aren't breaking moral boundaries for the hell of it, they are making moral choices just like you. And they sense what they feel is right or wrong and act on it.

 

[lustatopia]

False God Alert

A picture is worth a thousand words.

WboroBaptist’s icon is lifted from a renaissance painting of Christ’s temptation in the desert. It’s cropped just to show the figures of Christ and Satan.

This sums up Wboro’s view of Christianity. It’s a battle between Good and Evil, Light and Darkness on a Cosmic scale. (Let’s set aside for the moment that the battle between light and darkness is not what's unique in real Christianity, but is rather Zoroasterianism, a pagan pre-Christian cult worship of Ahura Mazda, the God of Fire and Light. Evidence that Whoro isn't even a Christian, he's a worshipper of a false idol. But maybe he knows not the depths of his own deception???)

The real question at hand is who does Wboro really represent, rather than who he "thinks" or pretends he represents? His icon suggests that he represents either Christ or Satan.

Let’s also set aside the existential question about whether Satan and Christ are real entities or simply rhetorical touchstones designed for use in pre-Enlightenment Christian theological debates.

Who does this Wboro represent Christ or Satan, Light or Darkness?

Let’s look at Wboro’s words “Gods hates sin.” But a Christian God is pure Love. The only thing a Christian God is truly incapable of is Hate, even of Sin. A God that hates is a false God, an Idol. Ahura Mazda hates sin, not Christ. Who creates false Gods? The answer lies Whoro's icon. The fallen angel next to Christ creates false Gods.

Wboro is either ignorant of the most fundamental Christian tenet—God is Love. Or maybe, he's trying to deceive us? The whole point of creating false idols is to deceive humanity into committing crimes against the real loving God. The God of total forgiveness and love, who loves us all and forgives all.

Wboro says he's been attack viciously and “I don’t bite back.” Christ-like? Maybe. But I wonder about the ominous bite back part? Why is Whoro armed with a snout full of canines and heart full of hate for "sin." Another sign of the beast?

Wboro concedes that people who kill and beat gays are evildoers but fails to see the responsibility for their crimes lie at the feet of preachers of false Gods who hate. Wboro says that God hates…Usurping the mantle of Christ’s message of peace while preaching hate. The beast is the deceiver.

Wboro says “I’m like a mirror, can you see your own reflection?” Those words are from taken from the Midrashim which describe the mirror-like powers of Satan to reflect the image of those he wishes to deceive back upon them, blinding them to his ugliness. Has Whoro been reading Midrashim lately? And why would he drop this hint about his true identity? Unless….

Wboro hubris is Satanically egomaniacal as well: “I do have it made, I'M GOING TO HEAVEN, but I want you to come with me.” You can almost hear the BHAH, HA, HA, HA...

Please God, forgive Whoro, it knows not what it has done. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell a literate, pure hearted Christian could utter such apostasy. And Whoro has shown us it is literate, it even speaks ancient Hebrew and quotes from the Midrashim. It worships the Persian Fire God and has a snout full of teeth.

I have little doubt now who Whoro really represents and exact where it would like us to go with it!

 

[sfla]

Where are the naked pictures? I thought this was the queer porn thread?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Where are the naked pictures? I thought this was the queer porn thread?

We won't waste the naked pictures on WHoro's thread.

 

[sfla]

We won't waste the naked pictures on WHoro's thread.

It is only his if we give it to him...

 

[none2_none2]

See this is what happens when you get a fetish site. Westboro Baptist now is having a hard time finding all the Christian Str8 men who love cock but would never be a homosexual.

I warned you all. Bring back the str8-man-love-cock-hate-homosexuality otherwise, this is the future!

 

[lustatopia]

A Divine Mystery?

All right. Wboro might not be a demon from hell that speaks dead languages. Occam’s Razor suggests he’s more likely a just a common garden-variety South Baptist bigot.

I’d like to call attention to exhibit A: Whoro’s claim that God gives us all the ability to chose between God’s way and sin. This is the principle of Human Free Will.

We all must have Free Will to choose between right and wrong because God is Good. God is Love. God is Just.

