That's why I say you are an incorrigible hypocrite. If you had solely stuck to mere grandiose "discussion" on your scriptures, why would you be asking of drifteri this:
"Are you Pro-homosexual, one of these homosexual, or are you antihomosexual?" at the very first instance of his posting of Leviticus 20:13 and then insist on him answering your question in a very discourteous tone in
post #677 again?
When you put out these kind of personal questions, you are already overstepping the boundary of pure "discussion" on your scriptures. Perhaps "discussion" was never your intention because you are such an incorrigible hypocrite.
a) You are twisting my words. I said "neutral-sexual". Nice try, lowlife scumbag.
(Psalm23: OK....but what's the difference between 'neutral-sexual, neutral-homosexuality, homosexuality-neutral?.....I interpret them as the same....your fault because you did not define the term "neutral-sexual' and in all honesty, all readers here would have interpreted the same as mine.
b) Quoting me out of context. I said this in the context of free will and the hypocrisy of your God. Another nice try, lowlife scumbag.
Yes...surely I have am a lowlife sinner....and a scumbag,, may be (+many more...if you only care to add)... but reading from your posts, I don't think you are doing much better...may a highlife scumbag (and what's the difference between a lowlife scumbag and a highlife scumbag....a scumbag is a scumbag just like a sinner is a sinner.....yes...sad news, we may be at our lowlife but a word of warning, life is going to be worst, much worst, and we are going to go lowest then we can best imagine. It is only until God established His New Kingdom that we will then be restarting our well-deserved eternal life which is given to us by the grace and mercy of God's only begotten Son.
c) Again quoting me out of context. I said "Homosexuality isn't a moral issue in Theravada Buddhism."
(Psalm23: And what's the difference? In terms of meaning, it simply the same, i.e. "Homosexuality is not a moral issuel" and I think most of the readers here would interpret the same to mean "homosexuality is not immoral. At least, I do.Why is that so? Because the 3rd precept never singled out homosexuality as a moral issue. It singles out sexual abuse and adultery as moral issues. So, if a homosexual man forces himself on another homosexual man without consent, that is a moral issue. Or if a married woman lies with another man, that is also a moral issue. Private consensual sex founded on love and intimacy between two members of the same sex is not a moral issue. It is the quality of the mind that matters in Theravada Buddhism and not the physical purposes of the sexual organs. The sexual organs are mere instruments for obtaining physical pleasure. There is no moral issue if you replace your sexual organs with something else that can give you even greater pleasure.
Psalm23: Your view on this that your sex organ is yours and you can do anything you like simply speaks volume. Readers are not stupid. Many are not like you, presumably, without any sense of discernment. I am not a Buddhist, and hopefully, readers who are Buddhists may want to comment on your purported teaching of homosexuality in Buddhism.