Since it is axiomatic that God is Good and Just, it a corollary we have the free will to follow his laws or defy him. Only then is God (who has fairly warned us of his laws in the Bible) just and good to cast the sinners down into Hell as their just punishment.

If humans had no free will to choose between Good and Evil, then God would be obscenely cruel to punish poor souls whose fate was predestined from creation to sin and thus be cast into hell. Why create sinners in the first place? It makes no sense.

So there MUST be FREE WILL for God to be loving, good and just.

But hang on minute. Isn’t the most fundamental of all assumptions about God his omnipresence?

Not only did God create the universe, he exists at each moment everywhere inside it, front to back. God knows everything. How it all began and where every molecule will be in the End Times.

But, but, but how can there be freewill in such a universe??????

If God knows everything, then he knew at creation who was going to sin and be cast into hell and whom he would take up to heaven. There can’t be free will because if you freely chose to do something that God didn’t know you were going to do, then that would violate the definition of God as all knowing and omnipresent. Worse, to violate the definition of God is the ultimate sin, so in order to exercise free will under the ever watchful eye of an omnipresent God would be to invite the smiting of one’s Soul!

What sort of cruel being would create billions - possibly trillions of living souls on other planets - only to caste them directly into the eternal suffering of Hell after short brutish lives. Only one archangel in all of Christian Mythology would do such a dastardly thing!

So something is really fucked up with Christian theology at a basic logical level. Hell and a Loving, Just, All Knowing Creator cannot exist in the same universe, it’s oxymoronic. For human free will to exist then God must not be omnipresent in order to give us the space to unfolding as sentient being beyond his awareness. Heresy!

If you put the Free will versus Omnipresent God conflict to a Southern Baptist they’ll just look at you doe-eyed and repeat that Jesus loves them more than you. Fine. Whatever. They’re beyond rational inquiry into the nature of existence.

The Catholics are much better at Philosophy 101. They noticed this Mack Truck sized hole in their theology about 500 years before Emanuel Kant and worked up a fix for it that has all the elegance of a Microsoft Window security patch. But it’s still the only thing holding the whole Christian cosmological model of the universe together today.

It’s called “Divine Mystery.” It’s the universal glue for anything that doesn’t make any sense in Catholicism to stick. I don’t know why the Southern Baptists haven’t picked it up other than most of them don’t read much outside of scripture.

Why does Jesus hate queers? It’s a Deee –VINE MYSTERY! Amen, Hallelujah.

How do we reconcile human free will with a God who KNEW from creation that billions of souls he was creating were destined to suffer in hell for eternity? You don’t.

Look at Wboro’s icon again. Go on LOOK at it!

There is a notorious archangel standing there with Jesus.

That’s the Divine Mystery.

 

[WboroBaptM0134]

Due to the immense number of translations of the Bible, it may not be as clear as you say:

"Leviticus 18:22

Overview:

This verse is one of the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible that is often used to condemn same-sex sexual activity.

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Although the verse appears to most readers to apply only to sexual behavior between two males, at least two Bible translations appear to mistranslate the verse in order to widen its scope to include lesbian sexual activity:

Living Bible: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

New Living Translation: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Religious Tolerance. 30 April 2010 <www.religioustolerance.org>

I would also question your statement that "every holy book" believes it to be wrong:

"None of the sacred Hindu text, such as the Vedas, contain a straightforward condemnation of homosexuality; however, the Vedas do mention humans as being classified into three different categories: male (pums-prakriti), female (stri-prakriti) and a third sex (tritiya prakriti). Tritiya prakriti or “third sex” is the group most homosexuals identify themselves with. In the Sutras, which are supplemental writings to the Vedas, third sex citizens are described as a natural mixing of male and female to the point that one can no longer distinguish between the two. The Sutras seem to support the contention that homosexuality was somewhat acceptable in ancient times. Homosexuals argue today that third-gender citizens were neither persecuted nor denied basic rights. They were allowed to keep their own societies or town quarters, live together within marriage and engage in all means of livelihood. Gay men could either blend into society as ordinary males or they could dress and behave as females, living as transvestites."

True.